I think the perception of patriarchy is only a symptom of a broader phenomenon- civilizational atomisation. I’m not saying that imbalanced power dynamics do not exist- but rather that people focus on power at the risk of ignoring a far important factor- the gradual and inexorable loss of personal agency.
It’s being going on for a very long time. It probably began with industrialisation (which was a boon for alleviating poverty, but at the cost of longer term community integrity), but underwent its first step change with the rise of mass media propaganda in the thirties. There have been a number of other step changes along the way, some gradual, some sudden, the growth of the bureaucratic state and the triumph of economies of scale resulting in the emergence of vast corporations. The social media revolution is only the latest in a long line of innovations which have tried to fit individuals into their new role as embodiments of homo economicus.
I couldn’t find the psychological system I was looking for, but it’s an approach which asks the individual to look at every aspect of their life- friends, family, career, spirituality, environment, hobbies & interests, etc- and asks them to evaluate the level of control they feel over each area of their life. Most people (myself included) tend to find that they are focusing on one specific aspect of their lives (career) over which they have little or no actual control.
It’s little wonder that people turn to politics or power theories as an outlet for their distress- the modern world has robbed us of agency and control by programming us to monomaniacally focus on one specific area of our lives. It’s taught us not to focus on things which bring real value to our lives, our human connections.
Worse still, the system programs us to seek out protagonists, culprits for our loss of agency, when in reality almost everyone feels this lack of control, loss of agency, and it’s acceleration as the atomisation only compounds. With social media, the stage is set for endgame, a Manichean struggle in which competing power groups seek to deprive each other of perceived power, making the loss of agency both universal and existential for everyone. It’s why the tribal war politics has reached the status of a Cold Civil War- both sides see the other side as an existential threat to what little agency and control they still feel in their own lives.
This is not to say that male violence isn’t an omnipresent threat for women or that racism doesn’t exist, but we need to look far deeper into what ails us and recognise the ways in which the system has been programming us for societal conflict and collapse. It also doesn’t mean that extending the power of politics into every aspect of the economy isn’t going to end in total economic collapse, as it has done every other time in history it’s been tried. But still, we need to look deeper into the reasons why we fight. Has our civilizational distress at our mounting loss of agency caused us to neglect the basic mechanisms of a functional society and economy?
This very short essay came about as a result of a reply to
Industrialization, initially, did nothing to allieviate poverty. Conditions for workers were terrible and it took a combination of government regulation and trade unions (and I am by no means a fan of unions) to win decent conditions for workers.
To my mind the concept of personal agency is a recent invention though. The greater number of people have always been happier with being directed. Here I share Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor's view. People don't necessarily want agency. You and me might do so but most don't.
The issue to my mind revolves around narcissism. This is becoming more and more prevalent. Anyone can claim victimhood and the means of measurement are irrational. However, things are actually getting better. Counter-intuitively violence is actually down and societies are safer than before.
> I couldn’t find the psychological system I was looking for, but it’s an approach which asks the individual to look at every aspect of their life
But men are expendable. The best of us focus our whole energy on something heavy and try to move it. But civilization benefits from our achievements. The best of us have no time for happiness or 'balance', we have mountains to climb. Think of the absolute commitment of the great scientists. Einstein once said that he couldn't answer the question whether he was happy or not and it made no difference because it wasn't even relevant to his life. You could say he was atomized but that's exactly what he was designed to be. And we have General Relativity.
FWIW, you and Ray back at Quillette turned me on to a lot of these urgent social issues way before any of my other lefty friends started to notice that their intellectual framework is increasingly creaky.
Is it 'locus of control' that you are describing Geary? Internal (I can control this outcome) vs. external (this outcome is predetermined for me, I can't control it)?
Or is this more about the choice of prioritizing one aspect of life over others (in which, I don't know that one).
Locus of control was trendy in education before DEI took completely over, and it's a valuable framework for mental health work. The worst case scenario is a sort of 'learned helplessness' which I think could be likened to chronic depression. The person who has given up, because nothing they do matters anyway'.
The irony of this being replaced by DEI is that DEI reinforces these external loci of control at the expense of internal loci. It's institutional - therefore unavoidable, inescapable.
I hadn't heard the term 'civilizational atomisation' before, but I describes a trend I've been observing too.
The declining state of mental health across WEIRD countries is undeniable right now. I think you nicely described one of the major causes - the loss of agency.
Industrialization, initially, did nothing to allieviate poverty. Conditions for workers were terrible and it took a combination of government regulation and trade unions (and I am by no means a fan of unions) to win decent conditions for workers.
To my mind the concept of personal agency is a recent invention though. The greater number of people have always been happier with being directed. Here I share Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor's view. People don't necessarily want agency. You and me might do so but most don't.
The issue to my mind revolves around narcissism. This is becoming more and more prevalent. Anyone can claim victimhood and the means of measurement are irrational. However, things are actually getting better. Counter-intuitively violence is actually down and societies are safer than before.
> I couldn’t find the psychological system I was looking for, but it’s an approach which asks the individual to look at every aspect of their life
But men are expendable. The best of us focus our whole energy on something heavy and try to move it. But civilization benefits from our achievements. The best of us have no time for happiness or 'balance', we have mountains to climb. Think of the absolute commitment of the great scientists. Einstein once said that he couldn't answer the question whether he was happy or not and it made no difference because it wasn't even relevant to his life. You could say he was atomized but that's exactly what he was designed to be. And we have General Relativity.
FWIW, you and Ray back at Quillette turned me on to a lot of these urgent social issues way before any of my other lefty friends started to notice that their intellectual framework is increasingly creaky.
Glad to see you are still a voice of reason guys!
Is it 'locus of control' that you are describing Geary? Internal (I can control this outcome) vs. external (this outcome is predetermined for me, I can't control it)?
Or is this more about the choice of prioritizing one aspect of life over others (in which, I don't know that one).
Locus of control was trendy in education before DEI took completely over, and it's a valuable framework for mental health work. The worst case scenario is a sort of 'learned helplessness' which I think could be likened to chronic depression. The person who has given up, because nothing they do matters anyway'.
The irony of this being replaced by DEI is that DEI reinforces these external loci of control at the expense of internal loci. It's institutional - therefore unavoidable, inescapable.
I hadn't heard the term 'civilizational atomisation' before, but I describes a trend I've been observing too.
The declining state of mental health across WEIRD countries is undeniable right now. I think you nicely described one of the major causes - the loss of agency.
More true than many may recognize. Answering this in an essay as comments are just that.