Part of my argument is that many "political" issues brought forth in the culture war shouldn't be political at all, even where they are a source of cultural conflict. Much in our ethical lives should be a matter of conscience and character and social norms, not a matter of law. The setting of tax rates absolutely shoul…
Part of my argument is that many "political" issues brought forth in the culture war shouldn't be political at all, even where they are a source of cultural conflict. Much in our ethical lives should be a matter of conscience and character and social norms, not a matter of law. The setting of tax rates absolutely should be a political matter and laws need to be passed to govern the collection of taxes. The regulation of consensual sex shouldn't be a political matter but it definitely needs to be regulated by some moral percepts, and it is entirely fair for people to argue about this and impose social penalties on those who broach their preferred percepts. But arguments should play out in books, articles, personal interactions, etc. If, for instance, evangelicals believe that homosexuality is evil, they can make they case "from the pulpit", so to speak. It's a sign of weakness and insecurity when one "side" decides that they can only "win" a moral argument by passing a law and imposing draconian penalties; rudeness and ostracism can be salutary. One critique of the culture war is that it allows politics to swallow things that could be politicized, but shouldn't. The goal, therefore, on some of these matters should be depoliticization, not political triumph.
My claim about history isn't that these domains of social activity are "divided", but that they have *differentiated* themselves from one another in unprecedented ways, and that this change is more profound than we often realize. This doesn't mean that they don't interact, but rather that the internal dynamics of each domain are primary in shaping phenomena in the domain, rather than the feedback/feedforward mechanisms deriving from such interactions. I'll give you an example. Previously, a monarch and his government would be understood to have been chosen or anointed by God (or a God in polytheistic cultures), and the symbolism and ritual practice around this divine relationship would be a prime source of legitimacy. We see this with the English monarch as head of the Church of England even today, but this is an old, old idea in agrarian societies, and not one to be dismissed. By contrast, anybody publicly claiming to be chosen by God in American democracy as a source of legitimacy in his or her elected role is probably a megalomaniacal dipshit who should be kept as far away from public office as possible. This is an epochal change in the way that society organizes itself. It isn't just limited to politics and religion. My essay on laws & rights was about the legal system has differentiated itself from structures of economic and social classes.
In my view, the best argument for an "open society" is a developmental argument, which explains why this type of broad social engagement has evolved, and why it is necessary for this current epoch. But this view has consequences: some disputes are historically appropriate and healthy, while others are about the past attempting to foreclose the future. The latter must be resisted.
Oh I don’t really disagree with much of that. But I think where we diverge is that I see the achievement of protections against the sort of encroachments you describe as a political fight and not really better achieved by trying to depoliticized the issues. Big cultural ideas like divine right or religious mores or the value of diversity are necessarily also political fights, and advancing a society where as many different views and individuals can freely exists and stake a claim on the public sphere requires winning political fights about speech protections, minority rights, and the inherent value of pluralism. And because this involves the way people imagine themselves and the world around them and make and mediate meaning in that world, they’re also inherently cultural.
They're political fights for the moment, but, for me, what's needed is kind of religious or spiritual revival that draws some of the energy out of the political conflict -- because it belongs elsewhere to begin with. Until that happens, we're sort of stuck culturally.
We probably disagree on what such a revival would look like. I don't believe that Christianity is well-suited to this project. In fact, none of the traditional Axial Age religions are. (This isn't to discount their importance historically, or what we can learn from them). Neither is "Science" with-a-capital-S. My view is that there is an imperative to create something new, and people need to wake up to it.
I suspect there's a lot we could discuss on this topic, because we seem to agree mostly on how civil society should be structured.
A couple of points:
Part of my argument is that many "political" issues brought forth in the culture war shouldn't be political at all, even where they are a source of cultural conflict. Much in our ethical lives should be a matter of conscience and character and social norms, not a matter of law. The setting of tax rates absolutely should be a political matter and laws need to be passed to govern the collection of taxes. The regulation of consensual sex shouldn't be a political matter but it definitely needs to be regulated by some moral percepts, and it is entirely fair for people to argue about this and impose social penalties on those who broach their preferred percepts. But arguments should play out in books, articles, personal interactions, etc. If, for instance, evangelicals believe that homosexuality is evil, they can make they case "from the pulpit", so to speak. It's a sign of weakness and insecurity when one "side" decides that they can only "win" a moral argument by passing a law and imposing draconian penalties; rudeness and ostracism can be salutary. One critique of the culture war is that it allows politics to swallow things that could be politicized, but shouldn't. The goal, therefore, on some of these matters should be depoliticization, not political triumph.
My claim about history isn't that these domains of social activity are "divided", but that they have *differentiated* themselves from one another in unprecedented ways, and that this change is more profound than we often realize. This doesn't mean that they don't interact, but rather that the internal dynamics of each domain are primary in shaping phenomena in the domain, rather than the feedback/feedforward mechanisms deriving from such interactions. I'll give you an example. Previously, a monarch and his government would be understood to have been chosen or anointed by God (or a God in polytheistic cultures), and the symbolism and ritual practice around this divine relationship would be a prime source of legitimacy. We see this with the English monarch as head of the Church of England even today, but this is an old, old idea in agrarian societies, and not one to be dismissed. By contrast, anybody publicly claiming to be chosen by God in American democracy as a source of legitimacy in his or her elected role is probably a megalomaniacal dipshit who should be kept as far away from public office as possible. This is an epochal change in the way that society organizes itself. It isn't just limited to politics and religion. My essay on laws & rights was about the legal system has differentiated itself from structures of economic and social classes.
In my view, the best argument for an "open society" is a developmental argument, which explains why this type of broad social engagement has evolved, and why it is necessary for this current epoch. But this view has consequences: some disputes are historically appropriate and healthy, while others are about the past attempting to foreclose the future. The latter must be resisted.
Oh I don’t really disagree with much of that. But I think where we diverge is that I see the achievement of protections against the sort of encroachments you describe as a political fight and not really better achieved by trying to depoliticized the issues. Big cultural ideas like divine right or religious mores or the value of diversity are necessarily also political fights, and advancing a society where as many different views and individuals can freely exists and stake a claim on the public sphere requires winning political fights about speech protections, minority rights, and the inherent value of pluralism. And because this involves the way people imagine themselves and the world around them and make and mediate meaning in that world, they’re also inherently cultural.
They're political fights for the moment, but, for me, what's needed is kind of religious or spiritual revival that draws some of the energy out of the political conflict -- because it belongs elsewhere to begin with. Until that happens, we're sort of stuck culturally.
We probably disagree on what such a revival would look like. I don't believe that Christianity is well-suited to this project. In fact, none of the traditional Axial Age religions are. (This isn't to discount their importance historically, or what we can learn from them). Neither is "Science" with-a-capital-S. My view is that there is an imperative to create something new, and people need to wake up to it.
I suspect there's a lot we could discuss on this topic, because we seem to agree mostly on how civil society should be structured.