Western Norway
Source: Wikimedia Commons (2016)
Internationalism, the idea that people and states should organize across borders, is a popular organizing principle on the political left. It takes two related forms. Liberal internationalism promotes rule of law, open markets, and free trade as a path to peace through multilateral governance. Socialist internationalism emphasizes solidarity among workers across nations, rather than competition between them. Both tend to replace an emphasis on local community with an abstract political identity that isn’t rooted in any particular place.
International governance creates a layer of authority that communities cannot meaningfully influence. The resulting cosmopolitan governing class (sometimes pejoratively referred to as “globalists”) are socially and geographically distant from communities affected by their policy. Meanwhile, international economic integration guts local economic prospects so that multinational firms can thrive. After China's accession to the World Trade Organization, imports of Chinese furniture surged, leading firms that once anchored the manufacturing economy of High Point to shut local factories and source production abroad
This process spreads similar models of education and culture, eroding distinct regional identities and traditions. In the name of internationalism, many have advocated for cultivating cosmopolitan “citizens of the world.” Within this frame, local or regional culture is something to be overcome, not preserved. Is rural culture something that needs to be overcome in pursuit of a more equal society?
French philosopher Jean-Claude Michèa offers a critique of liberalism that bears directly on this question. Until recently his work was unavailable in English. Michael Behrent, a History Professor at Appalachian State University, published a collection of his works titled Toward a Conservative Left. Don’t let the title put you off. What the title evokes is the way in which Michèa combines a critique of capitalism with a suspicion of "progress". Michèa says little about American politics in his work, but his analysis maps uncomfortably well onto the contemporary Democratic Party, which has become a party of urban educated professionals.
Michèa’s personal background is relevant too. Born in Paris in 1950, he was raised in public housing by parents who were both members of the French Communist Party. The Party was central to his childhood. It employed his parents, with his dad working as sports reporter for the Party newspaper. It was a community of working-class people who looked out for one another. Today, Michea lives on a farm in southwest France.
At the center of Michèa’s work is Orwell’s concept of “common decency,” developed in the 1937 book, The Road to Wigan Pier. For Orwell, common decency is the moral intuition observable in tight-knit communities built around face-to-face interaction. In his 1939 essay on Dickens, Orwell argues that Dickens owed his popularity to a rare ability to give comic, memorable expression to the native decency of the common man. It is the instinct “that makes a jury award excessive damages when a rich man’s car runs over a poor man.”
Michèa takes this concept further, giving it anthropological character. Working people, because of their way of earning a living and social status, tend to exhibit a form of solidarity and spontaneous ethics. Working people rely on one another out of necessity. It is a set of habits that arise through family life, neighborhood association, and shared work. Common decency requires social relations through which people experience themselves as dependent on and responsible for one another. Capitalism, Michèa argues, is breaking down this social fabric. As the market relentlessly expands into every area of life, relationships once governed by reciprocity become self-interested transactions.
This maps directly with the concept of high density of acquaintanceship associated with rural communities. In a small agricultural community, a neighbor’s failed harvest is visible. Decency is not an abstract value, but a material reality that rural people navigate on a daily basis. Michèa argues that modern society has removed people from the social relations that foster this common decency.
Here is where Michèa’s argument becomes uncomfortable. He contends that economic liberalism, meaning the spreading of free markets, free trade, and global integration of markets-- are not in tension with cultural liberalism . He believes these two liberalisms actually operate in concert. He writes, “a right-wing economy cannot function in a lasting way without a left-wing culture.” It is well documented that economic liberalism has devastated rural communities by financializing land, offshoring manufacturing, and consolidating agricultural markets.
Cultural liberalism, for Michèa, works in parallel. It elevates individual autonomy and the right to choose one’s lifestyle over inherited social norms or traditions. Institutions that once anchored rural life: stable family, religious practice, the local community, have all been delegitimized over time in the name of individual emancipation. Rural communities are left with a social and moral vacuum at a time when economic liberalism has taken away their material foundations. For Michèa this is not a coincidence, capitalism prefers autonomous individuals without a sense of rootedness to a place and an inherited way of life. The tech worker who relocates for opportunity is a more compatible economic subject than the farmer who will not leave because his family has worked the same land for three generations.
While Michèa’s argument is not without its blind spots, he invites the left to take working class culture seriously. To be clear, I don’t believe the left should abandon a commitment to individual freedom. However, a politics aimed toward a more just society cannot organize against rural morality. To me, this is what is intended by the provocative title. The social fabric that allows for the cultivation of common decency is worth conserving.
5 comments:
The distinction between political and cultural liberalism, and the way that they may not actually work in concert is interesting. I think contrasting this with a socialist internationalism would be interesting, especially with Maoism's international focus on the peasantry in the global south.
I find Michea's ideas unpersuasive. Michea claims that racism and homophobia flow from a lack of "common decency," as articulated by Orwell, while ignoring the rampant homophobia and racism in the close knit areas that Michea and Orwell point to as hubs of "common decency." Further, it seems ridiculous to me that social conservatism would be viewed as bolstering class consciousness in a community, rather than acting as a ready distraction from class based politics. Michea mistakes the effects of social/demographic trends caused by changes in agricultural technology and resulting overpopulation for the effects of a decline in conservatism. Michea is one of many who finds class struggle attractive, but is happy to cast aside the ostracized within the working class. I find his "leftism, but if you are super cranky and hate popular art" brand of politics remarkably exasperating.
I feel like common decency is a bit like common sense, not actually very common. That being said, I do agree that the international left has alienated rural (conservative) citizens beyond all reason. Someone has got to grapple with the idea that many people in this country really think democrat politicians are 5-dimensional pedophilic vampires. Not to say its true (and not to say that it isn't), but if someone will believe that about you without reservations, maybe its not that Tucker Carlson is the hypnotoad from Futurama, but rather that you have really done something to make this people feel like you stand for everything (literally everything) they care about.
Although Michea is a left-wing thinker, and I have not heard his name mentioned before this article, I have heard the vast majority of the same sentiments, especially lamentations of the atomization of society, from the right-wing elements of politics. I have heard modern right-wing pundits contend that "End of History" Reaganite/Clintonian economic policies have devastated the constituent middle class of Western countries for GDP and a promise of peace among global market members, that conservatism has failed to conserve anything ranging from the environment to median living standards, and that the conservative wings of varying Western countries should distance themselves from the capitalist economic model which no longer serves the nation-state. If social issues command much greater emotional attention from voters than economic issues, I would not be surprised to see a nationalist right turn against capitalism faster than the internationalist left.
While I absolutely see some flaws in his argument, I do think there's merit to an argument against individualism. Capitalism and technology have served to both isolate us, telling us to shed our pasts to achieve the "American Dream", while also pitting people against each other and forcing them to compete for increasingly limited resources. This scarcity mindset, partnered with the rampant American individualism, becomes extremely dangerous to any sort of critical mass of solidarity. I don't think that necessarily returning to a general conception of social conservatism is the answer, but moving towards an ethic of "what's good for the group" might actually serve us well. In many instances, I actually think that getting along to get along is an ethos that could legitimately move us towards tolerance. The "group" can (and should!) be expansive -- but it's clear that thinking only of ourselves or making changes on an individual level is not cutting it.
Post a Comment