The Politics of Manipulation
P. Schultz
April 9, 2014
Of late, I
have been reading a book entitled The New
Radicalism in America: 1889-1963 by Christopher Lasch. Now, Lasch usually
has interesting things to say and this book is no exception. Those Lasch is
concerned with are the likes of Jane Addams, John Dewey, Randolph Bourne and
Colonel House. I have not finished the book yet so I have not made it to 1963
but what I have read so far is most interesting.
One result
of reading Lasch is help in understanding why it is fair to say that there are
no deep divisions in the American political landscape, an argument that I have
made here more than once. And basically it seems to come down to the fact that both
sects, that is, both Republicans and Democrats, both our “liberals” and our
“conservatives” pursue or practice a politics of manipulation. Let me illustrate
this with Lasch’s argument about the “new radicals” like Addams and Dewey and
their common understanding of education.
As Lasch
noticed, the new radicals in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries did notice and sympathize with the “waywardness” of youth and they
did so because they argued that this “waywardness” was a reflection of what
might be called the stilted character of modern life. But, even so, Addams and
Dewey still thought of education as “socialization” and, therefore, sought to
manipulate “the spirit of youth. . . into socially acceptable channels.” [p.
155] As Lasch sums this up with regard to Jane Addams: “The trouble was that
Jane Addams was asking, in effect, that young people be adjusted to a social
order which by her own admission was cynically indifferent to their welfare. She confronted a moral problem with a
manipulative solution. Having laid bare the brutalizing effects of
industrial labor . . . she proceeded to look for ways of reconciling people to
their work. Industrial society, according to Jane Addams, was a terrific engine
of repression; yet her own efforts seemed to make its parts run more smoothly.”
[p. 157, emphasis added]
One reason
for this was because the new radicals saw conflict as the issue, not injustice
or exploitation: “For the new radicals, conflict itself, rather than injustice
or inequality, was the evil to be eradicated.” [p. 162] And again:
“Exploitation presented itself as a matter not of injustice but of waste. It
was a problem of management rather than of morals.”
Now it is
possible, even plausible to argue that today, as in the time Lasch is concerned
with, both of our most dominant political sects, the liberals and the
conservatives, still agree with this, even while endorsing different
“management styles” – either governmental or business-like – as providing
solutions to our “problems.” That is, no moral reform is needed, meaning no
change in the moral basis of our society is needed. It is only a matter of
finding the right “management style,” or, to speak more straightforwardly, the
right kind of manipulation, to solve our problems.
And, for
similar reasons, it is almost impossible to resist calls to “work within the
system,” as the only reasonable way to address our problems. Because we have
been taught, and not directly taught but taught nonetheless, that politics is
all about manipulation, which always takes some form of “socialization,” we
have no way of opposing the call to “work within the system,” which is to say
that “the system” is essentially fine and only needs some “fine tuning.” The
moral basis of our society is, by this viewpoint, not defective and, hence, no
such reforms are needed.
Another
implication of this line of argument is that the solutions to our problems only
require that we replace one set of elites with the other set, while restocking
both, as it were, by means of an education that focuses on those young who hold
the most promise as peaceful producers of profitability. This is what education
as socialization in the United States seeks to achieve, a restocking of the
political class with an elite that reflects as in a mirror the current elites,
the current managers, who are also those who are most adept at being peaceful
producers of profitability. It is, after all, peace, production, and profits
that we Americans are taught are the highest virtues, is it not?
And so
regarding what is called education reform, the two sects produce policies that
are very much alike. One sect, not known for its compassion, called its reform
“No Child Left Behind,” by which was implied that all would become peaceful
producers of profitability, at least at some level of competence. The other
sect labeled its agenda “Race to the Top,” by which was meant restocking the
current elite with those young who proved themselves most adept at achieving
prosperity by peacefully producing more or better than others. It is all to
easy to see that, so understood, there is not a great deal difference between
these two agendas and none at all in terms of their ultimate goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment