|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On March 02 2017 03:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 03:38 Plansix wrote:
All right, I completely agree farvacola's point about your use of organically, then. This scale seems to have been created by your to back up your own points of view by applying some loose themes of evolution to the way governments develop.
Governments don't develop organically or inorganically. They are abstract ideas created by individual people in an effort to create long lasting social contracts. They are not masses of cells attempting attempting find the most efficient means of procreation. Attempting to present them as undulating masses of ideas mashing against each other is reductive and removes the critical human element required to understand their origins. I dunno. Take the change in the UK uncodified constitution which stripped the right to declare war from the powers of the PM at some point in the last 15 years. Historically all foreign policy was governed by royal prerogative, the powers of the monarch wielded directly by the PM, not by Parliament. During the run-up to Iraq there was an awful lot of public outrage and that outrage made Blair think it politically expedient to hold a debate on the Iraq War. That set a precedent which was subsequently followed for the Libyan intervention. It wasn't a planned change, nor the outcome of a judicial ruling, nor the responsibility of any single individual. It came about due to a general feeling within the British populace that those PM powers were insufficiently accountable and needed to go to Parliament. That's the heart of the organic, uncodified constitution. Sure the US also adapts with living constitution interpretations when the public sways strongly one way on an issue but it's not really comparable.
The point in criticizing the term "organic" is that it presupposes a specific form when contemplating a political system at large; this is almost certainly an inaccurate conception because the actual process we call "politics" is a highly interconnected web of both individual and institutional actors, each with highly artificial and mostly pre-ordained levels of access to resources that ebb and flow in relation to variables like popular opinion, a concept itself subject to a great deal of complicating distortion.
To say that another way, I can see why the term organic makes some intuitive sense based on the reasons you describe, only in the end, I'd argue that other modes of artifice necessarily end up filling that gap in one way or the other, rendering the term mostly a sort of naturalistic fallacy.
|
I'm not sure I understand. You're saying that if we built Plato's republic tomorrow, exactly as he described, it would be just as organic as any other state? Why? Because people will undermine the design where it conflicts with their interests? Then they're not really living under that system in the first place. Are you implying that people living in North Korea have as much impact on the development of their state as people in Switzerland?
|
Governments are not organic. They are not plants or moss. We can impose the concepts of evolutionary theory onto governments as a thought experiment, but that does not mean they behave the way nature does. It is a fallacy to attempt to treat them as such.
|
On March 02 2017 05:15 bardtown wrote:
I'm not sure I understand. You're saying that if we built Plato's republic tomorrow, exactly as he described, it would be just as organic as any other state? Why? Because people will undermine the design where it conflicts with their interests? Then they're not really living under that system in the first place. Are you implying that people living in North Korea have as much impact on the development of their state as people in Switzerland?
No, I'm suggesting that the difference between organic and inorganic in the context of political systems is a hollow distinction because it presupposes that particular kinds of political engagements are more or less organic than others, when in reality, the artificiality inherent to the process through which humans make political decisions is unavoidable as a matter of course. This is particularly true with regards to access to information and the tools necessary to understand and operationalize it in a political context.
|
I don't want to get too bogged down in philosophy, but I think you need an extremely convincing explanation as to why human colonies should be considered any less organic than ant colonies. The fallacy to my mind is the arbitrary separation between mankind and the rest of the natural world.
You can put that to the side, however, because the point stands just fine as a metaphor even if you don't accept a literal interpretation. Also, this definition:
4.
denoting or characterized by a harmonious relationship between the elements of a whole.
A political system that is regularly and directly influenced by its low level constituents is, at the very least metaphorically, more organic than one that is not. No?
On March 02 2017 05:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 05:15 bardtown wrote:
I'm not sure I understand. You're saying that if we built Plato's republic tomorrow, exactly as he described, it would be just as organic as any other state? Why? Because people will undermine the design where it conflicts with their interests? Then they're not really living under that system in the first place. Are you implying that people living in North Korea have as much impact on the development of their state as people in Switzerland? No, I'm suggesting that the difference between organic and inorganic in the context of political systems is a hollow distinction because it presupposes that particular kinds of political engagements are more or less organic than others, when in reality, the artificiality inherent to the process through which humans make political decisions is unavoidable as a matter of course. This is particularly true with regards to access to information and the tools necessary to understand and operationalize it in a political context.
I do actually understand where you're coming from, but it's semantics. Pick another word for the same concept, if you must, but organic is the intuitive option. There's no problem with the concept itself insofar as it refers to regular and responsive feedback between the governed and the governing.
|
If you don’t’ want to get bogged down in philosophy, then you shouldn’t assert if a government is organic or inorganic. Government is rooted in philosophy, not science. The concept of human rights did not come through scientific research, but philosophical thought, writing and debate.
But the simply answer is that ants can’t write poetry.
|
On March 02 2017 05:40 Plansix wrote:
If you don’t’ want to get bogged down in philosophy, then you shouldn’t assert if a government is organic or inorganic. Government is rooted in philosophy, not science. The concept of human rights did not come through scientific research, but philosophical thought, writing and debate.
But the simply answer is that ants can’t write poetry.
I only meant for the sake of staying on topic. I do not accept your arbitrary separation of man from beast, of philosophy from science, nor of poetry from any other form of expression.
But as I said, you can use the other definition of organic. My argument stands just fine without any need to digress into tricky linguistics.
|
poetry is more organic than philosophy for sure
|
United States44290 Posts
On March 02 2017 04:19 Plansix wrote:
As a recovering teacher of US history, this sort of high level discussion of government development has serious pitfalls and tends to gloss over a lot of what made governments form. Feudalism developed because of economics of equipping warriors and the existence of harsh winters more than anything else. But even that understanding is reductive and incomplete.
Just as a FYI, history teachers no longer teach feudalism because the modern consensus is that it was basically made up. As a US history teacher you couldn't be expected to know that though because the US doesn't really have any history to speak of.
|
There is nothing arbitrary about the separation. Most animals are not self aware and few of them have developed anything we would consider complex language. They don’t do math or build machines.
And we cannot divorce government from its philosophic roots. The concept of government predates the concept of the scientific method. The same applies for semantics to discuss government. The meaning of words and how they changed is critical to have a full understanding of government. The concept of divine right is alien to most people today, but was people’s very reality as recently as the 1700s.
You are free to use the term organic in discussing governments. But like all language, its definition is based on context in which it is used.
On March 02 2017 05:55 IgnE wrote:
poetry is more organic than philosophy for sure
I could argue that they are the same thing and both of us would be right.
On March 02 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 04:19 Plansix wrote:
As a recovering teacher of US history, this sort of high level discussion of government development has serious pitfalls and tends to gloss over a lot of what made governments form. Feudalism developed because of economics of equipping warriors and the existence of harsh winters more than anything else. But even that understanding is reductive and incomplete.
Just as a FYI, history teachers no longer teach feudalism because the modern consensus is that it was basically made up. As a US history teacher you couldn't be expected to know that though because the US doesn't really have any history to speak of.
I’ve been out of the history field for more than a decade and that era is not my specialty. When did the consensus change?
|
United States44290 Posts
On March 02 2017 06:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:On March 02 2017 04:19 Plansix wrote:
As a recovering teacher of US history, this sort of high level discussion of government development has serious pitfalls and tends to gloss over a lot of what made governments form. Feudalism developed because of economics of equipping warriors and the existence of harsh winters more than anything else. But even that understanding is reductive and incomplete.
Just as a FYI, history teachers no longer teach feudalism because the modern consensus is that it was basically made up. As a US history teacher you couldn't be expected to know that though because the US doesn't really have any history to speak of. I’ve been out of the history field for more than a decade and that era is not my specialty. When did the consensus change?
First major challenge started in the 70s, consensus shifted over time. But the whole idea of feudalism ever having existed is super recent, less than 100 years old. The imagined feudal pyramid varied hugely and was more exception than rule with some individuals holding multiple titles and obligations, it was for example possible to hold some land in your capacity as vassal to a king and other land as sovereign property with no feudal overlord at all (as your own kingdom). Carolingian France was structured differently to Plantagenet England which in turn differed from the HRE. Generally speaking you have a king, bishops/barons and other, but the relationship between the three groups is extremely varied and resists categorization with the whole vassalage pyramid being far less simple than imagined. Same with peasant levies etc. Medieval wars were predominantly fought with mercenaries who were hired on for the campaign. The whole idea of the king calling his lords, the lords calling his knights, the knights calling his yeomen etc, Game of Thrones style, is fiction.
Pretty much the only useful parts of the term are the ideas of a monarch or other governing figure at the top and the wealth components, both of which can be far better explained in terms that don't carry all the baggage of the word feudalism.
|
On March 02 2017 06:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 06:06 Plansix wrote:On March 02 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:On March 02 2017 04:19 Plansix wrote:
As a recovering teacher of US history, this sort of high level discussion of government development has serious pitfalls and tends to gloss over a lot of what made governments form. Feudalism developed because of economics of equipping warriors and the existence of harsh winters more than anything else. But even that understanding is reductive and incomplete.
Just as a FYI, history teachers no longer teach feudalism because the modern consensus is that it was basically made up. As a US history teacher you couldn't be expected to know that though because the US doesn't really have any history to speak of. I’ve been out of the history field for more than a decade and that era is not my specialty. When did the consensus change? First major challenge started in the 70s, consensus shifted over time. But the whole idea of feudalism ever having existed is super recent, less than 100 years old. Same with peasant levies etc. Medieval wars were predominantly fought with mercenaries who were hired on for the campaign.
Ah, ok. That is how it is taught in the US. Feudalism isn’t seen as a formalized style of government, but a period of time when several areas had social structures with similar traits.
|
On March 02 2017 05:26 Plansix wrote:
Governments are not organic. They are not plants or moss. We can impose the concepts of evolutionary theory onto governments as a thought experiment, but that does not mean they behave the way nature does. It is a fallacy to attempt to treat them as such.
Seeing as we've strayed well into the philosophical here, I feel the need to take the opposite point of view. Just as cells aren't governed top down, but rather the organization emerges from the bottom up, so governments are a complex system that we (aka nature) have dreamt up to streamline our society.
In nature there are many different types of societies of animals, ranging from extremely simple colonies of bacteria (that nevertheless adapt reactively and as a collaborative to external pressures) to complex groups of mammals (think primates, elephants or whales). While none of these have codified the rules that govern their societies, one could imagine them doing so, and these laws would be the basis for a proto-government. Just because our systems are more complex (just as humankind, as a species exhibits more complex behavior than most animals), doesn't mean it's categorically different. It's merely a difference of degree.
And given that governing systems have generally gone through a system of improvement over time, I feel "organic" is an excellent descriptor for how our governments change over time.
E: omg. I agree with bardtown. At least on the philosophical part. Not on his initial point that led to the current sidetrack.
|
Organic is an excellent descriptor, if it not used as a measurement of the merit of a specific governmental system. Or a system of measurement based on how a government developed using arbitrary factors to increase or decrease the level of “organic-ness” or natural the government is.
If you travel back a page, you will see why some of us objected to the use of organic discuss the UK government.
|
On March 02 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 04:19 Plansix wrote:
As a recovering teacher of US history, this sort of high level discussion of government development has serious pitfalls and tends to gloss over a lot of what made governments form. Feudalism developed because of economics of equipping warriors and the existence of harsh winters more than anything else. But even that understanding is reductive and incomplete.
Just as a FYI, history teachers no longer teach feudalism because the modern consensus is that it was basically made up. As a US history teacher you couldn't be expected to know that though because the US doesn't really have any history to speak of.
Is that so? I was taught about the feudal system in school (granted, that's 20 years ago), and none of my recent visits to medieval castles in Holland or France gave me any indication that the thinking has changed. Sure, what Hollywood movies/series invent is highly exaggerated, but insofar as I know, serfs weren't the owners of their land, and owed part of their crop to the lord, bishop, or whoever was in control of the region. In exchange, they were mostly left alone to live their lives in toil and hardship. Most ppl were serfs. Then there was a middle class of merchants and tradesmen, and an upper class of richer tradesmen, and nobility.
|
United States44290 Posts
On March 02 2017 06:39 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:On March 02 2017 04:19 Plansix wrote:
As a recovering teacher of US history, this sort of high level discussion of government development has serious pitfalls and tends to gloss over a lot of what made governments form. Feudalism developed because of economics of equipping warriors and the existence of harsh winters more than anything else. But even that understanding is reductive and incomplete.
Just as a FYI, history teachers no longer teach feudalism because the modern consensus is that it was basically made up. As a US history teacher you couldn't be expected to know that though because the US doesn't really have any history to speak of. Is that so? I was taught about the feudal system in school (granted, that's 20 years ago), and none of my recent visits to medieval castles in Holland or France gave me any indication that the thinking has changed. Sure, what Hollywood movies/series invent is highly exaggerated, but insofar as I know, serfs weren't the owners of their land, and owed part of their crop to the lord, bishop, or whoever was in control of the region. In exchange, they were mostly left alone to live their lives in toil and hardship. Most ppl were serfs. Then there was a middle class of merchants and tradesmen, and an upper class of richer tradesmen, and nobility.
The problem is that the ideas of vassalage, fealty and all that stuff basically either don't apply or apply so rarely that they may as well not apply. Obviously there are people with different economic stations. That's fine. The problem is that the common conception of the word feudalism gives a false idea of the relationship between these people to try and form an overall political and social structure which simply wasn't there. But, for example, in 13th C England all persons with an income of over 40 pounds per year were required to become knights in response to a shortage of knights to fill administrative positions. It was essentially a certificate of eligibility for jobs in the civil service. Try to reconcile that with the conception of knights as a martial class existing under the barons with a relationship defined through military service to their liege lords.
|
One of the problem with the concept of feudalism is that historians broadly applied it to a huge period of history across numerous nations. Some historians argued that feudalism started in the 8th century or earlier and continued until the Renaissance. Kwark's example more accurately shows the evolving nature the "feudalistic period". A better description would be pre-nationalism.
|
thats a fucking terrible, teleologic description
|
All attempts to divide historical periods are imperfect and kinda bad. Except for dates. Dates are petty good. Or by dynasty. China and Japan tapped into a pretty good system there.
|
"pre-nationalist" is especially bad though
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
