Another great read. It does make me wonder: are there examples where an existing Civil Society was able to withstand its destruction by powerful ‘anti-pluralists’? Probably yes, but that leads to the intuition that anti-pluralist destruction builds each next step on previous ones and there is a ‘tipping point’ a bit ‘societal climate disaster’.
This literally could have been written, word for word, about what the Communist Party-controlled government did in Hong Kong. And yet it is talking about the Trump administration.
“The administration wants either to destroy them or to force them to cave to its preferred ideology, replacing a plural system which is open to many different voices with a closed one, in which nominally independent organizations are required to repeat the government line.
“The standard justification is that that the Trump administration is merely correcting for the excesses of the left wing. That obviously isn’t true: the demands for control are far more sweeping in effect and intent than would be necessary to address the problems they purport to solve.”
Profound thanks for this detailed and clarifying analysis. Its helped me understand a number of things that I've been pondering (the "dark Gramsci" strain of the right, the relentless focus on destroying the "golden goose" of higher ed and science). This, as is the case with your other posts, has been a great help to me in my work with science faculty - helping them see the larger picture that their work fits into, its foundational importance to anchoring civil society, and to equip them to grapple with, even resist, the unravelling of their efforts. So glad you have this venue to bring your thoughts to those of us not lucky enough (or too old!) to be your students.
"If economic growth stutters or fails, then social mobility is likely to become more problematic, and abusive hierarchy - the default condition of human society - may return."
"This is dingbat Gramscianism, as filtered through the mud-encrusted sieve of Curtis Yarvin Thought".
Wow that's a great line. And sadly all too accurate.
.
"Media was tamed or lamed"
Why does that feel unnervingly familiar?
.
"Universities were transformed into ideological forcing houses, controlled by foundation structures that was stacked with Orban’s allies, and non-profit organizations were regularly hounded or driven out of existence".
Orban appears to be a model for Project 2025
.
"...you absolutely do not want a political system in which the government is able to remake civil society in its likeness".
Doesn't this line up with the Tory-Whig divide? Some people claim the American Revolution was the overthrow of the Tory Aristocracy from power in the 13 Colonies, which is why the Federalist Party of Washington quickly fade out, as the (Whig) Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson rose up.
Maybe the confusion arises from the use of the word "Conservative". It will be better to just toss it out, and use "Hierarchical" or "Traditionalist" or "Reactionary" or "new Tory" or "ancient Regime revivalist" or something like that instead.
And a label of "Classical Liberal" for the people that support a civil society with a framework of natural human rights and so on.
Seems like there are only five actually existing political movements: fascists, new tories, classical liberals, socialdemocrats and socialists.
in my foggy contemplations of civil society, i read of Gramsci's hegemony and ideologies as having something to do with Gellner's Humean freedom association and freedom from (certain) hierarchies, ande visa versa. On the even less rational level, i relish the irony of Calvinist benefits to modernity, but the best part of Xendom for modernity, it seems to me, is always against cruelty. (So let's argue about what's cruel, politely.)
Civil society, is nothing more than something you've all agreed upon. You more or less, all agreed upon something in 1776, and you signed up to a constitutional Republic. Over the course for the last 249 years that has been dismantled until there's absolutely nothing left, and it's all up for grabs.
And here in the UK? Well, we cling to the Magna Carta, much good it's about to do us.
My little brain keeps going into mental arthritis when applying ideas like this to China and the CCP, an organization that goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent any other organizing activity or groups blossoming in the populace. They fear and suppress any countervailing organizations, including economic. cf Jack Ma. Ditto the Great Firewall.
Very much a side note, but I always wonder if it's understood that Yarvin, being very much a software guy, took his idea of The Cathedral from an influential essay/book on open source software? Although mostly, it seems, to make a pun.
I commented on another site on a slightly different topic with this: We really need an evolutionary behavioralist on par with E. O. Wilson. Another book which goes far to explain civil society is Religion in Human Evolution by Robert N. Bellah. Both philosophy and theology departments, ignore almost entirely the implications of evolution. They may say of evolution, Of Course It's True, but blithely go on and the results are ever increasing silliness. This post could be improved by more input from the two fields I mention.
Another great read. It does make me wonder: are there examples where an existing Civil Society was able to withstand its destruction by powerful ‘anti-pluralists’? Probably yes, but that leads to the intuition that anti-pluralist destruction builds each next step on previous ones and there is a ‘tipping point’ a bit ‘societal climate disaster’.
This literally could have been written, word for word, about what the Communist Party-controlled government did in Hong Kong. And yet it is talking about the Trump administration.
“The administration wants either to destroy them or to force them to cave to its preferred ideology, replacing a plural system which is open to many different voices with a closed one, in which nominally independent organizations are required to repeat the government line.
“The standard justification is that that the Trump administration is merely correcting for the excesses of the left wing. That obviously isn’t true: the demands for control are far more sweeping in effect and intent than would be necessary to address the problems they purport to solve.”
Huge Gellner fan. Very well explained. Thank you.
"This is dingbat Gramscianism, as filtered through the mud-encrusted sieve of Curtis Yarvin Thought" -- the perfect jolt to start the week.
Profound thanks for this detailed and clarifying analysis. Its helped me understand a number of things that I've been pondering (the "dark Gramsci" strain of the right, the relentless focus on destroying the "golden goose" of higher ed and science). This, as is the case with your other posts, has been a great help to me in my work with science faculty - helping them see the larger picture that their work fits into, its foundational importance to anchoring civil society, and to equip them to grapple with, even resist, the unravelling of their efforts. So glad you have this venue to bring your thoughts to those of us not lucky enough (or too old!) to be your students.
"If economic growth stutters or fails, then social mobility is likely to become more problematic, and abusive hierarchy - the default condition of human society - may return."
"This is dingbat Gramscianism, as filtered through the mud-encrusted sieve of Curtis Yarvin Thought".
Wow that's a great line. And sadly all too accurate.
.
"Media was tamed or lamed"
Why does that feel unnervingly familiar?
.
"Universities were transformed into ideological forcing houses, controlled by foundation structures that was stacked with Orban’s allies, and non-profit organizations were regularly hounded or driven out of existence".
Orban appears to be a model for Project 2025
.
"...you absolutely do not want a political system in which the government is able to remake civil society in its likeness".
You can say >that< again.
Doesn't this line up with the Tory-Whig divide? Some people claim the American Revolution was the overthrow of the Tory Aristocracy from power in the 13 Colonies, which is why the Federalist Party of Washington quickly fade out, as the (Whig) Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson rose up.
Maybe the confusion arises from the use of the word "Conservative". It will be better to just toss it out, and use "Hierarchical" or "Traditionalist" or "Reactionary" or "new Tory" or "ancient Regime revivalist" or something like that instead.
And a label of "Classical Liberal" for the people that support a civil society with a framework of natural human rights and so on.
Seems like there are only five actually existing political movements: fascists, new tories, classical liberals, socialdemocrats and socialists.
I can only say thank you and please keep this subject alive with future inputs!
Thank you for this. Gellner is hugely underrated. Your footnote about him is spot on.
in my foggy contemplations of civil society, i read of Gramsci's hegemony and ideologies as having something to do with Gellner's Humean freedom association and freedom from (certain) hierarchies, ande visa versa. On the even less rational level, i relish the irony of Calvinist benefits to modernity, but the best part of Xendom for modernity, it seems to me, is always against cruelty. (So let's argue about what's cruel, politely.)
Civil society, is nothing more than something you've all agreed upon. You more or less, all agreed upon something in 1776, and you signed up to a constitutional Republic. Over the course for the last 249 years that has been dismantled until there's absolutely nothing left, and it's all up for grabs.
And here in the UK? Well, we cling to the Magna Carta, much good it's about to do us.
My little brain keeps going into mental arthritis when applying ideas like this to China and the CCP, an organization that goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent any other organizing activity or groups blossoming in the populace. They fear and suppress any countervailing organizations, including economic. cf Jack Ma. Ditto the Great Firewall.
Very much a side note, but I always wonder if it's understood that Yarvin, being very much a software guy, took his idea of The Cathedral from an influential essay/book on open source software? Although mostly, it seems, to make a pun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar
I commented on another site on a slightly different topic with this: We really need an evolutionary behavioralist on par with E. O. Wilson. Another book which goes far to explain civil society is Religion in Human Evolution by Robert N. Bellah. Both philosophy and theology departments, ignore almost entirely the implications of evolution. They may say of evolution, Of Course It's True, but blithely go on and the results are ever increasing silliness. This post could be improved by more input from the two fields I mention.