Unintended Consequences in the Social and Political Arena

Progressives may very well find that the end of capitalism will not come about through marches and organized protest movements, but through the development of automated production coupled with abundance of information which becomes available -- through information technology -- for next to nothing, at least that's Paul Mason's theory about the "End of Capitalism".

Don't be surprised if political activists beg to differ with Mason, seeing his work as an attempt to pacify and derail movements for economic democracy and social justice when they are needed most. Nonetheless, it is important to entertain the possibility that Mason has a point -- is it possible that emerging technology, and even the technology already at our disposal, will make our current economic relationships obsolete? Mason says that Karl Marx anticipated this, and that transcripts of Marx's late-night brainstorming drafts emerged in the 1960s, giving us new insights into his thinking, which call into question the usefulness of organizing a political vanguard. Is this an unintended consequence of information technology? Have some political strategies and tactics become so outmoded as to be an impediment, rather than an asset, to the what they are intended promote? Does one, to paraphrase R. Buckminster Fuller, change the future by developing technology that makes the present obsolete?

Many progressives have been quick to celebrate SCOTUS' ruling this summer to uphold the right to same-sex marriage on the basis that the right to dignity is implied by the constitution and that same-sex marriage gives these couples dignity. Justice Thomas got into trouble saying that denial of citizenship rights did not deny slaves of their dignity, nor did granting former slaves these rights suddenly confer on them dignity they did not already have. At the heart of Thomas' comments is the notion that dignity is something that people cultivate within themselves, regardless of what the political, economic and social system around them assess about their worth as human beings.

Raised eyebrows at Thomas' comments were understandable, but what Thomas was saying was that the reasoning behind the decision was not on solid constitutional ground. Dignity, moreover, is not something that governments can withhold or confer. If same-sex marriage could not be argued on the basis of the 14th amendment then the argument in favor of it should not stand at all. Once dignity is made a rationale for a decision about constitutional rights one has moved away from constitutional law and entered the divination of the inner workings of the psyche -- and such divination, in place of sound reasoning, has heavy costs and consequences.

Continuing this discussion, constitutional scholar Jeffery Rosen does not begrudge progressives the outcome of the ruling, but questions the reasoning behind the decision in his piece in The Atlantic, "The Dangers of the Right to Dignity". Rosen cautions that celebrations may turn to mourning once this newly discovered and highly ambiguous "right" is used by the other side to justify decidedly non-progressive causes, such as the "dignity" of one's identity that comes as a result of having an assault rifle, or the dignity that comes from one's identity as a cigarette smoker who insists on his right to smoke in public spaces or in buildings where smoking is forbidden. The dignity argument could already be used by confederate battle flag enthusiasts who see this symbol of white supremacy as the banner of their dignity and Southern heritage -- which is their argument to keep it flying over state capitals and monuments.

Rosen argues that logic behind this ruling is an over-reach by the court and that even progressives will likely come to regret the precedent that it sets.

Speaking of unintended consequences in the social and political thought of today's progressives, professor Shamus Kahn, writing in Aeon, argues that the "born this way" premise of the same-sex rights movement promotes an underlying assumption that progressives in the past have explicitly fought against: biological determinism.

Kahn argues in "Not Born This Way" that biological determinism is a highly reactionary idea to base one's "liberation" upon and that many people, both progressives and non-progressives, misunderstand the concept of the "social construction" of race, gender or any other social category. To say that an identity is socially constructed, Kahn argues, is not to say that it is not real, nor is it to say that there is not a biological element to that identity -- rather, it is to say that whatever biological element there is to our social identities, that element is not determinative, and to argue otherwise is to open a Pandora's box to potentially highly regressive social policies.

Two of these articles, Rosen on the "right to dignity" and Kahn on biological determinism, challenge readers to re-think their assumptions and not to be so focused on their desired outcomes that they embrace underlying premises that they will live to regret. The third article, Mason on "the end of capitalism", challenges readers to re-think their notion of how progressive social change is likely to come about in the post-industrial age. The cost of fighting one's battles on the field of intellectual honesty and flexibility is never as deep as the cost of fighting based on intellectual laziness, dishonesty and outmoded ways of thinking that either can be used against one with a vengeance or that render one cognitively impotent and incoherent.