When Did Things Go To Pot?

[Oexmelin]

According status to others is synonymous with envy.  Status cannot exist without envy.

Tell me if I'm right, because I already have my objections loaded up.

No, that's not quite it. First, just to clarify, according status to people is not synonymous with holding them in high esteem. It's simply ascribing a place to them. It's something we always do as humans, because we want to know where we stand in our groups. Status can be high, low, rigid, or flexible, decreed by law, or awarded by social interaction. There has been multiple ways to accord status to people in human history: caste, nobility, law, prowess, whatever. It doesn't have to be fueled by envy: in many societies, status is simply granted as a matter of birth. 

Not so in democratic societies, where status is never asserted in law. So there is an inherent tension in democracy between the refusal to distinguish classes of citizens in law, and the obvious considerable privileges (and social consideration) that wealth affords. On the one hand, we aspire to be considered equal in dignity - but the sorts of interaction when this equality is forcefully asserted are rare. On the other hand, we know we live in an unequal society, in which the pursuit of wealth is highly valued, as one of the most powerful, legitimate way to create distinction - and these material comparisons are easier to perform daily. In other egalitarian societies in history, that tension is reduced through enforced redistribution, and the valuation of other forms of engagement - like warrior prowess. The specific form of desire to rise to the level of war heroes is usually called "emulation".

That is why I think your stance is contradictory. The active (and insatiable) pursuit of wealth (which you value) continuously creates social distinctions that go against the fundamental egalitarian principle at the heart of democracy. The more wealth creates distinction, and the more that distinction creates a gulf between citizens, the more envy of that status you will create - if only because we all aspire to some form of dignity and recognition. So, it's not envy in the sense that I desire a Porsche for the Porsche's amazing qualities. I desire the Porsche because I see the reaction it produces, and the signal it sends. All of publicity is aimed at stoking this desire.

It's a fundamental tension in our weird version of an egalitarian society, and historically, people who argued that others should be content with their lot in life were either usually enemies of democracy, or were arguing for a much more demanding form of republican virtue (and wealth redistribution) than you are ready to support, I believe. The other option is to ask everyone to be indifferent to their fellow citizens - and I highly suspect such indifference creates in fact, more greed than it eliminates. See: Mono.

[crazy canuck]

That is a great post Oex.  Reading your thoughtful comments is one of the things that keeps me coming back. 

It got me thinking about the concept that a liberal democratic society does not assert status through force of law.  This is the ideal, and that is certainly the principle that was the foundation of my legal training which stressed the importance of the Rule of Law.  But over the last few decades liberal democracies have accorded differing status to individuals based on the characteristics of the group to which they may belong.  It has been done for, in my view, laudable reasons, and in part to mitigate the power imbalances which occur in a society where economic benefits and opportunities are not equally open to all. 

And so there is a paradox, in order to try to achieve the closest approximation of treating everyone equally under the Rule of Law, we necessarily need to create protections for some but not all.

I think that is the main weakness with Yi's argument.  If we were all engaged in the war of all against all to attain status, we would not be concerned about the conceptions of fairness for all under the Rule of Law.

[Malthus]

That is a great post Oex.  Reading your thoughtful comments is one of the things that keeps me coming back. 

It got me thinking about the concept that a liberal democratic society does not assert status through force of law.  This is the ideal, and that is certainly the principle that was the foundation of my legal training which stressed the importance of the Rule of Law.  But over the last few decades liberal democracies have accorded differing status to individuals based on the characteristics of the group to which they may belong.  It has been done for, in my view, laudable reasons, and in part to mitigate the power imbalances which occur in a society where economic benefits and opportunities are not equally open to all. 

And so there is a paradox, in order to try to achieve the closest approximation of treating everyone equally under the Rule of Law, we necessarily need to create protections for some but not all.

I think that is the main weakness with Yi's argument.  If we were all engaged in the war of all against all to attain status, we would not be concerned about the conceptions of fairness for all under the Rule of Law.

There exists a strictly self-interested reason to want fairness for all under the Rule of Law: it is that only a system that provides fairness for all under the Rule of Law can ensure fairness for me, no matter what may happen to me in terms of status.

Other systems are better for me if I happen to be at the top (or the bottom) of the hierarchy of status; but only the Rule of Law can provide fairness if my status is subject to change ...

This is one reason, I think, a system in which social inequalities are subject to a lot of variation over one's lifetime and between generations is more compatible with support for the Rule of Law: if your status becomes entrenched, you no longer have to consider in a self-interested manner the question of justice for all, because you know you, or your children, will not fall in a higher or lower class than yourself. In a stratified society lacking lots of social mobility, the rich need only self-interestedly care about the rich, and the non-rich need only self-interestedly care about the non-rich. Unless things get so unbalanced that social mobility becomes an issue again (for example, the rich may self-interestedly care about the non-rich if the non-rich are so disenfranchised that they threaten to tear down the rich).

[Admiral Yi]

No, that's not quite it. First, just to clarify, according status to people is not synonymous with holding them in high esteem. It's simply ascribing a place to them. It's something we always do as humans, because we want to know where we stand in our groups. Status can be high, low, rigid, or flexible, decreed by law, or awarded by social interaction. There has been multiple ways to accord status to people in human history: caste, nobility, law, prowess, whatever. It doesn't have to be fueled by envy: in many societies, status is simply granted as a matter of birth. 

Not so in democratic societies, where status is never asserted in law. So there is an inherent tension in democracy between the refusal to distinguish classes of citizens in law, and the obvious considerable privileges (and social consideration) that wealth affords. On the one hand, we aspire to be considered equal in dignity - but the sorts of interaction when this equality is forcefully asserted are rare. On the other hand, we know we live in an unequal society, in which the pursuit of wealth is highly valued, as one of the most powerful, legitimate way to create distinction - and these material comparisons are easier to perform daily. In other egalitarian societies in history, that tension is reduced through enforced redistribution, and the valuation of other forms of engagement - like warrior prowess. The specific form of desire to rise to the level of war heroes is usually called "emulation".

That is why I think your stance is contradictory. The active (and insatiable) pursuit of wealth (which you value) continuously creates social distinctions that go against the fundamental egalitarian principle at the heart of democracy. The more wealth creates distinction, and the more that distinction creates a gulf between citizens, the more envy of that status you will create - if only because we all aspire to some form of dignity and recognition. So, it's not envy in the sense that I desire a Porsche for the Porsche's amazing qualities. I desire the Porsche because I see the reaction it produces, and the signal it sends. All of publicity is aimed at stoking this desire.

It's a fundamental tension in our weird version of an egalitarian society, and historically, people who argued that others should be content with their lot in life were either usually enemies of democracy, or were arguing for a much more demanding form of republican virtue (and wealth redistribution) than you are ready to support, I believe. The other option is to ask everyone to be indifferent to their fellow citizens - and I highly suspect such indifference creates in fact, more greed than it eliminates. See: Mono.

This I think is the flaw in your argument.  As mentioned by dps, wealth does not create universal distinction.  Not everyone toadies to wealth.  And not everyone who does toady to wealth does so out of a belief in the superiority of the wealth holder.  Many do  so out of a profit motive.  The salesman, the university president, the fund raiser, the maitre d', just to name a few.  And those that desire the same status do not necessarily have to feel envy.  It's perfectly possible to desire one type or another of achievement without envying those who have already attained that achievement.

Envy is a choice, not a inescapable outcome.

[crazy canuck]

That is a great post Oex.  Reading your thoughtful comments is one of the things that keeps me coming back. 

It got me thinking about the concept that a liberal democratic society does not assert status through force of law.  This is the ideal, and that is certainly the principle that was the foundation of my legal training which stressed the importance of the Rule of Law.  But over the last few decades liberal democracies have accorded differing status to individuals based on the characteristics of the group to which they may belong.  It has been done for, in my view, laudable reasons, and in part to mitigate the power imbalances which occur in a society where economic benefits and opportunities are not equally open to all. 

And so there is a paradox, in order to try to achieve the closest approximation of treating everyone equally under the Rule of Law, we necessarily need to create protections for some but not all.

I think that is the main weakness with Yi's argument.  If we were all engaged in the war of all against all to attain status, we would not be concerned about the conceptions of fairness for all under the Rule of Law.

There exists a strictly self-interested reason to want fairness for all under the Rule of Law: it is that only a system that provides fairness for all under the Rule of Law can ensure fairness for me, no matter what may happen to me in terms of status.

Other systems are better for me if I happen to be at the top (or the bottom) of the hierarchy of status; but only the Rule of Law can provide fairness if my status is subject to change ...

This is one reason, I think, a system in which social inequalities are subject to a lot of variation over one's lifetime and between generations is more compatible with support for the Rule of Law: if your status becomes entrenched, you no longer have to consider in a self-interested manner the question of justice for all, because you know you, or your children, will not fall in a higher or lower class than yourself. In a stratified society lacking lots of social mobility, the rich need only self-interestedly care about the rich, and the non-rich need only self-interestedly care about the non-rich. Unless things get so unbalanced that social mobility becomes an issue again (for example, the rich may self-interestedly care about the non-rich if the non-rich are so disenfranchised that they threaten to tear down the rich).

Sure, that is often a defence of the Rule of Law and the need for an economic system that allows for social mobility.  But there is also a moral position to take rather than assuming everyone thinks in mercenary terms of the horrible hypothetical of an individual or their own family falling on bad times.  Some people simple prefer a just society because it is the most beneficial for all.  Although I recognize we are mostly (if not entirely) saying the same thing. 

[Oexmelin]

Envy is a choice, not a inescapable outcome.

Of course. Nothing is inescapable. But we are talking about social dynamics, not about choice. Not every rich person is greedy either. But just like greed is a choice that is being heavily encouraged, envy is a choice that is being actively stoked. Envy doesn't necessarily mean toadying to the wealthy, but it does afford one considerably more social attention - whether or not that attention is genuine or self-interested is irrelevant, because it remains murky. I can indeed be envious of what you are able to do with your vast wealth without necessarily think you should be treated differently - but the world will do its utmost to prove me wrong... To prevent wealth from exacting that sort of pressure, you need to have strong egalitarian alternatives, or strong alternative markers of social worth. Tocqueville praised community and civic organization as being capable of doing just that. Which one of these remain?

[Admiral Yi]

"In a world based on greed, you have to celebrate envy."

That's not inescapable?

[Malthus]

Sure, that is often a defence of the Rule of Law and the need for an economic system that allows for social mobility.  But there is also a moral position to take rather than assuming everyone thinks in mercenary terms of the horrible hypothetical of an individual or their own family falling on bad times.  Some people simple prefer a just society because it is the most beneficial for all.  Although I recognize we are mostly (if not entirely) saying the same thing.

Yup. There are more than one routes to the same conclusion: a moral position, that fairness is a positive good, can lead to the same place as a motive based on pure self-interest.

As an aside, it is interesting that one of the seven so-called "Noahide laws", the basic laws of morality that Jewish philosophy insists apply universally to Jews and non-Jews alike, is basically the establishment of the Rule of Law: "to establish courts of justice". It is, in fact, the only positive law; the rest are all prohibitions (no murder, no theft, etc.)

[fromtia]

As I drift close and closer to my fifties, full blown curmudgeonhood seems to be inevitable. I have embraced it, surrendered to it. I find this thread irresistible then.

1. In US comic books the decision by the big two, Marvel and DC to abandon cheap newsprint comics and broad distribution and focus on "collectors" and expensive paper, printing and specialist comic book stores in the early and mid nineties. I have to grudgingly admit however, that creatively English speaking comics are currently experiencing a golden age. It's not happening at Marvel and DC though. Grrr.

2. In British comics its when 2000ad moved from black and white to color. Or colour. That was 1989 or thereabouts. Pfffft.

3. I'd tentatively like to add the introduction of the term "graphic novel" by publishers marketing people in the early eighties. It's amazing to me that people are still using this term. Still grovelling for approval. Poltroons.

4. The arrival of earpieces in professional cycling in about 1993 or 1994. Ruined everything. Individual riders no longer needed tactical nous and mastery of reading fast changing situations, an omniscient voice in their ear turned the sport into a trial of strength only. Bah!

5. The move away from a more social democratic model to a more Capital is unfettered model in the 1970's in the UK and the US and elsewhere to a lesser extent. I liked the world better before the tax revolt of the very rich. Job creators my ass.

6. The new Ford Ranger. Jesus fucking christ who is responsible for this monstrosity. Lets take the name of a beloved North American automotive masterpiece, a small truck of endless appeal, affordability , repairability and robustness, a utility for the common man and attach it to an overpriced "feature packed" SUV with a three foot truck bed bolted onto it. Kill me.

7. Could probably go on with this list, but I have to get ready for work.

[mongers]

As I drift close and closer to my fifties, full blown curmudgeonhood seems to be inevitable. I have embraced it, surrendered to it. I find this thread irresistible then.

1. In US comic books the decision by the big two, Marvel and DC to abandon cheap newsprint comics and broad distribution and focus on "collectors" and expensive paper, printing and specialist comic book stores in the early and mid nineties. I have to grudgingly admit however, that creatively English speaking comics are currently experiencing a golden age. It's not happening at Marvel and DC though. Grrr.

2. In British comics its when 2000ad moved from black and white to color. Or colour. That was 1989 or thereabouts. Pfffft.

3. I'd tentatively like to add the introduction of the term "graphic novel" by publishers marketing people in the early eighties. It's amazing to me that people are still using this term. Still grovelling for approval. Poltroons.

4. The arrival of earpieces in professional cycling in about 1993 or 1994. Ruined everything. Individual riders no longer needed tactical nous and mastery of reading fast changing situations, an omniscient voice in their ear turned the sport into a trial of strength only. Bah!

5. The move away from a more social democratic model to a more Capital is unfettered model in the 1970's in the UK and the US and elsewhere to a lesser extent. I liked the world better before the tax revolt of the very rich. Job creators my ass.

6. The new Ford Ranger. Jesus fucking christ who is responsible for this monstrosity. Lets take the name of a beloved North American automotive masterpiece, a small truck of endless appeal, affordability , repairability and robustness, a utility for the common man and attach it to an overpriced "feature packed" SUV with a three foot truck bed bolted onto it. Kill me.

7. Could probably go on with this list, but I have to get ready for work.

Excellent points there Formtia.

Your curmudgeonardlyness has developed nicely. 

[Eddie Teach]

I prefer blockbuster movies with hundred million dollar budgets to drawings, so I think comics are doing pretty well.