Then & NowAn analysis of Friedrich Nietzsche’s first essay, ‘Good and Evil, Good and Bad’ in On the Genealogy of Morality. I look a the key concepts in the text: master morality, slave morality, ressentiment, the blond beast of prey. I also look a this essay in context with a few of Nietzsche’s other ideas, like the Ubermensch, and Beyond Good and Evil.
Nietzsche Introduction: On the Genealogy of Morality (essay 1)Then & Now2018-10-03 | An analysis of Friedrich Nietzsche’s first essay, ‘Good and Evil, Good and Bad’ in On the Genealogy of Morality. I look a the key concepts in the text: master morality, slave morality, ressentiment, the blond beast of prey. I also look a this essay in context with a few of Nietzsche’s other ideas, like the Ubermensch, and Beyond Good and Evil.
Stock footage provided by Videvo, downloaded from videvo.net
I Should Have Been More Human by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0The Big Problem With StoicismThen & Now2023-03-21 | I look at the current trend of Stoicism through the lens of Ryan Holiday's Daily Stoic, and more broadly through the Ancient Stoic philosophers, and ask, is it really a useful guide to life today?
00:00 – Introduction to Stoicism 02:40 – The Splitting of the World 09:48 – The Fleeting Life & The Tragedy of Rome 17:41 - The Gods of Fate 25:13 - The Miserably Wise Emperor King 28:53 - Hurting Nieztsche's Feelings 37:04 - Rage, Rage Against the Dying Light 43:41 - Why Stoicism Today?
Jenny Odell, How to Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy James Williams, Stand Out of Our Light: Freedom and Resistance in the Attention Economy Tim Wu, The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads Adam Alter, Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism Mark Andrejevic, Automated Media Brian McCullough, How The Internet Happened: From Netscape to the iPhone
Thumbnail by Peter Cuthbertson instagram.com/peteartsHow the Internet was StolenThen & Now2022-12-20 | I look at the history of the internet, from ARPANET & NSFNET, through privatization, to Tim-Berners Lee, Yahoo, Netscape, Google, eBay, and Facebook, examining Microsoft's antitrust court case and their battle against Open Source and Free Software, Bill Gate's Open Letter to Hobbyists and the leaked Halloween Documents. Then we take a look at the emergence of Surveillance Capitalism, and how platforms like AirBnb & Uber coopt the idea of the community and lobby politicians. Finally, we take a look at some alternatives.
Thank you to @WereInHell @zoe_bee @Tom_Nicholas @epochphilosophy @RadicalReviewer @unlearningeconomics9021 @PoliticalPhilosophyChannel for their help with this video.
00:00 – Introduction to the History of the Internet 04:06 – Building the Net 20:37 – The Browser Wars (Microsoft vs the United States) 44:35 – The Californian Ideology (eBay, Yahoo, Google and the Libertarian Mind) 01:07:26 – The Raiding of Privacy (Surveillance Capitalism) 01:18:05 – Facebook 01:26:07 – The Theft of the Community (Airbnb & Uber) 01:40:31 – No Place (Utopian Dreams) 01:49:38 – Open Source vs Microsoft 01:59:24 – Conclusion: Politics, Policy, and Alternatives
open.spotify.com/show/1Khac2ih0UYUtuIJEWL47zKant: A Complete Guide to ReasonThen & Now2022-09-16 | 00:00 – Immanuel Kant 02:53 – Kant & The Enlightenment 08:00 – Empiricism & The Chaos of the World 15:05 – The Critique of Pure Reason 21:16 – Time & Space (transcendental aesthetic) 27:47 – Ordering the World (the metaphysical deduction) 39:50 – The Transcendental (deduction) 53:57 – Metaphysics of Morals 59:47 – The Categorical Imperative
A look at the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, exploring why his ideas matter, and the context they arose from. It looks at the Critique of Pure Reason and the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of morals, explaining concepts like transcendental idealism and the Categorical Imperative. Born in 1724, he wanted to make us a truly scientific species – he wanted to bring together reason – how we think - and experience – what we see, hear, touch through our senses - on a sure foundation – one that scientific knowledge could be built on.
open.spotify.com/show/1Khac2ih0UYUtuIJEWL47zTucker Carlsons Paranoid MindThen & Now2022-08-15 | I look at Tucker Carlson's conspiracy theory-riddled mind, where it comes from, and why he does it. I draw from Richard Hofstadter's 1964 The Paranoid Style in American Politics, review Carlson's book, Ship of Fools, and look at his Fox News show, the Fedsurrection, Patriot Purge, and the Great Replacement.
0:00 – Trumpism without Trump 03:37 – Tucker Carlson’s History 08:11 – Immigration 25:06 – The Paranoid Style 32:51 – Carlson’s Conspiracies 40:54 – The Mechanics of a Paranoid Mind 46:34 – A Threat to Democracy?
open.spotify.com/show/1Khac2ih0UYUtuIJEWL47zHow Fox News Changed the WorldThen & Now2022-07-25 | A dive into the long history of television news in America to understand what the conditions were that made Fox News’s emergence possible. We look at what Fox’s underlying social, cultural, and philosophical toolkit and formula looks like. What it’s predecessors were (TVN, Roger Ailes’ consultancy, Nixon’s adverts), Reagan’s rolling back of FCC regulation and the fairness doctrine, the stories that made Fox (Lewinsky Scandal, 9/11, Obama, The Tea Party, Trump), and their post-rational, postmodern methods. Finally, how we counter the O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson playbook.
#foxnews
0:00 - Fox News 03:39 - A History of TV News 11:50 - Constructing Nixon 22:09 - A Baby Fox & A King Maker 28:24 - Deregulating the Ideologues 37:06 - Fox News: Fair & Balanced 43:04 - 9/11: The Image of Terror & American Patriots 48:59 - Obama, Birther Movement, & The Fox Party 01:00:31 - Postmodern News 01:03:20 - The Fox News Formula 01:14:04 - A Wider Problem
patreon.com/posts/69337576My Clothes Tell A Story of GreedThen & Now2022-06-27 | I take a look at where some of my clothes come from, explore the fast-fashion phenomenon of brands like Zara, H&M, & Boohoo, see what happened to Levis, think about NAFTA, and dive into the ethics of globalization and supply chains.
patreon.com/posts/our-consumer-67431892Our Consumer SocietyThen & Now2022-06-09 | I explore our consumer society, looking at the history, philosophy, psychology, and sociology of what consumerism really means. Is it a useful concept? Where did it appear from? Are there alternatives? How is the desire that drives consumption manufactured? Are we shallow? Is there any possibility of ethical consumption? To help answer some of these questions I draw from thinkers including Jean Baudrillard, Fredric Jameson, and David Harvey.
Chapters:
0:00 – Our Consumer Society 4:43 – A History of Stuff 14:46 – Shopping for Definitions of Consumerism 17:33 – Let Me Be Your Fantasy (The Production of Desire) 25:52 – Copy Cats (Social Mimicry) 31:50 – Shopping for the Problem 43:49 – Real or Hyperreal? (Jean Baudrillard) 54:56 – Fredric Jameson’s Depthlessness 58:23 – David Harvey’s Postmodern Production 1:03:34 – Are We Shallow? 1:11:10 – Ethical Consumption & it’s Problems
patreon.com/posts/67431892Free Will is PoliticalThen & Now2022-05-24 | Free Will – Our Freedom to choose for ourselves – is at the heart of our sense of being human. How we think about free will effects everything from responsibility and criminal justice to laziness and poverty to seemingly ordinary choices like what I’ll have for dinner.
Free Will is of course the power to select from options, for ourselves, unencumbered, unrestrained, uncaused – to be the author of our own thoughts and actions.
But what does this really mean? Does Free Will really exist? And is it a wider social, cultural, and political concept? Is it really about responsibility? I look at a few philosophers - P.F. Strawson, Spinoza, Plato, Socrates, and more - to explore the concept
open.spotify.com/show/1Khac2ih0UYUtuIJEWL47zHow Nuclear Weapons Changed How We ThinkThen & Now2022-05-10 | Nuclear Weapons changed us. One author said we have a ‘nuclear consciousness’ If so, how specifically did it develop? What shapes did it take? I’ll look at some surprising consequences of the discovery of Nuclear power, how it changed our ideas about fear and irrationalism, about world government and philosophy, how it changed literature and cinema and comics, religion, science, and our idea of progress.
Keith Booker, Monsters, Mushroom Clouds, and the Cold War
Edward Demenchonok, Philosophy After Hiroshima
John Dorsey, Atomic Bomb Literature in Japan and the West
Susanna Lindberg, Technologies of the End of the World, Contemporary Philosophy and ArtPutins Sense of Russian HistoryThen & Now2022-04-25 | A long view on the sense of Russian history that Vladimir Putin has inherited and draws from culturally. Looking at the roots of Russian anti-westernism, its response to Europe during the Enlightenment and Peter and Catherine the Great's modernizing projects. From Rousseau and the influence of the Romanitics through to Dostoevsky, Carl Schmitt's influence, and Ivan Illyin today.
Putin Photo, Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, via Wikimedia CommonsMrBeast: Capitalism & PhilanthropyThen & Now2022-04-04 | A look at the darker side of MrBeast’s philanthropy and the wider philanthrocapitalist model it's a part of. Looking specifically at #teamseas and a partnership with Jennie-O, I attempt to untangle how corporations and conglomerates like Coca-Cola, chemical and oil companies, and big meat monopolies all have a vested interest in financing certain ‘philanthropic’ projects while side-lining others. This is a story that takes some surprising twists and turns, from whitewashing, greenwashing & ‘funwashing’ sponsorships, to illegal price-fixing, an endemic of farmer suicides, and leaked corporate emails to influence charities. Examining the roots and consequences of ‘philanthrocapitalism’ tells us a lot about how lobbying works under modern capitalism. This is a long video, but it’ll be worth it to tell this story properly.
Chapters:
00:00 - MrBeast 03:26 - Preface – American Mythology 07:52 - Chapter 1 – Jimmy the Capitalist 15:12 - Chapter 2 – The Birth of Philanthrocapitalism 27:58 - Chapter 3a – MrBeast’s Philanthropy – Big Meat Conglomerates 39:58 - Chapter 3b – MrBeast’s Philanthropy – #TeamSeas, Coca-cola, etc 52:48 - Chapter 3c – The Clinton Foundation 57:02 - Chapter 4 – Manufacturing Capitalist Mythology 01:09:25 - Chapter 5 – Capitalist Ideology
Michael Sandel, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of the Market.
Heale, M. J. “The Role of the Frontier in Jacksonian Politics: David Crockett and the Myth of the Self-Made Man.” The Western Historical Quarterly
SHARON KETTERING, GIFT-GIVING AND PATRONAGE IN EARLY MODERN FRANCE
Stasja Koot & Robert Fletcher (2019): Popular Philanthrocapitalism? The Potential and Pitfalls of Online Empowerment in “Free” Nature 2.0 Initiatives, Environmental Communication
Anand Giridharadas, Winners Take All
David B. Sachsman and David W. Bulla, ed., Sensationalism: Murder, Mayhem, Mudslinging, Scandals, and Disasters in 19th-Century Reporting
Marianne Bertrand, Matilde Bombardini, Raymond Fisman, Brad Hackinen, Francesco Trebbi, Hall of Mirrors: Corporate Philanthropy and Strategic Advocacy, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 136
slate.com/human-interest/2016/05/shakespeare-s-brilliant-compounds-are-even-better-than-his-word-coinages-you-fen-sucked-vault-courier.htmlOur Age of AngerThen & Now2022-03-11 | Anger, rage, fury: it seems like everywhere we look right now, we see rising temperatures, smoldering resentment, blood boiling, floods of emotion. From Trump to Brexit, Hindu Nationalism to Black Lives Matter, from Hollywood me too to Pandemic Protestors, ISIS to white nationalists, Ukraine to Fox News, to my ongoing conflict with my unreasonably slow computer, it seems, as the historian Pankaj Mishra has argued, like we’re living in an age of anger.
I look at the history and philosophy of anger. What is it? What triggers it? Is it ever good? I look at the Stoics – including Epictetus and Seneca – Aristotle, Christianity, Enlightenment figures like Rousseau, Hume, and Adam Smith, through to modern day anger management psychology. I make some surprising findings about the usefulness of a misunderstood emotion.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Altsasuko_Mahaia_%281978%29.jpg Theklan based on work by ezkerabertzalea.info, CC BY-SA 3.0What We Should Really Fear About RobotsThen & Now2022-02-22 | Robotics, automation, and the information age are going in a strange direction. We look at extended selves, farming drones, Tesla sensors, Facebook and Twitter feeds, Amazon, Tinder, and Deleuze and Guattari's bodies without organs.
Thank you to @epochphilosophy for lending their voice for this video.
If you’ve ever wanted a complete scientific roadmap for how to live, a modern philosophy to go by, a lens through which to understand a complex world, a foundation, the 17th century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza is as good as you'll find. He asked questions like: why are we so dogmatic? What makes us irrational? Why do we live as slaves to our emotions and others opinions.
He was one of the first Enlightenment advocates for real democracy, and was the first to really criticise the bible as just a text. He was vilified for his perceived atheism and excommunicated from the Jewish community where he lived.
I look at Spinoza’s most influential text, The Ethics, look at what his ideas about god were and why he was a Pantheist, ask what substances, modes, and attributes are, and why he argues that the ‘many is one’. We look at the affects, the idea of conatus, the ‘free person’, rationalism, his stocism, and ideas of morality and benevolence.
Sources:
Steven Nadler, Think Least of Death: Spinoza on How to Live and How to Die
Jonathan Israel, Radical Enlightening: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750
Giles Deleuze, Spinoza: Practical Philosophy
Baruch Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus
Baruch Spinoza, The Ethics
Beth Lord, Spinoza’s Ethics
Anthony Gottlieb, The Dream of Enlightenment
Bertrand Russell, History of Western PhilosophyWhy the Internet Hasnt Fixed DemocracyThen & Now2022-01-13 | Why Hasn't the Internet Fixed Democracy? How can we fix it? I use the latest 'drama' with Ethan Klein, Joe Rogan, Tom Pool, Vaush etc to see if we can find out...
Clay Shirky Photography, James Duncan Davidson from Portland, USA, CC BY 2.0, creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia CommonsHow the Nature/Nurture Debate is ChangingThen & Now2022-01-06 | Then & Now is FAN-FUNDED! Support me on Patreon and pledge as little as $1 per video: http://patreon.com/user?u=3517018
Or send me a one-off tip of any amount and help me make more videos:
David Moore, The Developing Genome: An Introduction to Behavioural Epigenetics.
Maurizio Meloni (2015) Epigenetics for the social sciences: justice, embodiment, and inheritance in the postgenomic age, New Genetics and Society, 34:2, 125-151, DOI: 10.1080/14636778.2015.1034850
Ian Deary, Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction
Rose Mortimer, Alex McKeown & Ilina Singh (2018) Just Policy? An Ethical Analysis of Early Intervention Policy Guidance, The American Journal of Bioethics, 18:11, 43-53, DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2018.1523491
Kim Ferguson et al, The Physical Environment and Child Development: An International Review, nt J Psychol. 2013 ; 48(4): 437–468. doi:10.1080/00207594.2013.804190
The nature-nurture debates inform almost every area of human life – from biology and botany to economics, literature, and history.
To simplify, thinkers on the nature side have, in varying ways, argued that at least parts of your body and mind are behind an impenetrable skin, cannot be gotten to by upbringing, education, politics, or culture. Imagine a one-way street. For example, you have an innate eye color or a creativity that comes out of your DNA – nothing gets to it, its just in you. On the other hand we have empiricists. They believe in a two way street instead of a one way street.
This video looks at some complicated sounding things: DNA, genetics, epigenetics, methylation, phenotypes, stress, twin studies, Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, and early intervention programs. But I want to avoid being technical, as much as possible, because most fundamentally, most simply, this box is about a fundamentally philosophical idea: freedom.
The idea that we have a nature has been approached in countless ways – philosophically, psychologically, theologically – but the most persuasive, through the 19th and 20th centuries, the best place to start, is biology: the study of DNA and our genes.Why We Should Fear Zucks MetaverseThen & Now2021-12-14 | Earth, we have a problem.
What does 'meta' really mean? What can we make of Facebook's change to 'Meta'? Jean-Francois Lyotard wrote about the decline of metanarratives in 1979's 'The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge'. Can we learn anything about Zuckerberg's aspirations from this classic postmodern text?
Lyotard was prescient. He noticed in the 70s that quote ‘the miniaturization and commercialization of machines is already changing the way in which learning is acquired, classified, made available, and exploited.’ He also that ‘Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valorized in a new production: in both cases, the goal is exchange.’
‘There is no such thing as absolute dirt; it exists in the eye of the beholder. Dirt offends against order. Eliminating it is not a negative movement, but a positive effort to organize the environment. In chasing dirt, in papering, decorating, tidying, we are not governed by anxiety to escape disease, but are positively re-ordering our environment, making it conform to an idea.’
Dirt is a human concept. There is no such thing as dirt in nature. The natural world is neither pure nor dirty. It just is. Everything is simply where it happens to be. Until litter is dropped and houses are built to exclude and chemicals are spilled and smog rises the idea that anything could be in the wrong place is absurd.
And being human, dirt is a moral concept. Something that is right or wrong. Organized correctly or not. What can it tell us about ourselves? About order-making, about right and wrong, about 'dirty' people, about racism, and creativity?Would You Have Been a Nazi?Then & Now2021-11-18 | Then & Now is FAN-FUNDED! Support me on Patreon and pledge as little as $1 per video: http://patreon.com/user?u=3517018
Or send me a one-off tip of any amount and help me make more videos:
There were several reasons lynch mobs in Jim Crow America and soldiers and police officers in Nazi Germany were motivated to kill African-Americans and Jews. Historical forces like a sense of victimhood – both having lost wars – cultural forces and propaganda that depicted the victims stereotypically as inferior, greedy, or a threat, and economic forces – ‘the frustration of basic needs’ as social psychologist Ervin Staub puts it.
They were motivated, in Nazi Germany and Jim Crow America, by a moral culture made up of stereotypes, adverts, scientific literature, societal standards, norms, and sensibilities that all pushed the perpetrators towards killing.
In both cases, the perpetrators had rationales, justifications, reasons for what they were doing, even if, with historical hindsight, we can see these to be incorrect.
This begs an important question: how is resistance possible? How does one know when they’re being pushed by historical forces to do something that in retrospect we see as wholly immoral? How does one escape from under the hand of history – if culture, society, and the economy are all moving you towards acting in a particular way. Do we retain a moral sense?
The philosopher Zygmunt Bauman, for example, has asked whether there can be a ‘moral responsibility for resisting socialization.’
Often, what makes people like Rosa Parks or Martin Luther notable, is not that they are shaped by historical forces, but that that the very same forces are felt by them as coercion and that they stand up to them, counter them, resist them.
Can we find morality and ethics in history? I look at empathy and moral sentimentalism to find out.The Psychology of Racism in Jim Crow AmericaThen & Now2021-11-11 | Then & Now is FAN-FUNDED! Support me on Patreon and pledge as little as $1 per video: http://patreon.com/user?u=3517018
Or send me a one-off tip of any amount and help me make more videos:
Between 1889 and 1930 there were around 3,700 known lynchings in the US. The perpetrators ranged from single people to small mobs to huge crowds of 15,000. The reasons given were broad. While most were accused of murder of rape, many were lynched for simply being rude, for arguing, for taking the wrong job or having the wrong beliefs.
Like during Holocaust, as I explored in a previous video, these were ‘ordinary men’ and women, and often even children.
And as in my exploration of the psychology of the perpetrators' Holocaust, I want to try and understand the factors that led both to the violence of lynchings, but also ask how ordinary Americans justified their racism more broadly.
I want to use lynchings to try and examine racism more broadly, taking an action, an event, and slowly zooming outwards, looking at the psychological, sociological, and historical conditions that led to it.
We’ll look at a number of what I’ll describe in as ‘justifications, rationalizations, or causes’ – to try to understand what led to violence, and how the beliefs, attitudes, and psychologies of perpetrators were produced more broadly.
We’ll look at propaganda, sexuality, scientific racism, nostalgia, economics, stereotypes, and first, the power of a feeling of defeat and victimhood, on the part of whites.
Sources:
Donald G. Dutton., The psychology of genocide, massacres, and extreme violence : why ‘‘normal’’ people come to commit atrocities /
Kristina DuRocher, Raising Racists: The Socialization of White Children in the Jim Crow South
Hanson, Jon, and Kathleen Hanson. "The Blame Frame: Justifying (Racial) Injustice in America." Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, vol. 41, no. 2, Summer 2006, p. 413-480. HeinOnline.
Stewart E, Tolnay and E.M. Beck, A Festival of Violence, An Analysis of Southern Lynchings, 1882-1930
https://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/brute/
Jason Stanley, How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them
Ervin Staub, The Roots of Evil
Henry Louis Gates, Jr, Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow
Steven Hoelscher, Making Place, Making Race: Performances of Whiteness in the Jim Crow South
Jim Crow Jubiliee, Original lithographer: Augustus ClappOriginal publisher: Geo. P. ReedPhoto: BPL, CC BY 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia CommonsHow Immigrants Became BadThen & Now2021-10-15 | Liberalism – the assumptions of which many of us live under – prioritises individual freedom – of thought, of expression, of movement. But at the same time we think of migration – which is free movement – as abnormal. We even mythologise a sedentary past – of villages, farmers, peasants, ‘tied to the land’, living and dying in the place where they’re from.
Yet in the 17th century, around 65% left their home parish at some point in the their lives. We have, what philosopher Alex Sager calls a ‘sedentary bias’. The migrant is presented as a problem, alien, outsider, yet we move around our own countries – commuting, deciding to live elsewhere, holidaying, visiting relatives, making work trips – without thinking its in any way strange.
We are, as a species, mobile, nomadic, built to move. IN 2020, you could count 280 million migrants and each year around a billion tourists. And the numbers are increasing. But so are the objects, ideas, and phenomenon – borders, passports, guards, barbed wired, nationalist rhetoric – that attempt to pin us in our place. Can we find a genealogy of our attitudes? A history of our present problem? To do so, we might start with the 18th century biologist Carl Linnaeus.
The sea has long been a source of inspiration for some of our greatest thinkers – a great unknown to be explored, a passage to be used to transport goods, a place of relaxation, a dwelling place of monsters, a provider of sustenance. But could the nature of the sea – what it is, how it moves, what it represents – tell us something surprising about ourselves?
Maybe Moby Dick, The Ancient Greeks, and the psychoanalysis of Sandor Farenzi can help us find out.
open.spotify.com/show/1Khac2ih0UYUtuIJEWL47zWhat Makes us Postmodern?Then & Now2021-09-22 | What makes us postmodern? Do we live in a psychological condition of postmodernity? Is postmodernism everywhere? The sociologist Anthony Giddens described living in the modern world as being ‘more like being aboard a careering juggernaut rather than being in a carefully controlled and well-driven motor car.’
Through the work of Zygmunt Bauman and his 'Postmodernity and its Discontents' I look at concepts like control, planning, metanarratives, values, pessimism, schizophrenia, and consumerism.
Zygmunt Bauman Photo, re:publica from Germany, CC BY 2.0, creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia CommonsModernity: An AnalysisThen & Now2021-09-07 | What makes you modern? We know that modernity means technology, industry, cities. But is there a modern attitude? A modern psychology?
What sets apart from pre-moderns? Can we even imagine what a traditional attitude might feel like?
Traditional life was circular. We were tied to the land day after day, month after month – the idea of improvement, or of relationships with a wider world, were largely non-existent.
The philosophers of the Enlightenment – Kant, Marx, Mill, Francis Bacon, and - were motivated by a powerful idea. That we could rationally understand the world, and use the world to shape history. They were all, in varying ways, about ordering the world, putting things in their place, making it predictable, usable.
So what makes up this modern attitude? I try to answer this question through Anthony Giddens' 'The Consequences of Modernity'.
Dennis Smith, Zygmunt Bauman, Prophet of Postmodernity
Zygmunt Bauman, Postmodernity’s DIscontents
David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity
Credits: Anthony Giddens Photo, Szusi, CC BY-SA 3.0 ,http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia CommonsIs Wokeism Civil Religion?Then & Now2021-08-20 | Is Wokeism Civil Religion? A response to @carefreewandering's take of Wokeism as civil religion + German-style guilt-pride. I look at Robert Bellah's article 'Civil Religion in America' and take a look at free-speech, dogmatism, cancel culture, and more.
Unite the Right Photo, Anthony Crider; cropped by Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC), CC BY 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Westboro Baptist Church Photo, David Shankbone, CC BY-SA 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia CommonsWokeismThen & Now2021-08-10 | #wokeism #cancelculture #woke #cosmicskeptic #carefreewandering #douglasmurray #winstonmarshall #piersmorgan
Wokeism? What is it? Is it a force for good, for bad? Is it political correctness gone mad? Is it really everywhere? Or is it a red-herring? A New MccArthyism? Puritanical? Cancel Culture? Dogmatic?
This idea of being woke – of wokeism – appeared seemingly out of nowhere. Does it have a history? What’s going on under the surface? When you strip away the noise.
We’ll look at the history of the term, how its related to political correctness, ask whether it goes back further, before thinking about what I’ll describe as the broadening of the public sphere, and the cancel culture debate.
After surveying the history, I look at three quick case studies: @carefreewandering @CosmicSkeptic and Winston Marshall from Mumford and Sons
Natalie Coulter & Kristine Moruzi (2020): Woke girls: from TheGirl’sRealm to TeenVogue, Feminist Media Studies
Jurgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere
Tom Nicholas, Whose Afraid of the Online Mob?
Credits: Pierre Bourdieu Photo: Bernard Lambert, CC BY-SA 4.0, creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia CommonsThe Invention of Individual ResponsibilityThen & Now2021-07-20 | Humans love to fix things, to find the cause of a problem, to probe, tinker, and mend. We ask, in many different ways, Why does this happen? What’s the root cause? What’s the origin? What or who is at fault? What or who is responsible? But there are three subjects that have intertwined with the topic of responsibly more than others.
The idea of responsibility has many forms both historically and culturally. Philosophers have debated whether we can be truly responsible for our actions in the context of discussions about free-will; theologians have wrestled with the idea of taking responsibility for our sins; scientists have joined the discussion by searching for causation and exploring the psychology and neurology of our brains.
But today, the idea of individual responsibility is often invoked in discussions about welfare, poverty, and enterprise. Increasingly, throughout the liberal and neoliberal periods, we’ve – in politics and the media, at least - emphasised ‘responsibility for ourselves’ at the expense of other types of responsibilities, moral obligations, or duties.
Is poverty a personal inadequacy? A problem of persons? A problem of character? A problem of culture? Or is it a problem of place? Of systems? Of society?
The particular form ‘individual responsibility’ has taken today – atomised, asocietal, ideally self-dependent, culturally ‘backward’, genetically limited – is a relatively new historical and political concept which is used to justify the dismantling of welfare, the rejection of altruism, and the unravelling of community.
Any cultural interpretation of responsibility is bound-up with politics, language, culture and society, and, has a history that’s not simply progressive and linear. Instead of being responsible for ourselves, the concept of 'mutual obligations' or duties includes the responsibility to work hard and improve ourselves, but can also better accommodate contributing to the world, aiding others, remembering no man is an island and turning our gaze not inwards but outwards.
I look at how this idea of individual responsibility developed in parallel with the history of poverty, looking at Edward Banfield's The Moral Basis of a Backward Soceity, Oscar Lewis' Culture of Poverty, Daniel Moynihan's The Negro Family, Charles Murray's Losing Ground and the Bell Curve, and George Gilder's Wealth and Poverty. We look at poverty and responsibility from the Middle Ages, through to the Poor Laws, to Kennedy, LBJ, The Great Society, The War on Poverty, to the Reagan and Thatcher era and to Obama and Fox News today. Of course, Jordan Peterson also makes an appearance.
Yascha Mounnk, The Age of Responsibility: Luck, Choice, and the Welfare State
Nash, Gary B. "Poverty and Poor Relief in Pre-Revolutionary Philadelphia." The William and Mary Quarterly 33, no. 1 (1976): 3-30. Accessed July 6, 2021. doi:10.2307/1921691.
B. Harris & P. Bridgen, Charity & Mutual Aid in Europe & North America Since 1800
Clive Emsley, Crime & Society in England: 1750-1900
Morris, Michael. "From the Culture of Poverty to the Underclass: An Analysis of a Shift in Public Language." The American Sociologist 20, no. 2
Jordan Peterson, 12 Rules for Life
Credits:
Dennis Prager Image: Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia CommonsIs Equality Natural?Then & Now2021-07-09 | Is Equality Natural? Do We Have a Natural Impulse Towards Equality? This is a philosophical tour of how philosophers have answered the equality question, and how hunter-gatherers, tribesman, and homo sapiens for 95% of their history, have been egalitarian. Based on Christopher Boehm's book, Heirarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behaviour, I look at the !Kung, The Semai, The Utku, Native North Americans and others to explore why they treated each other as equals. I also take a look at Hobbes, Locke, and Proudhon and the idea of natural rights.
Christopher Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest, the Evolution of Egalitarian Behaviour
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
John Locke, Two Treatises on Government
Proudhon, What is Property?
Credits:
Credit: Young girl from Andaman Island. Wellcome Collection. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) terms and conditions creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Credit: Papua New Guinea (?): a man with a large metal or wooden sculpture through a hole in his nose. Photograph by E.W. Pearson Chinnery (?). Wellcome Collection. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)Why Jordan Peterson is Wrong About IdeologyThen & Now2021-06-21 | Jordan Peterson is famously critical of ideology. He has a particular distain for Marxism, Stalinism, Nazism, Postmodernism, Feminism, in fact, any ism. Instead, he argues, that the individual is sovereign, ideology should be renounced, and that, quote, ‘If we each live properly, we will collectively flourish.’
Rule VI of Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life is 'Abandon Ideology'.
Drawing on the Russian novelist Dostoevsky, Peterson interprets ideology as ‘rigid, comprehensive, utopian’ and predicated on a few ‘apparently self-evident axioms’. An ism theorist, he argues, ‘generates a small number of explanatory principles of forces’ that can supposedly ‘explain everything: all the past, all the present, and all the future.’ An ideologue, he continues, ‘grants these small number of forces primary causal power, while ignoring others of equal or greater importance.’
The result of this is that ‘an ideologue can consider him or herself in possession of the complete truth.’ I take a look at what philosophers say ideology is, what Jordan Peterson’s ideology – a type of Juedo-Christian Mythic Conservatism – look at its limits, and finally, ask why we need ideology.
Selected writings from Reason and Responsibility, Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy, Joel Fienberg and Russ Shafer-Landau From ‘Social Dimensions of Moral Responsibility’ ed. by. Katrina Hutchinson, Catriona MacKenzie, Marina Orshana:
‘Power, Social Inequities, and the Conversational Theory of Moral Responsibility’ by Michael McKenna
‘Moral Responsibility and the Social Dynamics of Power and Oppression’ by Catriona Mackenzie
‘The Social Constitution of Agency and Responsibility: Oppression, Politics, and Moral Ecology’ by Manuel R . Vargas
Second Jordan Peterson image: Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons, upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Jordan_Peterson_%2832590076658%29.jpgWhy Jordan Peterson is Wrong About ResponsibilityThen & Now2021-06-14 | Through 12 Rules for Life and Beyond Order, I examine Jordan Peterson’s philosophy of responsibility. First, I try to understand what Peterson says about individual responsibility. Second, I take a look at the philosophy of free will and responsibility. I look at determinism, psychology, and history to begin to draw a between what we’re responsible for and what we’re not. Ultimately, I argue that Peterson holds us individually responsible for too much, and that when we look to the history of social movements, we see that social and collective action is just as necessary.
Peterson emphasizes individual responsibility to an unreasonable degree, while discounting the necessity and power of social or collective responsibility.
We also take a few detours down some familiar routes: feminism, postmodern neo-Marxism, and identity politics.
Selected writings from Reason and Responsibility, Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy, Joel Fienberg and Russ Shafer-Landau From ‘Social Dimensions of Moral Responsibility’ ed. by. Katrina Hutchinson, Catriona MacKenzie, Marina Orshana:
‘Power, Social Inequities, and the Conversational Theory of Moral Responsibility’ by Michael McKenna
‘Moral Responsibility and the Social Dynamics of Power and Oppression’ by Catriona Mackenzie
‘The Social Constitution of Agency and Responsibility: Oppression, Politics, and Moral Ecology’ by Manuel R . Vargas
I look at the causes of revolutions and state crises in the past, looking specifically at the English Civil War and the French Revolution, to argue as historian Jack Goldstone does, that we're following a dangerous path to potential revolution. The Baby Boomers were the most heavily invested in generation in history but as the population boomed, debt has grown with it. Millennials, on the other hand, are underinvested in, under-housed, and are experiencing wage stagnation.
This is a tour of generational debt, neoliberal revolution, tax cuts, plague, stagnant incomes, Kings, the guillotine, and more.
There’s a growing consensus on both sides of the aisle: neoliberalism has failed. And history teaches us that if peaceful social solutions designed to mitigate against excess and injustice aren’t implemented, then more chaotic, violent, and revolutionary solutions will inevitably follow.
Website: www.kevinnolan.info5 Useful Things I’ve Learned from ExistentialismThen & Now2021-05-11 | Philosophy is often too abstract, but the Existentialists are known for being (a bit) more practical occasionally. Here are 5 useful things we can learn from the Existentialists and existentialism, specifically Soren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Camus.
They are:
Laugh at yourself (looking at Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground and Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus)
Stop Thinking (looking at Kierkegaard’s ‘leap of faith’, ‘passionate action’, and ‘subjective truth’)
Be Creative (looking at Nietzsche and Heidegger, authenticity, the ‘They’)
All of our Projects are Connected: Treat them like Rocks (looking at Sartre)
Turn off Autopilot (Looking at Kierkegaard and ‘double reflection’)
#existentialism #existentialists #philosophySartre: Leading an Authentic LifeThen & Now2021-04-29 | An introduction to the philosophy and existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, looking at his phenomenology, his ideas about consciousness as free, as being for-itself.
Are you free? What does freedom really mean? The broadest definition of freedom is to be able to choose, to make decisions that aren’t forced or determined by someone or something else. But aren’t we all born with, into, and are constrained by personalities, skills, character traits, our specific bodies, emotional make-ups, an IQ, an environment, an upbringing? Don’t all of these things make a me, an I, that constrains my possibilities?
Even if we’re free in the world – free to go where we want and do the things we want to do – surely we’re not free from these personal things. Surely we’re determined by them, they impose themselves upon us. Aren’t we imprisoned by ourselves?
Sartre’s answer is a resounding NO. We’re always free, unconditionally, transcendentally, universally, and more than that, we can choose to create ourselves, to fashion our experience of the world into a beautiful, meaningful, purposeful pattern; a melody.
Through his novel Nausea and his magnum opus, Being and Nothingness, Sartre’s ideas about freedom, anxiety, and the transcendence of the ego are all explored.
Mark Carroll, 'It Is': Reflections on the Role of Music in Sartre's 'La Nausée, Music and Letters
Jonathan Webber, Sartre’s Theory of Character
Sartre, Being and Nothingness
Sartre, Nausea
David Detmer, Sartre Explained: From Bad Faith to Authenticity
Credits:
Jean-Paul Sartre Photo commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean_Paul_Sartre_1965.jpg Unknown author, CC BY-SA 3.0 NL creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/nl/deed.en, via Wikimedia CommonsBeing Us: Communities, Organisations, & Politics of AuthenticityThen & Now2021-04-21 | The pursuit of an authentic self is often compared with the desire for uniqueness, of individuality, of creative freedom. But does this mean, as some have argued, that ‘authenticity’ itself is an individualistic, egotistical, narcissistic, and self-absorbed concept? After all, ‘be yourself', to thine own self be true, and ‘follow your heart’ all conjure up the idea of stepping away from the crowd, not towards it, of living a life for yourself, not for others.
If we are an authenticity-seeking species, if we crave our own independence, have a desire to be the master of our own choices, need creative freedom, what does this mean for our politics? What does it mean for social life, for businesses and organizations? Does ‘being you’ – rather than pursuing ‘duty’, for example – result in a narrowing of focus just to yourself as an individual? A loss of a broader social vision?
The philosopher Charles Taylor describes this as a horizon. Does the horizon shrink to focus just on yourself? Do we each have a separate horizon? Are our values relativistic? Or do certain things transcend this horizon? Are certain horizons shared? Does the shared pursuit of timber in the town disappear once the residents go their separate ways? How do we think about societies that still share horizons, that consist of individuals pursuing both their own authentic interests and dutifully respond to the needs of the wider community?
W. R. Newell, Heidegger on Freedom and Community: Some Political Implications of His Early Thought
M. Heidegger, Being and Time
Andrew Potter, The Authenticity Hoax
Charles Guignon, On Being Authentic
Maiken Umbach & Mathew Humphrey, Authenticity: The Cultural History of a Political Concept
Jacob Golomb, In Search of Authenticity: Existentialism from Kierkegaard to Camus
Steven Churchill & Jack Reynolds, Jean-Paul Sartre, Key Concepts
Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness
Charles Taylor, The Ethics of AuthenticityHow To Be YourselfThen & Now2021-04-14 | Who are we? How do we find out? What is it to find our authentic selves? What can we learn from the history and philosophy of authenticity?
Today, supposedly, we’re free. Free, to do what makes us happy, to be anything we strive to be, to choose our own paths. We even feel free from parts of ourselves – that our emotions are something separate from us, that there’s a real us beneath them, a supra-inner rational core that transcends everything outside of it, that is somehow higher than fleeting emotions that make us do things that aren’t really us.
The history of the search for authenticity has sought to understand this true core of human experience. It has been approached in many ways. Sometimes as a revolt against the outer layer, against standards given to us by society. Other times as taking off a mask. Or rejecting reading a script someone else has written for us, whether god or the bible or society and its rules Philosopher Jacob Golomb writes that ‘the concept of authenticity is a protest against the blind, mechanical acceptance of an externally imposed code of values.’
The history of authenticity tells us much about the modern world. For Jean-Jacques Rousseau, discovering our authentic self meant removing the masks society encourages us to wear, about confessing why we really say or do certain things.
Kierkegaard encouraged us to take passionate leaps of faith, to find subjective truths that were meaningful for us, to take action, to make difficult either/or choices.
Nietzsche knew that the death of god meant that humans were free to create their own values, to pursue the will to power creatively, to break free from the chains others imposed on us. We should love our fates - amor fati - but give style to our characters.
Heidegger thought authenticity meant facing our own deaths, as beings-towards-death, overcoming our own anxiety, and stepping away from the 'They' to create something unique and lasting in the world
And finally, Jean-Paul Sartre argued that we are, above all us, free to choose who we are, what we do, and what meaning we attach to the world and its objects. We have a piercing, lucid, and powerful consciousness that can explore the world and our own characters, and not using that reflective power, not interogating our own traits, beliefs, and actions meant we'd be living in 'bad faith', inauthentically ignoring our true human potential.
W. R. Newell, Heidegger on Freedom and Community: Some Political Implications of His Early Thought
M. Heidegger, Being and Time
Andrew Potter, The Authenticity Hoax
Charles Guignon, On Being Authentic
Maiken Umbach & Mathew Humphrey, Authenticity: The Cultural History of a Political Concept
Jacob Golomb, In Search of Authenticity: Existentialism from Kierkegaard to Camus
Steven Churchill & Jack Reynolds, Jean-Paul Sartre, Key Concepts
Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness
Charles Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity
Rousseau, Confessions
F. Nietzsche, Thus Spoke ZarathustraThe PERFECT Morning RoutineThen & Now2021-03-29 | Is there anything worse than a daily routine video? How about an anti-routine method? Featuring inspiration from Giles Deleuze and Soren Kierkegaard
Sources: Markus C. Becker, The Handbook of Organizational Routines Geiger, D., Schröder, A. Ever-Changing Routines? Toward a Revised Understanding of Organizational Routines Between Rule-Following and Rule-Breaking. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 66, 170–190 (2014). doi.org/10.1007/BF03396904 Anthony Brandt & David Eagleman, The Runaway Species Soren Kierkegaard, Either/OrKierkegaard: An IntroductionThen & Now2021-03-18 | The 19th century Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard is best known for giving us the concept of a leap of faith. He was a deeply religious thinker, but his ideas have as much relevance for secular lives as Christian ones. He was the grandfather of existentialism, a purveyor of authenticity, and of discovering, amid conflicting beliefs and the demand to conform to the rules of society, who you really are.
Although he was born in 1813, his works were not widely read in English until the middle of the twentieth century.
He published Either/Or, his most famous work in 1843, and in it, through an array of pseudonyms and fictional characters, he discusses competing and contradictory ways one might live life. Should you live for the moment? Seeking pleasure? Or should you live for the interesting? Should you live dutifully? Ethically? Should you conform to the rules?
He suggests there are three stages of life, three spheres of existence: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. Some of the key concepts are reflective aestheticism, the rotation of crops, subjective truth, passion, and, of course, Christianity.
Kierkegaard: An Introduction, C. Stephen Evans Robert Ferguson, Life Lessons From Kierkegaard Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or Soren Kierkegaard, The Essential Kierkegaard https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/Anarchism: Vignettes Against HobbesThen & Now2021-03-09 | This is a story about medieval Maghribi merchants, Kalahari San Bushmen, American ranchers, Arctic Inuits, Pygmies, The Semai, and Wisconsin businessmen.
At what price, under the point of whose spear, under what kind of domination, to what justification, would a person give up their capacity to decide for themselves? Or to contribute to the deliberative will of the collective? Who would give up that freedom?
What can stateless cultures and societies tell us about sovereign power? Anthropologist Christopher Boehm has summed up his survey of 339 studies and said that ‘nomadic foragers’ have a natural aversion to inequality and ‘are universally – and all but obsessively – concerned with being free from the authority of others.’
All of the vein pretenses that Hobbes argued would generate violence, in fact, on closer inspection motivate peace. When he said that competition leads to greed, he didn’t give enough weight to the observation that cooperation is more beneficial. When he thought that the desire for reputation would leave to a pursuit of glory he failed to see that reputation selects for kindness, cooperation, and conformity. The sharp tongue of gossip is the most powerful ostraciser. And when he argued that equality of strength would lead to endless war he forgot that equality of condition, of faculties, of the capacity for reason, leads to that most human of values: fairness.
Stewart Macaulay, Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study
Harold Barclay, People without Government
Rutger Bregman, Humankind
Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid
Robert Ellickson, Order Without Law: How Neighbours Settle DisputesSteven Pinker is WRONG about the decline of violenceThen & Now2021-02-26 | In The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker argues that human violence has declined across history. One part of this argument is that life in a state of nature – before civilization – was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Amongst other things, Pinker argues that hunter-gatherers, tribal societies, were – and are - much more violent than later more civilized societies. Both Pinker and Thomas Hobbes argue that the state and its monopolisation on force and authority have pacified our darker human nature.
This is a common trope:
In the 1996 book War Before Civilization, for example, archaeologist Lawrence Keeley argues that prehistoric violent deaths probably ranged from around 7-40% of all deaths. He says: ‘there is nothing inherently peaceful about hunting-gathering or band society’.
In 2003, Steve LeBlanc and Katherine Register claimed in their book Constant Battles that ‘everyone had warfare in all time periods’ Biologist Edward Wilson ‘Are human beings innately aggressive?’ Yes. Coalitional warfare is ‘pervasive across cultures worldwide’
John Tooby and Leda Cosmides declare that ‘Wherever in the archaeological record there is sufficient evidence to make a judgment, there traces of war are to be found. It is found across all forms of social organization—in bands, chiefdoms, and states.’
The book Demonic Males argues that ‘"neither in history nor around the globe today is there evidence of a truly peaceful society’.
Pinker has written that ‘Hobbes was right, Rousseau was wrong.’
Are – and were – hunter-gatherers really that violent? Brian Ferguson and Douglas Fry argue no. Looking at chimpanzees, bonobos, Otzi – the iceman – and a range of much more insightful ethnographical and archaeological evidence is the best way to find out.
Jonathan Hass and Matthew Piscitelli, The Prehistory of Warfare, Misled by Ethnography in ‘War Peace, and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views’
Douglas Fry, Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace
Brian Ferguson, Pinker’s List in War Peace and Human Nature
Brian Ferguson, The Prehistory of War and Peace in Europe and the Near East.
Steven Pinker Image: Rose Lincoln/Harvard University, CC BY 3.0, creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons (commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:102111_Pinker_344.jpgThomas Hobbes: LeviathanThen & Now2021-02-17 | An introduction to Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. Hobbes looms over all of us as the preeminent defender of the modern state and sovereign authority. Nuanced and original, he is probably the most influential figure in modern political philosophy who, and could be described as the father of both modern liberalism and modern conservatism.
Hobbes’ originality was his belief that political theory could be deduced from scientific principles about psychology, the senses, language, morality, knowledge, and power.
To understand politics, he argued, you had to understand people. Hobbes grounds Leviathan in a state of nature – a theoretical situation in which humans have no institutions, no government, no coercive power – a pre-societal condition.
Human existence in a state of nature is, according to Hobbes, pretty undesirable. In the most famous passage of Leviathan he says that in a state of nature there are ‘no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’
In a state of nature, we have a right to all things, but because we seek our own self-preservation, there are ‘laws of nature.’ Hobbes says that the first law of nature is ‘that every man seek peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.’
Because some ignore or misunderstand the laws of nature we require a sovereign power to keep us in awe; a leviathan.
Hobbes has been reinterpreted in the 20th century in game theory terms as a prisoner’s dilemma.
In Modernity and the Holocaust, Bauman argues that the Holocaust proves that societal rules, norms and standards cannot be the only source of morality. Perpetrators often argued in court that they were only following the law of their country. How can we judge them if morals are the product of a relative social context?
Instead, Bauman argues, the source of morality is in a fundamental responsibility to another in proximity. And there’s plenty of evidence for this. A biological repulsion to killing, for example. Or the distancing and division of labor that was required to scale the genocide. If proximity and responsibility are at the heart of a kind of moral objectivity, what might the consequences of this be?
Douglas Huneke, A Study of Christians Who Rescued Jews During the Nazi Era
Roger S. Gottlieb, Some Implications of the Holocaust for Ethics and Social Philosophy
Janusz Reykowski, The Justice Motive and Altruistic Helping: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi-Occupied Europe
Kristen Renwick Monroe, Cracking the Code of Genocide: The Moral Psychology of Rescuers, Bystanders, and Nazis during the Holocaust
Credits:
Zygmunt Bauman image: re:publica from Germany, CC BY 2.0, creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia CommonsHow The Holocaust HappenedThen & Now2021-01-27 | What drives ordinary everyday people to become mass killers? What are the psychological mechanisms and cultural factors that lead to genocide? What were the causes of the Holocaust? Can we theorize a psychology of genocide? A theory of genocide?
The Holocaust was not perpetrated solely by a few sadistic psychopaths but by tens of thousands of everyday Germans, Poles, Frenchmen, Austrians, Slovakians, in fact, much of Europe took part.
If any of us could be motivated under the right conditions to become mass serial killers, how can we protect ourselves against the threat? How might we innoculate our societies and cutlures from decending into genocide?
There are a number of factors that lead to the Holocaust. Compartmentalization, euphemism, conformity, authority, rationalization, propaganda, anti-Semitism, victimhood, and association, in particular.
Gustav Le Bon, for example, argued that individuals are more likely to conform in a crowd because of anonymity and mimesis. Stanley Milgram’s famous experiments looked at conformity to authority. This combined with rationalisations like ‘its either us or them’ or ‘they won’t survive through the winter anyway.’
There was still a system of belief – an ideology – and almost a decade of propaganda disseminated by the Nazi Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda (RMVP). Years of anti-Semitism in Germany and Europe led to conspiracy theories about Jewish world domination. While Britain, the USSR, and America were all consistently associated with ‘Jewish aggressors’.
When a person perceives themselves as a victim and a prisoner as an aggressor in a war of survival and we combine this with the pressure to conform and submit to authority the probability for murder increases. In Nazi Germany, everything was made to fit this formula.
Ervin Staub proposes a model of genocide that has three initial stages:
First, there’s the frustration of basic needs. Second, An out-group is identified that’s the cause. Next, The in-group is motivated by a ‘utopian vision’ that excludes a certain group.
And Herbert Kelman has also argued that the requirements are threefold: authorization, routinization, and dehumanization.
Milgram video - Movie S1 from Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, Swapp D, Guger C, Barker C, Pistrang N, Sanchez-Vives M, Rustichini A. "A Virtual Reprise of the Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiments". PLOS ONE. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0000039. PMID 17183667. PMC: 1762398. (Creative Commons 3.0)
Sources:
Jason Stanley, How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them
Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men
Laurence Rees, The Holocaust
Donald G. Dutton, The Psychology of Genocide, Massacres, and Extreme Violence: Why “Normal” People Come to Commit Atrocities
Ervin Staub, The Origins and Prevention of Genocide, Mass Killing, and Other Collective Violence in the Journal of Peace Psychology
Splendor and Misery in the Weimar Years, http://www.schirn.de/glanzundelend/digitorial/en
Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During WWII & The Holocaust
Frank McDonough, The Hitler Years
Thomas Blass, Psychological Perspectives on the Perpetrators of the Holocaust: The Role of Situational Pressures, Personal Dispositions, and Their Interactions
Henri Zukier, The Twisted Road to Genocide
Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
Peter Cohen, The Architecture of Doom, youtube.com/watch?v=j_KmZsA5PfsInviting the Tigers to Tea: Demagogues in AmericaThen & Now2021-01-11 | Winston Churchill once said that ‘Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers from which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry.’ In the wake of what happened in Washington last week, I think this metaphor illustrates something deeper about the relationship between demagogues and their followers. Who are the tigers and why are they hungry? Riots - the voice of the unheard - clearly signify some issues within a society that if not resolved inevitably lead to the baring of teeth. Tigers only emerge from tears in the social fabric. The more the economic, social, or cultural chasm rips open, the more untamed emotions spill out of the void, and the more likely it becomes that a demagogue can saddle-up and offer a solution. Steve Bannon said that ‘we got elected on Drain the Swamp, Lock Her Up, Build a Wall….This was pure anger. Anger and fear is what gets people to the polls.”
Many ancient philosophers were skeptical of democracy because it was vulnerable to the threat of demagogues. Plato argued in the Republic that because democracy must allow freedom of speech it was defenseless against strongmen who could make to the demos based on their fears and emotions. Joseph Goebbels said that ‘This will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy, that it gave its deadly enemies the means by which it was destroyed.’ So why is it that democracy is vulnerable to demagogues? What do demagogues offer and how might we protect against it?