Once you find yourself in a “reactionary” position, even to the extent of arguing that the latest mode of “liberation” instituted a couple of years ago can and should be reversed you start to confront certain difficulties. This latest form of “liberation” is really just the logical conclusion of the form of “liberation” instituted a decade ago, and that just follows up logically on the one universally applauded 50 years ago, and so on. So, how far back do you want the reversals to go, and who, exactly, do you think is left to operate according to the laws that were repealed a century ago? To be more specific: fine, you’re against wokeness, but what about the civil rights legislation of the 60s and early 70s? Oh, that too? How about women’s suffrage? Really? Slavery…? No matter how much you’re willing to play along, this becomes a bad game fairly quickly, because you end up doubling down on stigmatized and long gone modes of life with no chance of resurrection, or, at least, not any imaginable on the narrow terms on which such interrogations take place. But you do have to talk about history—the Russian Revolution definitely shouldn’t have happened; the French too—throw the American, and English revolutions into the pot as well (how could you not?). Well, alright, then what?—these revolutions were possible because of decisions made by European monarchs going back to the Middle Ages, decisions that would therefore have to be revisited critically, but according to what criteria? They shouldn’t have done X implies there were Ys they should have done. And having these Ys is also indispensable if we are to think forward as well—obviously we’re not simply reactionaries in the present, since there are plenty of things we want to change, and we acknowledge that things will in fact change, but that means there are good and bad changes and we can tell the difference. We can have a reading of history within history, and if we are to systematically reject liberal, democratic, progressive and deterministic narratives, we need to be able to say how.
Threading through History
Threading through History
Threading through History
Once you find yourself in a “reactionary” position, even to the extent of arguing that the latest mode of “liberation” instituted a couple of years ago can and should be reversed you start to confront certain difficulties. This latest form of “liberation” is really just the logical conclusion of the form of “liberation” instituted a decade ago, and that just follows up logically on the one universally applauded 50 years ago, and so on. So, how far back do you want the reversals to go, and who, exactly, do you think is left to operate according to the laws that were repealed a century ago? To be more specific: fine, you’re against wokeness, but what about the civil rights legislation of the 60s and early 70s? Oh, that too? How about women’s suffrage? Really? Slavery…? No matter how much you’re willing to play along, this becomes a bad game fairly quickly, because you end up doubling down on stigmatized and long gone modes of life with no chance of resurrection, or, at least, not any imaginable on the narrow terms on which such interrogations take place. But you do have to talk about history—the Russian Revolution definitely shouldn’t have happened; the French too—throw the American, and English revolutions into the pot as well (how could you not?). Well, alright, then what?—these revolutions were possible because of decisions made by European monarchs going back to the Middle Ages, decisions that would therefore have to be revisited critically, but according to what criteria? They shouldn’t have done X implies there were Ys they should have done. And having these Ys is also indispensable if we are to think forward as well—obviously we’re not simply reactionaries in the present, since there are plenty of things we want to change, and we acknowledge that things will in fact change, but that means there are good and bad changes and we can tell the difference. We can have a reading of history within history, and if we are to systematically reject liberal, democratic, progressive and deterministic narratives, we need to be able to say how.