Tuesday, April 19, 2022

Florence Gaub & the anticulture

In my last post I discussed these comments by Florence Gaub, a member of the World Economic Forum:


She believes that Russians aren't really European because they do not have a liberal and postmodern concept of life, a life that each individual designs for themselves.

I criticised this way of defining being European, in part because it leads to porous borders as anyone, anywhere can qualify as being European by these standards. A liberal Chinese person, in this way of thinking, would be more European than a traditionalist Dutchman. I noted as well that the liberal principle, by itself, undermines some of the core elements of both classical and Christian Western culture.

A reader left a comment which added very usefully to the discussion. He wrote:

Haven’t they been trying to run this play for a long time? You aren’t a real true American if you’re not liberal; you’re not a real true Brit if you’re not liberal; you’re not a real true Australian if you’re not liberal. Gets a bit old, doesn’t it?

Second, a community (not a voluntary association or group of mutual interest) is by definition a web of interdependencies. If you’re a free and independent individual how can you possibly belong to a community? That would make you dependent on other people and therefore not independent (and in the real world not free to make whatever choices you want).

Third, how can one be culturally liberal? A culture is shared customs, practices, traditions, heritage, identity, and (arguably) beliefs, which the liberal project is opposed to. The ideal liberal society is one where one isn’t bound by any of that and is a completely unique individual, sharing nothing in common (except property, according to the socialist liberals).

It would be more appropriate to call liberalism an “anti-culture” than a culture.

Besides, if we’re all just unique individuals then how can we be commonly defined by one culture anyway? And how can one have a culture where a defining aspect is being able to choose to be part of the culture or not? Wouldn’t that make choosing to not be European (whatever that means) an intrinsically European act in line with European culture? And am I therefore European if I choose to be since by the mere act of being able to freely choose my culture I am being culturally European? Wouldn’t that just mean that “culture” means being liberal and nothing else, except perhaps some superficial distinctions of no consequence like cuisine, dress, language, and entertainment — all of which could be aped by any human being?

It all begs the question of what the point of this category labeled “European” is even for, since it doesn’t really seem to signify anything. Tax residency? Is a “European” just a liberal who happens to be a subject of a government in Europe? Why bother using the word?

The reader makes an important distinction here between community and voluntary association. Liberalism has no issue with voluntary associations; it is perfectly in line with the liberal ethos for someone to join a fishing club or a service organisation. What liberalism has difficulties with are interdependent relationships, which, as the reader points out, are the markers of a true community. In a true community there are mutual loyalties and obligations and a sense of a common identity and a shared fate. These are incompatible with the notion of radical autonomy fostered by liberalism, which is framed around the atomised individual choosing freely from whatever options are left to someone in such a position (they will tend to be relatively trivial lifestyle options).

The reader's next observation is profound. We might talk about a "liberal culture" but this makes little sense, given that the impetus of liberalism is to "liberate" individuals from the shared commitments that form a distinct culture. Liberalism, in this sense, represents an anticulture: it dissolves actual, embedded cultures and replaces them with a relatively homogenised way of life heavily influenced by the global market. I am reminded here of a discussion I once had with a bellicose American liberal who did not think much of culture, seeing it as a threat to his ideal of liberty. He took the view that,

Cultures and religions are either about weddings and music and fancy clothes or they're about to get their asses kicked.

In his next paragraph, the reader draws out the lack of coherence in the liberal position:

And how can one have a culture where a defining aspect is being able to choose to be part of the culture or not? Wouldn’t that make choosing to not be European (whatever that means) an intrinsically European act in line with European culture?

That's what it comes to. If being European is defined in the liberal, Gaubian way, then if I choose not to be European I am affirming that I am, in fact, European. The reader's next observation is equally striking:

And am I therefore European if I choose to be since by the mere act of being able to freely choose my culture I am being culturally European?

If we follow the logic of the definition set out by Florence Gaub, then the answer is yes. I become European simply by the act of freely choosing to be European, since that too makes me an individual designing my own life, which is how Florence Gaub defines being European.

So I become European through the acts of either choosing to be or to not be a European. Either option leads to the same result.

Finally, the reader points out that the real content of the category itself, "European", is diminished when it is defined in liberal terms:

It all begs the question of what the point of this category labeled “European” is even for, since it doesn’t really seem to signify anything. Tax residency? Is a “European” just a liberal who happens to be a subject of a government in Europe? Why bother using the word?

4 comments:

  1. What's particularly revealing about the comment is that it also makes clear how liberalism serves the same function as an official state religion (though perhaps an "anti-religion").

    In conversations with liberals about history, you often hit the block that premodern states were insane because they linked religious belief with civic allegiance. What can be pointed out is that this idea of what it is to be "American" works largely the same way: if you are not a liberal, you are a threat to the state. It is not possible for you to really love America and reject liberalism; and it is precisely the notion that "America is just an idea" that makes the exclusion of liberal heretics necessary (in the mind trap).

    Sure, there can be some diversity of opinion, but only in the exact same sense that there is diversity of orthodox opinion in any religion. There are many theological issues Catholics can disagree on while still being legitimately inside the faith; similarly, you can have all kinds of disagreements in a liberal state without becoming a traitor, provided those disagreements remain inside the confines of liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my opinion, liberalism acts as a dark parallel to Catholicism specifically. What makes a Catholic a Catholic is a shared communion with one See — Rome — established by an agreement regarding authority; in other words, a shared allegiance. A Catholic, properly speaking, identifies other Catholics not on the basis of what they believe but rather what they acknowledge as having the authority to tell them what to believe (the Church).

      Liberalism operates similarly in that you can disagree on pretty much anything you like. What’s important is not so much what you say but that your allegiance is to liberalism and furthering its agenda. The two are confused because it is most often spouting prohibited things that marks one to be an enemy of the liberal program. They don’t really care what you believe, as is made evident by the diverse range of absurdities kept under their license, so long as you accept that liberalism is the ultimate authority.

      Delete
    2. The Catholic Church (Catholic means “Universal”) Is Communion with God, not whatever anglican slur you are using to describe Israel Perfected as “roman.”

      locke invented liberalism as the apotheosis of the satanic coven of the world. to turn the third horseman (protestantism, the synthesis of all heresies) of starvation, into the final one of death.

      all liberalism does is to attack The Church, you being a slightly older version of their evil means you can see what is wrong that comes after you, but not your place in the fall.

      To me, who can see your entire collapse, your “traditionalism” looks like a group of people panicking that you can’t stop three quarters of the way off the side of a cliff. When I see you talking about the “good old days,” it’s like seeing someone wonder why they can’t just stop at or even float back up to 50ft off the ground because that is the level of sin you were born into. “Well it will stop us from hitting the ground, the others are too close to it” and all nod sagely.

      the demons that run the death machine are not so ignorant of The Church as you who think you can stop midair from a fall.

      it’s like when tucker carlson yells at the camera in anger at the modern liberals “they have gone too fast!” Not too far, or that they are wicked, but that they realized his freemason sensibilities within his own lifetime rather than his grandchild’s.

      Delete