So I come from a Protestant tradition that, though it was originally built in the context of an unapologetically hierarchical monarchial setting of Great Britain, has over the last couple of centuries become synonymous with an egalitarian neomarxist aspiration. Methodism, though it has pulled back from the extremes of this project when the Global Methodists split off from the United Methodists, still finds itself hostile to notions of hierarchy in the family and in the church in some ways, though we did elect to keep (a reformed version of) bishops. Some in leadership are arguing that Methodism needs to be synonymous with egalitarianism in the household. I have cried foul. I don't know how things will resolve between these tensions in my own larger covenant body.
It seems to me that what should be sought is actually a sort of synthesis of these two setups. There are ways in which hierarchy is clearly reflective of the divine order. There are other ways in which the priesthood of all believers requires a great flattening of authority. Independent media and the rise of modern communications technology heralds, to my mind, a synthesis that hasn't really ever been possible, which I believe could result in great flourishing. The mindless desire for autocratic rule and the narcissistic drive for radical individualistic libertinism need to be kept in tension by an informed populace that knows the sublime virtue of submission.
Well put! Yeah, the Christian approach to hierarchy is tricky. It seems very easy to selectively find support in the scriptures for whatever ideology happens to fit your priors, egalitarian, aristocratic, monarchical, democratic or anything else. But Jesus is always more challenging than an ideology.
The statement suggesting that contrary to "Marxist analysis, we humans don’t keep coming up with monarchies and religions simply because powerful oppressors force them on us" feels inadequate as it overlooks the crucial role of economic structures and their resulting material conditions in shaping social, political, and even moral formations. The discussion of vertical versus horizontal worldviews, and the potential resurgence of monarchical or religiously hierarchical structures, seems to downplay the impact of material deprivation and socioeconomically induced anxiety, particularly as generated by neoliberal austerity policies that we might associated with a "horizontal" worldview.
Marx's analysis emphasizes how these material conditions, far from being secondary, actively shape consciousness and create the very conditions where authoritarianism and hierarchical systems become not just palatable, but seemingly necessary. It's not simply a matter of 'powerful oppressors' directly imposing these systems on us; rather, it’s about how economic structures generate specific anxieties and needs that, in turn, make certain forms of social organization appear more desirable. The 'return to kings' or the embrace of vertical orderings might be less about a primal, inherent human desire for hierarchy and more about a rational response to the precarity and instability fostered by particular socioeconomic systems. A Marxist perspective would argue that democracy's survival depends on its capacity to address these material needs, and that without such an analysis, the discussion of these shifts remains incomplete.
You're right about the material conditions playing a crucial role. I think there's a good argument to be made that the new technologies that are shaping the economic landscape are pushing us in that Marxian way toward a sort of Dune-like future, a technologically advanced feudalism. Lots of people have been writing about neo-feudalism, like Joel Kotkin: https://joelkotkin.com/the-coming-of-neo-feudalism/
I'd like to write about this aspect of the changes we're undergoing in the future. I don't think the psychological and cultural analysis I'm taking in this piece is incompatible at all with an analysis focused more on material conditions.
However, I would disagree re: the material insecurity of modern democracies. We're insanely secure in a purely material sense. That might change in the future, but the insecurity has more to do with social and cultural needs — living in a fluid, hyper-capitalist environment is actually great for wealth creation, but not so great for community formation or meaning in life.
Lots of insights here, Connor. Too much to pack into one comment, so let me start smalll. I enjoyed this one: Scottish Parliament sends the message, “What happens here is done by people just like you." Makes me reflect on various buildings I inhabit. The reviled Brutalist architecture of Boston City Hall.... can't figure that one out....
This made me laugh. I found some photos of the Scottish Parliament Bldg, and whlie it isn't graceful or attractive, it also isn't ordinary (imo). It seems the designers were trying to be innovative but didn't quite strike a good note. https://www.mirallestagliabue.com/project/scottish-parliament-building/
It looks too twee for a government building. Like, who's gonna take the Scottish government seriously with that kind of design? Governments need serious, imposing, detailed structures. I should be a consultant for this kind of thing
You have a lot of cultural capital and indeed should be a consultant. Architects already get training in the messages being sent by their design, but yet, I agree that mistakes get made. Let me jump up a meta level on this topic. Our world is so complex that we are now in a new space of the number of minds required to contribute to a project that will withstand the scrutiny of millions. It was barely a century ago that a single person could produce an intellectual work that could elicit widespread admiration. But in the last decades, teams are needed, in most endeavors, from science to artistic productions. Most recently, specialized people are sometimes recruited to add an extra layer of oversight. In Hollywood, there are experts who provide "sensitivity" reads to scripts and productions. In my class yesterday, we read an article which was wonderful and innovative but needed a 'sensitivity' reader since the author compared autistic people to orangutangs (in a way that made sense if you were following closely his argument but the students were unable to do so). So lots of eyeballs are needed from different perspectives; since due to the 'curse of knowledge' and one person's fixation or 'group think' etc., design errors keep getting made.
I think if college students need sensitivity readers, they might not be well prepared for the world that awaits after college, which is often pretty offensive. I get not being offensive, but students need to be able to follow a writer's argument without letting their ethical qualms interfere with the intellectual task at hand. Of course, believing this is why I don't have a job in mainstream academia!
Reflecting on the above (and I agree with you), I'm thinking about this from a different perspective now. Because, young people are exposed to tons of offensive things on the internet. I'm shocked but what they apparently can take in stride (e.g., either asked by a peer to send a nude photo or learning that this is common). Using photoshop (and most recently AI) to make derogatory photos of someone who has slighted them (or hearing about this from others). So why do they report to their professor about being offended by arguments in videos or texts assigned as class material? Not because they actually are offended or have too many ethical qualms. But because they can. Students are allowed to (or even told they are supposed to). So if it was a bit of hard work to focus on the intellectual argument, they throw themselves a softball and talk about an ethical or sensitivity topic. And profs are too cowed to call them on it.
But Christ gives himself for his people. My God died in my stead. (And that started the revolution that, ironically, as Tom Holland's "Dominion" demonstrates, has led inexorably to the reality now perhaps being undone.)
The stained glass above the altar at All Saints, Amesbury, MA, where I worshiped for several years, incorporates the symbol of the pelican, mythologically believed to feed and asperge its chicks with blood from its own breast.
Also: Liberalism is indeed flattening, in many respects, though demonically meritocratic in others. But no liberal society yet replicated the fabric of lies inherent to communism, where "Some animals are more equal than others." No Western society has reached their level of shadowy vampirism, masked as Mao-suit sameness.
Great point about vampires. And other monsters, too. Helps explain why conspiracy theories like lizard rulers or the international pedophile network get off the ground. People are expressing dissatisfaction with current hierarchy in symbolic language.
Good point about liberalism. Although critics like Patrick Deneen and Augusto Del Noce have argued that liberalism will inherently tend toward its own totalitarian oppressiveness. I think the past few years definitely support that thesis.
So I come from a Protestant tradition that, though it was originally built in the context of an unapologetically hierarchical monarchial setting of Great Britain, has over the last couple of centuries become synonymous with an egalitarian neomarxist aspiration. Methodism, though it has pulled back from the extremes of this project when the Global Methodists split off from the United Methodists, still finds itself hostile to notions of hierarchy in the family and in the church in some ways, though we did elect to keep (a reformed version of) bishops. Some in leadership are arguing that Methodism needs to be synonymous with egalitarianism in the household. I have cried foul. I don't know how things will resolve between these tensions in my own larger covenant body.
It seems to me that what should be sought is actually a sort of synthesis of these two setups. There are ways in which hierarchy is clearly reflective of the divine order. There are other ways in which the priesthood of all believers requires a great flattening of authority. Independent media and the rise of modern communications technology heralds, to my mind, a synthesis that hasn't really ever been possible, which I believe could result in great flourishing. The mindless desire for autocratic rule and the narcissistic drive for radical individualistic libertinism need to be kept in tension by an informed populace that knows the sublime virtue of submission.
Well put! Yeah, the Christian approach to hierarchy is tricky. It seems very easy to selectively find support in the scriptures for whatever ideology happens to fit your priors, egalitarian, aristocratic, monarchical, democratic or anything else. But Jesus is always more challenging than an ideology.
The statement suggesting that contrary to "Marxist analysis, we humans don’t keep coming up with monarchies and religions simply because powerful oppressors force them on us" feels inadequate as it overlooks the crucial role of economic structures and their resulting material conditions in shaping social, political, and even moral formations. The discussion of vertical versus horizontal worldviews, and the potential resurgence of monarchical or religiously hierarchical structures, seems to downplay the impact of material deprivation and socioeconomically induced anxiety, particularly as generated by neoliberal austerity policies that we might associated with a "horizontal" worldview.
Marx's analysis emphasizes how these material conditions, far from being secondary, actively shape consciousness and create the very conditions where authoritarianism and hierarchical systems become not just palatable, but seemingly necessary. It's not simply a matter of 'powerful oppressors' directly imposing these systems on us; rather, it’s about how economic structures generate specific anxieties and needs that, in turn, make certain forms of social organization appear more desirable. The 'return to kings' or the embrace of vertical orderings might be less about a primal, inherent human desire for hierarchy and more about a rational response to the precarity and instability fostered by particular socioeconomic systems. A Marxist perspective would argue that democracy's survival depends on its capacity to address these material needs, and that without such an analysis, the discussion of these shifts remains incomplete.
You're right about the material conditions playing a crucial role. I think there's a good argument to be made that the new technologies that are shaping the economic landscape are pushing us in that Marxian way toward a sort of Dune-like future, a technologically advanced feudalism. Lots of people have been writing about neo-feudalism, like Joel Kotkin: https://joelkotkin.com/the-coming-of-neo-feudalism/
I'd like to write about this aspect of the changes we're undergoing in the future. I don't think the psychological and cultural analysis I'm taking in this piece is incompatible at all with an analysis focused more on material conditions.
However, I would disagree re: the material insecurity of modern democracies. We're insanely secure in a purely material sense. That might change in the future, but the insecurity has more to do with social and cultural needs — living in a fluid, hyper-capitalist environment is actually great for wealth creation, but not so great for community formation or meaning in life.
Lots of insights here, Connor. Too much to pack into one comment, so let me start smalll. I enjoyed this one: Scottish Parliament sends the message, “What happens here is done by people just like you." Makes me reflect on various buildings I inhabit. The reviled Brutalist architecture of Boston City Hall.... can't figure that one out....
Ah, City Hall -- the 4th most hated building in the world! https://www.buildworld.co.uk/blog/archives/the-ugliest-buildings-in-the-world
Apparently the Scottish Parliament building is #1, which I did't know when writing this post…
This made me laugh. I found some photos of the Scottish Parliament Bldg, and whlie it isn't graceful or attractive, it also isn't ordinary (imo). It seems the designers were trying to be innovative but didn't quite strike a good note. https://www.mirallestagliabue.com/project/scottish-parliament-building/
It looks too twee for a government building. Like, who's gonna take the Scottish government seriously with that kind of design? Governments need serious, imposing, detailed structures. I should be a consultant for this kind of thing
You have a lot of cultural capital and indeed should be a consultant. Architects already get training in the messages being sent by their design, but yet, I agree that mistakes get made. Let me jump up a meta level on this topic. Our world is so complex that we are now in a new space of the number of minds required to contribute to a project that will withstand the scrutiny of millions. It was barely a century ago that a single person could produce an intellectual work that could elicit widespread admiration. But in the last decades, teams are needed, in most endeavors, from science to artistic productions. Most recently, specialized people are sometimes recruited to add an extra layer of oversight. In Hollywood, there are experts who provide "sensitivity" reads to scripts and productions. In my class yesterday, we read an article which was wonderful and innovative but needed a 'sensitivity' reader since the author compared autistic people to orangutangs (in a way that made sense if you were following closely his argument but the students were unable to do so). So lots of eyeballs are needed from different perspectives; since due to the 'curse of knowledge' and one person's fixation or 'group think' etc., design errors keep getting made.
I think if college students need sensitivity readers, they might not be well prepared for the world that awaits after college, which is often pretty offensive. I get not being offensive, but students need to be able to follow a writer's argument without letting their ethical qualms interfere with the intellectual task at hand. Of course, believing this is why I don't have a job in mainstream academia!
Reflecting on the above (and I agree with you), I'm thinking about this from a different perspective now. Because, young people are exposed to tons of offensive things on the internet. I'm shocked but what they apparently can take in stride (e.g., either asked by a peer to send a nude photo or learning that this is common). Using photoshop (and most recently AI) to make derogatory photos of someone who has slighted them (or hearing about this from others). So why do they report to their professor about being offended by arguments in videos or texts assigned as class material? Not because they actually are offended or have too many ethical qualms. But because they can. Students are allowed to (or even told they are supposed to). So if it was a bit of hard work to focus on the intellectual argument, they throw themselves a softball and talk about an ethical or sensitivity topic. And profs are too cowed to call them on it.
Great observations, Connor.
A couple of comments:
The vampire is the symbol of oppressive hierarchy: literally sucking the life blood out of those under him. [sic] https://km678.substack.com/p/ecclesiastes-5-8ef
But Christ gives himself for his people. My God died in my stead. (And that started the revolution that, ironically, as Tom Holland's "Dominion" demonstrates, has led inexorably to the reality now perhaps being undone.)
The stained glass above the altar at All Saints, Amesbury, MA, where I worshiped for several years, incorporates the symbol of the pelican, mythologically believed to feed and asperge its chicks with blood from its own breast.
Also: Liberalism is indeed flattening, in many respects, though demonically meritocratic in others. But no liberal society yet replicated the fabric of lies inherent to communism, where "Some animals are more equal than others." No Western society has reached their level of shadowy vampirism, masked as Mao-suit sameness.
And finally, the Book of Job is full of wisdom about hierarchy and its centrality to existence: https://km678.substack.com/p/job-20
Great point about vampires. And other monsters, too. Helps explain why conspiracy theories like lizard rulers or the international pedophile network get off the ground. People are expressing dissatisfaction with current hierarchy in symbolic language.
Good point about liberalism. Although critics like Patrick Deneen and Augusto Del Noce have argued that liberalism will inherently tend toward its own totalitarian oppressiveness. I think the past few years definitely support that thesis.