Government mirrors the dichotomy that is fundamental to humanity itself. Structural vs genealogical is the same as nature vs nurture. I would harken back to Arendt and the importance of natality. A new human is inherently of its parents, nurtured by them, yet is of a different age, time and character. Of course, it is nature AND nurture that shapes the future generation. I would call out the passing of time and the existence of history as essential in both. Epigenetics has show than even biological nature can be expressed differently under new circumstances, and certainly the times in which children are raised - their experiences - are different than their parents. Thus the nurture they experience is different. The importance of family and cultural integrity, the passing down of wisdom and ways of being, is what allows for some continuity even with the passing of time. It is the conserving force. Can you say the relationship is based on rules or on an organic evolving relationship? Of course it is both, as you say.
(I feel there is a long tangent I could go down here about colonialism and the disruption or annihilation of so many wisdom traditions around the world, and what that does to humanity, but I shall refrain in favor of moving back to the discussing of government.)
Government - at least democratic leaning government - arises from the people and thus the same process experienced in the family sphere, in the raising of children, is in some sense mirrored. One could imagine a healthy government like a healthy family dynamic - passing of wisdom, discussion around the changing of times, the older generation providing a steady slowing pressure against the impetus of the younger, the free exchange of thoughts and ideas that comes from a basis of trust and shared values. Yet...few would describe this as occurring, although actually, in this election I see some evidence of a better transition.
I would call out two things. 1) Many young people today do not have robust relationships with their parents - often along ideological lines. With the holidays coming up, how many families refrain from talking about politics or religion or so many other essential topics, because they cannot have healthy discussion? Would we expect government to be better? 2) in government, how many of our candidates are entrenched bureaucrats who have been in power for decades? Policy on technology regulation, climate change, any new phenomenon have been slow to form, arguably because young people are not able to succeed in a sphere that is dominated by the older generation. Notably, in parallel, how many young people still live with their parents because their parents have well paying jobs and houses, and they cannot afford it?
I guess what I'm saying is: our government is a reflection of our society and our society is a reflection of our communities and our individual choices. If we want to fix the government, first we must fix our social relations to one another, in our families, in ourselves.
Hmm. Yes, clearly there are generational effects that cause change over time in families and cultures, and some tension between parents and children. Governments that see generational changes come and go also presumably evolve, while retaining key structural or natural characteristics from their origins or built in to their systems and laws.
I'm not sure I'm following your many other good observations. (?)
The political debate I referred to in the essay has to do with early 20th c progressives (Wilson in particular) claiming it's time to move past and beyond the Constitution and early governmental forms as put in place by the framers -- or so claim historians like Pestritto. Conservatives (like Pestritto) attempt to trace all kinds of negative fallout from that progressivism, and they push back to defend the all-time wisdom of the original Constitution, i.e. the structures it put in place (rule of law, separation of powers, etc) that maintain freedom from tyranny, etc.
What struck me was the similarity on the individual level of psychology, as Callard talked about aspiration vs. Frankfurt's concerns with strict rationality and the "structures" of decision-making. Aspiration involves a desire to grow and change, perhaps beyond recognition, which is similar to what progressives were aiming for on the level of a whole nation. Wilson, surely, was "aspirational."
And yet, the critics need to be heard, especially criticisms against Hegelianism, historicism, social Darwinism, etc. Structures do matter. Our country's freedom and stability as a democracy owe much to the safeguards and power calibrations put in place from the beginning. Most people would be scandalized -- I think (!?) -- to hear it's time to roll over the Constitution into something more up to date for the sake of progress.
Government mirrors the dichotomy that is fundamental to humanity itself. Structural vs genealogical is the same as nature vs nurture. I would harken back to Arendt and the importance of natality. A new human is inherently of its parents, nurtured by them, yet is of a different age, time and character. Of course, it is nature AND nurture that shapes the future generation. I would call out the passing of time and the existence of history as essential in both. Epigenetics has show than even biological nature can be expressed differently under new circumstances, and certainly the times in which children are raised - their experiences - are different than their parents. Thus the nurture they experience is different. The importance of family and cultural integrity, the passing down of wisdom and ways of being, is what allows for some continuity even with the passing of time. It is the conserving force. Can you say the relationship is based on rules or on an organic evolving relationship? Of course it is both, as you say.
(I feel there is a long tangent I could go down here about colonialism and the disruption or annihilation of so many wisdom traditions around the world, and what that does to humanity, but I shall refrain in favor of moving back to the discussing of government.)
Government - at least democratic leaning government - arises from the people and thus the same process experienced in the family sphere, in the raising of children, is in some sense mirrored. One could imagine a healthy government like a healthy family dynamic - passing of wisdom, discussion around the changing of times, the older generation providing a steady slowing pressure against the impetus of the younger, the free exchange of thoughts and ideas that comes from a basis of trust and shared values. Yet...few would describe this as occurring, although actually, in this election I see some evidence of a better transition.
I would call out two things. 1) Many young people today do not have robust relationships with their parents - often along ideological lines. With the holidays coming up, how many families refrain from talking about politics or religion or so many other essential topics, because they cannot have healthy discussion? Would we expect government to be better? 2) in government, how many of our candidates are entrenched bureaucrats who have been in power for decades? Policy on technology regulation, climate change, any new phenomenon have been slow to form, arguably because young people are not able to succeed in a sphere that is dominated by the older generation. Notably, in parallel, how many young people still live with their parents because their parents have well paying jobs and houses, and they cannot afford it?
I guess what I'm saying is: our government is a reflection of our society and our society is a reflection of our communities and our individual choices. If we want to fix the government, first we must fix our social relations to one another, in our families, in ourselves.
Hmm. Yes, clearly there are generational effects that cause change over time in families and cultures, and some tension between parents and children. Governments that see generational changes come and go also presumably evolve, while retaining key structural or natural characteristics from their origins or built in to their systems and laws.
I'm not sure I'm following your many other good observations. (?)
The political debate I referred to in the essay has to do with early 20th c progressives (Wilson in particular) claiming it's time to move past and beyond the Constitution and early governmental forms as put in place by the framers -- or so claim historians like Pestritto. Conservatives (like Pestritto) attempt to trace all kinds of negative fallout from that progressivism, and they push back to defend the all-time wisdom of the original Constitution, i.e. the structures it put in place (rule of law, separation of powers, etc) that maintain freedom from tyranny, etc.
What struck me was the similarity on the individual level of psychology, as Callard talked about aspiration vs. Frankfurt's concerns with strict rationality and the "structures" of decision-making. Aspiration involves a desire to grow and change, perhaps beyond recognition, which is similar to what progressives were aiming for on the level of a whole nation. Wilson, surely, was "aspirational."
And yet, the critics need to be heard, especially criticisms against Hegelianism, historicism, social Darwinism, etc. Structures do matter. Our country's freedom and stability as a democracy owe much to the safeguards and power calibrations put in place from the beginning. Most people would be scandalized -- I think (!?) -- to hear it's time to roll over the Constitution into something more up to date for the sake of progress.
An excellent essay! You raise & explore some crucial dichotomies, yin’s & yangs, theses & antitheses. Provocative in the best way!