Chaos is a ladder

[Tamas]

The lack of grand narrative is a comforting thought but which societies right now benefit from grand narratives? Russia, China, Hungary? Hardly success stories or desirable places.

And if we mean things like Cold War era USA as a place with a grand narrative then I am really not sure the country was as calm and uncertain about its own future as that would made it out to be. Certainly not from the moment the status quo elites lost their grip on the cultural narrative (so say 60s).

[Sheilbh]

The lack of grand narrative is a comforting thought but which societies right now benefit from grand narratives? Russia, China, Hungary? Hardly success stories or desirable places.

And if we mean things like Cold War era USA as a place with a grand narrative then I am really not sure the country was as calm and uncertain about its own future as that would made it out to be. Certainly not from the moment the status quo elites lost their grip on the cultural narrative (so say 60s).

So I think maybe metanarrative is better than grand narrative. It's a way of interpreting and understanding the world - a narrative of the various disparate narratives happening in a society. I think "grand narrative" maybe gives the national glory spin of that (and that is an example - one that Macron mentions) - but, as I say, progress is a metanarrative, the Enlightenment is.

I'm not sure that any societies have metanarratives that are still around and widely believed. I think post-modernism describes a lot of the world's societies. I'd argue the opposite, that Russia and Hungary are the examples of extreme post-modern societies (if you're an authoritarian society you don't really need the metanarrative as much to get collective action because you're comfortable with coercing people).

But you're right, maybe China, maybe India - they spring to mind but even there (and I'm no expert) they don't seem modernist.

I don't think it's about calmness or certainty or even consensus. Politics in a democratic society will and should be contentious. In America it has a tendency to be very fractious and often violent. But I think it is about agency and that we are, collectively, able to act - the grand hero, voyage, goals, perils and dangers. As Macron puts it that sense of political heroism rather than the current political helplessness/nothing mattersness.

[Jacob]

But then that just sounds like the old discussion of do voters just need happy, believable lies.

That's a cynical framing that, IMO, misses some of the point.

I think people in general need - or strongly prefer - having something to believe in and being part of a collective identity (typically more than one collective identity, in fact). Those beliefs and identities can be deliberately constructed or not, and can be more or less truthful. It doesn't have to be "happy, believable lies" - but if nothing else is on offer, then that need may well be filled by such.

[garbon]

As Macron puts it that sense of political heroism rather than the current political helplessness/nothing mattersness.

Are those the only options though? It feels like something similar to when religious people, well I've only personally observed with Christians, question how a person can be moral without religion. Do we need something overarching that is easy to poke holes in?

[garbon]

But then that just sounds like the old discussion of do voters just need happy, believable lies.

That's a cynical framing that, IMO, misses some of the point.

I think people in general need - or strongly prefer - having something to believe in and being part of a collective identity (typically more than one collective identity, in fact). Those beliefs and identities can be deliberately constructed or not, and can be more or less truthful. It doesn't have to be "happy, believable lies" - but if nothing else is on offer, then that need may well be filled by such.

Can you give me an example then of something that would fit in our current era as an animating drive not reliant on fabrications? It feels like Sheilbh has been arguing there is an absence or shortage of such ideals.

My brain immediately thinks about the ideals espoused in Brexit and in Scottish independence and both definitely covered themselves in lies.

[Sheilbh]

Are those the only options though? It feels like something similar to when religious people, well I've only personally observed with Christians, question how a person can be moral without religion. Do we need something overarching that is easy to poke holes in?

I think authoritarianism is an alternative. As I say I think Putin's Russia is a post-modern society to an extreme. I think technocracy is another alternative (legitimated in one way or another).

I think there is a technology angle there too - I've always liked the view that nationalism and nations are a product of the emergence of print capitalism. We're at the end of that shared print/media experience, there is no mass media it is individual not social. It is curated, selected (by you or the algorithm). But I don't know yet - and I think this is part of the moment we're living in - what the democratic alternative is to a shared metanarrative or heuristic for interpreting the world (I'm sure there is one - and I don't think we can toothpaste back in the tube). It may be a more online constant democracy, it may be some form of consultative democracy. But I think the end of those shared metanarratives and the end of the political parties which were the tools to make them happen - and, fundamentally, perhaps, the end of the "masses" is part of the challenge for the West.

There is the never-ending conversation about a European demos - does the EU need a demos, does it matter that there isn't one, is that a precondition for a truly integrated Europe. And what I also wonder is whether there is still an American demos - and I'm less sure that there is than for most European countries, largely because of covid. The extent to which in most of Europe a consensus, a metanarrative built, held and shaped behaviour for most people really struck me; and the extent to which that didn't happen and that it collapsed almost immediately in the US also struck me.

Of course it may be one of those alternatives that I think currently exist, it may be something new - but it also could be that things kind of break down.

Edit:

Can you give me an example then of something that would fit in our current era as an animating drive not reliant on fabrications? It feels like Sheilbh has been arguing there is an absence or shortage of such ideals.

Not just that there is lack, but that such ideals are not possible in our society anymore. That we are post-modern, that we are incredulous by default (in one way or another - from "that fucking nerd" to "liar") of that type of ideal.

[Admiral Yi]

Two thoughts.

One is simply that if you want people to not vote for the burn it all down candidates then it needs to work for them and be seen to work. I think the last twenty five years we've had two failed wars and a financial crisis with a very slow recovery (plus a massive bailout of the institutions that caused the crash and, I think, one conviction). The mystery of an Obama to Trump voter doesn't seem that inexplicable to me. So I'd say it's less how to "deprogram" and how to earn back credibility or trust - especially when there will be political entrepreneurs out to capitalise on that desire for inchoate change.

I'd add from a European perspective you expand this of one and a bit failed wars (depending on who joined in in Iraq), the financial crisis, austerity, tighter energy relations with Russia, deepening economic dependence on China. That's the context that's fueled populism. All of those failed policies and the consequences we're still dealing with is not the legacy of the populists, but of Blair, Cameron, Merkel, Sarko, Obama etc. Looking at the record of our recent "mainstream"/"establishment", whatever you want to call them leaders, and wonder how you don't want to burn it all down.

The other is maybe more Euro - but I think it's true in the US too - is something Macron said a few years ago about post-modernism which I think is part of what's going on in the US right especially. It's the sort of thing that only a French President could say, but I think he's right (I'm not sure he's achieved it, but he's tried - I'm not sure if it's possible to achieve, but I feel like it's possibly necessary):

How does one establish trust and credibility with people who think that the Democrats are running a pedophile sex ring out of a Bethesda pizza joint, or that climate scientists are faking data to enrich themselves, or that the illuminati run the world?

[Grey Fox]

The answer to all your questions is money

[Josquius]

[]

How does one establish trust and credibility with people who think that the Democrats are running a pedophile sex ring out of a Bethesda pizza joint, or that climate scientists are faking data to enrich themselves, or that the illuminati run the world?

There's lots of stuff out there with the accounts of people who escaped extremism.
Actually getting to know people from the group they demonise is a common factor across them iirc.

But generally it is a prevention is better than cure issue.
One big thing that could help is more mixing of different races, religions, and wealth levels from an early age.
The UK isn't exactly great with this but the US takes it to another level.

[garbon]

One big thing that could help is more mixing of different races, religions, and wealth levels from an early age.
The UK isn't exactly great with this but the US takes it to another level.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/11/04/mixed-race-neighborhoods/

How mixed-race neighborhoods quietly became the norm in the U.S.
November 4, 2022 at 6:00 a.m. EDT

Deep in the bowels of the nation's 2020 Census lurks a quiet milestone: For the first time in modern American history, most White people live in mixed-race neighborhoods.

This marks a tectonic shift from just a generation ago.

Back in 1990, 78 percent of White people lived in predominantly White neighborhoods, where at least 4 of every 5 people were also White. In the 2020 Census, that's plunged to 44 percent.

...

More broadly, a new majority of all Americans, 56 percent, now live in mixed neighborhoods where neither White people nor non-Whites predominate — double the figure that lived in mixed neighborhoods in 1990, according to a Washington Post analysis of census data. By racial group, 56 percent of White Americans live in mixed neighborhoods, as do 55 percent of Hispanic Americans, 57 percent of Black people and 70 percent of Asian people.

...

To highlight the changing circumstances of White Americans, we're using a conservative definition of mixed. Here it means that no single race, or even all non-Whites together, make up 80 percent of the neighborhood population. A more traditional measure of diversity, which treats each racial group separately, finds similar trends and rankings, albeit at slightly different levels.

...

[garbon]

https://theconversation.com/census-data-shows-england-and-wales-are-more-ethnically-diverse-and-less-segregated-than-ever-before-197156

...

Ethnic diversity is increasing
In population studies, to compare levels of ethnic diversity between places and over time, we can use the reciprocal diversity index (RDI), with scores ranging from zero (one ethnic group only in an area) to 100 (equal share of all ethnic groups). Our findings show that ethnic diversity in England and Wales has steadily increased: from 2.02 in 2001, to 3.56 in 2011, to 5.14 in 2021.

Reciprocal diversity index (RDI) scores across neighbourhoods in England and Wales for 2021:

[Josquius]

That's good from the US.
In the UK it's a very localised problem to some areas. In most not too much of an issue - though there is the old famous map of ukip support vs immigrant numbers, being complete opposites.
Race is the least of the issues though. Wealth segregation is a much bigger one.
The ONS had a report not too long ago that mapped that out really well and showed a decent correlation between a place overall doing poorly and wealth segregation. Lots of other evidence towards this being a bad thing too.
Of course in terms of extremism it then raises the question if it's just the place doing well that quashes this or if the factors behind that also lead to sensible politics.

[Eddie Teach]

Michael Bang Petersen, who is based in Denmark

Enough with the fucking "based" crap.

🗿


This is rather a depressing topic, but I did get a good chuckle seeing Josq blame cars. 

[Josquius]

Michael Bang Petersen, who is based in Denmark

Enough with the fucking "based" crap.

🗿


This is rather a depressing topic, but I did get a good chuckle seeing Josq blame cars. 

.
The decline of social cohesion is core to the issue

[Sheilbh]

I think North America's about 10-20 years ahead of Britain on most of this. But I think those census map/comparison is in part just a reflection that America is far more diverse than the UK - the US is under 60% white, while England is about 80% (and the most diverse bit of the UK - but also the Scottish census numbers aren't out I don't think). At a neighbourhood level though it's a bit of a more mixed picture in terms of how mixed neighbourhoods are:


So I think the UK is a lot less diverse but within that, with a few exceptions (like Leicester, Bradford etc) more mixed (perhaps because it's smaller/less diverse).

How does one establish trust and credibility with people who think that the Democrats are running a pedophile sex ring out of a Bethesda pizza joint, or that climate scientists are faking data to enrich themselves, or that the illuminati run the world?

No idea - how do you deprogram them?

I think you can view it either psychologically/pathologically or politically. My theory is basically political - that it's a symptom of wider factors and social trends that have together de-legitimised our political system (wars based on lies, no accountability for a global financial crash). So I think you respond politically - by delivering to re-build trust and legitimacy in those institutions (to the extent that's possible - and I think it's possible that other social trends mean it's not). If you remove that underlying cause the morbid symptoms will diminish.

I fully accept that could be absolutely wrong - I think it's very difficult in the US where one side political benefits from continued failure (and, as I say, I can't think of an example in a spiral like the US that corrects course). But I think it's more plausible or possible to do in a democratic society than any solution if the psychological/pathological interpretation is correct.