David Harding is a long-standing member of the Pirsig community who has recently posted on his blog:
Power Thrives on Rigid Labels. Democracy Thrives on Values.
How an amoral metaphysics enables social power to influence shared cultural dialogue in an untold number of ways. Thankfully there’s a solution.
His focus here is explicitly the labels<>values contrast, and I have some questions to ask about his use of labels, but first I need to affirm my agreement with the central point in his sub-heading. The world runs predominantly on the subject-object metaphysics he calls amoral and he correctly emphasises the “cultural” dimension of how our real-world dialogues are deeply influenced by it and why its amoral influence enables any number of immoral interpretations and uses by those with power to act. The solution he alludes to is Robert Pirsig’s metaphysics of quality. No argument from me, being values-based, morality is built into Pirsig’s MoQ.
Labels Generally? I use a concept I refer to as #GoodFences. The idea that the names we give things – labels – are a necessary component of any constructive dialogue. But, however much formal, logical, objective – and contractual / legal – discourse depends on such labels and things being “well-defined”, in the real world they are best treated as good fences. Linguistic this-not-that dividing lines between the subjects of our dialogue necessary for the purpose of having the dialogue but nevertheless movable and evolvable as part of that dialogue. Not rigidly cast in stone, except in artificially constrained contexts. Since subject-object metaphysics is predicated on those labelled things it unsurprisingly relies entirely on their definitions. So again, no argument, fixed rigid labels are bad for real world dialogue.
Labels Specifically? We need to look at the words David uses:
His starting topic is the idea of “socialism” in US political discourse – most associated with Bernie Saunders. Those scare quotes suggest #GoodFences to me, that we’re avoiding rigid definitions, and yet to have any meaningful dialogue, we clearly need to distinguish socialism from the alternative(s). Capitalism and Social-Democracy (he says “democratic socialism”).
He suggests Bernie and his supporters wear the socialist label with pride – necessary when your binary-partisan opponents are labelling you with it pejoratively anyway. I would however suggest most of us using such a short-hand label in intelligent good-faith dialogue are intending social-democracy not literally “social-ism”?
However either term includes the “social” root and David uses this to bring-up the relation to the social level in Pirsig’s MoQ. I would question whether Pirsig’s use of social is the same as understood in general real-world usage and political dialogue? And, either way, whether people favour capitalism over socialism or vice-versa, anyone that discounts the democratic element has a whole different set of questions to answer. [Aside – in my own “Psybernetic” researches and writings, I’ve long and regularly concluded all roads from Cybernetics (ie Governance) lead to Democracy and the systems we envisage to implement it.]
Assuming for the moment we can equate or otherwise reconcile Pirsig’s use of social with more general usage of the word, then this claim holds:
“that label [socialism] quietly smuggles in: not care, not fairness, but an acceptance of social-level power concentrating under the cover of higher intellectual or moral authority. Cries that capitalism’s immorality can only be solved through socialism or communism are common, but they miss the deeper problem entirely”
“The issue isn’t capitalism as such – it’s what values control culture, and who and what gets to enforce them.”
Elite(s)? At this point he introduces elite(s), proceeds to use the word many more times, and, since he lays the blame at their / our door, socialist or capitalist, I need to understand what he means by elite? If I get myself elected to a position of temporary delegated power, do I become a member of an elite? If I consider I hold an intellectual understanding of Pirsig’s social and intellectual levels, do I get labelled a member of an elite? In Pirsigian terms what does it mean to refer to “an intellectual class” as an elite?
This one question aside, David nevertheless makes plenty of important true statements:
“Left unchecked, capitalism doesn’t just respond to Dynamic Quality – it converts social power into permanence, allowing those who win early or win big to shape the rules in their favour. Capitalism alone, then, is no more virtuous than socialism alone. Both become immoral when they’re absolutised.”
“From an MOQ perspective, democracy’s moral strength is precisely this openness. It does not freeze value at the social or intellectual level. Instead, it creates the conditions under which better ideas, better arrangements, and better values can emerge over time. When democracy fails, it is usually because this Dynamic function has been undermined, not because democracy itself was the problem.
Towards the end he concludes:
“Because despite everything, people still do share remarkably similar underlying values: meaningful work, security, distrust of elites, and a genuine voice in shaping their future. What is fractured: is not the culture itself, but the language and metaphysics people are given to understand it.”
That includes “elites” as the bad guys again, so in order to agree I’d need to read that as a bad kind of elites, rather than elites per se? Help me. That last sentence is also somewhat tautologous to me in the sense that it is the prevailing culture that gives us those shared understandings?
And in the final paragraph:
“[The MoQ] keeps evolutionary conflicts of morality at the front of mind whilst [common folks] evaluate elite suggestions. And the key here is that with this better metaphysics they can uniquely do so in the intellectual language of the elites.”
More of the us and them in there again – common folks vs elites – so understanding the use of “elite” is crucial to understanding, without it becoming simply another “rigid label”?
Overall worth a read, and I’d be interested in how others read it, Pirsigians or otherwise.
=====