Christmas 2017 - the Big Crack
Time again for my one annual tradition; making a postage-stamp sized pixel drawing of Santa Claus's Christmas eve. In this years installment Santa takes the sleigh up high to get a better view, a birds eye view of the world and its sufferance. Here he sees that the world, the US at least, has a giant crack right down the middle. Like an egg.
Santa encounters the Big Crack
There are other things going on, of course, there are hurricanes lurking about in the mid Atlantic (which has seized a Christmas tree from somewhere and is whirling it around and one just off wronged Puerto Rico -- waiting for an inopportune moment to pounce again. Elsewhere an F-18 is busy chasing a mysterious UFO away from the SoCal Op area. Still the crack, a massive rending of the world, is likely the most notable matter.
The crack can only visible from a certain altitude - a certain perspective. Up close it cannot be seen, it mostly disappears. A miasma hides it from those near it. Although the rift can be sensed in all its heat and latent violence. It is a wide and terrible tear with roiling lava flowing within. Possibly its related to the super volcano supposedly located somewhere in the west. This much in unclear.
From this calamity, the future recedes. This refers to From Nils Gilman's essay on the concept of the Official Future The Official Future Is Dead! Long Live the Official Future! - The American Interest. The Official Future is the near future that can be imagined as an extension of the present adjusting from experience of the near past. It is the world that people plan to live it and have organized their present for. It is critical psychologically that it can be imagined. But occasionally the world and our leaders fail to establish the narrative of what we are moving towards. The "range of potential "outcomes"" and possibilities available to us. Then the common view vanishes. It cannot be discerned what things of value can be worked for or attained; for oneself or ones family. Competition and resentment of fellow citizens (increasingly denying them even that) fill the void.
[A note: I have not read this piece beyond deck and lead. The American Interest comports itself behind a pay wall and then embargoes its articles for nine months - even from Ebsco host!]
Against this backdrop there is only civil de-evolvement, a thinning cohesiveness of the social fabric.
Now it happens that Santa is a big fan of the TV show This Old House and already has some ideas involving clamps and glues that he can come back with after boxing day to repair things. You see that he has left one wood clamp already as an emergency measure. Until he can get hold of Norm Abram and Tom Silva, or perhaps Richard Trethewey. At the same time Santa is aware it *may* take a little more.
I personally am not a Kumbaya guy by nature. Not given to placing too much weight on the hopey changey aspect of things. We can get along, but people even within a single country, society and culture will never see exactly eye to eye. Factions and difference will come into being where none truly exist. It is how we process our world and affairs.
I have a nominal belief in government. I emphasize a belief in one composed of the people it governs. It is simply a system of organized agreement. I see libertarians, anarchists,your occasional anarcho-syndicalist, and others all disparage government: utterly. It being so obvious to them that some automatic magic will replace it. I see authoritarians, and plutocrats happily establishing a rudimentary government well below their level of command. More than content to sow distrust among the people.
Governance and Laws culled and extracted from reasoned and disinterested theory and from experience formed within a balanced society a second nature of behavior which over time (much time) as we live within it will merge with our first, our "human nature", and form a third inclusive nature, Suitable to reach to a further millennium.
Saturday, 23 December 2017 11:30 EST #
Arkham House
After the election like many other people I thought things will yet be alright: this is a vibrant and healthy democracy we are a nation not of low men but of laws and the institutions they are embedded in. Following that; though, I decided I ought to check on this. Too quickly I learned that in general norms and institutions are a thin shield against authoritarian intent. In an hierarchical society, hierarchy is everything. If not immediately then soon. I set this piece of writing aside to spend some time reading, and listening. A year later I'm completing this, really just that I can go on and think about other things. The post title Arkham house was originally just a working title, I have no heart to change it now.Some of the links will be a little old, but then some of the first articles after the election were some of the best. I had a hard writing this because nothing in my experience prepared me for this level of historic difference seen in politics today. There are undercurrents of real change in the water and I did not understand them.
There is a line of thought that the current administration is only aspirationaly authoritarian and so not a present danger, even not a danger at all. Though there areconstant transgressions; deliberate but incompetent. The executive branch and their congressional allies imagine they are akin to silicon valley disruptors: "Go fast and break things." Daily there is pushing, testing - seemingly random, but pushing resources & power towards a common point. It may be only a matter of time and finding the right levers for them to achieve radical success.
The end vision of this modern republican party, here I make a slight differentiation between the operating class and the rank-and-file, is what is called Kleptocracy. A ruling regime that conducts governance essentially in support of only themselves. A soaking up of the wealth of a nation in a manner not ordinarily distinguishable from raw theft. But under the protection of laws and processes they enact. It is the governance of corrupt nations, self-dealing and rent-seeking. It is described well in such dis-utopiac novels as William Gibson's "the Peripheral", where I first encountered the term. The term has existed for years often used by libertarians to describe all government. Gibson's near-future novels emphasize the special disdain for the common individual that is inherent in such systems.
What made this post go off the rails from the the start was looking for information on norms and institutions. I found a suitable foundational definition in a old sociology text book I had lying around, which I reproduce here:
"Over time members of each society create patterns of thought and action that provide a appropriate solution for these recurrent challenges. These patterns of behavior are what sociologists calls institutions. An institution is a stable cluster values norms status roles and groups that developed around a basic social need. [see fig 4.4] Family : Education : Religion : Science : Political system : Economic system : medical system : Legal system : Military : Sport.] One important characteristic of institutions is that they are conservative (i.e. reinforced by custom and tradition to the point where they accepted almost without question). A second characteristic is that they are closely linked within the social structure. A third characteristic is that when they do change they rarely do so in isolation." Robertson, Ian. Sociology. 2ND Ed. New York, N.Y.: Worth Publishers, 1981.
The Wikipedia entry on norms says much the same thing in its initial paragraphs
"Institutions are "stable, valued, recurring patterns of behavior".[1:Huntington 1965, p. 394.] As structures or mechanisms of social order, they govern the behavior of a set of individuals within a given community. Institutions are identified with a social purpose, transcending individuals and intentions by mediating the rules that govern living behavior.[2:"Social Institutions". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 30 January 2015.]". Institution - Wikipedia
To Robertson's list Wikipedia adds as institutions: "Research Community, Police Forces, Mass Media, Industry-business-corporations, Civil Society (NGOs), also Art & Culture, Language." In both cases these lists are of institution functional types.
In addition to this varieties of institutions they can also be considered by their relation to norms {definition]. and by their nature as Formal: grounded in law and in particular agencies and organizations of government. Somewhat more dependent and fragile for that. Or informal grounded in custom (no less determinant on behavior for that), uncontrolled in diffuse organizations, groups, and practices.
After the election people weighed in with various particular advices across the media. Among the best were those with practical experience in in contending with and understanding authoritarian governance such as Masha Gessen -- Autocracy: Rules for Survival | by Masha Gessen | NYR Daily | The New York Review of Books: Her rules are (deceptively) simple 1. Believe the autocrat 2. Don't be fooled by "normality" signs 3. Institutions won't save you 4. Be outraged 5. Don't compromise 6. Remember the future. {something needs to be said here or at end of this section about no. 3}. I'll add Ms Gessen, who grew up in Russia gave a talk where I work, the University of Maryland's McKeldin Library, a few years ago (on 20 April 2015).
Zeynep Tufekci, professor of sociology at UNC, was quick off the marks as well tweeting @zeynep 4h4 hours ago) Hold on to institutions with an ethos of truth in spite of their failings which we must work to fix or watch nihilism consume them, and us.. Originally from Turkey She has also has first hand experience with the ways and means of authoritarian figures and governments. She was teaching at UMBC in the University of Maryland system when I first began reading her old web log Technosociology .
Jamelle Bouie, Slate's political editor, started a Newsletter for more informal and positional writing in mid November in addition to his lively twitter feed. He suggested several organizations embodying institutional practice with were worthy of support in these days. He also pointed to Jesse Jackson campaign presidential as example. Post identity (politics) is not the problem as much as understanding there are shared concerns across identities "the experience of class is inextricably bound up with identity." Explicitly he is saying Jackson's message is more adept and nuanced that Sanders'. At lot more has been written by many people on this since.
Ezra Klein had a video on institutional temperance up on Vox immediately after the election. quaintly optimistic now. It was embedded in various VOX pages at the time, and can be found on their You Tube Channel now It’s now on America’s institutions – and Republicans – to check Donald Trump
The Washington Post had a article on Hannah Arendt: How Hannah Arendt’s classic work on totalitarianism illuminates today’s America - The Washington Post: two quotes from that will illustrate its points:
The lesson: Freedom is fragile, and when demagogues speak, and others start following them, it is wise to pay attention.
A subtheme of “Origins” is that by the 1930s, there was throughout Europe a generalized crisis of legitimacy. Large numbers of people felt dispossessed, disenfranchised, disconnected from dominant social institutions.
The Lawfare weblog had a post Will the Bureaucracy Save Us from the President? - Lawfare on the potentially grounding nature of the bureaucracy and another, focused on serving in a Government's bureaucracy under Authoritarianism How to Serve in a Trump Administration - Lawfare. The high viscosity of the Federal Bureaucracy alone will make it hard to use as a tool of opportunistic aggrandizment. Moreover the Executive Branch bureaucracy (i.e. national security apparatus) can be a partner, a first line defense, but not sole constraint on a executive without respect for norms of office. Largely by the gravity of the work and the scrupulous nature of those who make careers in it. They can write legal analysis and justifications, and include redlines (which the National Security Bureaucracy is traditional loathe to do), have the author/ lawyers sign them have supervisors sign off, and publish them. Push informal norms towards the formal.
Perhaps the critical factor to confront in the coming years is the new populism or rather the racial essentialism of the 2016 election and this administration. Not every Trump voter may have been a racist, but racism was not a deal breaker for any of them. The White Working Class as it's conjectured defected to GOP years ago The 3 different things we talk about when we talk about “Trump voters” - Vox:. Obama's inroads into educated middle class whites made Democrats think with centrist status-quo candidates they could peel off large segment of white voters against a non-traditional Republican candidate. It was not the case. Contending with a resurgent white supremacy that will tell you quite plainly it has no interest in sharing power, will be topic number one for some time to come.
Another populism of sorts is seen in the return of the age of empires and spheres of influence Donald Trump Is Declaring Bankruptcy on the Post-War World Order | Foreign Policy. Putinism and revanchist novo Russia. A variant of the Beijing consensus. The behavior of relentless controlling nations -- a quasi-romantic fixation on powerful "big" men can set a low tone for all nations. There is also within the US the curious populism of billionaires. An entire curious cabinet of them. It is a administration extracted directly from the plutocracy. As well with any position even vaguely associated with national security handed over to Generals, retired or active duty regardless. The whole affair is an Oligarch's fantasy. At the time watching it being assembled I was reminded of the Anatoly Dneprov short story Crabs take over the Island if anyone remembers that.
The pushback against the dissolution of norms as it developed was at end around constructions of reality. The principle question is there an objective truth (in the political realm) beyond affinity tribalism & emotion? Everything became a matter of facts versus feeling. The hierarchical organization offered to a head of state combined with unrestrained authoritarianism can (easily) allow a given subjective view to be the reality observed within a dependent society. It can be as simple (Zeynep Tufecki) as offering a simple narrative in place of a complicated muddled, or simply unrewarding one.
This push back such as it exists will not include much of the media. Most if not all institutions of the media (I'll say Journalism plus social media platforms) will accommodate themselves fast enough. Many in the elite media will shown themselves to actively favor plutocracy authoritarianism. A significant portion of the plan from the administration and their partners on the right revolves around a profound rolling back of voting rights for minorities and successfully casting groups like Black Lives Matter as outsiders and enemies of the people.
There are the massive conflicts of interest, the warping of policy by active business dealings and insistence on exemption of the examination of it. The waving off of strictures of the Emoluments clause and the coming crisis that this represents. The moral bankruptcy of the republicans that refuse to see any problem with it Why Conservatives Missed Why Republicans Like Trump: This is the pointed hypocrisy of a republican caucus who will accept all degradation in return for a legislative program no conventional politician could have campaigned on or pushed through . This will equal the eradication of mid and lower middle class into working class the bulk of which will be de-franchised on explicitly racial grounds, and the liberation of the wealthy -- capital holding class (1%) -- from legal or moral constraints of the state. An article from 2014 which I read in October or November last year Nils Gilman's The Twin Insurgency - The American Interest: The postmodern state is under siege from plutocrats and criminals who unknowingly compound each other’s insidiousness has been circulating on twitter much recently as is well worth reading.
Which institutions which norms will resist attacks on our open society? What part Government? The answer to that is likely to be different institutions at different times. First looking at the Formal and inside the hierarchy -- the Layers of government and sources of authority. Here I mean the particular layers (institutions) of government i.e. The Executive Office, Federal Bureaucracy, Legislature, Judiciary, Supreme Court, Governorships State legislatures, municipalities. All offer varying stops to the pressure of the executive itself. There are numerous less formal more independent nexuses of normative authority, organized religious bodies being the foremost. In addition to these there are external and international organizations (NGOs) operating in bureaucratic fashion authority with state imprinter. Any body where tradition and organization are intertwined is really a source of societal norms. Emphasizing the third characteristic from Robertson's book mentioned in the first section when norms embedded in institutions change they tend to change in chain. Our rule of Law and separation of powers is, at end. no more than a polite fiction a delicate artifact waiting to be broken. A hard attack by an unconcerned individual or group would collapse it quickly leaving only the revealed totality of power (This was the essential point from my previous post, now from last year).
The more detailed and structured a norm is the more fragile and likely it is to dissolve. Between formal and informal institutions. I would put more trust in informal because of their disconnected and distributed nature. Formal institutions especially institutions that are of or related to the state are too connected to the conventional wisdom, and power networks of the moment. They absorb regime dominance. Their hierarchical nature means it is easy to break from the top any resisting nodes. No regime truly has a separation of powers when interests align. Informal institutions, ones that are removed from the formal mechanisms of the state are more likely to hold on their values, particularly when in some fashion those institutions embody certain value norms intrinsic to functioning balanced society: One suggestion I kept seeing over and over agin was to hold on the the norm of basic fairness. To focus on justice the legitimacy of an honest deal Forget What Is Normal, Champion What Is Just - The Atlantic:. Integrity of individual people and reputations, their lifelong reservoir of values. Likewise Institutional effectiveness seems to depend on the quality of the individual institution and their group norms. As the band the Dream Syndicate once sang "there's never been a man who's been more than bones in a sack and it doesn't take much to hold the possibilities back."
I've never spent much time in the athlete world, being short and light narrows the the field somewhat (I once sprained a shoulder playing the CIC of the USS Long Beach in a game of touch football -- couldn't raise my arm for the entire at sea period) But I've thought a lot about sport this last year. Its (1) rule based and (2) fair play is its very beginning and end. The object is a successful outcome within a system of play. A game is not war or anarchy. (3) The notion of sporting contains condemnation of rule breakers, it is (4) a celebration of human excellence. Lastly (5) there is contained within it an acknowledgement that sport/games represent an aspiration notion of ideal human interaction. To me then, sport and athletic games form an accessible ground-norm that everyone can understand. Liars, cheaters and the churlish will end outside the game. People without quality do not deserve an audience.
Thursday, 21 December 2017 11:00 EST #
