Category: Culture

(q) – Word Processing

Someone on substack recently asked the question “Will there ever be a medium to replace books?”

I believe the answer is no. I cited that the rules to the Royal Game of Ur were translated from handwritten cuneiform tablets which were 4000 years old. In 4000 years, what will survive? Important works which have been preserved, handwritten notes which have been found–most digital tech will likely be inert boxes of plastic, or digital formats will have transcended their current domain.

It occurred to me, as I was contemplating this, that there is a difference between digital text and writing. Writing is a physical thing. If I mark a page with a pen, I cannot unmark it. Digital typing is not writing. It is word processing. It is better thought of as coding. In writing this article, I am coding data to display vector graphic icons which share the same shape as the Roman alphabet we all know and love. Arranging these icons in a discernable pattern can be read, but it is a distinct activity on a distinct medium. Digital word processing is to writing as Etch-a-sketch is to painting–it is impermanent and fleeting. This article will not be around in 4,000 years, but someone might find my 4th grade art project in a fossilized dump somewhere. Someone may find the rules to the ice bucket challenge in 4000 years and translate them and give that challenge new life. No one will ever see the videos posted to youtube.

I’ve always been aware of this impermanence of the digital, and it always makes me feel a little bit uneasy. The materialist side of me wants my writings to be preserved. But maybe it’s better that they be lost to time, so that I can rest humbly in peaceful anonymity.

AMDG

CCCLXXXIV – Class Angst

I don’t like inter-class antagonism. As far as humans go, I don’t think class bestows any special traits nor any special faults. People are people, and sometimes stupid people accumulate for themselves extraordinary material means; sometimes geniuses go unnoticed and impoverished. That is just the way of the world.

I don’t deny that we have a Class system. In America, at least, it is a little less overt than in Britain; and there it is a little less solidified than in India as I understand it. The challenge with the American class system is that we do not have a standard method of classification. Leftists tend to classify by income and education. Rightists tend to classify by career. People of both left and right varieties tend to use cars, or houses, or possessions, or appearance as status symbols–so class symbols.

I have recently seen claims that certain sincerely held political beliefs were driven by a desire to preserve economic means, or something to that effect. That is an ad-hominem fallacy disguising itself as social commentary. “You are a member of xyz class therefore your beliefs, actions, and thoughts all stem from the motive of preserving your class status.”

Far from critiquing and eliminating class distinctions, this attitude solidifies them. It declares that a certain class is incapable of having valid thoughts, words, or deeds, because of their class status. This is what I will call Critical Class Theory. It predates Critical Race Theory but was never identified in this way. Critical Race Theory says that people of a given race can never shed their bigotry against other races because all their thoughts words and deeds stem from a perspective defined by their race. Critical Race Theory says that certain racial lenses are irredeemable, and Critical Class Theory says that certain class lenses are irredeemable.

Christ tells us to give liberally to the poor, and to love our enemies. These two admonishments instruct the poor to not hate the rich because they are rich, and instruct the rich to give to the poor because their riches are not their own. This would serve to moderate the social stratification that comes from the accumulation of wealth. Christianity then is a moderating influence on the wholly natural forces of human inequality.

AMDG

CCCLX – The Commons, Feudalism, and Psychogeography

Property Taxes as a subject lies tangent to so many interesting areas. So let’s build a model here and include as much of it as we can.

We have to start with a country. Let’s call it Scootland, which is an island nation. It is proximate to Hambonia, Orthonesia, and Zippia–in case I need other examples.

Scootland is a Kingdom, with King Scoot on the Throne. This is basic context, we are going to turn now to the bottomest level and work up and see how that looks.

There are three kinds of land areas in Scootland. There’s the Cities, which are marked by high populations, dense construction, lots of economic activity and domestic and international trade. There’s the Rurlands (I don’t know a better term for Rural areas that is as succinct as the word City), which are marked by low, dispersed populations, agrarian economies and domestic trade. Lastly, there’s the Commons–undeveloped land that is rich in natural resources but the development of which includes certain challenges, challenges which include the development costs, clearing the land, accessing the natural resources; but some geographical challenges, like deserts or mountains or other obstacles. The Commons are available but in some cases not easy to develop.

The people of Scootland have birthright citizenship, but Scootland as a Kingdom follows a feudal model. Scootland is divided into Duchies which are administered by Dukes, Counties which are administered by Counts, and Baronies which are administered by Barons. Any political division smaller than a Barony is organized locally and follows locally defined rules. Each level of the Feudal system owes a duty of fealty to the level above, and a duty of custodial care to the subjects below. To be clear, Dukes and Counts do not have nothing to do, they each have a demesne to personally administer, but the rest of the territory is delegated to a subordinate noble.

Each Duchy includes all three types of land areas: City, Rurland, and Common, in varying proportion.

Question 1: Can we enclose the Commons?

The proposal I have seen approaches this topic a different way, so let’s provide some background. The Commons, you have heard from the oft-invoked “Tragedy of the Commons”. The Tragedy of the commons is the idea that there is unowned communal property and if everyone exploits it in self interest then the commons is degraded and unproductive for everyone involved. Enclosing the commons involves essentially ending the concept of the commons. It is no longer communal property and so can no longer be exploited for self interest. The commons becomes assigned. The proposal linked above effectuates this assignment by the use of corporate style shares. It gives the public responsibility for and custodianship of the commons, which incentivizes it’s careful use.

Scootland is a Kingdom, and the whole realm is the personal demesne of the King, delegated in part to the Duchies and other feudal hierarchs. Because the whole realm is subject to the King, there’s no need to enclose the Commons, it is already assigned–assigned to the Sovereign. The sovereign can delegate the commons to a subject for any reason, but there is no need for a special mechanism. Kristor’s proposal leverages Corporate structures, but as I pointed out to David the Barbarian in a comment on my previous article, the language of Shares implies a level of authority and control greater than mere ownership. The analogy is that if you own 51% of the shares of a company, you own the company; if you own 51% of the land area of the Kingdom, you are still subject to the Sovereign.

Question 2: How does the Sovereign provide for the needs of the Kingdom?

Taxes. There are two kinds of tax. The first tax is a Land tax, apportioned at some number of Scootbucks per Acre. It is the same for all land, regardless of type, productivity, level of improvement. The tax represents a rent–an acknowledgement that this land is delegated to me via ownership from the King. However, the Land Tax disproportionately affects the residents of the Rurlands, because their homesteads and farms are on the main a greater area than any given property in the Cities. This is offset by a flat Sales tax. The Sales tax applies the same rate to all sales transactions. This means that a property owner in a City will have one acre but build a 10 story apartment building. This owner will pay very little in Land Tax, but operating an apartment building is expensive work and so will pay proportionately more in Sales taxes on all of his transactions. A homesteader in the Rurlands will pay far more in Land Tax, but as a homesteader will be very self sufficient and need to pay very little in Sales Tax. These two taxes should be balanced against each other.

These two taxes provide a steady stream of income to the King, who can then use them to manage the budget, provide public projects, and have a standing army.

Question 3: What about local taxes from the Feudal Hierarchy?

All taxes would be collected at the most local level, and passed up the chain, each level taking a bite of the apple to fund their administrative budgets. A Baron would collect taxes directly, and pass some proportion (the majority) up to the Count, who would take some and pass some proportion (the majority) up to the Duke, who would take some and pass some proportion (the majority) up to the King. Everyone gets a cut, but always the lions share goes to the King.

Question 4: Why is a Feudal Hierarchy necessary?

Because the chain of authority is clearer and the responsibility for the deeds (or misdeeds) of government is more apparent. This is the benefit of a King, and so it makes sense that Delegations from the King would follow the same model.

What’s that word “Psychogeography”?

I read an article on Substack that introduced me to the concept and I immediately saw a connection to these ideas of Commons and Feudalism. It’ll be a bit of a walk, so bear with me. The article quotes this, in answer to the question “Why does no one ever notice [that Glasgow is a magnificent city]?”

‘Because nobody imagines living here…think of Florence, Paris, London, New York. Nobody visiting them for the first time is a stranger because he’s already visited them in paintings, novels, history books and films. But if a city hasn’t been used by an artist not even the inhabitants live there imaginatively.’

The key idea I want to take away here is “living there imaginatively”. This idea is tangent to but not the same as patriotism. The peasant, noble, and sovereign all must equally love the land and imagine themselves creating it into the best version of the country they love. The nation everyone loves lives in the collective imagination of the people; it is distinct from the nation everyone sees and the collective imagination blinds people to the reality they see. Because they see potential, even through the actual.

The Sovereign must love his country and imaginatively occupy it and see the consequences of his actions as taking reality closer to the beautiful imaginings. The Nobles and the peasants must do the same. That also ensures the effective exploitation of the commons.

So how do you incentivize this imaginative occupation of the kingdom? In one sense, by rituals and culture; in another sense by social checks and balances (social, not governmental); in a final sense by faith in God and an understanding that the beauty, goodness, and truth of the kingdom comes from God–it is borrowed, which makes us take better care of it.

Question 5: What are social checks and balances?

These are the social customs that control behavior. We’ve talked about how “politeness” precedes law, and this idea of social checks and balances taps into that. Social mores ensure stability between subjects and neighbors, but it is threats of conflict and tension that help ensure the Sovereign behaves properly and the people stay in line. The Sovereign has the advantage of authority, the people have the advantage of numbers. The Sovereign wants to keep the people happy, and if the Sovereign behaves badly then the people will be angry and want to hold the Sovereign accountable. If the people are behaving out of line then the Sovereign ought to bring a just and moderate exercise of authority to bear and restore order. It is a challenging balance but essential for an orderly society. It begins with a common understanding of social mores.

Question 6: Doesn’t all this sound pretty idealistic?

Yes, absolutely. Reality includes lots of variables and human behavior is very unpredictable. Controlling for multigenerational nobility and transfers of power, controlling for the political inclinations of humans and the quest for power, it is all very difficult. These do not represent a complete model for society, nor does it represent a proposal for our present society. The idea of all this is to explore the intersection of different ideas we have developed and to see how they work together. We aren’t developing a policy proposal, but a coherent model for how such a thing could work.

I’m going to leave this off here, because this is an expansive article that covers a lot of ground. Let me know what you think! I’m enjoying developing these thought experiments.

AMDG

(k) – On Criminal Justice

What about the Criminal Justice system needs to be reformed?

  • First Principles
    • The Criminal Justice system should preserve the dignity of human life
    • The Criminal Justice system should be focused on Justice more than punishment
    • The Criminal Justice system should return some good to society
    • Corollary: This must be a positive good, and not merely the benefit of removing some bad actor. The Criminal Justice System should contribute something to the well being of the community.
  • What is wrong with incarceration?
    • It does not preserve the dignity of human life because the conditions in prisons are awful and if inmates are not subjected to torture by their keepers, they are subjected to torture by other inmates.
      • The solution to this is not a more liberal use of the death penalty.
    • Incarceration is more punishment than Justice in most cases.
    • Incarceration does not return a positive good to society.
  • How can incarceration be improved?
    • Selective Input
      • Preserving the dignity of human life means being more selective about what kinds of people and what crimes are worth incarcerating, and finding creative solutions for other kinds of people or other (lesser) crimes.
      • There are very few cases where proper Justice means removing a criminal from society. Justice has as its elements something similar to Confession: Contrition, Repentance, Penance, Absolution.
        • The criminal must apologize for what was done.
        • The criminal must resolve never to repeat the deed.
        • The criminal must do some thing to return to the injured party some measure of compensation for their injury (in full knowledge that complete compensation maybe impossible).
        • The injured party ought to forgive the criminal after being compensated.
    • Properly ordered incarceration
      • Incarceration must be proper with respect to time spent incarcerated
      • Incarceration must be proper with respect to activities engaged in while incarcerated
        • I think putting the incarcerated to work on public projects would be a good thing to do here, provided their health and medical needs are met by the state.
          • Imprisoned labor preserves the dignity of the person because it gives them some work to occupy their time
          • Imprisoned labor preserves Justice because it offers some compensation to the community
            • It has the added benefit of being a discrete spiritual penance
          • Imprisoned labor returns some positive good to the community
          • Imprisoned labor is not fun and would still serve as a deterrent for crime.
        • Idleness of the incarcerated is a real problem and allows for all sorts of malfeasance while in and after departing from prison.
      • Incarceration must be proper with respect to treatment by caretakers and by other prisoners
        • Prisoners must have necessities provided for, they must be kept safe and secure and in good health.
        • Controls must be in place to prevent abuses from caretakers or other prisoners.
        • Abuses must be punished according to the same Justice. A crime against a criminal is still a crime.
    • Selective Output
      • The conditions under which a criminal is released must be explicit and properly ordered to the conditions which required their incarceration
        • once the elements of Contrition, Repentance, Penance, and Absolution have been completed, there should be no further need to retain the person in prison.
      • If they refuse to repent, ought they still be released?
      • If absolution is refused by the injured party? –when the penance is done their duty to the community is complete, absolution should be an act over and above. It would be good to have a ceremony after a prison sentence is complete where absolution and forgiveness is offered.

CCCLIV – Catharism, Poetic Justice, and Interstate Rivalry

Catharism was a dualist, gnostic heresy that believed there was a good God and an evil god. The good God they associated with Jesus in the New Testament, the evil god they associated with the god of the old testament, and called him satan. Catharism was formally suppressed by Pope Innocent III. He excommunicated a French Count for not suppressing the heresy hard enough (can you imagine?!), and then initiated the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars, which succeeded in extinguishing the heresy.

It is the Massacre at Beziers during that crusade that gives us the phrase “Kill them all, let God sort them out”. It was originally rendered in Latin with a reference to 2 Timothy 2:19, “Kill them. The Lord knows those that are his own.” This order was given by Arnaud Amalric, leader of the Crusade, when asked how to tell the difference between Cathars and Catholics living in Beziers.

There’s a morbid kind of poetic justice to the end of Catharism. They believed the seemingly harsh god of the Old Testament was satan, and received a harsh and violent end–along with many innocents unjustly murdered in the crusaders zeal to destroy heresy.

It’s been an interesting week for interstate rivalry. People in the south often accuse people in the north of being arrogant elitists; people in the north often accuse people in the south of being ignorant racists. Neither of these is wholly true; neither of these is wholly false. There’s good and bad everywhere. This may seem like fallacious equivocation, but in fact it is an important truth. If you want national unity, stop writing off entire states worth of people, because you will capture many innocents unjustly in that criticism, like massacre at Beziers.

There is a distinct difference in governance in different states, and to that what can be said other than let them sleep in the bed they made themselves? Are we praying for the realm, both local and national? Let’s wish good things on and for our countrymen, and even if we have good reasons to suppose bad things are true, let’s admonish in private and engage in some work to right what is wrong–prayer being our chief weapon against error. Otherwise we are likely to get poetic justice for ourselves.

It is worth noting that of all the disciples of Christ, only John was with Him at his crucifixion. Of all the disciples of Christ, only John was not martyred. God has a way of extracting what is owed to him, and if we don’t pay it in this life we will surely pay it in the next. Love your neighbors, people.

AMDG

CCCLI – Ritual Politics & The Peasant

Let’s talk about Ritual. Ritual here is a culturally important action which is bound up in ceremony, habit, and performance.

The important elements then are:

  • Cultural Importance – things that are not culturally important are not preserved in ritual
  • Ceremony – things that are rituals are surrounded with pomp and circumstance befitting a culturally important matter
  • Periodicity – rituals are observed at prescribed times of year
  • Performance – rituals are performative, proper observance of rituals are pleasing to the public and give the performer a pleasing association in the eyes of the public.

Liturgy is a description of Catholic rituals. Liturgy is culturally important because it pertains to worship of God; Liturgy is Ceremonial because it is surrounded with pomp and circumstance appropriate for worship; Liturgy is periodical because it happens every Sunday (every day even), with grander and more expansive liturgies reserved for grander holy days; Liturgy is performative because priests must perform the liturgy properly to afford proper worship to God, and a “good priest” is one who gives due respect to God through his liturgical performance.

This is a very antiseptic way of describing Catholic rituals, but you get the point, I hope.

There are political rituals as well. You know some of them as cliches: The Mayor holding big scissors at a ribbon cutting ceremony; the “breaking ground” ceremony where men in clean suits step on a shovel in a patch of pre-turned earth. Inaugurations of Presidents are highly ritualized political events.

There are two kinds of rituals, political or otherwise: Vain, and Purposeful rituals. Purposeful rituals fulfill some purpose and have some definite reason for existing. Mass is an act of worship, and so is a very purposeful ritual. The ritual helps to lend some universality to the Mass, so that one can go anywhere in the world and still recognize the elements of the Mass. Vain ritual has a purpose that satisfies the performer, rather than the people. The ribbon cutting ceremony is for the publicity of the Mayor, not for the edification of the people. He wishes to be seen doing things in public, so he obliges the ritual for his own purposes, not for any real public purpose.

In my previous article, I assert that voting is a ritual observance in America.

  • It is culturally important that people vote, people call it a “civic duty”
  • It is wrapped up in ceremony–the private act in the ballot box and the grand results parties for the politicians in question
  • It is periodic, happens in November every year, with a major ritual happening every 2-4 years.
  • It is performative, in that the act of voting has very little in the way of practical effect but it makes us feel good to wear an “I voted” sticker, and offers legitimacy to the politician who ends up winning the vote.

In the previous article, I leave essentially unanswered the question of why we should not vote, because I offered that politics is a tool at the disposal of the modern peasant.

In that article, we broke the practice of politics into three categories: Theory, Practice, and Ritual. Political practice involves two subdivisions: Governance and Plebiscite. Governance means the decision making actions of an individual in carrying out the duties required by the office he is elected into. Plebiscite means the decision making actions of a mass of people in answering questions put to them by the Governors. This includes questions such as “who should my successor be?” or “should we raise taxes in 10 years or now?” or “should moral degeneracy be legal or not?”

Let’s imagine ourselves as a peasant and consider all five aspects of politics then.

Ritual – A peasant must be aware of the rituals and customs associated with a people. This awareness helps him to cultivate his livelihood. But a peasant must be extremely selective about which rituals he participates in. The rituals we participate in reflects us and reflects what we consider important. It is impossible to cast a vote dispassionately–the ritual of voting inextricably ties us to the outcome of the vote, and even if we want to be dispassionate, we have not acted in a way that is dispassionate, and involvement in politics will become a priority to us. Likewise, participation in the Mass inextricably ties us to the worship of God. It is impossible to attend Mass, whether receiving Eucharist or not, and not become involved in Worship. Repeated involvement in the Mass will inevitably become a priority to us. Remember, a peasant has three projects: Spiritual, Personal, and Communal, in that order. If a given ritual helps the community but does not help the spirit, it should be avoided. Voting, then, should be avoided because it is a chiefly communal act but it is deleterious to our spirit.

Plebiscite – A peasant must be aware of the decisions being put up to plebiscite, but must not participate in it. A peasant’s chief focus should be his three projects, and the Plebiscite does not fall under his domain unless the peasant is in the position of authority. An authoritative peasant must be aware of the decisions too but has an obligation to exercise his authority in justice. It is exceedingly difficult for a peasant to remain a peasant when in a position of power in a liberal society; the exercises of authority are much blurrier. So while I would discourage a peasant from seeking power, a person in power may seek to do so with justice and a peasantly outlook, at which point he must simply be very careful.

Governance – A peasant typically would not even be aware of political acts of governance, but again supposing a peasant was in a position of authority, these acts are simpler and easier to understand how to carry them out in conformity with the spiritual project of the peasant. Authoritative peasants have a duty to act morally and for the custodial good of their subjects, and political acts of governance must be evaluated with this foremost in mind.

Theory – A peasant, regardless of position or project, has little need for political theory, unless such an education aids the pursuit of his projects. An authoritative peasant may need to understand how people think in masses and how to leverage that for the success of some just and good act of governance. It is exceedingly difficult but not impossible. A non-powerful peasant shouldn’t need to know the difference as long as he understands the duty to obey authority and act morally.

You see how democracy makes the life of a peasant more challenging? Politics introduces complications and obstacles to a simple, spiritual, peasantly life.

AMDG

CCCL – Old Times There Are Long Forgotten; Look Away

There’s an interesting phenomenon which Wood observes in the “southern reactionary” world. Now that I am thinking about it, I think it ought to be another point in the “grasping for the transcendent” category of things.

The purpose here is not to re-litigate the civil war, but more to look at it’s social effects. There’s no denying that the South had a unique national identity once upon a time. There’s also no denying that the civil war, on the whole, was riddled with injustice; Hambone and I frequently mark the end of the civil war as the beginning of the Imperial period in American History, and I am sure we are not alone in this.

When I started this blog I was reading Lee’s Lieutenants: A Study in Command. It’s an enormous three volume work, and an absolutely incredible deep dive into both the science of making war and the social accidents of war. My interest in the Civil war is rooted in these war-making, socio-cultural, and general historical aspects. There is a class of people who sympathize, in varying degrees, with the South and the long-lost nation that once existed there. We can categorize their errors.

1- The South Will Rise Again.
Believing the south will rise again is simple delusion, because the Empire conquered her and trampled her and sterilized her. Now the confederate flag is nothing more than provocative tribe-signaling. There is a good and healthy level of affinity for the south. The Confederates were, before and after the war, American citizens. Robert E. Lee, during the conduct of the war, was acutely aware of the fact that the people he was fighting were their brothers and when the Army of Northern Virginia first ventured north of the Potomac, he took great care to instruct his soldiers to pay in cash for supplies from local stores and even had an officers ball for his soldiers and local ladies. In Contrast, at Fredericksburg, the Union army was annoyed at incessant sniper-fire from across the Rappahannock and so shelled the city to oblivion in order to suppress the snipers. This shows the level of brotherhood felt for each side by each side. Heroes of the South are American heroes–Stonewall Jackson was a military genius. So actively wishing for separation is 1) not even what contemporaneous southerners wanted, separation was a last resort and 2) not realistic given the 150+ years of re-education.

2- The South Has Better People and Better Qualities Than Anywhere Else in the Union
The South cannot exist without the North and vice versa. It’s like the ill-fated proposal to turn “Silicon Valley” into its own state and break up the rest of California. You can’t just geographically isolate the parts of the country you don’t like, and claim that everything else is perfect except for that one bit. As many have noted, Cities per se are not evil, and neither is industrialization. One can feel an affinity for a people without feeling a desire to separate those people. I am as much an American as someone in New York or San Francisco or Omaha.

This is really a sense of pride by proxy. “I like the south. The south is better. I am better.”

There’s a lot of bad things in the south too, and bad qualities to it, in places. Just like in the north. So let’s not stand on this ground and start casting aspersions.

One stereotype I cannot stand from cosmopolitan liberals is that people in the south are on the main poorer and less educated. Income does not determine the quality of the person or the level of intelligence. The cosmopolitan liberals are comparing the south using the standard they measure themselves by: Income = status, education = intelligence, and it just doesn’t work that way. This is more a soapbox than anything else.

3- Secession Is A Valid Mechanism For Political Protest

NO. Just no. Secession is not a form of protest. Secession is a final act, like murder or procreation. It cannot be undone, and should be treated with a level of sobriety and seriousness. Secession is a rebellion against a valid and legitimate political authority to whom you owe obedience and substituting your own authority and your own rituals for validity, licity, and legitimacy. Secession is a grave matter.

It is a classically-liberal ideal that Secession is even possible, as that is the founding myth of our fair union to begin with. The Civil War happened because the Constitution failed to answer the question of whose rules have the last word: the Federal rules or the States rules. The divergence of opinion on this topic led to a cultural divergence in different parts of the country, and the final answer was determined by armed combat, and the question is now closed. Under penalty of death, the States are not supreme. They are now regions of an empire, not a union of nations.

Anyone who talks about secession cavalierly doesn’t understand secession and anyone who romanticizes this part of the civil war doesn’t understand what the civil war was about.

AMDG

CCCXLIX – Complicating The Model For Peasantly Life

Thank you, everyone, for reading, and for commenting. I love throwing ideas around and I especially love when you make points that broaden my view. David the Barbarian, in my previous post, added some great clarifications that inspired me to connect some dots with ideas we have already explored.

Let’s dig in.

David makes two points in his comment which stick out to me and, to me, go together:

(…) proper care, in addition to proper attitude and proper attention to higher things, is as warranted as working for our daily bread. (…) Everyone, even the peasant, has a part in the sustaining of the city’s continuance, part of which is politics.

I am going to go off the path for a minute but follow me and you’ll see how it connects, I hope, by the end of this.

There are three projects for a peasant, and there are three positions a peasant can find himself in.

A peasant’s three projects are:

  • Spiritual
  • Personal
  • Communal

The spiritual project of a peasant is primary–it is his union with God, his connection to the sacraments. The peasant is and ought to be chiefly worried about his soul, all other concerns come second.

The personal project of a peasant pertains to his livelihood. He must provide for his necessities, put food on the table, clothe himself and his family, provide a shelter for himself and his family. Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs kind of stuff.

The communal project of a peasant pertains to his community. I have often ignored this because I treated it as a given, but it is worth discussing specifically and clearly to avoid confusion. A peasant is a part of a community. This could mean a parish, could mean a town, what-have-you. A peasant has a duty to that community to help it to provide for its members and to help the community as a whole flourish. If a peasant’s needs are met, he goes to the community to make sure the needs of the community are met.

And his three positions are:

  • Isolated
  • Populated
  • Powerful

The isolated position is what I have kept in my mind the most–this is the classic image of the remote farmer peasant, far from society and self reliant.

The populated position is the idea of a city-peasant. Peasant life is an attitude towards living, not necessarily a specific work. A city-street-side baker can be a peasant if he focuses on his three projects the same way as an isolated farmer does.

The powerful position is the idea of a peasant in a position of authority. A King can be a peasant–but it can be more difficult with the level of authority. As a King, your family is just bigger–it is a family of subjects, you must provide for their necessities and aid their progress in their spiritual project. The higher the authority the greater the responsibility.

David helpfully offers a distinction for when we talk about politics. We have political theory that governs, shall we say, the philosophy of politics. And we have practical politics, that governs naturally the practice. Political theory is the domain of political philosophers, thinkers who try to understand how and why people behave the way they do. Political practice is the domain of politicians, responsible for the facts of governance.

There’s a third aspect to this, which occurred to me as I was jotting down notes. There is a ritual component to politics–customs, ceremonies, etc. This is like cultural politics. You have to know who to bow to, who to shake hands with, who to smile at. Cultural politics varies by population and locality.

A peasant (regardless of position) needs to have fluency in cultural politics, awareness of practical politics, and does not need a deep study of theoretical politics. Cultural politics will allow a peasant to make connections, sell wares, are provide for his livelihood. The rituals and customs between the rural society and the urban society are important for the peasant to know. Awareness of practical politics is just an awareness that it happens, but a peasant need not participate in it.

A point tangent to this is that political participation itself can be a ritual or custom, kind of like how voting has become a ritual for us here in America. It is serving a cultural and ritual role, rather than a positive, pragmatic effect. This is why so many people have a hard time with not voting, and why the idea is so mind boggling and repugnant. It’s a cultural idiom of America, one of the few that all Americans share in common. Choosing not to vote is a rejection of that cultural idiom, but which satisfies a pragmatic understanding of practical politics. Choosing not to vote is changing the culture of ourselves and those around us.

So we cannot conceive of a peasant independent of the city. Even if a peasant’s position is isolated, it is just primarily isolated, not exclusively. Interaction with the city is a necessity for an isolated peasant, just as interaction with the farmers is a necessity for the populated peasant, and interaction with both is necessary for the powerful peasant.

Now the question becomes, what is the proper order of things?

As David says, everyone has a role to play in sustaining the city, this is part of the communal project of a peasant. I think cultural politics helps us to zero in a bit closer to the proper order of how a peasant relates to the political apparatus. The political apparatus is a means to the peasants ends, which are first spiritual and second personal and third communal. Cultural politics is then the first recourse of the peasant, practical politics is then second, and if absolutely necessary theoretical politics is the last resort. This because a peasant shouldn’t need to know the nuances of the Hegelian Mambo to work a crop or sell baked goods, but if somehow it gets to the point that not understanding the Hegelian mambo is preventing the peasant from satisfying his projects, then he has to understand it.

So I am not offering any specific action or rules of thumb, but I am offering that politics is a tool which can be turned to the advantage of the peasant.

“So why shouldn’t we vote? Voting helps us make sure we are protected and looked out for!”

Because voting as an act interferes with and is detrimental to the spiritual project. A peasant should not seek power for the same reason, but if he finds himself as a community leader he should remember that it changes his position.

I think probably further clarification is needed on this nuance of the topic but I covered a lot of ground so let’s let fly this post and solicit feedback.

God bless you all!

AMDG

(i) – How to Change the Culture

Step 1– Unite yourself unfailingly to Truth

Step 2 – Get married, have lots of kids, teach them to do the same

Step 3 – Wait 500 Years

A lot of people have a problem with #1, because defining truth is hard because truth by definition excludes untruth.

A lot of people have a problem with #2, because transmitting information across generations is difficult. Leading by example is difficult, even for well intended and well formed people. This step is hard work.

Another problem people have with #2 is that there is an inordinate focus on other people and what they are doing that we don’t like. We can’t change other people, focusing on other people will only lead to frustration.

A lot of people have a problem with #3, because they want to see change in their lifetimes. An advantage the Chinese have, culturally, is a long cultural memory. They feel an intimate connection with a history dating back thousands of years. That is unfathomable for most Americans, and even many Europeans have been intentionally debasing their culture to erode the connection with their deep antiquity. But it’s an advantage because it allows for patience. Don’t try and force a solution through. You have to be OK with losing now and have that ironclad commitment to imbuing your offspring with the same union to truth and the same long view.

These are the basic ingredients for changing a culture. Any deviation requires an asterisk or two: How to change *other people’s Culture *In our lifetimes.

AMDG