6 Shares 0



6

0







[Author's note: I use a lot of single quote marks, mostly for terms that I think have a special significance, especially terms that suggest a particular cultural or philosophical perspective. (I only use regular quote marks for specific words from an individual or document, or to set off a declarative statement.)]

For decades, the rationalist perspective has been losing ground to the postmodern perspective. To much of what has been lost we can say, "Good riddance." As we'll see, however, rationality is blessedly indefatigable where it can do humanity the most good: justice. Among the things in and of this world, only a strictly rational approach to justice can provide goodness without limit.

Much of the animus of postmodernists—and others—regarding contemporary culture stems, I think, from the inescapable presence in people's lives of powers that are bigger than any individual. It is striking how similar, in places, postmodernists, Tea Partyers, and even religious fundamentalists are.

'The system' does seem to require ever-more regimentation of aptitudes and even attitudes. Really, though, to blame 'the rational'—something postmodernists, Partyers, and fundamentalists do—is surely to mistake the source of one's frustration. Yet, postmodernists equate contemporary culture with modernity and modernity with 'the rational', blaming the latter for ills of the former.

In the first part of this essay I'll delve into the postmodern critique of modernity. Then I'll focus on the problem, according to that perspective, of rationality in governance. Most importantly, I want to show how that perspective confuses ideology with rationality. After that I'll include a brief summation of the case for a strictly rational approach to 'governing governance' (a term I'll revisit below).

At the outset, however, I want to note that applying 'real justice' (as I have come to call this rational approach to justice) to governing governance would solve in a practical way all of the biggest problems we have as a society: maximizing liberty and reinforcing political democracy while eliminating unemployment, poverty, and using taxes—as well as debt—to fund government. It would even help with environmental sustainability. [There is more on all that at www.ajustsolution.com.]

Here's the kicker: those outcomes are not based on "the assurance of things hoped for" (a predicate of 'faith' according to The Letter to the Hebrews in the Christian Bible). Because those outcomes follow from a strictly rational approach to governing governance, they are as certain as E = MC2.

First up is postmodernism, however. I must begin by disclosing that I am very sympathetic to the postmodern perspective.

It is possible to be accepting yet critical of a new (to oneself) idea. Resistance to an idea can actually lead to misunderstanding it; a predetermined desire for an idea to be 'wrong' can cause an inaccurate perception of it even among people who ostensibly make an effort to learn about it. So, my critique of postmodernism comes from someone who has had to work at giving it sincere consideration but has in the end embraced much of it. I'll begin with parts of it that I have embraced.

I agree with postmodernists' most general criticism of Modern culture: a lack of concern in it for 'the Other'. That refers most broadly to the propensity to marginalize, if not dismiss, if not ignore, whatever is outside the Modern worldview.

[Less broadly, I maintain that the rights-based approach to justice that became the stamp and seal of Liberal societies within modernity has fostered an ego-centered approach to life: my rights: my liberty, my property, my pursuit of happiness, etc. (As for a 'right' to life, it is absurd to suggest that a prohibition against murder rests on nothing but the existence of that 'right'.) Of course, societies without that approach to justice have been far worse. Real justice accomplishes all of the good that the rights-based approach to justice is supposed to accomplish and more by requiring mutual respect.]

I do share postmodernists' dismay at the Modern propensity to explain in rational terms everything anybody experiences is in this world and to reject any other possible interpretation, even when it comes to things for which rationality has no definitive answer. In the realm of the abstract, postmodernists want space for ambiguity, ambivalence, mystery, etc. in our responses to our encounter with the world we inhabit.

I acknowledge that rationality has been a source of mistakes. One example is the drive to put into effect the latest products of our (rationally derived) technological wizardry without any thought for their possible consequences. Such thoughtlessness has brought our planet to the brink of an ecological cataclysm.

The proliferation of the internal combustion engine and air conditioning are to my mind the two most egregious instances of such behavior. Regarding the former, think of the fantastic, fantastically more environmentally friendly transportation system we could have if all of the resources ever spent on cars and roads had instead been spent on railways (to include monorail, once it was invented). In the latter case we have burned mountains of coal—the higher the temperature, the more we have burned—to be physically cooler. Hmm.

I detest as much as any postmodernist does the global hegemony of Modern culture. For other cultures its most subversive element is 'pop' culture. That part of modernity mocks and undermines other approaches to life as it seduces people away from any other approach to life.

One does not have to be a fundamentalist anything to be appalled by the content of pop culture. Using the U.S. Supreme Court's standard for deciding what is pornographic (i.e., "no redeeming social value"), almost every bit of it is pornography. Its all-but-exclusive themes are sexuality and violence (whether as drama or comedy, 'reality' or 'scripted'—or songs). Such entertainment is something all people like in some form to some extent—hence its 'pop'—but it is almost never an appeal to what is best in us as human beings.

Marketing, which is inextricably linked with pop culture, has become the Leviathan of modernity. At home we are targeted through postal mail, radio, T.V., the internet, and even our telephones. On the road we are confronted with billboards. To go to almost any public place with a roof (and some without roofs) is to be subjected to its hectoring presence.

Pop culture and marketing form a synergistic combination that embodies power in Modern culture as analyzed by Michel Foucault. As Stephen K. White put it in Political Theory and Postmodernism, the particular character of power in modernity is the "channeling" of behavior in ways that "are not overtly coercive" (except, I would add, where they are).The result is herd-like behavior.

Foucault focused on the use of ideas of what is "normal" to achieve that channeling. Pop culture/marketing achieves that effect by fusing together 'normal' and 'popular' ('must-see', 'must-have', 'what everyone will be talking about', etc.). That fusion of those 'values' is used to define the terms of social acceptance. Witness the bizarre animosity of children towards one with the 'wrong' shoes, etc.

All of that makes the ever-increasing role of marketing in politics most ominous. For one thing, the marketing-pop culture complex does not even recognize the existence of cynicism—except as a device for shame-faced humor.

Between the marketing-pop culture complex and the military-industrial complex, it is hard to see a present, much less a future for a meaningful democratic political process in Modern society as it exists at present. To be sure, there is no place on the agenda of either of those cultural behemoths for justice. [In other Liberal nations the military-industrial complex is not as strong because they have taken advantage of the military umbrella provided by the U.S.]

Yet, within the marketing-pop culture complex, being in an organization 'working to achieve justice', even one that is 'radical' (so long as it does not espouse violence), falls within the bounds of social acceptance—as long as it parrots the tired, old ideological stuff that has been around for centuries. Participating in such a group is reduced to a sociable form of personal entertainment, though, like being in a book club.

Of all of the insights provided by the postmodern critique of Modern culture, the one I appreciate the most is that it has established beyond question that "contests of power" (Foucault) permeate every nook and cranny of human co-existence. That is something Modern philosophers have failed to take into account.

The ubiquity of 'contests of power' and a concern for 'the Other' when it comes to people are both central to real justice. Though strictly rational, it would in fact be the solution to postmodernism's most ethically telling criticisms of Modern culture.

Of course, any idea about justice that has ever existed has had as its concern constraining power among people. Over time we have gotten closer and closer to the correct formulation of justice. Finally getting justice completely right, in the form of real justice, would transform the human condition—without coercion or manipulation.

We do have to keep in mind that modernity succeeded late European feudalism, in which monarchs ruled nation-states arbitrarily under the dogma of Divine Right. The most significant Modern philosopher, whose ideology—Liberalism—is still alive (if not exactly well), is John Locke, who did his thinking in the 1600's—more than three centuries ago.

The circumstances of modernity's birth explain why Modern thinkers about justice have focused on government. In modernity, protecting 'the people' from 'the government' has become the seed crystal of the political 'right'; using government—or 'the state'—as an instrument of 'social justice' on people's behalf is the seed crystal of the political 'left'. All such thinking fails to identify the correct place of justice in society.

At bottom, such thinking is simply too small. Justice—constraining power in interactions among human beings—must include all interactions, whether direct or indirect and whether they involve individuals per se or people acting as agents of businesses or government. All interactions among human beings must be governed by the ethic of justice (at least those interactions that involve effecting choices—see below).

The ultimate locus of power in society is governance. By "governance" I mean primarily the way a society's economy and its political process (where, among other things, laws are enacted and enforced) are structured and made to function. Any form governance takes will necessarily also influence the conduct of individuals beyond the bounds of those processes as such. That influence will be greater or lesser and more or less formal depending on the form governance takes.

The ultimate question for society is how governance should be governed. To this point Modern thinking about governing governance has taken the form of ideologies. For that matter, the invention of ideology—beginning with Locke—marks, more than any other thing, the advent of Modern culture. I am about to prove to the reader that using ideology for governing governance is inherently contrary to justice.

The purpose of an ideology is to explicate how society should be governed and why that particular way is the 'best' way: i.e., 'just' (e.g. Locke, Rousseau); epistemologically/ontologically valid (e.g. Kant, Hegel); 'scientific' (e.g. Marx, Spencer); consistent with 'true' human nature (e.g. Smith, Bentham, Nietzsche); optimally functional (e.g. Pierce, Popper); etc. To that end it includes what the structure and (intended) functioning of the political process and the economy should be (regarding the latter, I must point out, to include choosing laissez faire). [Of that list of noted thinkers, only Locke, Smith, and Marx are immediately ideological; the rest—along with their intellectual allies and progeny as well as other thinkers, too—have provided fodder for ideologies. (Marx infused his 'scientific' "dialectical materialism" with a moral element, "exploitation.")]

Ideology was consciously conceived by (initially) European philosophers to replace theology for governing governance. In taking that step they equated universality with objectivity and objectivity with secularism. The goal was to arrive at the correct secular, therefore objective, therefore universal explication for governing governance.

The postmodern critique in that area has focused most keenly on objectivity. As far as I am concerned, postmodernists, most especially Jacques Derrida, have conclusively demonstrated the impossibility of objectivity as a state of mind any person is capable of achieving.

On the other hand, while they have successfully critiqued objectivity (in that sense, at least), postmodernists have also left that construct of conceptual transitivity in place. It is de-valued only because achieving 'subjective objectivity' is impossible.

Rationality tells us that the paradigm itself is invalid: secularism cannot of itself confer objectivity or universality. There are such things as secular beliefs that are no more objective or universally held than any spiritual beliefs are. Ideologies are systems of thought for governing governance that are based on secular beliefs.

All beliefs (assertions that cannot possibly be amenable to being evaluated, much less judged, within material existence) are outside rationality. They are what I call extra-rational knowledge. When I say 'I believe in God'—and I do—I'm saying I have knowledge of the existence of God. (All of us often say, "I believe" such-and-such when technically we should saying, "I think" blah, blah, blah.) [There is much more to the epistemology of it all than I can include here (which I do explore in my book, A Just Solution), but hopefully what is offered here will suffice for present purposes.]

The validity of all extra-rational knowledge is limited to believers. To require any non-believer to abide by any belief is to impose that belief on that person. That is always, everywhere, an injustice. In recent decades religious people of all descriptions have recognized the contradiction inherent in imposing secular beliefs in governing governance while de-legitimizing religious beliefs as a basis for it.

Two examples of secular beliefs are a belief in equality among human beings (which I share) and a belief in the existence of a priori Rights, such as 'Natural Rights' (which, along with, e.g., Edmund Burke, I do not share). Equality and liberty as a Right are the twin pillars of justice in the Liberal meta-ideology originated by Locke.

Secular beliefs form the foundations of all philosophical meta-ideologies—e.g. Liberalism, Marxism, and Fascism (which in turn spawn smaller, narrower political ideologies). In Liberalism, both equality and Rights are believed by some people to come from God, but they certainly can also be purely secular beliefs; an atheist can believe in them as fervently as anybody can. In Marxism, "exploitation" implies a belief in human equality. Fascism rests on beliefs about the superiority some group over all others. (Nationalism –as an ideology, the usually more benign close cousin of Fascism—locates superiority in the nation.)

Postmodernists have also attacked 'foundationalism', but have failed to see that regarding governance the problem lies in the fact that those foundations are beliefs. They have instead viewed foundationalism in itself as another objective in their campaign against 'the rational'.

Similar to their mistaken view of foundationalism, postmodernists have interpreted ideologies as being rationalist 'meta-narratives'. They have failed to see that all meta-narratives, to include all meta-ideologies, have in common an extra-rational basis in beliefs.

All of the foregoing lines of thought in postmodernism converge in its assault on the perceived 'over-rationalization' within modernity. Rationality is seen as being both pervasive and dominating, imposing itself on everything and everybody in Modern culture.

In governance, however, the problem is not a pervasively dominating rationality; the problem is pervasively dominating ideology. Beliefs, through systems of governance based on those beliefs, have been imposed on people based on false claims of universality.

To be clear: ideology is not rationality. Every ideology is a belief-based system, just like every spiritual religion is. Ideologies are no more rationalist in nature than theologies are. Really, ideologies are secular religions.

So, postmodernists have erroneously equated ideology with rationality, causing them to misdirect their critique when it comes to governance. As a result of that misperception, postmodernists have sought to drive out evils associated with ideology by attacking rationality.

Why does all of this matter? It matters because justice matters. Without justice humanity is left with rule by the most ruthless.

Justice does require universality. In fact, justice requires an ethic which is necessarily universal. Only a necessarily universal ethic can be justly applied to governing governance because only such an ethic applies to every human being, whether one likes it or not, without any person or group imposing that ethic on any other.

[Consensus, the panacea of governance for postmodernists, would definitely be consistent with real justice as a way of deciding on an approach to governance, but is a practical impossibility in any heterogeneous group (like a nation, or a city, or even a town). Furthermore, consent would have to be given explicitly—and constantly—to whatever approach were to be adopted by every individual in the entire group. When that group is the general population, down to what age should consent be required—decided by whom, based on what?]

Only rationally derived knowledge can be necessarily universal knowledge. Therefore, the ethic of justice must be in the form of rational knowledge.

Not all rational knowledge is necessarily universal, but only rational knowledge is capable of being necessarily universal. To attack rationality per se is therefore to attack humanity's only possibility for justly governing governance. To use beliefs to reject necessarily universal knowledge is to slip into irrationality.

With the correct, strictly rational approach to justice, it becomes its own, independent category within ethics. It is separate from morality because it is free of beliefs.

A rationally derived ethic of justice and its implications for humanity are available for consideration at www.ajustsolution.com. Stated in the briefest possible terms, that ethic is, "mutual respect in effecting choices." The process of effecting choices is the large but finite domain in which all people, no matter their status, station, or office, must be governed by respect for the capacity of all others to choose for themselves. Outside that domain personal morality is the only form of governance available. (On the face of it, what could be the argument against mutual respect in effecting choices, anyway?)

Though free of morality, in requiring mutual respect the ethic of 'real justice' would be consonant with many moralities. It would certainly accord with the morals all major religions instruct their adherents to display in their interactions with one another, if not to say all people.

Applying real justice to life would maximize liberty and reinforce (save?; revivify?; resurrect?) political democracy. The Liberal meta-ideology did come close to providing justice in governing governance despite its foundation in beliefs because equality implies mutual respect. We now know, however, about the ultimate injustice of any belief-based approach to governing governance. (Besides, ideology in itself, including the Liberal ideology, is in tatters and ruthlessness is everywhere on the rise.)

Beliefs, whether spiritual or secular, are a valid basis for acting within a just political process. How could they be excluded? Beliefs cannot, however, be a just basis for determining the structure and intended functioning of that process. A really just political process has liberty of political speech for every member of the community and a democratic distribution of political rights—i.e., only universally applicable restrictions on those rights, universally applied, such as age. Any outcome within the process that did not violate those conditions of justice for the process itself would be legitimate. (Where a constitution exists—which to be just must uphold those conditions of justice—it is another factor.)

As for liberty, we can now see that it is the product of justice, of everyone respecting everyone else in the process of effecting all choices. Liberty is not the foundation of justice, or its predicate, etc. To put it in a bumper sticker, "If you want real liberty, seek real justice."

It is actually ridiculous to proffer liberty as the predicate of justice, because the first thing one must do is to justify placing limits on it. As for equality, it cannot be applied in any viable way to the economy. That makes it a limited concept. Mutual respect, however, has no limit, and needs no limits placed on it.

With real justice, all that would be needed to bring more justice to the economy as a system would be to establish a democratically distributed income. Such an income would be available for any number of people, but would be required for no one. That could be accomplished by instituting a revolutionary monetary system. (The total of that income would form the supply of money for the economy.)

Among its many blessings, implementing that monetary system would allow us to eliminate (involuntary) unemployment and poverty (at no cost to anyone, without having to redistribute anything). Also, it would enhance our chances for environmental sustainability by having demographics govern total output—passively, but effectively. It would even allow us to put an end to using taxes—or debt— to fund government (which would be funded—federal, state, and local—at the current per capita level forever through the operation of the monetary system). Our market-based economy would function as the self-regulating thing it is supposed to be in theory. The means would not even exist to try to 'manage' the economy using monetary or fiscal policies. [Again, more on all of that is also available at www.ajustsolution.com.]

While from here on out marketing will most likely be an inexorable part of our lives, at least with the monetary system real justice suggests there would be no more taxes. As of now, death and marketing might be inevitable, but taxes are not.