Why Neo-Conservatism is a Regression and Thinkers Like Jordan Peterson Are Wrong

No matter what neo-conservatives would have you believe about universal archetypes and the perennity of human worlds, social reality is not true in itself, but to a great extent a slowly built construct of convention.

What is a city – a polis? It’s a world, a co-created environment, a network of actualizations and realizations “knotted” together to define a territory that is more or less shared, shaped by discourses, symbolic crystallizations, viscous ideological grammars serving the interests of temporary groups and forming a bulwark both against external turbulence and internal excessive ambitions. The hyperrealist prejudice has it that on earth there is only one, just about coherent world, i.e. the “capitalist-humanist” system, which strikes a delicate balance between maximizing financial surplus-value and controlling empathy. In the capitalist-humanist system we endure, our suffering is explained in terms of capital and humanism: money and human nature operate as a reassuring or worrisome duo and are the key to a false universal understanding.

Many humans prefer to suffer in a familiar and consensual frame of reference rather than adventure into their fear of the meanders of creal perception. In sociology, the Thomas theorem attributed to William Isaac Thomas in 1928 has it that “If humans define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”.[1] A city-polis, a social structure are all the results of a common understanding and daily reconducted agreement, drawn from among an infinite number of possible interpretations and configurations, extracted from the panphony of the Creal. As the earth becomes globalized, alternate possible words tend to be more difficult to establish sustainably; such is the paradox of laissez-faire that it produces mimetism.

If a majority agree in believing that capitalism is the least bad of systems, then our actions will converge to validate and realize this belief: particular rites of passage will be repeated, for instance, considering money to be the means of universal exchange. Karl Marx wrote about this in his 1844 manuscripts: “By possessing the property of buying everything, by possessing the property of appropriating all objects, money is thus the object of eminent possession. The universality of its property is the omnipotence of its being. It is therefore regarded as an omnipotent being. Money is the procurer between man’s need and the object, between his life and his means of life. But that which mediates my life for me, also mediates the existence of other people for me. For me money is the other person.”[2]

Everyone knows from experience that our habits shape reality. It’s what we call the “force of circumstance” in common parlance. At the level of society, a new convention always takes place in a system of conventions that precedes it. If the new convention is too far removed from its basis of application, it will have some difficulty in generating reality. This is why social creation, societal renewal is a slow, viscous process, and radical individual creation even more difficult. For Thomas’s theorem to conform more closely to experience, we need to reformulate it as follows: “If humans define a situation as real, and that this definition is not too far removed from the definition previously agreed on by most people, then the definition can in the mid-term become real in its consequences.” Let’s take the representation of a wave function of a violin string on a horizontal and vertical axis: generally speaking modulations are curved. As the physicist Leonard Susskind explained, a vertical rise of the wave function would mean that the string breaks. To change reality, you cannot attack it vertically, because it will break you faster than you manage to break it.

There is always an element of compromise in real social change. The world becomes sometimes what a group admires, provided it actively relays the fervor underlying this admiration, and more often than not it becomes what most people reproduce out of frustration and lack of idealism.

In fact neo-conservatives, Jordan Peterson and like-minded followers, are themselves postmodernists: they are trying to shape the world in their image, and their strategy it to refer to archetypes and eternal values. Don’t be fooled: they also are social-reality creators.

[1]The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. W.I. Thomas and D.S. Thomas. New York: Knopf, 1928: 571–572

[2]Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1959; Translated: by Martin Milligan from the German, p. 59: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm

Author: Luis de Miranda

Philosopher, Crealectician, Author of fiction and non-fiction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s