Society – The Modern Frame

Toward a Theory of History

Change is the defining feature of history. By history, I mean human history; specifically, the history of the human world, which exists over and above–yet never entirely independent from–the physical and biological world.¹ As time unfolds the present is influenced by the past; what is, has been conditioned by what once was; the human world of today is a synthesis of the human world of yesterday. Just as any given moment holds the necessary conditions for what is possible in the future, the necessary conditions of the world we inhabit today existed in the past in some way. Today has developed and emerged from new combinations and novel instantiations of a multiplicity of conditions existing in the past. A given moment may be said to comprise a “whole”, out of which emerges a synthesis constituting a larger, more complex, whole. Thus, there is a directedness to the unfolding of history. Like the expansion of the universe or the arrow of time, it would appear history moves in a single direction.² This phenomenon–in which the totality of circumstances constituted within the human world influences and affects itself over time–I will call historical conditioning.³

Some Thoughts on the Limits of American Democracy

It is not an accident that the rise of democratic and republican forms of government in the modern period coincided with the rise of the public sphere of rational-critical debate.¹ This is particularly clear in the case of America, where the founding itself was the product of a rich and robust public discussion and debate. Although many members of the Constitutional Convention were not college-educated, they nonetheless were very well-read and informed.² At the time, it was even reported that some British booksellers were selling more law books in the colonies than in England.³ But although the genesis of government “of, by, and for the people” has its roots in a public sphere of rational-critical debate, such a foundation is equally necessary for the endurance and continued existence of such governments and societies. Yet today in America the public sphere of rational-critical debate has all but disappeared, in many ways existing only as a simulacrum of what it once was. For the most part, it has transformed into the mass media of opinions ready-made to consume and independent structures of sociological propaganda.⁴ This general weakening of the public sphere is connected to at least three socioeconomic factors, each of which in its own way undermines our ability as a society to participate in democratic behavior.

The Isolated Self and the Limits of Communication, Part III

Up to this point, I have considered the isolated self as a phenomenon understood on the basis of hardening theoretical frameworks situated within the more general landscape of the contemporary struggle to communicate. The quest for certainty and calm in a world marked by historic levels of uncertainty and anxiety–as witnessed by the work of Erich Fromm and Jacques Ellul–has helped elucidate some of the psychological basis, or impetus, behind the emergence of this phenomenon.¹ Perhaps equally important is the commodification of rational-critical debate, as explored by Jürgen Habermas, which has become more pronounced today than ever before. Taken together, both help shed necessary light on the emergence and continued endurance of the isolated self and the factionalism it gives rise to.² But the picture I am attempting to paint in these essays will not be complete until a proper consideration of propaganda has taken place.³ Indeed, everything that has been said up to now has laid the groundwork for an understanding of propaganda, which will further bring into contrast the problem that we, as a society, face. In so doing, Jacques Ellul’s work on the subject will be my primary resource, especially when considered in light of the relatively recent development of the internet.

The Isolated Self and the Limits of Communication, Part II

The phenomenon of the isolated self is best understood within the more general phenomena of communication struggles, breakdowns, and failures that characterize much contemporary debate.¹ While in many ways the isolated self can be described on the basis of theoretical frameworks alone, there is also more to the story. Failures in communication fuel the psychological need for reinforcement and self-affirmation (especially by like-minded others), which in turn lead to a kind of factionalism² that understands one’s group as pure and righteous, and those whose views differ as at best mistaken, or at worst, evil. The pseudo-confidence accompanying this phenomenon ensures that isolated selves live within their own reality, cut off from those holding different perspectives. It appears that this overall condition has, in part, stemmed from the basic human desire for certainty that seems proportionate to the relative uncertainty of the modern world.³ But this is not all. The transformation of the public sphere of rational-critical debate into a commodity–to be consumed like any other–has led to its own problems and complexities, not the least of which is the role it has played in the emergence of the isolated self. To this, I now turn.

The Isolated Self and the Limits of Communication, Part I

In a previous essay, I offered some thoughts on the state of contemporary debate in America. At that time, debates over public health and economics (specifically in light of the unfolding COVID-19 pandemic) and systemic racism were front and center. Add to these the controversies over the 2020 U.S. presidential election and the events of January 6th in Washington D.C., and it is perhaps unsurprising that 2021 has followed the trajectory of 2020.¹ As far as the struggle to communicate is concerned, the problem has become even more pronounced and noticeable. In many ways, the breakdowns in communication over the past year have progressed. Progressed, in the sense that they have reached a new stage of development–one that is perhaps far more dangerous than many people realize. Such failures in communication lead to a peculiar form of isolation, one that is simultaneously beholden to and a consequence of various forms of propaganda and factionalism. For reasons which will become apparent, this essay is more or less an informal continuation of my previous essay, Theoretical Frameworks and the Limits of Communication. As before, this is an initial and undeveloped attempt to shed light on a situation that is in many ways unintelligible.

Happiness: A Brief Critique

I have said before that the implicit yet common understanding of happiness today is preference satisfaction.¹ It is the view that sees the standards of happiness to be internal to the agent, existing solely within the purview of the individual. “To each, his own.” This is closely associated with what I have described as cultural existentialism.² The increasing pluralism of Western society has birthed a state of affairs in which there is no longer a common understanding of the good.³ What remains is the individual’s assessment, protected by law–insofar as he or she does not impinge on the rights of others. But if this view of happiness is pushed to its limits, as it were, the ramifications are unsettling, to say the least.⁴

A Sketch of Contemporary Hookup Culture

The rise of hookup culture in contemporary America appears to be closely bound up with the rise of freedom as an ultimate value.¹ In my essays on cultural existentialism, I have attempted to show the centrality that this “ultimate value” has come to occupy today–as witnessed by the view of the self as “unencumbered”–as well as its interconnectedness to what I have called preference satisfaction.² The phenomenon of hookup culture as a contemporary subculture, especially among the demographic of young adults, is a poignant example of this.³ Hookup culture itself is an instance of a broader set of changes involving relationships, which I will not attempt to address here. For the time being, I offer the following brief and preliminary thoughts.

Cultural Existentialism: Instances and Instrumentality

While the previous essays¹ laid the foundation and began exploring some of the architecture of what I have called cultural existentialism, at this point the following can be offered as a working definition: Cultural existentialism is the phenomenon that views the individual as entirely free and unencumbered–by history, family, community, tradition, inherited ideas, et al.–and, therefore, free to live and define themselves as they see fit; the sole author of their life.² In this essay, I want to explore some of the more outward forms of cultural existentialism, as well as its relation to what I have called the instrumental stance. In so doing, I hope to shed some light on the question of the more recent origins of this phenomenon. Again, my focus will remain on America.

Cultural Existentialism: The Absurdity of American Individualism

In the previous essay I hoped to make clear the connection between the phenomenon of cultural existentialism with that of its formal counterpart–the philosophy of Existentialism. Again, I believe the connection between them is one of similarity rather than direct causality, and that the primary difference between the two is merely the extent to which they are articulated. Still, the average person is not a philosopher–let alone Sartre–so in many ways the accusation that cultural existentialism is widely embodied but not articulated is unfair. For a more common view of cultural existentialism, I would like to turn to the excellent work of the sociologist Robert Bellah, and some of his colleagues, such as Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swindler, and Steven M. Tipton.¹ Much of their research, findings, and collaboration on American culture from the early 1980s will help color the outline I have sketched thus far.

Introduction to Cultural Existentialism

At the close of my essay The Individual and The Human World, I spoke briefly about the contemporary West–and America in particular–as a place where “individuals determine and create themselves in their own image–rooted in the satisfaction of their own preferences–the sole authors of their lives.”¹ This phenomenon, which is admittedly broad and multifaceted, has become hegemonic in the contemporary West. Here I will attempt to explore some of its contours, though certain details will have to be postponed for the time being. As a kind of umbrella term, I will refer to this state of affairs as cultural existentialism.²