Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
[Editorial note: the implied misogyny is all mine, and absent in Streeck] [Eurogreen's Macho Moment of the DayTM Technology]

Are you provoking me, after this?

My gender assignment would be the opposite. When it comes to social-political jostle, subtle linguistic differences between need, demand, require are key. You can indeed start to undermine the social power of Marktvolk by describing them as needy or demanding. But the reality is, the activist financiers are the (rather new) Alpha of the societies around the globe. They are respected, revered, powerful, not questioned, left free to act. The real sovereigns. The public is not even a sex object to them, but a domesticated crowd.

The state is still nominally Alpha - with all demanding critique towards it, but with no real liberty to act. That is close to the Democracy ideal - except that the (more or less) equal status of the government and the people was unspokenly discarded as utopian, and the state became the obedient Beta to the PeopleTM. All philosophical theories of governing should be refurbished with acknowledgement of hierarchical instincts perhaps.

by das monde on Sun Aug 24th, 2014 at 02:07:57 AM EST
I was perhaps subconsciously taking the opposite position  to the one you postulate (social demands/social justice = feminine, see it's easy to put a positive spin on the feminine side).
But I strongly disagree with your portrayal of government become subservient to the people (Staatsvolk) : on the contrary, it has pretty much abandoned social demands in its subservience to the Marktvolk.

Certainly it may be helpful to acknowledge the unquestioning, unthinking subservience to neoliberalism in terms of hierarchical instincts, in order to revolt against it. Certainly it's the Alpha Doctrine, to adopt your vocabulary.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Sun Aug 24th, 2014 at 03:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Democracy is not defined in hierarchal terms. If there is indeed a hidden instinctive demand for hierarchal subservience and clarity, that is a problem for the supposed governing progress. The conservative distaste for welfare state, providing basic needs would have an explanation then.

The famous motto "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" seems to put the people above the government. But literal interpretation soon leads to the libertarian distinction of PeopleTM. What does democracy mean if< hierarchal relations cannot be avoided?

The liberal-progressive movement had definite successes in the last 100 years, even if ignoring (possibly) crucial aspects of human nature. It is worth to analyze this under several assumptions.

One possibility is that the greatly positive feminine side has a good chance to steer the society when resources are plentiful - but once resource limitations are perceived, "responsible" hierarchal instincts gradually kick in.

by das monde on Mon Aug 25th, 2014 at 07:10:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series