Reversion and Moral Authoritarianism

Last week I mentioned a couple problems that have occurred as the public domain has developed disproportionately with that of the private domain. Though many wouldn’t necessarily articulate it this way, I believe that most feel the issue in some sense. I'd point to the concerns feminism generally grapples with as an example.

As with any problem, a typical solution is to attempt to pause or slow development. Regarding my last post one could say that an answer is to inhibit progress or revert back to some former state in the public realm. The hope, in this instance, would be to make the public and private domains more even. Though this sounds feasible (maybe because we feel let down by modernist principles) this could never be achieved nor is it desirable. For one, there was never a point in the past that was somehow even or good for everybody. Second, the plea for a "pausing" of progress or of reversion to a former state is generally made on the grounds of morality. But, without authoritarianism and dogma (beliefs that can't be questioned or criticized) there is nothing that can anchor society to keep it from drifting towards its enemy of change. Put another way, everyone would have to buy into a brand of knowledge that would suppress certain kinds of knowledge. A common but naturally oppressive feature of religion and cultures through history.

This kind of appeal to dogma and knowledge suppression is becoming increasingly popular on the political left just as much as it has always been popular on the political right. The term "civil religion" has been used by some sociologists and philosophers to talk about the rise of the phenomenon; something that correlates to the decline of traditional religion. My point here is to say that the answer to the most difficult issues we face will never be solved by marching backwards despite our inclination to retreat from the unknown. We already know where the past’s beliefs lead, because we're standing in its conclusion.