Social Theory and Ideologies
lately, i've been having a discussion with someone online about social theory, millenialism, and a variety of other topics. recently, he equated (perhaps sloppily) democracy with bureaucracy, and my response was something that i wanted to put here for comment:
bureaucracy does not equal democracy. bureaucracies come to be in any social situation in which continuity is important. since the stability of a society (its tendency not to devolve into either violent anarchy or fascism) is predicated on continuity, bureaucracy serves to stabilize a society and keep it from falling prey to short-term overreactive thinking. in other words, bureaucracy, while frustrating in the short term, is about taking a long-term view. this is what prevents human nature from overrunning stability in those societies which place value on stability.
it is not democracy, in itself, which is damaged by human nature, but the social impulse itself (though it could be argued that this is an artifact of the current western European cultural assumption that humans have value as individuals in and of themselves, and not exclusively as part of a group; aka "individualism").
that last assumption has not been a part of any society in history other than modern western European culture. whether the assumption has long-term validity remains to be seen. as some have said, man is a social animal. it is possible that our societies work best when seen as conglomerate entities, rather than as collections of individual entities.
in fact, much of the Progressive ("Liberal") ideology of the last 300 years or so can be seen as an ongoing attempt to rationalize the disconnect between individualism and social behavior. it is my own belief that the dynamic between Progressive and Conservative ideologies is essential to the successful improvement of the social contract. Progressivism creates a pool of social experiment to improve the social situation, while Conservatism prevents massive change until the long-term consequence of those changes can be determined. ideally, at least.
since the idea of improving the social contract is rooted in ancient theories of Justice (a peculiarly northern European concept, historically), this dynamic can be seen as the inevitable result of European barbarian paganism, in opposition to the Mediterranean pagan moralistic approach, which demands the greatest good for the greatest number, or, in other words, fascism.
(i make no observations about the influence of Middle Eastern ideologies at this time, as i don't see them as ultimately essential to the growth of European social thinking, though, on the other hand, it can't be denied that there is some influence. however, that influence, i think, pales in the face of the two streams of thought in early historic Europe.)
what i'm saying, i suppose, is that the "Great Societies" of the Roman, Athenian, and Alexandrine Empires are situations in which the respective societies collapsed, unable to sustain a truly viable social system in which the needs of the individuals were met along with the needs of the society.
since i've already discussed the difficulties inherent to both the Progressive and Conservative stands, i'll move on to the third major modern ideology, Libertarianism. my problem with modern Libertarianism stems from its inability to successfully balance the needs of individuals with the needs of society, due to its insistence on maximizing the disparity between those with wealth and those without. to be truly successful (in my view), a society has to *minimize* the effects of such centralizations of power, which can and will be abused by those holding it.
as for minor ideologies, such as Anarchism and Socialism (or Economic Fascism), again, i see those as breakdowns in society, rather than viable social structures in themselves. Communism is based on the rather improbable assumption that humans will not work to better their own lot, and so is obviously flawed from the beginning, though it can be made to work in the short term among small, selected populations. Tribalism is an interesting alternative, but is plagued with problems of its own, such as the difficulties of maintaining integrity in the face of hostile outside societies, as demonstrated conclusively by the meeting of the Celtic peoples with the Romans; it is also highly vulnerable to instability and collapse, leading to hostile societies *within*. Corporatism (the sort of Libertarianism advocated by some Science Fiction writers, such as L. Neil Smith) is nothing more than another sort of Fascism. Theocracy is the same. Synarchism is simply a synonym for Fascism.
in addition, i asked that, if he could think of any other social organizing theories, he could let me know, since those were all i could think of offhand. i'll make that same request to those reading this here.
bureaucracy does not equal democracy. bureaucracies come to be in any social situation in which continuity is important. since the stability of a society (its tendency not to devolve into either violent anarchy or fascism) is predicated on continuity, bureaucracy serves to stabilize a society and keep it from falling prey to short-term overreactive thinking. in other words, bureaucracy, while frustrating in the short term, is about taking a long-term view. this is what prevents human nature from overrunning stability in those societies which place value on stability.
it is not democracy, in itself, which is damaged by human nature, but the social impulse itself (though it could be argued that this is an artifact of the current western European cultural assumption that humans have value as individuals in and of themselves, and not exclusively as part of a group; aka "individualism").
that last assumption has not been a part of any society in history other than modern western European culture. whether the assumption has long-term validity remains to be seen. as some have said, man is a social animal. it is possible that our societies work best when seen as conglomerate entities, rather than as collections of individual entities.
in fact, much of the Progressive ("Liberal") ideology of the last 300 years or so can be seen as an ongoing attempt to rationalize the disconnect between individualism and social behavior. it is my own belief that the dynamic between Progressive and Conservative ideologies is essential to the successful improvement of the social contract. Progressivism creates a pool of social experiment to improve the social situation, while Conservatism prevents massive change until the long-term consequence of those changes can be determined. ideally, at least.
since the idea of improving the social contract is rooted in ancient theories of Justice (a peculiarly northern European concept, historically), this dynamic can be seen as the inevitable result of European barbarian paganism, in opposition to the Mediterranean pagan moralistic approach, which demands the greatest good for the greatest number, or, in other words, fascism.
(i make no observations about the influence of Middle Eastern ideologies at this time, as i don't see them as ultimately essential to the growth of European social thinking, though, on the other hand, it can't be denied that there is some influence. however, that influence, i think, pales in the face of the two streams of thought in early historic Europe.)
what i'm saying, i suppose, is that the "Great Societies" of the Roman, Athenian, and Alexandrine Empires are situations in which the respective societies collapsed, unable to sustain a truly viable social system in which the needs of the individuals were met along with the needs of the society.
since i've already discussed the difficulties inherent to both the Progressive and Conservative stands, i'll move on to the third major modern ideology, Libertarianism. my problem with modern Libertarianism stems from its inability to successfully balance the needs of individuals with the needs of society, due to its insistence on maximizing the disparity between those with wealth and those without. to be truly successful (in my view), a society has to *minimize* the effects of such centralizations of power, which can and will be abused by those holding it.
as for minor ideologies, such as Anarchism and Socialism (or Economic Fascism), again, i see those as breakdowns in society, rather than viable social structures in themselves. Communism is based on the rather improbable assumption that humans will not work to better their own lot, and so is obviously flawed from the beginning, though it can be made to work in the short term among small, selected populations. Tribalism is an interesting alternative, but is plagued with problems of its own, such as the difficulties of maintaining integrity in the face of hostile outside societies, as demonstrated conclusively by the meeting of the Celtic peoples with the Romans; it is also highly vulnerable to instability and collapse, leading to hostile societies *within*. Corporatism (the sort of Libertarianism advocated by some Science Fiction writers, such as L. Neil Smith) is nothing more than another sort of Fascism. Theocracy is the same. Synarchism is simply a synonym for Fascism.
in addition, i asked that, if he could think of any other social organizing theories, he could let me know, since those were all i could think of offhand. i'll make that same request to those reading this here.