Memetic Homogenisation

[andrewducker]

Lots of the surprise whenever someone like The Pope (or George Bush, or any number of other people) say illiberal things seems to be based on the thought that we now live in a much more liberal age, where we have outgrown such thoughts.

This seems to rest on three thoughts:
1) That we're moving inexorably towards liberalism.  There does seem to be a trend in that direction, but it seems awfully unlikely to me that it's going to take in the entire population.  The idea that the the world is inevitably moving towards any one ideology seems to stem from wish-fulfillment and misuse of statistics("Some day the world will wake up and overthrow the tyranny of the bourgeousie - it's inevitable")
2) That because the reader has realised that liberalism is the One True Way other people should have realised by now too.  This seems to be a common theme with people - once someone has had an epiphany it seems to be much harder for them to have empathy with people who feel how they used to.  I occasionally wonder if there's a mechanism in people to make them look down on any opinion they used to have. ("Well, I _used_ to like Band X, back when I was 16...")
3) That the world is homogenous.  There seems to be a feeling that once a single place has taken a glorious step into space-year 2009 everywhere else should instantly follow with it. ("Our local McDonalds has WiFi, I can't believe the ones in Gambia don't too.")

Part of the "problem" is that with the internet it's much easier to come into contact with people with vastly different opinions to your own - and there are billions of people out there with opinions that are offensive to each and every one of us.  Possibly I've just become jaded to this idea - I'm certainly less likely to leap into arguments with strangers without having some idea if they're the kind of person who are worth arguing with.  I'm certainly no longer surprised when people have vastly different ideas to me.

Comments

[nwhyte]

As a lapsed historian of science, I would add that 1) is a classic description of Whiggishness - the idea that history is a one-way journey of improvements to humanity's lot, be that in terms of social progress or scientific discovery. Of course, as a paid up Liberal I would also like to stipulate that the world has indeed improved, at least for people like you and me. Liberalism and Whiggishness are deeply intertwined, and it is sometimes difficult to disentangle them.

[andrewducker]

Oh, absolutely. It's a common meme, with a long history. And there's sometimes some truth to it (the world _is_ more liberal than it used to be, and is improving). I just don't think that it's going to ever reach the stage where the world is entirely that way.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

You know what is shocking though? McDonald's in the USA doesn't have Wi-Fi!! That was just rubbish, I really needed Internets and there was none.

[andrewducker]

Isn't there a constitutional right to life, liberty and the internet?

[bracknellexile.livejournal.com]

Is that the bit with the the right to arm bears and the right to make cute i-can-haz-cheezburger captions from the resulting pictures?

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with people arming bears. At the very least, it might make hunting a bit less popular.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

I doubt the population as a whole is moving towards liberalism. Many of the population are firmly fixed in their unliberal views, The Pope being just one example. I suspect that a greater proportion of the population are moving towards liberalism compared to say 50 years ago, but I have no data to back that up. The difference nowadays seems to be that the laws and rules of our society are moving towards liberalism.

[andrewducker]

Well, women's rights have moved on a lot in the last century - and have been generally accepted by the populace. Same with gay rights over the last four decades.

I suspect it's changing as people move into cities more.

[matgb]

Many of the population are firmly fixed in their unliberal views,

Yup. But fortunately, they're mostly dying off. Many of them fairly quickly.

In the UK, the under 30s vote substantially more Lib Dem, and part of Cameron's "rebranding" was to make them look OK to younger voters—this has (unfortunately) succeeded :-(

Paradigm shift mostly occur when the last generation loses influence. I blame the healthcare reformers.

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

Part of the "problem" is that with the internet it's much easier to come into contact with people with vastly different opinions to your own

Sure, you can find any number of Racist, Baby Eating, Mac Users on the internet but I find it just as easy to come across opinions I find offensive with co-workers and family.

Its not that we live in a liberal age, but that we are moving towards one.

[random-redhead.livejournal.com]

And statements such as the Pope's latest missive threaten to derail that process.
Surely one of the core pillars of liberalism is that the population is heterogenous, and has the right to be that way, be accepted that way and happy and supported that way?
Isn't that the defining quality of an epiphany? That you realise something so clearly as to be so simple and self evident, that you really do wonder *how* you didn't see it before, or others fail to see it now.
In my personal philosophy, And I don't think I can extrapolate that to the wider population, It comes down to "Do what thou wishes, AS LONG AS IT HARMETH NO OTHER". Not harming others being the key part of the rule. Like safe sane and consensual, If people want to consent to any particular way of life, they can so long as they don't force it on others. POssibly this is the way of the future, with full population mobility and some protection from groups declaring war on each other.
I feel a Sci-Fi story coming on!

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's nessecarily suprise more that people who hold liberal beliefs are more likely to express dismay at illiberal pronouncements.

I'm not suprised by the Popes announcement but I don't agree with the hating ze gayz bit.

Also objectively you can see that it is better, rather then just different, to live in a democracy versus a dictatorship (no one will start a war against you for a start), it's better to live in a nationstate which is balanced more towards the freedom then control pole, it's better to live in a state with less corruption at the top...

Objectively it is better to live in the Western World I suppose. There are historical reasons for this obviously but there is reason to assume that in terms of costs/benefits of the way we live our lives it might be a good model to roll out worldwide. Although then reality rears its ugly head and lots of nasty explotative things happen as a result of the free market.

Ho hum

[andrewducker]

Also objectively you can see that it is better, rather then just different, to live in a democracy versus a dictatorship

What's your measurement scale there?

(no one will start a war against you for a start)
Since when?

it's better to live in a nationstate which is balanced more towards the freedom then control pole
You and I believe that - but many people believe that control is necessary, to prevent immoral behaviour.

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

Since there have been modern democracies only one has declared war on another and that was to serve the purpose of a treaty - no troops ever attacked either democracy.

What's your measurement scale there?

You could probably empirically measure it if you like but qualitatively you can probably work out most folks would rather live in a westernised democracy with civil and human rights then sibject to the arbitary whims of a totalitarian regieme.

[andrewducker]

The first is only helpful if all of your neighbours are also democracies.

And the second is not true worldwide - lots of people in Russia and China have polled as preferring strong non-democratic leaders who keep things stable over democracy and instability. Many people in highly-religious countries want a theocracy.

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

Ok, but irrespective of what people want a democracy is the best form of government for the whole population. At least one founded on the premise that it represents the majority while protecting the minority. Objectively less people will be in harms way under a democratic government. It's the point along the "freedom-stability" continuum that thus far seems to work the best.

Of course the first is only helpful if you neighbours are also democracies? How does pointing that out detract from spreading democratic government to the four corners of the Earth?

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

My argument is slightly "all over the place" at the moment - tell you what after the silly season is passed and people aren't dragging me to the pub I'll endeavour to blog about it in a more focused manner - with references and the like ;)

(It could be an interesting discussion at least)

[andrewducker]

Consider the Christmas Ceasefire begun!

(And have fun at the pub)