Reactions to Fundamental Cultural Shifts
by Benjamin ShenderDuring any upheaval in a culture there are two general reactions. The first reaction is to hold ever tighter to the foundations of your beliefs. The second is to discard those beliefs and attempt to find new ones. The more massive this upheaval, the more extreme the reactions are.
In our current political environment it is tempting to simply refer to the first group as conservatives and the second as liberals. But this does not accurately describe the situation. Conservatives seek to maintain the status quo while liberals seek to change the status quo. Neither of the groups listed above are interested in maintaining the status quo. As, in this case, the status quo is change. The first group seeks to end this change by embracing the so-called fundamental beliefs of the society to a greater extent than they were before. And so we can call these people fundamentalists. The second group seeks something radically new and unusual. These people one could refer to as radicals, but connotations there are unsuited. Rather I will refer to them as revolutionaries. However, both are ultimately liberals.
The Fundamentalist reaction is typical and widespread. This can be as simple as strongly holding to one’s beliefs even while you suspect that the world they used to belong to is changing. To out right denial of the evidence with no reason. A friend of mine at a prestigious college in Maryland and I were discussing the collapse. After a while he no longer had any counter-argument and had admitted that all of my points were valid, and added up to an inevitable collapse. My friend, who in five years earned degrees in mathematics, physics, economics, and computer science then went on to say, “but I can’t accept that civilization will end.” At that point no further argument could be made. Point and counter-point can be continued, but outright denial cannot be countered. This reaction can also be found among religious activists who in the face of a calamity of the scale of a collapse of any size will often have the same three reactions. First they will hold to their beliefs tighter, in other words there will be notable increase in fundamentalism. Secondly they will attempt to co-opt their beliefs onto respected founders of the culture they belong to. For instance, the claim of the United States being founded by Christians as a Christian nation is inaccurate, the people referred to as the “Founding Fathers” were often deists with little kind to say in regards to institutionalized Christianity. The third reaction is probably one of the most common: a prediction of the end of the world. These reactions together then easily lead to the argument that the calamity in question is due to the people in that culture “falling from grace.” And that now we must place our fundamental beliefs higher than we have been, as it is causing the end of the world.
The revolutionary reaction is equally common. The basis of these people’s beliefs is that the approaching calamity is directly caused by the culture itself. Therefore grasping tighter to that culture is counter-productive. This can range from simple apathy to truly revolutionary action. An example of this would be the green movement, also the Ishmael movement, and Jensen’s followers. Due to the up front nature of these claims to change this is the group most often labeled as liberal, in contrast to the fundamentalists. But as we have seen, both qualify; however, the fundamentalists require the illusion of continuity and tradition for their argument, while the revolutionaries do not, and in fact would be hindered by it. Revolutionaries often react similarly, but merely to a different degree. All would rather the world be different than it currently is, if only in the interests of survival. At the low energy end of the spectrum there are those who react with apparent indifference. They see the end as inevitable or any fix as out of their hands and intend to simply “wait and see.” Further along you have those who would go so far as to donate money to those who are even further along: the activists. These people go out of their way to attempt to change the world, usually from within the system. People who go to marches, make speeches, write books, and proposals. Further along this same spectrum some people leave the constraints of law and order and become more confrontational, sometimes to the point of active violence. This violence can be to stop a specific project, general against a specific product, or, in extreme cases, even in attempt to force the end of the culture in question. Beyond this there are those who would change their world. Rather than try to fix the world that is already under going a calamity or destroy the same, these people simply leave that world to its own devices and attempt to live beyond it.
The more fundamentalist or revolutionary a person becomes, the fewer people they can consider “of like mind.” Those of the opposite side, and even those not as extreme as they are, are both counter to their own view. And those moderates, who make up a very large segment of a society, who often refuse to even pay attention to the issue in contention, find themselves without voice at the highest levels. Therefore, come the ultimate calamity, they are without allies.
In this case the American Revolution can be used as a mini-example. Leading up to the war the greatest thinkers began to increasingly chose one side or the other, eventually achieving a general level of extremism that could not be breached by any moderate thinker. Once the conflict reached the breaking point there were only two sides remaining, and those who to this point refused to choose found themselves left with a choice: pick a side or be friendless with a war raging not five miles away. Leading up to the war some simply went further west, into the wilderness where they could be free then, without fighting the war. Granted, not an option everyone could take though. The fundamentalist thinkers tried to convince everyone that they had always been loyal subjects of Britain, but the fact was that for two centuries Britain paid little mind to the Americas except in regards to trade, which was lightly or not taxed. Once it became a battle ground for dominance between Britain and France though, Britain became interested in exercising power in the area. Also, the revolutionaries began to increasingly assault troop barracks and the like. While many fundamentalist predicted that without the power of Britain backing up the colonies the Native Tribes would overrun and slaughter the colonists.
Ultimately a change is inevitable when societal thresholds are reached. The degree and direction of this change are the only things in question.
Mr. Shender, I like your writing style. Clear and precise. The article itself was the first time I’ve seen anyone actually classify people’s reactions to change, and what you’ve constructed is a powerful metaphor that allows us to extend our sights into the future and see what’s going on there.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 10 November 2005 @ 3:18 PM
excellent and very interesting article.
i have run across this thinking often:
“The more fundamentalist or revolutionary a person becomes, the fewer people they can consider “of like mind.” Those of the opposite side, and even those not as extreme as they are, are both counter to their own view.”
That is because they refuse to see outside of their bubble. Often, they refuse to consider viewpoints that are fairly close to their own as allies, and instead use a standard of uniformity of views. for example, I consider many “fundamentalist” christians as having goals similar to my own. I groom allies in the christian circles, as well as the eco and anti corp movements. Each of these groups have very similar goals, but refuse to “see” each other as allies, generally over ludicrous points like abortion or the eating of meat.
I remarked to a friend this past weekend, “you mean to tell me that, while we both want to burn down wal-mart, you won’t ally with me because I eat meat? Are you fucking stupid?”I made this statement to a christian, substituting “hate the feds” with the walmart, and abortion for meat. Both times they answered “yeah, but…”
This, to me, is the primary reason that all of these “grassroots” orgs can’t get things done. Refusal to consider any point but their own. They all have some stupid sticking issue, something that predicates acceptance in their groups with agreement to this one idea. seems pretty stupid to me. Rather than unite disparate groups with a big ideal, they divide their strength over little ones.
and people say i am weird……
Comment by Rory — 10 November 2005 @ 4:00 PM
Benjamin:
I think this article gives a good description of the spectrum of positions on our political/economic system. Your labels confuse me however. My understanding of the difference between a radical and a liberal position has been that a liberal advocates change to fix and preserve the system. A radical would destroy it either to replace it, or abolish it. If revolutionaries are liberal, what is a radical?
Comment by Bob Harrison — 10 November 2005 @ 4:04 PM
outside the spectrum?
Jason said it somewhere on here, that conservatives consider us to be liberal, and liberals consider us to be conservative.
Comment by Raku — 10 November 2005 @ 4:38 PM
much better than what most people consider me to be: an asshole….
Comment by Rory — 10 November 2005 @ 4:47 PM
i think this article is informative in that it points to phenomenon that i think would be most pertinent to undertsand. but i dont think it is helpful calling people “extreme” being a word in reference to proximity, rather than just difference and infurrs the need to stay close to some specific place. this place i see reffered to in the media as “objective”, “centric” “realistic”, and the like. where in reality it is a rigid ideology. this also seems to gloss over allot of inportant factors: like that this is a stratified society, how does that play into this?
Comment by Anarcho-feralist — 10 November 2005 @ 7:43 PM
A radical. I just didn’t like the baggage that word came with.
That is a good point. I’ve been dealing with mathematics, economics, and some physics in preparation for another article I’m working on. So I’m in the mindset of extreme as merely meaning “to a greater extent” rather than “too far out of the ordinary to be safe.” I should have framed that better.
This being a stratified society gives those on either side a group to prostrate towards. Environmentalists can lobby the government. Right to Life groups can file lawsuits in court. When we get to the more…radical? groups they have someone to blame, someone to attack. The poor are usually foot solders, not targets. Also, it is often the intellectual elite that are the most prominent in creating their side of the issue. And the orator elite are usually the ones that persuade and guide people to that side. But, history would seem to show that nothing can be changed within a society until the rich and powerful become motivated to apply their wealth and power. This leaves us with two basic choices: convince the rich and powerful to join us; or don’t try and change the society, simply form a new one. The problem with simply creating a new society is two fold. First, the rich and powerful will be quite put out at being cut out of the deal, and will likely be confrontational about it. Secondly, creating a new society is far from simple.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 10 November 2005 @ 9:02 PM
Strange. I just came from a conference presented by (in part) the Zapatistas. As it happens, they are starting to expand their movement by embracing other, similarly minded groups and even working to create chapters across the border up to and including Los Angeles.
They might just be the radical grassroots organization that is willing to put aside those petty differences to embrace a greater whole…
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 10 November 2005 @ 10:30 PM
But still far better than the alternative — asking the rich and powerful to change is rather like begging. Those truly empowered will seek to create a new society and will at the same time convince the rich and powerful to join — there is no dichotomy between creating a new society and convincing others that there is a viable alternative. In my opinion, being a model for change is the best (only?) way to accomplish this anyway.
As for the difficulty of this path, the challenge makes it worthwhile.
Comment by Devin — 11 November 2005 @ 12:13 AM
this article brings up a train of thought i have beeen thinking of recently. of looking at the totality of social/political/religous/cultural/economic(including within the power elite) groups/ideas/movements that exist in a given area and how they interact with eachother and in what way they are active so as to greater understand dynamics and where the anarcho-primitivist movement fits into this. i think this would be good to know not just to better understand our current situation and how civilizational collapse is reflected within that but also of how best to operate as far as surviving collapse and excelerating collapse.
Comment by anarcho-feralist — 11 November 2005 @ 2:23 PM
“These people simply leave the world to it’s devices and attempt to live beyond it”. Don’t you view this as the best choice?
Comment by Rick Larson — 16 February 2006 @ 12:39 AM
Its one I’m rather fond of.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 16 February 2006 @ 1:12 AM