Terrestrial Politics

Jul 20

Terrestrial Politics—

Abstract: “A theoretical approach to the political reorganization of every Terrestrial being’s dwelling place (within Earth’s “Critical Zone”), including its own way of identifying what is local, what is global, and of defining its entanglements with other beings.”

https _bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com_public_images_fe9d3a23-0054-446a-b69d-29f5708cefd3_1600x900.jpeg

Currently, the globe is experiencing an “Out of this World” mind contagion in its political spheres. Since Donald J. Trump’s election, one could argue fairly easily that we are now in an era where politics-oriented toward any identifiable goal has ended. French philosopher Bruno Latour claims this lost viewpoint is purposeful, “as Trumpian politics is not “post-truth,” but post-politics - that is, literally, a politics with no object, since it rejects the world that it claims to inhabit.”

In his book Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climate Regime, Latour doesn’t mince words in discussing the leading phenomenon in world affairs which began long before Trump got elected: “a systematic effort to deny the existence of climate change. “climate” here refers to the relations between human beings and the material conditions of their lives.” (Take note of how he defines “climate” in what a human deals with in terms of their environment, also known as Earth’s critical zone.) Increased inequality and global deregulation are the other two phenomena that Latour points to. The subsequent rise of populism, and the honest realization that governments are not immune to the effects of what the Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, calls The Fourth Industrial Revolution. These trends are also considered in our equation.

Some history is needed to understand just how far off the path we truly are. Do you remember reading the work of Thomas Hobbes? Does Leviathan ring a bell? In his most famous text, Hobbes asserted that life’s position in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Life’s, not just humans’, base operating system is a war of everyone against everyone else. But this statement was made in 1651 and must be taken with a truckload of salt with its basis in religion and original sin.

Remember the work of J. S. Mill? No? Well in the 19th century, the British philosopher proposed that we humans have surpassed our genetic predisposition of “Homo Sapiens,” and faux-upgraded to be “Homo-Economicus” “or "economic man." This says that each human is a rational person who pursues wealth for their own self-interest. First it was a thought experiment, then it was used as a modeling tool to strive toward an ideal, and lastly, it changed our perceptions of ourselves. The way we behave is due to our perceptions. The story of our self-maximizing and competitive nature was told so often, usually with little critique, that we have accepted it as an account of who we really are.

“Homo Economicus” is a reasonable description of chimpanzees, but hardly of humans. In their illuminating psychology journal paper, Keith Jensen, Amrisha Vaish, and Marco F. H. Schmidt remind us, “The fact that humans cooperate with non-kin is something we take for granted, but this is an anomaly in the animal kingdom. Our species’ ability to behave prosocially may be based on human-unique psychological mechanisms.”

They argue that “these mechanisms include the ability to care about the welfare of others (other-regarding concerns), to “feel into” others (empathy), and to understand, adhere to, and enforce social norms (normativity). [They] consider how these motivational, emotional, and normative substrates of prosociality develop in childhood and emerged in our evolutionary history. Moreover, [they] suggest that these three mechanisms all serve the critical function of aligning individuals with others: Empathy and other-regarding concerns align individuals with one another, and norms align individuals with their group.”

The kind of large-scale cooperation seen uniquely in humans is mainly due to this alignment. Our “spectacularly unusual when compared to other animals” nature says that we also cannot cope alone. Humans need connection & togetherness, just as much as we need food and shelter. I assume this is latent knowledge for most people, but the market(s), politics, and the sense of possibility evaporating in front of our eyes make a compelling case for not needing food, usually at the expense of shelter. The result of this belief being taken as canon is the loss of a common purpose. A lack of common purpose is a leading reason why Anomie is more common than ever.

It is exacerbated by “Shifting Baseline Syndrome,” a term describing ecosystems in biology used to understand how people respond to political change after years of being immersed in hedonic propaganda, “Over the generations, we adjust to almost any degree of deprivation or oppression, imagining it to be natural and immutable.”

—

Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism, like any political narrative, has to account for who and why we are. We are “homo economicus,” and we are competitors doing all that we can to get ahead of our fellows. As I have just shown, this is not necessarily the case, but we need to dig deeper for the deep and pernicious roots of “homo economicus” before we offer up an alternative.

In his book Out of the Wreckage: A New Politics for an Age of Crisis, George Monbiot says that Neoliberalism's central claim is for society to make maximizing profits humanity’s aim and purpose. “Defined by the market, defined as a market, human society should be run in every aspect as if it were a business, its social relations reimagined as commercial transactions; people redesigned as human capital,” goes Neoliberalism's claims.

Monbiot says our dominant political narrative has become so pervasive that we hardly question its reach - effectively hiding it. The ability to see it as a power-relations-based ideology has become literally blasphemous.

He goes on, “Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive...Attempts to limit competition are treated as hostile to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimized; public services should be privatized or reconstructed in the image of the market. The organization of labor and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that prevent the real winners and losers from being discovered. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for usefulness and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone.”

Losers are defined, and self-defined, in a competitive world as those who fall behind because people can ALWAYS change their situation by exercising choice through spending, says Neoliberal theory.

“Neoliberalism turns the oppressed worker into a free contractor, an entrepreneur of the self. Today, everyone is a self-exploiting worker in their own enterprise. Every individual is master and slave in one. This also means that class struggle has become an internal struggle with oneself. Today, anyone who fails to succeed blames themselves and feels ashamed. People see themselves, not society, as the problem,” says philosopher Byung-Chul Han.

Until we name and describe a narrative, then we cannot contest it. Neoliberalism has stuck around for much longer than needed, due to its anonymity and the absence of countervailing stories. “To change the world, you must tell a story: a story of hope and transformation that tells us who we are,” says Monbiot. I hope to counter Neoliberalism’s stature with a new story.

—

Why is this time different?

Before we tell a different story for our future, we have to consider the present. Currently, micro actors have leveled the playing field of disproportionate reach that macrostate actors had a monopoly on forever. As Moises Naim puts it, “In the 21st century, power is easier to get, harder to use, and easier to lose.”

Our current situation is unprecedented, says Latour, “No human society, however wise, subtle, prudent, and cautious you may think it to be, has had to grapple with the reactions of the earth system to the actions of 8 or 9 billion humans. All the wisdom accumulated over ten thousand years, even if we were to succeed in rediscovering it, has never served more than a few hundred, a few thousand, a few million human beings on a relatively stable stage.”

Most Americans would say that democracy will fix all of our ails, but two social science professors in their book, Democracy for Realists, argue that our images of the political spheres are at most not true, and at worst not possible. “The Folk Theory of Democracy - the idea that citizens make coherent and intelligible policy decisions, on which governments then act, bears no relationship to how democracy really works, or could ever work,” says Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels.

This ‘folk theory of democracy’ sets its foundation on the notion of rational choice. Basically we seek out information, weigh the pros and cons, and then elect a government that reflects those policies. But, in reality, the process is much more complicated in today’s age.

“In reality, the research they use suggest[s], most people possess almost no useful information about policies and their implications, have little desire to improve their state of knowledge and have a deep aversion to political disagreement,” echoes Monbiot.

This has become even more of an issue with the rise of technology in almost everything we do. Schwab says “With growing citizen empowerment and greater fragmentation and polarization of populations, this could result in political systems that make government more difficult and governments less effective. This is particularly important as it occurs at a time when governments should be essential partners in shaping the transition to new scientific, technological, economic, and societal frameworks.”

The climate emergency, the pervasiveness of artificial intelligence, and the rise of genetic engineering are all issues that nation-states are not capable of dealing with alone. The challenge for governments during this unique time is letting innovation flourish while minimizing risk.

“Two conceptual approaches exist. In the first, everything that is not explicitly forbidden is allowed. In the second, everything that is not explicitly allowed is forbidden. Governments must blend these approaches. They have to learn to collaborate and adapt while ensuring that the human being remains at the center of all decisions,” says Schwab.”

Rather than what we think, we base our political decisions on who we are. Politics is an expression of social identity, so we cannot change politics without changing social identities.

We are in need of a complete rearrangement of how citizens and government think and act toward each other, “To achieve this, governments will need to engage citizens more effectively and conduct policy experiments that allow for learning and adaptation. Both of these tasks mean that government and citizens alike must rethink their respective roles and how they interact with one another, simultaneously raising expectations to explicitly acknowledge the need to incorporate multiple perspectives and allow for failure and missteps along the way.”

To read the rest of the essay, go to either the Substack or Medium link.

Substack: https://eclecticspacewalk.substack.com/p/eclectic-spacewalk-7-terrestrial

Medium: https://medium.com/eclectic-spacewalk/eclectic-spacewalk-7-terrestrial-politics-1e7582246a8a

Nicholas McCay

Terrestrial Politics

Table of Contents: