Institutional Speech: Where did the Right and the Left go wrong?

[Kritias]

Reading a lot of online discussions based on world news, I see time and again people reproducing ideological ideas and I wonder: chances are, you are like me.

I don’t own any means of sustaining myself if I decided to quit my job and enjoy a life doing what I really want to do. What sort of money I have saved would get me going for a period without needing to sell my time to someone for the ability to buy food. But, eventually, I would be forced to return to work somewhere and earn a wage. What’s more, I’m governed by a collection of people I may or may not have voted on but my influence on what happens to my country stops somewhere there. Besides once every four years, I’m not bothered by the government to practice my citizen rights (which I pay with my taxes and the draft, depending where I live) other than to be told that I have such and such bills to pay. Corporations are sending me bills with new charges coming from god knows where. My internet connection will soon come with charges to load pages faster. The water supplier companies made cleaning the dishes cheaper if I use bottled water instead of using the tap. The ambulance costs half my wage so I better hop on the bike and keep peddling. And I better practice some balance since I might not be able to use a limb when I really have to ride to the hospital.

Society tells me that it doesn’t matter if I don’t get to see the sunlight: I just have to buy a SAD day-light lamp and I’m set. If I’m depressed, it’s my fault for not trying to get out of it and if I’m poor, it’s again my fault for not trying to crawl my way out of my poverty. If I’m middle-class, I am told my degree requires further specialization. But it’s okay because I can pay off the loan with super-low interests. In the meantime, my professional prestige goes down the drain. Tough luck, bucko.

I’m not experiencing all of these of course. But these are examples of life in the western, advanced world. And I better be happy since we, the people are doing our best to keep this whole thing running, changing and adapting as we go. Life could be way worse. In fact, life had never been better say the experts. And so they set up the ‘Ladder of success’, where every step I take I have only myself to congratulate and to blame. The world is mine for the taking. Right?

On the other side I'm a tall, well-built bearded dude in an increasingly woman-dominated profession and I start feeling judged for a) being too good at my job and b) I'm increasingly passed over in many considerations due to the fact I got the wrong apendix in between my legs. I'm kinda but not exactly told that it's not my fault but men have been at the top too long. No hard feelings, see. And then there are the real issues of the day. Racism. Discrimination. Sexism. White Priviledge. The wage gap. Rape cultures. And on and on and on. These issues are dominating the news and public discourse.

If I try hard enough then I get suspicious looks for promoting male supremachy and I'm taken down a notch. If I don't try hard enough, it's my fault for not trying hard enough. So, I find myself in a double-bind between two ideologies both equally promoted by institutions.


So, I’d like your honest opinion. Why do we keep on reproducing a top-down message from either side of the divide? I don't think for example that personal choice is the only or most important determinant for my success. Example. Really? So, I'm in debt already, I have to work to pay off the bank and my trying to survive that is actually a win-win scenario? Industrial Sociology had blown that idea out of the water since 1950. How is this still a thing people can say? On the other side of the debate, we get the media promoting ideas such as this. Now, it may be the conspiracy theorist in me but I do recall that when really radical ideas were put forth, the state’s reaction wasn’t to put these ideas on the evening news. So, in a world we are presented with two main narratives, why do we play along?

[Aexodus]

In history, it's been proven time and time again that as a society becomes more and more decadent, the more it strays from the moral principles that brought it there. Today, society is individualistic to a fault, with most women preferring to have a dog than children. 40-50 years ago a person's priorities weren't their career, with all the negative emotional trauma that comes with that, but finding a husband/wife and having a family. It's not healthy in my opinion for people to live without the structure of a nuclear family, a father, a mother. I know firsthand. But all these societal issues that come together in a decadent society like the West and result in people becoming hung up on petty issues like racism, sexism as you said. That's not to say modern society hasn't made improvements, with homosexuals no longer being locked up and women gaining equality of opportunity rights etc. But it almost feels like the legacy of that revolutionary era hasn't gone away, and it's as if we're still in the battle for equality. And all this instead of focusing on actually being happy, all classism and identity politics instead of allowing individual families to make their own way. Honestly, the internet and social media hasn't helped when it comes to radical politics becoming the new norm either, with both sides clamping down to a certain set of ideologies, which ultimately results in the loss of free speech, and it's the little guy that loses, blind to how society is controlled by a few at the top, who can influence elections, war, and the very fabric of societies (George Soros characters etc). So... yeah, I guess society has lost its way, and only seems to care about that literally doesn't matter, and it's hard not to join into the ideological fracas.

Take the topic of gun control in America. The left and right have failed in that the left portrays it as if we ban guns we somehow can stop all mass shootings, while the right only seem to care about the 2nd amendment and lightly touching on mental illness, which is the real problem here. Neither side as far as I've seen is addressing the fact that back in the day, when guns were arguably easier to come by. The issue is an epidemic of mental health that either didn't exist in the 70s/80s etc, or was properly institutionalised. Both left and right have missed the nail and stabbed their thumbs with the pointy end, with western society taking the fall for their inability. I refer back to my previous points as to why there could be more mental illness in this great denigration of the West we're all living in.

[Kritias]

In history, it's been proven time and time again that as a society becomes more and more decadent, the more it strays from the moral principles that brought it there. Today, society is individualistic to a fault, with most women preferring to have a dog than children. 40-50 years ago a person's priorities weren't their career, with all the negative emotional trauma that comes with that, but finding a husband/wife and having a family. It's not healthy in my opinion for people to live without the structure of a nuclear family, a father, a mother. I know firsthand. But all these societal issues that come together in a decadent society like the West and result in people becoming hung up on petty issues like racism, sexism as you said. That's not to say modern society hasn't made improvements, with homosexuals no longer being locked up and women gaining equality of opportunity rights etc. But it almost feels like the legacy of that revolutionary era hasn't gone away, and it's as if we're still in the battle for equality. And all this instead of focusing on actually being happy, all classism and identity politics instead of allowing individual families to make their own way. Honestly, the internet and social media hasn't helped when it comes to radical politics becoming the new norm either, with both sides clamping down to a certain set of ideologies, which ultimately results in the loss of free speech, and it's the little guy that loses, blind to how society is controlled by a few at the top, who can influence elections, war, and the very fabric of societies (George Soros characters etc). So... yeah, I guess society has lost its way, and only seems to care about that literally doesn't matter, and it's hard not to join into the ideological fracas.

This reply is a perfect example of what I mean.

Your argument is basically Durkheim's Anomie, meaning that when societal ties loosen, individualism reigns supreme and we move on to an unethical society. In these times, people will pursue individual goals tearing down the fabric of society itself and we end up acting as wolves to one another. My question is this: I understand the conservative sentiment, I really do, but this idea was promoted in universities, passed down through the media and now a lot of people are actually thinking this way. Do you believe that a hundred years ago (barring the eases of technology), with all the traditional values you speak of in place, your personal life would be any different than it is now?

Take the topic of gun control in America. The left and right have failed in that the left portrays it as if we ban guns we somehow can stop all mass shootings, while the right only seem to care about the 2nd amendment and lightly touching on mental illness, which is the real problem here. Neither side as far as I've seen is addressing the fact that back in the day, when guns were arguably easier to come by. The issue is an epidemic of mental health that either didn't exist in the 70s/80s etc, or was properly institutionalised. Both left and right have missed the nail and stabbed their thumbs with the pointy end, with western society taking the fall for their inability. I refer back to my previous points as to why there could be more mental illness in this great denigration of the West we're all living in.

I mean, I was just listening to the NRA spokesperson saying that the real issue is not guns themselves, but mental health. I understand that he has a vested interest in protecting his business and so he needs to make a compelling argument as to why banning guns is not the answer. Why do you make the same argument? That's what I meant in the OP by institutional speech.

I seriously mean no disrespect to your ideas. I am just trying to understand why do we repeat these messages coming from institutions instead of making a new argument. I do completely respect anyone who thinks there's oppression or that traditional values are the way out of this mess. What I don't understand is why they would have to repeat the thought patterns of the power elites instead of actually hearing something new.

[Aexodus]

This reply is a perfect example of what I mean.

Your argument is basically Durkheim's Anomie, meaning that when societal ties loosen, individualism reigns supreme and we move on to an unethical society. In these times, people will pursue individual goals tearing down the fabric of society itself and we end up acting as wolves to one another. My question is this: I understand the conservative sentiment, I really do, but this idea was promoted in universities, passed down through the media and now a lot of people are actually thinking this way. Do you believe that a hundred years ago (barring the eases of technology), with all the traditional values you speak of in place, your personal life would be any different than it is now?

Well in my case, my family is very career driven, with most having gone to a grammar school and being semi-workaholics. And I can say with utmost certainty that it has contributed to it being more dysfunctional. By contrast, I have extended family in North America, who are for a better word 'working class' and are easy going people, having large families, and having a family re-union every 4 years. And they're pretty content with life compared to other 'clans' I know. Well, being Canadian is probably an advantage

It's not necessarily conservatism that is the solution. I've no doubt though that that sentiment comes across in my argument. I don't think family values have to be 'traditional'. I think they only need to appeal to the natural human instinct that attracts us to the opposite sex. Humans are social animals, more social interaction mean she happier people and more goodwill in a society, and family values have always been the best way to achieve this in history. Look at how the phenomenon of absent fathers in the Black American community, and how it affects them, directly contributing to more crime, and sustaining the cycle of poverty. But I'm not sure I understand your OP. Is the problem that you are dissatisfied with life, or that you don't have a choice in your lifestyle?

I mean, I was just listening to the NRA spokesperson saying that the real issue is not guns themselves, but mental health. I understand that he has a vested interest in protecting his business and so he needs to make a compelling argument as to why banning guns is not the answer. Why do you make the same argument? That's what I meant in the OP by institutional speech.

I seriously mean no disrespect to your ideas. I am just trying to understand why do we repeat these messages coming from institutions instead of making a new argument. I do completely respect anyone who thinks there's oppression or that traditional values are the way out of this mess. What I don't understand is why they would have to repeat the thought patterns of the power elites instead of actually hearing something new.

What I think is that many modern political issues, most of them really, mean nothing when you step back. We are living in an unethical society, it's simply a fact that your country and mine as they are today were founded on Judeo-Christian values.

When it it comes to institutional speech, do you mean that as in there are generally two main narratives to follow? That is a frequent problem, as it often neglects the issue at hand in favour of political point scoring. In the case of gun-control, tbh I'm giving the mental health argument because I do believe guns have nothing to with it. Two days ago a group of men in china killed 33 and injured 143 in a train station, with knives. These men have gone to the darkest depths a human being can go, in order to even consider committing actual mass murder.

I suppose institutional speech is a form of political correctness, which exists on both the left and right at times. When it comes to gun control, every left wing media source goes into group-think mode, all pushing the same agenda, as do more right leaning sources. The BBC in Britain has abandoned most moderates and right wingers in favour of a left wing, progressive audience, when it gets boiled down to it. It's very biased in its reporting, and often.

[Kritias]

No. My argument is that we have debates on a wide range of subjects but for some peculiar reason to me, people choose to deploy arguments following the two main narratives. I'll try to explain this better using what you said in your post.

In the matter of gun control, you give a valid argument. Even banning guns will not end the fact that some people will commit crime. They will only have a harder time doing it, but a real psychopath will end up killing people if that's what he wants to do. That's how we got to the story of the train station. I completely agree with you there. However, you as a person run the risk of being the victim of a violent crime, right? Now, the NRA will tell us that the real issue is mental health and if we managed to get that under control, we wouldn't have so many people dying because of mass murders/shootings etc. The problem is that dealing with mental health requires a good amount of time; and there's always the case where someone doesn't snap until he/she does. So, by definition, dealing with mental health would require time with only dubious results for our troubles.

I understand the NRA's point. They are selling a product and they are shifting the blame to something else instead of their product. And it stands to logic that a gun by its own will not kill anyone. A gun is a tool without a purpose until it is in the hands of someone. However, let's now take you as a person running the risk of being the victim. Doesn't it stand to reason that if you'll be running the risk, you'd want an immediate solution to the problem? The most immediate solution is the ban. If nobody can get his hands on a gun, your risk of getting shot by one just evaporated. Sure, there will always be ways for someone to get one in a black market. And yes, if someone made their minds to kill you, they will do it even with chopsticks. But having a 1% risk instead of a 10% risk would definitely justify the ban. So, why do you adopt the NRA's position when they keep the risk of you getting shot to that 10%?

The OP is a question towards people with no vested interest in preserving, par example, the 2nd amendment in the sense of allowing the NRA to keep its business as it is, who are in an uproar whenever this subject is brought forth - arguably even against their better interest. Is owning a gun so important that it offsets the dangers of other people also having one? This is institutional speech: where you adopt the position and morals of an organization with little or no added benefit to your own life. My question is why? A group of people comes along and says this issue is happening because of Y factor. And a lot of people are like mmmkay. And of course, you can say that all people do that since all subjects in the spectrum are discussed about from time to time. My point is, some people are saying something is right or wrong because they have a monetary interest to do so. What do the rest of us have?

Another example is what you mentioned about fatherless families in the black community and crime. In DuBois' seminal work, the Philadelphia N..... [It's the title of the book guys, seriously], DuBois is showing that black communities in Philadelphia were being discriminated against and were being led towards low-income, low-status jobs and a life of poverty; crime was the byproduct of their marginalization. He wrote this book in 1897. And he wrote this book because he got paid by the University of Massachusetts to show why the black people were being so prone to commit crime. They expected that DuBois would turn up a biological factor or that family structure was to blame. The argument of the fatherless families of black people as a reason for committing crime is actually that old.

My argument is that we, the commentators, keep on recycling ideas that were constructed in universities and the media god knows when and we keep on breathing life to them regardless if we can see them validated in everyday experience. Institutional speech is a grand theory scheme, meaning the late 19th century trend of human and social sciences to emulate physics and mathematics in providing rules of life that would be valid every single time you apply them.

So, no. It is a question about the practicality (or lack thereof) of debating stuff using arguments an organization with a vested interest has so conveniently provided us through all available channels.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I'll just tentatively try and put forward a view as to why- though apologies if i misunderstand the question. For some idea as to a caveat to the points i'm going to make, i'd say it might be worth looking at the synopsis (Because i'm a cheap Scot ) of Mark Mazower's 'The Dark Continent: Europe's 20th Century'- or one of the many works akin to it- its not directly relevant, but it helps support what i'm going to say in providing the potential reasons why the framework you quite rightly questioning exists in the modern world in terms of the 20th century being an era of ideological warfare between at basic Liberal Democracy and Communism (And Fascism of course). - And indeed that these are ideologies found of course in the 19th Century to varying degrees (Mainly Liberal Democracy). The key point is that the dominance of liberal democracy (Which contains of course the left and right) was not assured and indeed at various spates- the 20s, ironically the Cold War too it looked like it would die out completely. We are currently in some ways though going through the past few decades when for the first time in its history liberal democracy was thought to be 'safe'- being the 'dominant' ideology on earth (Arguably now though that is changing), in terms of having the worlds most influential and powerful countries (Including in some ways China which has become active in a 'liberal international order, using institutions such as the UN) following its creed to varying degrees and participating in this 'liberal international order' which provides the foundation and protection for 'liberal democracy' as an ideology.

So basically- there is a monopoly of ideology currently- which while not universally followed necessarily, is universally influential. The trouble is Liberal Democracy is actually very bad at adapting- its conception (arguably by the British in the 1820s with the first premise of 'Free trade' for all) there has been pretty much as you state been the same arguments swirling around in it- of a conservative right, a liberal middle and a social democratic left- to massively generalize- at different points different elements have had more power within the system depending on country and context. But the system to work needs all three elements- and like any ideology (religious or secular)- its very poor at changing because it, itself is a framework- so you can seek new ideas in that framework of capitalism linked to liberal democracy, but the overarching arguments will essentially be the same- partly by nature, but also partly because ideologies do not typically adapt to change well (Hence why we've been dragged kicking and screaming through the 3rd and now 4th industrial revolutions- with band-aids placed on issues, instead of actual stable new policy solutions). Don't get me wrong though liberal-democracy is arguably more adaptable than the other two big ideologies of the 20th century- Communism and Fascism- and of course prior to all three is the ideology lazily called 'The Old Order'- which is Monarchical or Dictatorial in nature with landed elites and is an 'evolution' of the Feudal order. But anyway, Liberal-Democracy is a belief system with a specif set of parameters that allow discourse- go too far beyond, and you end up creating a new system (Something that has been argued China has been doing, either intentionally or accidentally, though i don't actually believe that personally due to its commitment to global liberal institutions and rather typical economic model).

So to get to a wee bit more detail- when its recognized that actually you can generally group up ideologies of the early modern and modern eras and see them for what they are- belief systems that provide a framework or loose blueprint for a working society, you can then see why the arguments for solutions etc all hark back to the past as an ideological framework is typically slow moving to adapt and also perhaps more importantly and tied into that, past ideas provide the legitimacy for the current framework. Left and Right are essentially as concepts unchanged because they cannot necessarily provide dynamic change- they are tied to the past within the framework- and don't get me wrong, both sides do provide 'new solutions', but slowly, particularly as their is huge opposition to radical changes from society. Its usually said only revolutionary governments can actually achieve and deliver fundamental change to a state or society, as they typically provide a shock impetus that happens too fast and is too violent for the 'electorate' to properly respond to. But in terms of democratic discourse, radical solutions tend to be guffed at (and radical indeed can be 'going full back to the past'- advocating 'extreme conservatism'), and incremental changes, with the provision of 'here is this ideas historic roots' appeal to most people- what gets an issue is of course like now when arguably innovation is overtaking far more rapidly than even previous 'industrial revolutions' - and they were frankly bad enough in terms of social upheaval and instability.


Also a simpler reason, tied into this though- we actually face the same problems we have always faced historically - Its why there is a revival for the case of 'applied history' because issues around social inequality, mental health, stagnating wages, a broken economy due to impending industrial revolution (Or automation), the breakdown of the social contract between state and people, and/or people and business, heck even Brexit for a context specific point- there are mirriors of the 'Imperial Tariff' debate here- though with the caveat that Britain is not the deciding factor- but the arguments are much the same, etc- all are issues that we have recurringly faced. Its not 'new' technically in the broad sweep of things- indeed take something like the ethics of cloning and DNA manipulation and that debate can be informed by arguments centuries ago in regard to sanctity of life, and the use of dead bodies in experimentation (a very narrow example- but i'm sure you can see the sheer scope)- thus the ideas we cast back to history- see what 'worked', tweek them and try them out again- because the chance of it working is higher than an 'unknown' and because as i said, radical ideas do not sit well with people, particularly when the consequences are unforeseen. Ideologies like Liberal-Democracy seek and need stability- that's part of their social contract- so its both easier, more efficient in the short term (though not necessarily the long term- the UK's current economic issues have their roots in Thatcher's reforms, which in turn had its roots in the short terminism of 'full employment, and hence now why we're seeking a swing back in political discourse to a more middle ground away from both), and 'safer' in terms of not necessarily creating unforeseen situations.

Now i'm being very 'west centric' here i know, what about Asia or Africa? Well as i said, this all applies to them too, as they are either involved in or in the shadow of the current dominant ideology of Liberal Democracy due to the spread of ideas from 'Empire' and also the subsequent Cold War and domination of the globe by the USA. This is not to say of course that Liberal Democracy will always be the dominant ideology with its 'left vs right' discourse (You could argue that Communism has the same problems too- and it does- but that is because i'd argue Communism was a reaction to and potential usurper of Liberal-Democracy, so they share many issues and much of the same 'no new innovation under the sun' trap that you talk of here mate), China may indeed be fashioning a new ideological base (Again i don't think so), and their is a worrying shift from both left and right voters in terms of the trust they have for liberal-democracy which could see the foundations of its dominance undermined- but so far neither seem really viable in the short or mid term as of yet.

So we are indeed stuck with the cycle of ideas under a dominant ideological framework. That is not necessarily a bad thing overall though- its just how humans have always worked. Indeed if we really wanted to get into it, Liberal-Democracy, Communism and Fascism themselves are not 'new' borne out of innovation, but are developments off the back of each other (Fascism and Communism being a contextual response to Liberal-Democracy, while also having historical roots further back)- Liberal-Democracy being the brainchild of the 'Old Order' (I hate that term, but it suits here) divides, which itself was linked to Feudalism (Some include this as part of the 'Old Order though- i don't' and Proto-Imperialism (That last term is an invented one by me i think... but i can't remember the actual word for competing ideology of Feudalism as used in earlier states, China etc). So changes in ideology are never radical or fast, but built on one another- adding further constraints to the framework and the viability of radical new ideas (Which again i stress- do happen, but rarely and with caveats usually...and on the back of successful social upheaval or political revolution- though again even these 'follow' and are inspired by contextual ideological frameworks- there's no escape! ).

I've gone rather macro here, but i hope i'm hitting the question you were interested in mate.

[Kritias]

@Dante,

I agree with everything you say. Yes, people in general have shown themselves to be quite conservative in their views and ideas. Arguments that deviate from the central narratives are being side-lined as soon as they are out there. However, I think we've moved past the point of group-thought, meaning a clear cut division of people between the liberal democratic narrative and the socialistic narrative of reality. One look at any debate in, say, the Mudpit confirms that; you get people clearly falling in along these divides, perpetuating the arguments put forth by institutions. What's worse is that on either side of the divide, you get people screaming 'fascist!' from the left or 'West-hater' [coined on the spot, but you get the point] from the right. There are a couple of things I find wrong with this type of argumentation.

First, there's the freedom of expression argument. There's actually two positions you can take when it comes to freedom of speech. One, freedom of speech only for views you like and two, freedom of speech for views you don't like. There's no in between. Yet, if we analyze any debate, we get one very concerning result. Everyone says something along the lines "You're defending this person's views." right before utilizing name-calling. And the problem is that the person who throws the mud always wins because there's no effective defence against being called a 'fascist' or a 'racist' or an 'islamophile' or whatever. If someone calls me a Nazi there's no actual defence against that. Same goes for anyone regardless if they are self-determined to be on the left, right and center.

Second, this line of argumentation is actually promoted by institutions. In every debated topic, you find an institution leading the charge against any contrarian utilizing this mud-tactic and legitimizing this sort of behavior for everyone. Whether it's the feminist front, Black Lives Matter or the NRA, you have an institution telling us what is the right argument to use whenever a subject is put on public dialogue, as well as what to say whenever the argument doesn't go your (their) way. In the meantime, these institutions keep making money either funded by the state or through subscription and will continue to do so as long as they are keeping the debate in this framework. And the rest of the people with no actual stake in it are stuck with an actual problem that goes nowhere. What's worse, you actually have people willing to do the job of promoting the mores and the arguments of an institution - for free. How fun.

The third problem is that we have this image of society around us which is heavily influenced by the social media and the internet. I don't have to say that these companies are actually utilizing algorythms to create this artificial 'bubble' around us, re-enforcing the beliefs we've provided them evidence we tend to believe. How many times have you gone into youtube, par example, to search a video for something to get hundreds of results all circling this same ideological divide? The Pew Research Centre recently announced that all over the globe, people are turning slowly to alternative media for information and that they gradually consider this means of information to be more impartial [here]. What I am trying to say is that we've progressed from the point when we had institutions directly telling us what's the official line(s) on any subject to the point where random, everyday people with no stake in the argument have taken upon themselves to promote the mores and arguments of these institutions. Another survey from PRC shows that following the establishment of the social media people in general have been more divided than ever before [here].

This trend of growing misinformation online is, at least to me, a huge matter for discussion.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

@Dante,

I agree with everything you say. Yes, people in general have shown themselves to be quite conservative in their views and ideas. Arguments that deviate from the central narratives are being side-lined as soon as they are out there. However, I think we've moved past the point of group-thought, meaning a clear cut division of people between the liberal democratic narrative and the socialistic narrative of reality. One look at any debate in, say, the Mudpit confirms that; you get people clearly falling in along these divides, perpetuating the arguments put forth by institutions. What's worse is that on either side of the divide, you get people screaming 'fascist!' from the left or 'West-hater' [coined on the spot, but you get the point] from the right. There are a couple of things I find wrong with this type of argumentation.

First, there's the freedom of expression argument. There's actually two positions you can take when it comes to freedom of speech. One, freedom of speech only for views you like and two, freedom of speech for views you don't like. There's no in between. Yet, if we analyze any debate, we get one very concerning result. Everyone says something along the lines "You're defending this person's views." right before utilizing name-calling. And the problem is that the person who throws the mud always wins because there's no effective defence against being called a 'fascist' or a 'racist' or an 'islamophile' or whatever. If someone calls me a Nazi there's no actual defence against that. Same goes for anyone regardless if they are self-determined to be on the left, right and center.

Second, this line of argumentation is actually promoted by institutions. In every debated topic, you find an institution leading the charge against any contrarian utilizing this mud-tactic and legitimizing this sort of behavior for everyone. Whether it's the feminist front, Black Lives Matter or the NRA, you have an institution telling us what is the right argument to use whenever a subject is put on public dialogue, as well as what to say whenever the argument doesn't go your (their) way. In the meantime, these institutions keep making money either funded by the state or through subscription and will continue to do so as long as they are keeping the debate in this framework. And the rest of the people with no actual stake in it are stuck with an actual problem that goes nowhere. What's worse, you actually have people willing to do the job of promoting the mores and the arguments of an institution - for free. How fun.

The third problem is that we have this image of society around us which is heavily influenced by the social media and the internet. I don't have to say that these companies are actually utilizing algorythms to create this artificial 'bubble' around us, re-enforcing the beliefs we've provided them evidence we tend to believe. How many times have you gone into youtube, par example, to search a video for something to get hundreds of results all circling this same ideological divide? The Pew Research Centre recently announced that all over the globe, people are turning slowly to alternative media for information and that they gradually consider this means of information to be more impartial [here]. What I am trying to say is that we've progressed from the point when we had institutions directly telling us what's the official line(s) on any subject to the point where random, everyday people with no stake in the argument have taken upon themselves to promote the mores and arguments of these institutions. Another survey from PRC shows that following the establishment of the social media people in general have been more divided than ever before [here].

This trend of growing misinformation online is, at least to me, a huge matter for discussion.

I agree with much of what your saying here, though with a caveat- if i'm not misunderstood? You are presenting our present political polarization between left and right (or perhaps more aptly globalists vs nationalists- as the discussion mixes traditional lines) or indeed generally the lack of building consensus as something new, particularly inspired by technology?- But basically 'consensus democracy' has been waylaid to a fight for the 'tyranny of the majority' (The fight being over which majority ironically).

Now i might have to bow out here as the above is something i'm actually writing a paper on currently, though with more of an eye as that being an effect of globalization- and silly as it sounds, you can actually plagarize yourself and get in a wee spot of bother- so apologies if i'm being vague in my reply here- its just i don't want to get my arse kicked . But the problem your putting forward of a divided, polarized society and combating institutions aided and abetted by media services is not something i'd argue that is 'new' to us. Its actually one of the typical features of our society in the liberal democratic framework i mentioned before. In a UK-context, we go back to the early 20th Century and we have a startlingly similar 'brexit' discussion happening- though this time regarding Imperial Tariffs vs Free Trade that included all the pent up feelings and division that we have now, go back earlier to the late 1500s (apologies as i can't find my notes on the exact date) and you have fierce society dividing debates happening in England in regard to the treatment of Dutch reformists/protestants at the hands of the Catholics. The new print-press going back and forth over the channel causing arguments, fear, polarization within England over whats going on, how to do deal with it, if it should be dealt with- with a variety of interest groups plugging arguments for their own ends.

The Pre ww1 20th Century is when this i would put forward changed- It presented for our purposes Liberal Democracy (though of course 1500s England was not one- that was more a showcase of technology and polarization in political discourse ) as having a serious challenger- Communism, and in between communist bouts (there were two- the inter-war years, and the Cold War)- there was fascism (itself a reaction to communism) thus Liberal Democracy eschewed the oppositional, polarizing politics that had been such an integral part of it, to building consensus and inclusion of all political viewpoints under its democratic umbrella lest it destabilize states and make them ripe for 'the commies'. Its no small coincidence that the conception of a welfare state (Both the failed ones post-ww1 and the success after ww2), a social consensus from all political parties on the necessity of reform and welfare provision for citizens was implemented during this time- it was all about 'winning the peace', Thus political discourse for the most part was played down- the 1980s of Reagan and Thatcher one could argue was back to political polarization- but i would put forward that was merely a brief ruckus regarding the 'consensus' of western states- as its notable that when their opposites regained power, they stuck to the same policies laid down- thus a continuation of the consensus.

But with the end of the Cold War, the neat dividing lines and the need for political and social consensus has died with it- in tangible terms this has meant the destruction of the welfare state, the poorer treatment of workers etc because their is no 'balance' to it. Its liberal democracy back to its all roots of shouty oppositional based policy. There is no big bad 'other' that can at base level unify the disparate elements within the liberal democratic system- This is arguable if its a good or bad thing, and i make no comment here to that. But more that is why- online media has helped, in much the same way the printing press and subsequent advancements have in making it easier to 'tribe up' with a political perspective or institutes opinion- something previously the Cold War allowed for as it was 'Democracy (and all its left and right spectrum) against Communism (Which was totalitarian)- so tribing up was easier and provided a greater unifying emphasis- we might in this context 'disagree with our social democratic or conservative friend- but hell at least we're democratic and both revile Soviet Dictatorship'. That's lacking now- though for how long is another question. But yeah, the polarization of politics is something of a natural state- though to your point, it perhaps was slightly easier in the past as pre-ww1 voter enfranchisement was rather limited- so less opinions bouncing around, but interwar period- lots of consensus based governments (response to the depression is a fascinating one) of a liberal-democratic framework variety vs communists, then fascists- post ww2- cold war consensus- and now a losing of that force and the re-emergence of tribalistic politics with no underlying unifying force (not even nationalism which arguably worked during the interwar years) and no 'enemy' to all unite against despite differences.

Add to the mix a fourth industrial revolution and quite frankly sweeping economic changes- both in state structures and globally and again in that liberal democratic framework- response is slow and based on tried and tested past methods, eschewing the radical and you have a further emphasis on the current polarization of perspectives you speak as people seek tribes, find them and then have no reason to find common ground again.

Again apologies for taking this rather generally instead of addressing your specific points (which are very valid)- as i said, i don't want my prof to kick my arse so i've tried my best to put my point across, while being slightly vague .

[Kritias]

You raise excellent points. Thank you for the historical framework as well since now other people have some idea of what we're talking about in a historical context. Aside from that, be as vague as you like. I understand completely the need to protect your paper.

Now, an interesting point seen throughout the historic narrative is this idea that previous societies had some sense of concensus. Meaning that all members of a society engaged in some form of dialogue and accepted a course of action as being appropriate. Of course, this whole notion of concent boils down to the functionalist approach in sociology, where people re-affirm the need of the existing institutions for the stability of society itself. And while the theories of concent are the mainstream narrative, there's also the conflict theories put forth by the Marxists and some meta-modernists (who are over-represented nowadays in the left), but also the (nowadays) less impactful theories of Max Weber and his school of thought.

For those of you who don't know Weber, he was the dude who wrote the Protestant Ethics of Capitalism. His basic premise is that people construct ideas and institutions in the beginning with an ideal image in their minds regarding to what this institution is going to be, and what the benefits for the entirety of society are going to be from the existance of this idea or institution. What Weber proposed though was that these ideas and institutions, due to the process of time, aquire a life of their own: they diverge from the ideal type. What's more, this idea or institution now acts with a self-preserving role instead of their original goal of bringing benefit to society. I guess my argument is actually the widening of Weber's argument about bureocracy. In his management theory we see that,

“Bureaucracy is an organisational structure that is characterised by many rules, standardised processes, procedures and requirements, number of desks, meticulous division of labour and responsibility, clear hierarchies and professional, almost impersonal interactions between employees”.

Though Weber originally started with the premise that bureocracy is an ideal type of structure that would offer clear benefits for the most efficient governance of the state, by the time he was studying it bureocracy had already succumbed to its non-ideal type [or, maybe, it never worked as one]. The problems he highlighted was that bureocracy was working only to sustain and perpetuate itself. And the people working in it were actually following this as their primary goal against their own best interests.

The following three elements support bureaucratic management:


a) All regular activities within a bureaucracy can be regarded as official duties;
b) Management has the authority to impose rules;
c) Rules can easily be respected on the basis of established methods.

With the above as a mini-theoretical framework, what do we see happening in the globalized society we live in? First, due to the intrusive nature of the social media, the personal sphere and the political sphere are merging. Example: how many people have been fired from their jobs or face troll mobs because of a tweeter or facebook comment? Everything we say and do can be available to the wider public and we are going to face concequences for this. Second, the b point can be understood as dissent to the mainstream narratives now has become a 'penalized' action. Again, loss of job, career or reputation. And third, for quite some time now the institutions have been providing us with ways to think, express our opinions etc that respect those enforced rules. These are the established methods Weber saw in the context of bureocracy.

A rather silly example of what I'm saying can be seen here. In this article, the author is commenting about two negative reviews given to the movie 'Black Panther' in a rather disheartened manner for ruining the movie's impeccable 100% rating. While the author genuingly seems bummed off by this, he doesn't proceed to speculate about the reason the critic gave a negative review. However, at the same time you get articles such as this, this, this and this. As you can see these authors took it upon themselves to report the people's sentiment about what a critic wrote on a site about a movie AS WELL AS provide a more insidious interpretation for why he wrote a negative review (was it really negative? DOES IT EVEN MATTER??). Point is, until the media brought the subject up, there was no fuss concerning this movie. Now there is.

Put aside the fact that Rotten Tomatoes, as a site, started off on the premise that it had the utility of providing people with insight from critics and fans regarding to the movie you were considering paying 16 bucks to see. Right now, this site is actually being transformed into something else: if a critique on a movie gets this kind of attention by the media, two things are going to happen. First, depending on how big this issue is going to get, people will think twice about posting a negative comment on a movie in the future. Secondly, Rotten Tomatoes isn't a place where you go to look what other people thought about the movie you want to pay good money to see. It's something else.

What's more, we get to see point b and c Weber warned us about rearing their ugly head. The unspoken rule was 'do not trash talk this movie' and apparently two people didn't get the memo. What was the reaction? The mildest was the report of their names to the wider public. Since the names were already published under the critiques this may not seem such a big deal but broadcasting who wrote what is eerily reminiscent of a pitchfork holding peasant calling out 'I FOUND HIM' to the rest. The worse, up to now, is the insinuation there are hidden motives (even more sinister is the fact that those authors attribute their act to what people as a whole are feeling about a negative critique) behind those two critiques. I'm willing to bet it will not be the last time those two critics will be heard - only this time, something they posted on facebook, twitter or even allegedly said will magically pop up in a character demolition move.

Now, you may argue that this is an inherent problem of the left but it is not so. Remember the chaos that followed the protest to the national anthem of the US and the hit pieces the right were putting up against anyone who considered following the trend.

To wrap this up, my main argument is this. Before the end of the cold war, we had one clear institution that was acting in this way: the State. Now, we are faced with a multitude of institutions following the same tactics and enforcing or penalizing dissent. What's more, many of those institutions aren't even public anymore. And therein lies the problem [at least as I see it].

[bigdaddy1204]

In history, it's been proven time and time again that as a society becomes more and more decadent, the more it strays from the moral principles that brought it there. Today, society is individualistic to a fault, with most women preferring to have a dog than children. 40-50 years ago a person's priorities weren't their career, with all the negative emotional trauma that comes with that, but finding a husband/wife and having a family. It's not healthy in my opinion for people to live without the structure of a nuclear family, a father, a mother. I know firsthand. But all these societal issues that come together in a decadent society like the West and result in people becoming hung up on petty issues like racism, sexism as you said. That's not to say modern society hasn't made improvements, with homosexuals no longer being locked up and women gaining equality of opportunity rights etc. But it almost feels like the legacy of that revolutionary era hasn't gone away, and it's as if we're still in the battle for equality. And all this instead of focusing on actually being happy, all classism and identity politics instead of allowing individual families to make their own way. Honestly, the internet and social media hasn't helped when it comes to radical politics becoming the new norm either, with both sides clamping down to a certain set of ideologies, which ultimately results in the loss of free speech, and it's the little guy that loses, blind to how society is controlled by a few at the top, who can influence elections, war, and the very fabric of societies (George Soros characters etc). So... yeah, I guess society has lost its way, and only seems to care about that literally doesn't matter, and it's hard not to join into the ideological fracas.

Take the topic of gun control in America. The left and right have failed in that the left portrays it as if we ban guns we somehow can stop all mass shootings, while the right only seem to care about the 2nd amendment and lightly touching on mental illness, which is the real problem here. Neither side as far as I've seen is addressing the fact that back in the day, when guns were arguably easier to come by. The issue is an epidemic of mental health that either didn't exist in the 70s/80s etc, or was properly institutionalised. Both left and right have missed the nail and stabbed their thumbs with the pointy end, with western society taking the fall for their inability. I refer back to my previous points as to why there could be more mental illness in this great denigration of the West we're all living in.

Interesting post, thanks for sharing.

I think you're right about society's individualism. An individualistic society is one where people are largely free to choose their own path, at least in theory. (Although being born poor, black, etc will reduce your chances). The trade off is that the individualistic society lacks some of the good things found in a more community based society. The old are not looked after properly. Divorce rates are higher. Families break apart. Children raised in single parent families. People live isolated from neighbours, friends and relatives. Nobody talks on public transport. Nobody helps each other in the street. You could fall down and die, would anybody even stop to help? It's an extreme example but there is an element of truth.

Racism isn't a "petty" issue, I've experienced it right here on this forum only yesterday and it isn't fun. I should count myself lucky as I don't face it every day for real, but I know people that do.

People have been talking about moral decline since the days of the Roman Republic in the first century BC. I think a society can become overly shallow and materialistic and deregulation can go too far. But I don't believe the inherent raw material of human nature changes over time. Perhaps it depends what moral decline means exactly. Is it the individual, or the values of society?

Gun control is clear cut, imho. The US is the only country where this is an issue. Other countries control guns. In the country I am living, there has not been a single school shooting incident since 1997. How many people have died in the US since then? This isn't a moral issue, it's just common sense. A change of policy could make the difference. Ban the guns, stop the violence. Simple.