No, according to Larry Diamond, whose paper on Arab democracy is worth reading in full. Here’s an excerpt worth considering for the “Islam is a fundamentally retrograde, anti-modern religion” crowd: [Read more →]

Via Will Wilson and MR, here’s an interesting paper on the Protestant work ethic:

Many theories, most famously Max Weber’s essay on the ‘Protestant ethic,’ have hypothesized that Protestantism should have favored economic development. With their considerable religious heterogeneity and stability of denominational affiliations until the 19th century, the German Lands of the Holy Roman Empire present an ideal testing ground for this hypothesis. Using population figures in a dataset comprising 276 cities in the years 1300-1900, I find no effects of Protestantism on economic growth.

Assuming these findings are correct, I think Weber’s hypothesis is a good example of our tendency to mistakenly credit superficial factors for inciting major events like Northern Europe’s economic take-off. Weber’s theory always sounded vaguely plausible – “Protestantism, by stressing individual freedom and responsibility toward God, dispensed with the Church hierarchy and thus encouraged Protestants to become more flexible and open toward new ideas” (p. 6) – and had the added benefit of lending a scientific veneer to mid-century assumptions about the desirability of Protestant Northern European culture. This type of analysis has a long provenance, from claims about the innate superiority of Anglo-Saxon nations to contemporary theories about Europe’s unique “engineering culture,” but I think the fundamental problem here is mistaking a symptom of social change or some factor that happens to coincide with social change (in this case, the Protestant Reformation) for the underlying causes of success.

This line of analysis also reminds me of Victor Davis Hanson’s view of Western exceptionalism, in which a Luther or an Edison or a Machiavelli were drivers of European ascendancy rise rather than products of a new socio-economic environment. Obviously, there’s a feedback effect at work insofar as dynamic individuals exacerbate or emphasize the conditions that gave rise to their success, but I think notable historical figures or significant historical developments can’t really be separated from their broader political and social context.

At the risk of sounding like a nutty determinist, this is why I found Steven Davies’ recent essay at Cato Unbound so persuasive. By identifying Europe’s political fragmentation as the critical factor behind the rise of the Modern West, Davies is able to isolate a plausible “first cause” for a series of dramatic social changes – capitalism, secularism, modernity etc. – we now associate with European exceptionalism. This structural explanation strikes me as a lot more comprehensive (and satisfying) than pointing to a few outstanding individuals or a religious event as the driving factor behind social and political change.

UPDATE: Ah, the perils of late night blogging. Commenter Koz correctly notes that Hanson’s thesis is a bit more nuanced that I give him credit for. Hanson ties European success to broader trends within Western culture, not just the achievements of a few outstanding figures. Again, I think this mistakes a proximate cause of Europe’s ascendancy for the underlying force(s) behind Western exceptionalism, but I should have been more careful with my characterization.

Interestingly enough, the author Hanson is criticizing – Jared Diamond – also suggests that geographic/political fragmentation helped create the necessary preconditions for European ascendancy.

I linked to this earlier, but amateur history buffs will find Cato Unbound’s discussion on the origins of modernity pretty fascinating. The central point of contention is the so-called “first cause” of modernity – did the West develop because of spontaneous social change, secularism, the rise of “engineering culture,” or competition between European states? I’m inclined to agree with Stephen Davies insofar as competition among states probably laid the groundwork for the subsequent cultural, political and social changes we associate with modernity, but all four contributors raise some interesting objections.

One point of agreement among the contributors is the radical discontinuity between pre-modern Western civilization (read: Christendom) and modern culture. All four authors seem to agree that the connection between Christendom’s essential features and Western modernity is pretty tenuous, which raises a few interesting questions about other religions’ encounters with modernity.

Some of the best evidence for the modern departure from Christendom are what early European liberals had to say about religion. I’m immediately reminded of Leon Gambetta’s famous utterance, ,”Le cléricalisme, voilà l’ennemi!” His views on Christianity were shared by any number of his classically liberal contemporaries. From Galileo to Darwin to the Scopes Monkey Trial, innumerable scientists of the early modern era also held skeptical views about the compatibility of science, reason and faith.

Christianity and modernity survived this encounter. The pope now speaks of the fundamental relationship between God and reason. The recent Manhattan Declaration emphasizes the connection between liberal accomplishments like ending slavery and challenging the divine right of kings and Christianity. The theological and historical truth of these claims are almost irrelevant – the larger point is that Christians have self-consciously accepted the legitimacy (and, indeed, desirability) of liberalism and modernity.

The disconnect between how the contemporary Church views its relationship with liberalism, modernity and science and how early liberals viewed the church is worth remembering in the context of the current debate over Islam. You frequently hear that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with pluralism, liberalism, and the penumbra of Western political and cultural practices. If the Christian experience teachers us anything, however, it’s that the fluidity of historical interpretation and theology can open up space for liberalizing movements to take hold within a major Abrahamic faith. Over the next few decades, it will not surprise me if major Muslim leaders begin emphasizing how Islam preserved the works of great philosophers and fostered scientific learning throughout the Middle Ages as evidence of their faith’s integral relationship with science and modernity. In fact, it’s already pretty common to hear similar talking points from moderate Islamic leaders in the United States and Europe. This narrative may not be completely accurate, but that’s almost beside the point. If the number of liberal Muslims reaches a critical mass, they’ll find ways to justify their political and cultural outlook within a rich theological tradition, just as liberal Christians have done in the West.

UPDATE: See also Johnathan Rowe at Positive Liberty.

Freddie has made a strong argument against viewing autism as a positive thing to be celebrated.  In so doing – and keeping in mind that he is our resident liberal – Freddie argues that such views are political correctness run amok.  To complete the role reversal, I, one of our two resident self-avowed libertarians, am going to argue that at least mild autism, Asperger’s, and various other disorders, including ADHD, are in fact things that society should learn to celebrate. 

Freddie writes:

Autism has debilitating effects on many that have it, often with profound negative consequences for learning, self-control, communication, and the restraint of physical violence. I cannot personally comprehend the emotional toll of dealing with autism in a family– nor can I understand the depth and love found within the relationships between families with autistic members. The value of autistic people or the relationships austic people have are unquestionable. Who would want to question such things? But there is something wrong, and deeply sad, in eliding a love and respect for the people and relationships that are affected by autism into a respect for the disorder. Autistic people are beautiful. Autism is not beautiful.

For several years until relatively recently, I probably would have agreed 100% with this statement, which I think applies with equal force to other disorders such as ADHD.  Before that, I would have taken the hardline approach that these “disorders” were merely excuses for some sort of moral defect (although maybe not with respect to severe autism). 

I tend to think that we as a society have basically followed this evolution as well – these disorders were initially viewed as mere exuses for character flaws that should not be tolerated.  Eventually, as it became clear that they were becoming more and more a problem in society and it became more evident that people had little control over these traits, we learned to tolerate those with these disorders by defining them as diseases outside of the individual’s control but that should still be something to be corrected.

But I think there’s another step that we need to take as a society – one of acceptance, rather than mere tolerance.  Where I’ve come down is that at least mild forms of autism, and just about all forms of ADHD are really just unchangeable personality traits that, like all personality traits, have their upsides and their downsides but are hardwired into one’s genetic makeup.  People have them in varying degrees, and when they reach a degree where they do more harm than good according to our modern society, we call them disorders.  But ultimately, the problems they cause and benefits they create are a function of what our society values at a given moment.  People with these traits should have access to medication and treatment that allow them to better cope with modern society; but at the same time, society should do a better job recognizing the potentially positive aspects of these disorders and providing avenues for such people to funnel their efforts in that direction. 

[Read more →]

I suppose when it comes to politics I am a bit of a mixed bag.  I think ideally moving away from a large federal state, a massive coporate economy and toward a localized, self-determining economy and lifestyle and government would be a good thing.  I think practically this is very difficult and probably not very likely.  While I have been, and remain, a critic of globalism, liberalism, free trade, and capitalism, I’m also aware that these are not necessarily bad nor are they going anywhere any time soon.

Along those lines, I’m also aware that there are really, really good things that have come from modernity, from liberalism, from good, healthy trade.  Ideally, if all the theories panned out the way they were supposed to, these returns (in wealth, peace, prosperity) would all be more apparent than they are, but nevertheless, good has come from them all.  This good is tangible.  The fact that I have a venue like this to ramble with – that blogging even exists – is a testament to the remarkable technology that modern science has produced.  That the internet is also largely responsible for the demise of the newspapers, is one of the costs attributed with rapid technological advancement.  While I mourn the loss of the newspapers, I also realize the wonderful benefits of the internet as a medium for news and information.  As well as for me, for that matter.  It’s even good for the trees, since we at the League can honestly say that no trees were harmed in the making of this blog.

Then again it does sap my time.  I often think I should be reading books instead, trees be damned!  But there are no handy links to click, no Youtube videos, no wikis….just words, words, words….

Trade-offs abound.  Such is the world. [Read more →]

Scott coins an interesting term: post-postmodern.  The essence of the post-postmodern man, it seems, is a sort of meshing of Reason and Tradition that eschews both the ignorance and outdatedness of many old practices and traditions, as well as the arrogance and certitude of the modern man of reason.

While it has generally been conservatives who have been associated with the embrace and love for tradition, liberals too now are looking back to see what lessons can be learned from tradition. On both sides, rather than a blind acceptance of the inherent correctness of tradition, both conservatives and liberals are re-inhabiting traditions in, as Wilson suggests, in a self-aware and reflexive manner that seeks the wisdom that endures from such grooves and rejecting the ignorance that pervaded the thinking of the time.

This, of course, can be seen in writers such as Rod Dreher who advocates tirelessly his vision of “crunchy conservatism” as well as in the hippie family that lives across the street from us, or the one that lives two doors down, selling organic honey from their home.  Or in my own family, as we struggle to evaluate the pros and cons of modernity, the traditions and time-worn practices that have been lost along the way that actually worked, whether or not they made sense–whether or not modern ways seem better at first glance.  We have abandoned the television to the scrap heap, but we can’t part with our computers.  We have covered our walls with books, and choose to spend time reading to our daughter rather than planting her in front of a screen.

The unintentional casualties of modernity are revealed subtly, after all.  All our gadgets and “time-savers” seem to keep us busier then ever.  Families have gradually become more disparate affairs.  What once was a collective, mutli-generation experience, has devolved into isolated units, often separated not only by the expanse of miles, but by a more metaphysical distance.  What has this achieved–this very American independence?  Once upon a time three generations pooled their resources to make a family work.  The old were tended to by their offspring or communities, rather than Social Security and nursing homes.  The dead were laid out in the parlor.

Yes, we saw the dead up close, and we tended to them.  We were not afraid of our mortality, and we weren’t so numb to it either.

Then again, as Scott reminds us, the past is not filled only with traditions that strengthened us, but also with horrors and ghosts.  The new world has provided us with longer lives and more comfortable beds, faster carriages and unprecedented warmth.  Yet it is a warmth without a fire–or perhaps a warmth without a need to tend to the fire.  There is a fire still, but it is so easily gotten: flip a switch, and you create heat.  “Let there be light,” and there is light.

What I’d like to add to Scott’s theme of “Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should” is that just because something is easy, or sensible, or cheap, doesn’t mean it’s healthy, or wise, or aware of the long view.

This spans all subjects.  New Urbanism is a concept birthed out of the neo-traditionalist mindset.  New urbanist city planners and architects look to tradition to see how communities were built before freeways, before zoning laws separated our homes from our shops, and then attempt to intermingle these older traditions with green technology, with what came naturally long ago, but has been abandoned in favor of progress and efficiency.  Nobody used to consider building a town “walkable” – there was simply no other good option.  Now we are cognizant of the repurcussions–now we have, as Scott terms it, directionality.

And on and on, we are living in a time of self-evaluation as a society, as a civilization, as individuals and families.  Or at least we should be.  The financial crisis begs many questions of us, not the least of which should be our faith in free markets.  The rising disparity in class should force us to question the wisdom in supply side economics, or voodoo economics as George the Sr. once termed them.

We are still charging forward at a breakneck pace, conservatives and liberals alike, toward that dream of progress, freedom, choice, modernity.  Perhaps it’s best we slowed our pace a bit.  We don’t need to turn back any clocks.

Some time ago I started revamping my diet to cut some of the less than beneficial elements of my consumption out. The impetus for doing so was quite banal: my partner came home and said that she had seen a herbalist who had suggested a particular type of cleanse and would I do the cleanse with her?

I agreed to do so and we proceeded to cut dairy, refined carbs, sugar, vinegars, sugary fruits, and all yeasty foods from our wheelhouse, while at the same taking a regimen of herbal supplements. The effects of this dietary shift were surpisingly pronounced. While on the cleanse I felt physically, emotionally, and mentally more clear and more energized.

Once the cleanse ended we tried to be slow in reintroducing banished foods back into our system, but Christmas loomed large and we both indulged more than we should have. After a particularly hearty dinner at my future in-laws I immediately felt the effects of what I had eaten and proceeded to curse myself, downing as much water as I could to flush out my system.

While flushing, I wrote the following post over at the Politics of Scrabble, noting,

It occurs to me that there are a myriad if things we put in our body without ever really thinking about it, much of it due to modern technology. Just like me prior to this cleanse, we have no sense of what the affects on our well-being are because we’ve rarely experienced life without these additives. But the effects can be stunning. I felt 120% better without all the stuff in my system that I cut out and I had no real idea how bad I felt before. I don’t count myself an enemy of modernity, but I think this points to the insight that postmodernity offers us in either its liberal/progressive or conservative flavours: just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.

Having now gone to see the same herbalist and been put back on the cleanse diet for the past two weeks, I am feeling the same healthy effects and that notion of “just because we can, doesn’t mean we should” is back front and centre in my mind.

Much of the drive of modernity is towards progress. In the eyes of modernity, progress solves all. With progress we move forward, we build bigger and better things, we create more for more people. It is a constant march forward, but often feels like we don’t take the time to either look back or look around to see where it is that we’re going.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for progress and I do see a lot of the benefits that the progress of modernity has provided. I don’t deny that there is, on the whole, less war and more prosperity amongst more people now than there has been in the past. I think those are good things. But I think the ethos of our day is also pointing to the need to ease our constant movement forward and to balance that movement with a careful consideration of what the impacts of that movement are. What do we damage along the way? What do we shunt to the side without even realizing it? As summed up above, just because we can do something, doesn’t necessarily means that we should. [Read more →]