The Poverty of Modernism

"My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday". G. K. C

There is a certain fallacy, which was actually recognised quite excellently by Karl Popper, called historicism (not to be confused with the art movement of the same name). It is in fact, bound up in that same category of modernism (I mean here only a very general use of the term, that is to say, any philosophy that is connected 'being modern', rather than the particulars of certain late 19th century early 20th century movements). Modernism is absolutely tied up with Liberalism, and practically all modern errors relate to the fallacy of Liberalism (to be explored in a separate post "By Reactionary").

Popper defined historicism thus:

I mean by "historicism" an approach to the social sciences which assumes that historical prediction is their principle aim, and which assumes that this aim is attainable by discovering the "rhythms" or the "patterns", the "laws" or the "trends" that underlie the evolution of history. (Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, (London, 2007), p. 3)

Popper certainly offers a strong critique of historicism based on what he calls a methodological mis-understanding of naturalism, or physical science. That is to say, he believed that the anti-naturalists as well as pro-naturalists actually misunderstand the 'true' methodology of science, and specifically naturalism. Most of what he says is true in so far as he identifies problems with the writing of history, the more seditious forms of scientism (one only needs to consider Hitlerism, Roosevelt's New Deal, et al.), and the blind faith in evolution as a law. (Popper does suffer however, from his own problems which consisting of his own brand of scientism, his brutal reductionism, and his narrowing of 'truth' to verifiable hypothesises, and reality to the ontological 'level' of inanimate matter).

The particular brand of historicism that is most widely applied, and which is most certainly the more dangerous form, is the type that looks to evolution in biology and 'applies' the same to the historical and sociological sciences. This blind faith in an upward progress in human life lies at the heart of most peoples errors relating practically any discipline. Darwinism itself, as opposed to the science itself, suffers from a certain degree of historicism and in fact relies on teleological assumptions. Two of the most common errors are the Marxist and the Whiggish (or Liberal) interpretation of history.

For Marxist historians there is an upward movement in the historical setting. Human society, human ideas, art, music, culture etc are essentially reducible to economic realities. These realities work as a dialectic, two forces a thesis and an anti-thesis must clash to form a new synthesis in society. So most typically a Marxist may say the feudal landlords were one half (the thesis), the peasants are the other half (the anti-thesis), we then see a clash of peasants against landlords in the middle ages (1381, 1524-25, and the Reformation would have been the intellectual peasants revolt), which formed a new synthesis the bourgeois and the workers, with the rise of liberal capitalism. In this model it is the economic agents that work out the dialectic of history; ideas, justice, religion all follow from that. The problem with a dialectic is that it would in theory continue for ever, and each agent would be absolved of all responsibly for his actions (for they were determined by their class status, itself rigidly defined). However, a Marxist cannot believe that the dialectic will continue onwards for ever, thus they tend to view history as a Purpose. The working out of True Humanity, of the progress of the march of time. Hence, Marx believed the 'end' of history lay in a workers utopia, a stateless, labourless time. Yet the logic of a dialectic does not allow for a stoppage, unless history becomes some sort of god, which develops to perfection through time, unless there is something outside of the mere dilectic to which is more fundamental.

Marxism is fairly easy to refute, for its own contradictions and its own narrowness expose it well enough. Whiggery on the other hand is much more difficult to attack, for its ground is ever shifting, and many see its principles as good in themselves. In its most gratuitous form it simply states that, that which is modern is better, that the past is backward, that humanity is ever improving. This more simplistic form can be seen clearly in the arrogance of the enlightenment thinkers (the very term 'enlightenment' is an indicator of this arrogance). Kant said:

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of the enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own understanding! (E. Kant, 'An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?' in Kant: Political Writings, ed. H. S. Reiss, (Cambridge, 2006), p. 54)

This immaturity is any state that, as far as Kant is concerned, is not 'free'. Any traditions, or traditional ideas, must be challenged for the sake of challenge and for freedom. If men submit to 'dogmas' they are unable to think properly. 'Dare to be wise!' In other words, the only way to be wise is to think, and to think ones way out of past dogmas. Kant rejects also the notion that knowledge, particularly religious knowledge, can ever be fixed. 'A contract of this kind [an unalterable dogma of faith say], concluded with a view to preventing all further enlightenment of mankind for ever, is absolutely null and void, even if ratified by the supreme power'. Kant offers no explanation as why such should be so, but simply lets it stand that 'enlightenment' is the only way that mankind can go. Kant posits then a kind of cultural relativism, but as with all relativists he is more dogmatic and rigid than any true Dogma. He constructs therefore a Universal purpose:

The history of the human race as a whole can be regarded as the realisation of a hidden plan of nature to bring about an internally- and for this purpose also externally - perfect political constitution as the only possible state within which all natural capacities of mankind can be developed completely (E. Kant,
Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose', in Kant: Political Writings, (Cambridge, 2006) p. 50)

Kant's idea of a universal history, equates simply to the asocial sociability of man working antagonistically through time, until Reason unwittingly works its course. Mankind is set on a path that he cannot see (except with enlightenment). There is a melancholy haphazardy in which wars are fought, men make stupid mistakes and so on, which brings out the ultimate purpose of history. The rational state, the perfect state, where men can be completely enlightened. Kant is optimistic about what the future will hold, because he believes Man is steadily improving through time, and his own time is better than all previous ages. This theory of progress suffers however, from the a simply mistake; it is a huge begging of the question. How, if all is change, flux, if no dogma may be laid down for all time, if no standard exists outside of man, how could one understand such a concept as 'better' or 'worse' or 'Enlightenment'? Why is the 18th century such a privileged century, that men could suddenly become enlightened, mature? Unless one simply states that one is more enlightened then there is no answer. As for progress how does one demonstrate that we have progressed? Technology, perhaps? Politics, maybe? Technology may be more powerful, sophisticated etc., but how does one measure progress in politics, economics, society, culture?

Skipping ahead a little, and bypassing the 19th century which also possessed its fair share of faith in progress, and its whiggish world view, we can still see the faith in progress in spite of the failures of the enlightenment project, and the witness of the bloodiest century of human history. Francis Fukuyama is among those whose faith in progress is so complete that he cannot think outside of it. His book 'The End if History and the Last Man' is essentially an apologia for liberal, capitalist, democracy. He writes a justification for world Americanisation and dismisses everything that it not liberal, democratic, capitalism as an immature state of human life, which will in time reach the 'old age' of mankind if it grows up.

His line of arguing is absolutely horrid, and his book is riddled with contradictions, yet he is taken seriously. The essence of his argument runs thus:

1)We have liberal democratic capitalist states emerging all over the world, even after a century of seeming failure of liberalism (the Holocaust, communism, fascism etc).

2)Therefore, there must be some way to explain why liberal democracy and capitalism are the victors on the world stage of politics.

3)There are many theories of history, including Marx's theory which are bunk. However, Hegel (one of the first to have a modern systematic theory) gives us a starting point.

4)Man's nature is he has no nature, he is completely undetermined, yet he is bound by his historical setting, or consciousness.

5)History is dialectical, that is a mixture of thesis/antithesis and synthesis, all of which is unknown to historical actors, and can only be known by subsequent generations looking at history and telling its story.

6)History is irreversible. The strongest example is science and technology. With the scientific method, new and more powerful machines could be made, Man's dominion over nature could be more complete, and technology is definitely progressed. The scientific method always leads Man to more control, and can never be lost now that it has been discovered. Therefore, history can never 'go backwards'.

7)Nevertheless, history may end, in the sense that Man may reach the pinnacle of reason, his final end. This is in built into the Reason of history, a 'Tran-historical standard'. Men work, wholly unknowingly, the dialectical mechanism of history, until they reach the 'end' freedom, and the perfect satisfaction of the thymos (struggle for recognition).

8)This just so happens to be liberal, democratic capitalism. Thus, man has progressed to the last state he shall ever be in, reached his old-age. All that needs to happen is every society on earth to 'catch up' with America, Europe and Japan, and leave their 'pre-modern' state, so they may enjoy 'freedom' and may perfectly satisfy their thymotic nature.

This is a very basic summery of his argument, it takes him an excessive amount of time to get to the point, and he re-writes his first principles half-way through his book, which is immensely annoying. However, if one looks at the manner of his argument we encounter more problems relating to modernism, and its offshoots of historicism. We have here an uncritical devotion to the 'modern', that which is 'now'. He speaks as though we are today somehow in the best position, for we have the most understanding, the most perfect system. Chesterton says, 'Tradition... is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who happen to be walking around'. Frankly, the dismissal of traditional societies and cultures merely because they can be recorded in history books, and are 'in the past' is hardly convincing. Fukuyama uses the phrase 'less reflective ages', as if St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Ambrose, St. Pius V, or whomever were somehow less able to think, reflect and discover universal principles. He also justifies the horrors of the past, for without them mankind could surely have not gotten to were it is now. Thus, the Holocaust, Soviet Russia, Communist China, the whole lot had to happen in order for liberal democracy to come out as the summation of human achievement and the 'end' of human development.

The final point about Fukuyama and I think the most damning, is also the one that crushes a majority of modernist philosophies, including the root problem Liberalism. It is the making of human reason, and also to human existence the highest level of being; the separation of Faith from Reason, while having a blind faith in Reason; and cultural/philosophic relativism. In reply and in simple terms man is a rational creature, but his reason is entirely insufficient for comprehending the highest levels of being. In all of the theories about history there is always a higher principle, which has somehow revealed itself to mankind in the 20th and 21st centuries. Yet how does reason discover 'Reason' in history. If all man's actions through time are merely the result of his 'un-nature', antagonisms, strife, 'asocial sociability', conflict etc. which happen to work out 'Reason' through time, such a 'Reason' would be undiscoverable. Especially in the light of the fact that man's conscience is bound up in his time. Even if 'Reason' could be discovered all of the enlightenment philosophers, and all their followers are bound up in the same inevitable historical situation. One could never know the 'end' nor the purpose, for one is always bound by the 'now', and by ones historical conscience.

The separation of Faith from Reason is so utterly ridiculous that it need not be discussed at any great length. Simply put all rational knowledge must be taken on by faith. Therefore, the most rational thing will appeal the intellect and be taken on by faith, if you like this equates to belief (assuming the will is also good). No one, for example, can live existentially, for to do so would require a complete separation of ones soul from all 'other' existence, and a concerted effort to 'exist' and to bring all 'extension' into existence at all times. Such a reality is pure nonsense, and ends in the contradictory notion of solipsism. One must have rational knowledge and faith that such is rational and therefore to be believed. If one is referring to the supernatural, theological virtue of Faith, then reason is a lower faulty, which is the handmaid of Faith, but Faith cannot not a contradiction to Reason, nor Reason Faith, for ones reason determines where ones faith is.

The final part ties in with the first two. Cultural/philosophic relativism is the primary myth of the modern world. Simply put if relativism is true, then I’m the only person who exists, I pre-existed myself, I brought myself and all extended reality into existence, there is no such thing as inter-subjectivity, and there is no reason why I should be writing an blog entry for an uncreated, insubstantial fictional world present in the extended reality of my mind. Additionally, language or any form of communication is meaningless, since it is pure flux itself, and there can be nothing, no essence whatever that can be created, or discovered, to get us out of the pure nonsense of chaotic flux, since, by having such an essence, we would necessarily have to discard relativism. If one posits something like, 'The nature of man is to have no nature', then that is the end, there is nothing to discover about man he has any meaning. Nothing outside of him, or intrinsic to him has any meaning. He cannot create meaning or discover meaning, for to do so would refute the first principle of having 'no nature'. There must of course be a fixed principle, something from eternity, which can illuminate our subjective and contingent consciences, and we must have a nature to talk about 'Man as man'. If not, then that is the end of the discussion, for all conversation, all action, all being is necessarily meaningless and incomprehensible. If the subject (the person) is the only 'actual' or 'verifiable' reality, and there is nothing outside of the subject that can be known, then the world becomes a lonely place, with the means of communicating (and communing) completely shot. The individual cannot be the only authority, Authority must exist from eternity outside of individual conscience, otherwise there is no such thing as authority.

The original point of this essay was to expose the particular errors of historicism, but by doing so we see also the primary errors of modernism, or liberalism. The other motive for this essay was to attack another brand of historicism, which is often called feminism. The funniest (and also saddest) thing about feminism, is that it is anti-feminine, that is to say the male virtues are held in such a high regard by feminists that they feel they must discard their own 'inferior' femininity for 'superior' masculinity; they must be men in order to be equal. Of course feminism has its origins in liberalism, which was derived from Protestantism. It is culturally Protestant (that is to say, it was Protestantism which breed an anti-female culture) and philosophically liberal (that is to say, liberalism, which was basically an extention spiritual autonomy to social/political autonomy, in the feminist form, did the same for women against men). In the history of the ideas, feminism is traceable to the English Civil War, with the ferment of crackpot ideas that occurred . Katherine Chidley is seen as one of the first women to 'oppose' patriarchy, entering into the public sphere, and asserting her spiritual and political automony. Historical writing on the subject however, is painfully historicist. Always is there an assumed 'universal purpose' of history for women to have their rights recognised by society, or more particularly the destruction of 'patriarchal' society by women obtaining the 'phallus'. This ludicrous doctrine, apart from being derived from abhorrent principles, and the most misogynistic men that have ever lived (Fraud, Sartre et al), is pure historicism and suffers from the same mistakes as all modernists. For example, how could any of this be known? More importantly how can this be measured, verified, even understood?

(It is amusing that the most patriarchal society in the world, the Church, venerates as the perfection of humanity, Our Blessed Mother Mary, Queen of the Universe. Protestants lost true femininity when they smashed her statues and called veneration of Our Lady, 'the mummeries of superstition'. As a result Protestants lost their perspective on femininity to such a degree that they inevitably became anti-woman).

I say with Chesterton, I am no longer antagonistic with progressives. There really isn't any point, they cannot imagine anything but perpetual change. If they wish to keep believing Thursday is better than Wednesday because it is Thursday then so be it. I am bored with arguing the point, just like I am bored with arguing that murder of Children, even for the preservation of the mother, is evil. Change must be challenged and if we succeed, we will, amusingly enough, see change for real!