I liked this post. The only bit a didn't think was quite right was regarding alleged scepticism about Steven Pinker's claim that the world is becoming less violent:
'I for one have never entertained this idea of a historic growth of violence'.
Surely Pinker claims that most people don't believe that the world is becoming LESS violent, not that they believe it is becoming more violent. But other than that, I thought this was a good piece.
"For these reasons and more, conservatism has been asleep for most of the last 70 years, allowing Progressives a clear run through the commanding heights of the burgeoning mass education and mass media establishments."
"I for one have never entertained this idea of a historic growth of violence and neither, I suspect, have most people with a reasonably developed interest in history."
I think I can see the fallacy in his approach. He assumes that there are two popular sentiments in the current western world: those who recognize that social interactions have become easier, smoother, since pre-history; and those who feel, apparently, that things have gotten worse, *ostensibly, over the same time frame*.
I, for one, have never entertained this idea of a historic growth of violence and neither, I suspect, do most of those he pigeonholes as conservative pessimists. I think he has created a straw man to mock rhetorically.
I can't speak to the former, but I am, like you, probably counted among the latter. I can can say with assurance, that over the course of human development, social interactions have improved, are less dangerous, and more productive.
But I also feel that within limited time frames, there can be a sort of social backsliding; things may have been better only 10, 20, 40 years ago than they appear to be *now*. And I think that I perceive that within my lifetime (I'm leading edge Boomer, myself), I've seen certain common social interactions erode. Race relations in the US were markedly smoother, less mistrustful, in the 70s, e.g.. Relations with the opposite sex less fraught with anxiety/mistrust. Individuals more (or less) successful than oneself were not reflexively villified to the degree that they are now.
And *that* is the proper way to judge my "pessimism"--and really and truly I resist that label. What I do is to simply observe social phenomena as objectively as I can muster, find occasional personal disconnects ("what exactly *is* this I'm seeing?), then trying to, again, objectively, compare it to eras I've lived thru to characterize what the differences are, and what causes them, if possible.
I honestly believe that anyone who lived as an apolitical working class-evolving to upper-middle class, thru the 50s, in the US, would see about the same things. Whether they'd openly admit to the stark differences is another story, egos being tender and having publicly committed to wokeness mitigates against a public retraction.
Excellent writing.
I liked this post. The only bit a didn't think was quite right was regarding alleged scepticism about Steven Pinker's claim that the world is becoming less violent:
'I for one have never entertained this idea of a historic growth of violence'.
Surely Pinker claims that most people don't believe that the world is becoming LESS violent, not that they believe it is becoming more violent. But other than that, I thought this was a good piece.
"For these reasons and more, conservatism has been asleep for most of the last 70 years, allowing Progressives a clear run through the commanding heights of the burgeoning mass education and mass media establishments."
This is the crux of the article, and I concur.
Too much prose and not enough substance.
Conservatism is not just asleep, it is dead and decomposed.
This all just makes me despise the petty conservative mind more.
"I for one have never entertained this idea of a historic growth of violence and neither, I suspect, have most people with a reasonably developed interest in history."
I think I can see the fallacy in his approach. He assumes that there are two popular sentiments in the current western world: those who recognize that social interactions have become easier, smoother, since pre-history; and those who feel, apparently, that things have gotten worse, *ostensibly, over the same time frame*.
I, for one, have never entertained this idea of a historic growth of violence and neither, I suspect, do most of those he pigeonholes as conservative pessimists. I think he has created a straw man to mock rhetorically.
I can't speak to the former, but I am, like you, probably counted among the latter. I can can say with assurance, that over the course of human development, social interactions have improved, are less dangerous, and more productive.
But I also feel that within limited time frames, there can be a sort of social backsliding; things may have been better only 10, 20, 40 years ago than they appear to be *now*. And I think that I perceive that within my lifetime (I'm leading edge Boomer, myself), I've seen certain common social interactions erode. Race relations in the US were markedly smoother, less mistrustful, in the 70s, e.g.. Relations with the opposite sex less fraught with anxiety/mistrust. Individuals more (or less) successful than oneself were not reflexively villified to the degree that they are now.
And *that* is the proper way to judge my "pessimism"--and really and truly I resist that label. What I do is to simply observe social phenomena as objectively as I can muster, find occasional personal disconnects ("what exactly *is* this I'm seeing?), then trying to, again, objectively, compare it to eras I've lived thru to characterize what the differences are, and what causes them, if possible.
I honestly believe that anyone who lived as an apolitical working class-evolving to upper-middle class, thru the 50s, in the US, would see about the same things. Whether they'd openly admit to the stark differences is another story, egos being tender and having publicly committed to wokeness mitigates against a public retraction.