Silent Stalwart

The current cascade of discouraging events appears to have a paralyzing effect on many people.  Here in the Lehigh Valley, PA, which a prominent candidate recently called “the swingiest district in the swingiest state” in the 2022 election, I call voters and knock on their doors, trying especially to recruit volunteers.  The latter work is tough and sometimes disheartening.  At this time how can folks not be fired up to protect people, the planet and democracy?

In a low moment at which I felt that I was spinning my wheels I looked out into my garden, noticing in particular a certain brown-eyed susan (rudbeckia triloba).  The buds on its countless stems were beginning to open, and as I focused my attention to its efflorescence I became immediately, that is, directly, aware of the plant’s radiant life. 

As it grows the susan extends its life in space and time, and the purpose of its efflorescence is to produce seeds that will disperse, then continue its biennial life in new plants.  The pursuit of its life consists of so many intentional interactions with myriad things around it, as those things simultaneously interact with it for their own purposes.  Thus the black beetles eat some of the petals, and the pollinators collect the pollen and nectar.  In this last relationship the plant offers these substances to the insects as the means through which they symbiotically contribute to its vital function of reproduction. 

My awareness of the susan also has a mutual character.  For as I intentionally give it my  attention it presents its radiant life to my consciousness, forming the bilateral intentional relationship which is precisely my experience of that life.

This relationship isn’t casual.  Although the susan is a wildflower that has naturalized in my region, is hardy and spreads prolifically to the point of being somewhat invasive, it is growing in my garden.  I have provided its place, cleared weeds that might have destroyed it and protected it from the possible damage of people walking on it or ground hogs eating it.  In a word, I have cared for it.  As I love it, so it loves me, and the bilateral intentional conjunction of our lives is manifested in my awareness of its radiant life.

This is life: radiance, bilateral (ultimately multilateral) intentional interactive relationships or functional conjunctions.  My immediate awareness of what life is, which is given to me by the flower, inspires my persistent action of reaching out, interacting with people to serve the continuation of life which is the very practice of being fully alive. 

Much attention is given to the consciousness of life experienced in wilderness and regenerative communities, but I’ve discerned the life of a potted flower on the porch of a small old row house in Reading, PA.  Elsewhere I have been struck by the conspicuous absence of any such awareness while canvassing in luxury suburban developments    We seek privacy to escape the racket and vulgar distractions of modern life, but as we block these intrusions, we also diminish life.  Often flowers are planted merely to visually adorn property rather than to be living companions for the occupants who nurture and care for them in somewhat the same spirit as they care for their pets.  Our green pals can even be treated rather as family, for as I walk into my garden looking for new flowers and plants that might need attention I ask aloud, “How we doin’, children?”  

To all who give ear flowers are proclaiming what life is and what it means to live, imparting to us their life force,  joie de vivre and message, which is “Live!”

My brown-eyed susan, now in full bloom, is rapidly being joined in that phase by the nearby ironweed, New England asters, wild sunflowers, blue mist and cardinal flowers that grow beside the currently blossoming purple coneflowers and several domestic varieties including butterfly-magnet zinnias.  My garden has no plan: the flowers decide where they will grow, and my job is to furnish the hand labor that saves them from weeds, pests and occasional drought.  In late summer it is an explosion of flowers and color which I gaze upon with rapture.  Uplifted, inspired and revitalized by its glorious exuberance I hit the streets and the phones again.        

At present the human scene is so challenging that people may wish to run away and hide.  Summer is vacation time, but it’s also the time of peak vitality. Enjoy the flowers, but also understand why they give us pleasure: it is because they radiate life.  This is our mission too, of which flowers remind us with their splendor.  Imbibe their spirit first for comfort then to seize the urgent opportunity this year to reach out to people and connect with them to preserve the democracy that is essential for reversing environmental destruction, disease, war and rampant human injustice!  Like the profuse blooms of the brown-eyed susan, a multitude of people must come forth to fully pursue, serve and save life.       

Introduction to Being Alive: A Guide for Human Action

The problems of the world – war, disease, wealth inequality, injustice and environmental destruction – are presented to us by the media, and as consumers of media we are mere spectators of the troubles.  Yet increasingly people are getting into the action, with many working within the established system to fix its innumerable flaws.  At the same time there is a growing sense that we need wholesale system change defined by a new ideology.  Such transformation is already underway among the people who are choosing to get real by directly facing the facts of our existential crises and concentrating on protecting, cultivating and knowing life. 

These folks are rejecting the prevailing worldview that defines nature as separate from humanity and the target of human domination.  Eschewing reductionism and interpretations intended for control, their attention is on life, living beings and their relations, emphasizing awareness of the living unity among things.   

But what is this awareness and what guidance does it provide?  The instincts of these people are correct, but our need is nothing less than to save the whole earth, so how can we apply life’s wisdom to act at all the levels that require attention? 

What is called for is a life-centered method for tackling issues great and small which, most importantly, will motivate people to take the necessary action.  Presently we have a false and destructive ruling narrative that the majority of people believe, so we need not just a replacement, but a compelling one. 

Being Alive: A Guide for Human Action presents a new worldview that validates elements of Eastern and Indigenous wisdom as it follows the Western tradition of philosophy in rationally demonstrating its position.  Advertising and propaganda notwithstanding, people generally still demand evidence, if not proof, of novel insights.  Indeed, rational understanding is a good thing.  My system is founded on self-evident facts of experience from which inferences are drawn using simple reasoning.  It doesn’t dismiss science, but rather offers a parallel and specifically moral outlook for the conduct of life.  Further, although this new explanation of the world is concerned exclusively with nature, it is compatible with spiritual beliefs that share its objective of justice for all of creation.  

 My examination of common experience reveals an inherent desire for that experience to be good, that is, to be of a good world, which is precisely the ecological civilization.  Also, in contrast to the standard view that we are separated from the world in our experience, I explain how we are in fact immediately aware of our unity with the environment.  Though functionally conjoined with the objects around us, we are nevertheless individual living agents displaying a distinctive human nature and purpose. 

The universe is by nature organized into innumerable nested and intersecting living wholes  and parts, so in addition to being individuals humans are organic parts of certain larger wholes.  These structures include the biosphere, ideally local ecosystems plus social bodies comprising families, communities, humanity as a whole and so many political units.  Being parts of these living wholes imposes additional identities on individual persons.  This fact is commonly understood in terms of roles like those of actors which they can take on and off at will, however the multiple identities established by nature are intrinsic and integrate people into the total functioning of the world.

Parts of organic wholes perform their particular functions while also supporting the whole and every other part, for the well-being of all the parts depends on them each properly serving themselves and each other.  Such functioning is multi-dimensional, as each thing is the indivisible unity of all its functions relative to all of its identities.

Living beings don’t operate in a mechanical manner, but manifest will, that is, desire, to live and perform all their functions to the best of their ability.  As parts of the whole universe, all things by nature seek the well-being of themselves and all the other parts, which means the harmonious functioning of them all.  Among humans this impulse is their supreme desire for the justice of all things. 

This book lays out the reality of nature as a living whole composed of so many indivisibly interconnected parts of innumerable nested and intersecting orders.  It rationally articulates into a system the intuitive awareness of the many people now getting real.  As pioneers, they are to be applauded, but the time has come for everyone to give up their false consciousness and get real as well.  

Ecological living is typically viewed as an immense sacrifice of human achievement and comfort that nevertheless has now become necessary for our survival.  Examining the self-evident facts of experience, I find that it is precisely the ideal which by nature we not only desire, but actively strive for.  Treating humans as parts of nature, I also explain how our species got off track onto its present planet-destroying trajectory, sinking into a degraded condition with its members failing to act according to their fullest and highest nature which in fact delivers their greatest satisfaction. 

Presently people are living in the all-encompassing neoliberal structure in which they function mostly as wage-laborers and consumers in service to the political economy dominated by the global corporate elite that is fast running people and all of life into the ground.  Much greater human actualization and a far better world are possible, and this is what we truly want. 

The means to closely approximate the ideal exist now, so all that is needed is the active will to put them into effect.  By offering an explanation with a valid demonstration of what human nature is, I aim to awaken people’s natural desire to live according to it.  We have a very long way to go before we reach our goal, so my book includes some initial steps and the essential principle to follow all along the way.  This is expressed in the ancient words of the Torah: “Justice, justice shall you pursue,” which is the perennial formula for the good life that we must now apply in our actions toward all nonhuman as well as human beings.

I urge people to fulfill their true nature which consists of acting multidimensionally – as an individual human being, a member of their community, a citizen and an indivisible part of the living world – to achieve the just ecological civilization.  This is being alive, which goes far beyond individual or species survival, for as Victor Hugo wrote, “The human soul has still greater need of the ideal than of the real. It is by the real that we exist; it is by the ideal that we live.”      

Time is running short for us to save humanity, the earth and especially the democratic institutions that are necessary for tackling all the other problems.  My message is urgent, and it is  addressed to everyone, so this book is intended to reach the greatest number of people quickly.  It is written for a general audience, is fairly short and available as a free ebook at BeingAlivegooglebook .

I Wanna Be a Livin’ Man

Published at https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-10-27/i-wanna-be-a-livin-man/

The Livin’ Man by Lindsay Fitzpatrick

The October 12 episode of What Could Possibly Go Right? was a dialogue between Vicki Robin and Kamea Chayne that touched on the fundamental questions What is life? and What do people want?  A single answer to both of these is found in a 1964 episode of The Twilight Zone which was a translation of the French adaptation of An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge by Ambrose Bierce directed by Robert Enrico. 

The film begins with the lead character about to be hung on the bridge, then as the rope apparently breaks, he drops into the river and swims to freedom.  Running through the woods he arrives at a house where he finds the woman he loves and is about to embrace her when his illusion suddenly ends with his actual execution.  In the scene where he comes up in the water a deeply moving song begins with the lyrics “A livin’ man. A livin’ man. I wanna be a livin’ man.” The complete song is heard in the first one and a quarter minutes of this clip which one should watch and listen to before continuing to read my essay. Moving from the man the camera turns to the things he is seeing and hearing with heightened sensibility – sunlight through a tree canopy, a centipede traversing a leaf and a spider on a web.  Exquisitely expressing the immediacy, vibrance and preciousness of life, the clip also conveys the truth that living involves active immersion in a living world.  My seventh grade school mates and I watched The Twilight Zone episode, and the next day in art class one of them made a paper mâché figure of the livin’ man.  I was so captivated by the doll that she gave it to me, and to this day it stands on my dresser – an icon of livin’.  Picasso said, “Art is a lie that makes us realize truth,” and this is why the clip is so powerful: it represents the fulfillment of people’s ultimate desire, which is to be livin’. 

It is most significant that the film’s depiction of livin’ isn’t footage of the man, but of living things around him accompanied by the lyrics “In all the world. He moves around. He walks around…” Until recently our acquaintance with livin’ has been limited to incomprehensible personal experiences and artistic representations, but now, as all of life has become endangered, understanding of it is advancing.  Naturalist Craig Holdrege derives from Aldo Leopold’s literary “Thinking Like a Mountain” a key concept.  In Thinking Like a Plant he writes, “For Leopold the wolf is not a separate organism that outwardly interacts with other organisms and the landscape. The wolf is present (or is a presence) in the whole landscape.”       

Leopold’s essay relates the overall vital impact of a population of wolves on a mountain, something we can readily grasp.  Moreover, now living in the Anthropocene, we are painfully aware of the destructive, indeed self-destructive, presence of humans on the earth.  But what would a positive human presence look like?  As an illustration of such a mode of existence I offer an experience of my own in a neighborhood years ago.  My husband and I owned a house whose back yard bordered a small creek, on the opposite bank of which was a high tree-covered bluff.   The beautiful scenery provided by the hillside contributed greatly to my enjoyment and love of my home, but one day a developer arrived with a plan to build dozens of condominiums along the far bank. These would rise two stories above a ground-level garage, presenting a solid wall of construction looming over our home and the entire neighborhood.     

I immediately felt a sense of personal violation, for my view of the bluff had become a cherished part of me.  Determined to stop the development but knowing nothing of the usual tactics, I just walked up the hill and knocked on the door of the house at the top.  The neighborhood consisted of around seventy homes bounded by a wide boulevard, the creek and state institution grounds which together set it off geographically.  With a ready-made canvass turf I proceeded to visit every one of the houses, seeking to gather their residents behind me.  As I told folks about the plan I made a point of mentioning that I had just talked to their neighbors next door, referring to them by name, and thereby connecting the households.  Once I completed the circuit I re-walked it. 

My property was truly ground zero for the impact of the development, since it was beside where the creek bed was narrowest and the bluff steepest, thus the most scenic section. Constantly reaching out and talking to people, especially those living closest, I made the street in front of my home the hub of the neighborhood, where we would meet and talk almost daily.  This activity became a social life for us that created bonds extending to the place as we formed a living community consisting of the people and the place – its geology, infrastructure, homes, flora and fauna.  

My experience exemplifies Holdrege’s conception of presence.  For me, an individual person, the neighborhood was a place that I affected extensively by walking all around, talking and forming bonds with the residents.  Acting as a part of the total community, especially as an organizer, I looked upon and treated the other people specifically as parts of it as well, keeping them engaged and maintaining the collective intention to preserve that body.  Our overall consciousness was love – awareness of the conjoined lives of the people and the place.  In this the nonhuman elements were active also, for in being there as objects of sight, physical bodies and organisms the bluff with its vegetation actively entered into the people’s lives, forming parts of them and the whole living community too.  Although it was driven by the fear that the development would materialize, my activity was exhilarating, for I was truly livin’. 

In this experience I found an ideal for human life that is now supported by leading alternatives addressing climate change and the larger environmental crisis.  David Korten proposes a global order of sustainable small communities, while Richard Heinberg has just amplified the call for degrowth.  Going beyond capitalism and socialism solidarity economics, which figures in the Green New Deal, adds a formula for social justice to the vision.     

While Holdrege captures livin’ in his notion of presence, Leopold bids us specifically to think like a mountain.  This means viewing things as so many living component presences that together compose larger living wholes.  Thinking of particular mountains from which wolves had been eradicated he observed that they had been severely degraded.  Their condition led him to conclude that once people think like a mountain they must proceed to act multi-dimensionally, taking parts and wholes into consideration to secure the lives of all.  This is the perspective of the whole, which is also reflected in that of each part, thus as a person functions as a constituent presence they serve the whole. 

It’s clear that livin’ isn’t a solo act, for it involves at least a community of people consciously acting to create and sustain for themselves a total living community.  At this time we face a plethora of crises – climate change, loss of biodiversity, mass human migration, pandemic, inequality, injustice and subversion of democracy.  The situation presents both extraordinary peril and opportunity for everyone to attain the greatest livin’ in history by coming together and acting multi-dimensionally as presences in their communities, nations and the world to achieve the ecological civilization.  This especially means everyone asserting their presence in these bodies as fully engaged citizens.

Having begun this essay with reflections on a film I conclude it with comments on another one of the same vintage.  Luis Buñuel’s 1962 The Exterminating Angel opens with a group of upper-class guests enjoying a house party.  As the event winds down first one then others walk to the door but turn away, apparently unable to open it and walk out.  They seem to be trapped in the house, and after days marked by a couple of deaths and general lapse into savagery one person walks to the door, opens it and leaves, moving the rest to follow.  The message is that people are the hostages of their own mindsets from which, nevertheless, it is possible for them to escape.  Though they have long freely allowed themselves to be confined within a self-destructive mode of existence, today they must make the choice between livin’ or dyin’.  To pick the former people must first realize that they wanna be a livin’ man, woman or youth, then act as such.  

This article is a digest of I Wanna Be a Livin’ Man (long version) .

I Wanna Be a Livin’ Man (long version)

The Livin’ Man by Lindsay Fitzpatrick

Introduction

In 1961 French director Robert Enrico made a film adaptation of the short story An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge by Ambrose Bierce.1  It won honors at Cannes and the Academy Awards, and in 1964 it was aired in translation on The Twilight Zone.2  The film begins with the lead character about to be hung on the bridge, then as the rope apparently breaks, he drops into the river and swims to freedom.  Running through the woods he arrives at a house where he finds the woman he loves and is about to embrace her when his illusion suddenly ends with his actual execution.  In the scene in which he comes up in the water a deeply moving song begins with the lyrics “A livin’ man.  A livin’ man.  I wanna be a livin’ man.”  The complete song is heard in the first one and a quarter minutes of this clip which one should watch and listen to before continuing to read my essay.  Moving from the man, the camera turns to the things he is seeing and hearing with heightened sensibility – sunlight through a tree’s canopy, a centipede traversing a leaf and a spider on a web.  Exquisitely expressing the immediacy, vibrance and preciousness of life, the film also conveys the truth that living involves active immersion in a living world.  My seventh grade school mates and I watched the Twilight Zone episode, and the next day in art class one of them made a paper mâché figure of the livin’ man.  I was so captivated by the doll that she gave it to me, and to this day it stands on my dresser – an icon of livin’.  Compared with the livin’ represented in the film our lives hardly measure up.  In this essay I describe the ways in which the present mode of human existence radically diminishes and threatens our lives then explain what we must do to become. livin’ people in a livin’ world.

We’re Presently Dyin’  

Recently reading Jeremy Lent’s article “Nature Is Not a Machine – We Treat It So at Our Peril”3 brought to mind my early encounter with factory farming.  When Animal Factories by Peter Singer and James Mason4 was published in 1980 it caused a stir in my workplace at the time which was a university poultry science research center.  Although as a secretary I had minimal contact with the birds in the houses and laboratories I was well aware of the conditions and procedures conducted in them.  A copy of the book was passed around, and I read it, receiving a unique impression.  Because its description of factory farming was not news to me, I read the book not as an exposé of animal cruelty but rather as an allegory of human life expressing how people are confined and deprived of the ability to act in accordance with their nature.  The pandemic has underscored this reality, as it has prevented many people from going to their places of confinement – workplaces, day cares and schools – while others have been unable to leave theirs – nursing homes and prisons.  People too are treated in an instrumental manner. 

Global neoliberal capitalism has turned the world into a virtually total machine, with all things serving as parts of that machine in opposition to their vital natures.  Its anti-life character originated with the Cold War and was brought to light then by Herbert Marcuse in his book One Dimensional Man.5  The over-arching threat at that time was nuclear war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R., a catastrophe that never occurred.  Today’s challenges – climate change along with natural resource depletion – are not only more dire but also more certainly devastating, unless humanity acts fast to reverse their progress.  Apart from the difference between the looming disasters then and now, Marcuse’s analysis is as true today as it was in 1964. 

As the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. mounted rival stockpiles of nuclear weapons they also competed economically, aiming to display the most desirable model for human life.  The U.S. was able to attain a high level of employment and public contentment with ever-growing consumer and defense sector activity, all in service to the Cold War effort.  Marcuse characterized the race as an irrational frenzied pursuit ultimately for death.  In our time relentless economic growth is justified as staying competitive in the global economy and maintaining domestic employment that provides a satisfactory standard of living.  This time the ultimate end of the race is planetary death.

The One-Dimensional Human World

Like the earlier one, the present system is a virtually total whole that functions like a machine with inexorable momentum.  Everything in the world is construed as a part of the machine, having a particular instrumental value and functioning in service to the whole.  People are atomized as they are defined as units of human capital performing micro-specialized work which, they are told, constitutes their “self-actualization.”  Increasingly, rather than being the masters of their technology, they are its attendants or slaves.  As agents of neoliberal free choice people construct, then exercise their “individuality” to separate and distinguish themselves from others.  Such “individualization” is in fact a flight from the standardization imposed by the God-almighty market and has the effect of building alienation within the society.

Insofar as a person is totally defined as a neoliberal homo oeconomicus they are, according to Marcuse, a one-dimensional man or woman.  As a consequence of being such a part of the machine and like a machine, their lives are greatly impoverished.  “Minimal self” is the phrase Christopher Lasch6 coined to describe the withering consequence of persistent fear on people’s thoughts and actions.  Because the system’s constraints are enforced, people fear stepping or falling outside of it, while their lives are extremely fragmented and compressed in myriad other ways.  Zygmunt Bauman speaks of living in “pointillist time,”7 a series of disconnected moments of experience, while nothing is permanent in what for him is “liquid modernity”8 that renders relationships particularly short-term.  Considering work, Richard Sennett traces how it has gone from life-long careers with the same company to gigs with a succession of employers and different kinds of work.9  Where all is ephemeral what is valued is stimulation, an experience Kierkegaard described as essentially momentary.  In Either/Or10 he contrasted romantic love exemplified by Don Giovanni’s mille et trois seductions with conjugal love which occupies and develops over years.  Because of the difference in the time of the two kinds of love the romantic variety especially lends itself to artistic representation, while the other absolutely defies it.  The stress on self-promoting performance and novelty in one-dimensional life reinforces its liquid and pointillist characteristics. 

People are shaped by their environments, so the one-dimensional world conditions them to be one-dimensional people.  A huge factor in this is language, and Noam Chomsky persistently points out the media’s “manufacture of consent” with ubiquitous, subtle and insidious propaganda.  Marcuse goes deeper, explaining how most common language is one-dimensional, reflecting one-dimensional patterns of thought that contrast with open, questioning and exploring dialectical thinking.11  The abbreviated forms are germane to modern science and advertising and revolve around absolute declarative constructions purporting to express matters of scientific law or facts.  Another feature derived from science is the routine translation of “subjective” language into “objective” terms.  We are all familiar with the principal techniques of propaganda and the disdain for “subjective” language, for they are reflected in our own behavior.  Beyond these practices however, truncated one-dimensional language has other far-reaching and harmful consequences.  

Our speech patterns are largely copied from media in which the sound byte rules.  Absent from one-dimensional language are the elements of dialectical language that include relations, context and Marx’s favorite, negation.  One significant relation is order of priority, for people commonly blast forth today’s headline as if yesterday never was and tomorrow will never be.  An example is “Abortion rights are it!” in response to which I think “What about voting rights?  What about climate?”  In being one-dimensional oppositional language handicaps itself, for as Chomsky observed                       

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.12

Even more than by its content, one-dimensional discourse is restricted by its conventional style, structure and grammar. 

Progressive activism illustrates one-dimensional thinking in being divided into so many narrowly focused campaigns and groups while the whole system is a sure recipe for disaster.  There is the belief that doing a bit of good in one area reverberates for good throughout, and while this may be true, it doesn’t transform the system.  Individual survival continues to depend on collective self-destruction which is more rapidly being realized with resource loss, mass migration, political destabilization, increased repression and inequality.  Meanwhile, a new arms race is underway with China, from which, absurdly, we import most of our consumer products. 

Transcending One-Dimensional Existence

Marcuse portrays the one-dimensional system as total, something that can’t be fixed but rather must be transcended.  Historically the vehicle for cultural transcendence was art, which offered ideals and visions of paradise and utopia.13  Transcending art, he says, is specifically its high forms previously enjoyed only by the privileged classes.  In our time such art has been quite vulgarized as, for example famous classical music is heard accompanying children’s cartoons.  Becoming commonplace and integrated into mass consumer culture has destroyed the transcending quality of high art and with it, he writes, people’s sole avenue of escape.    

Nevertheless at this time the threat of its end has succeeded in sacralizing nature, making it both an idol and an actual realm of transcendence.  Marcuse failed to foresee this, as he maintained a strictly instrumental view of nature.  To his credit though he advocated human population degrowth at a time when globally our species numbered less than half its count today!14  Nature is now our inspiration and model, so having defined the problem as a more or less total one-dimensional system, I now turn to explain life, specifically livin’ which is the object of the livin’ man’s desire. 

Livin’ Is Presence

Above I asserted that livin’ is a matter of being immersed in a living world, which means that an individual’s livin’ is continuous with their environment.  While this notion is expressed in the view that all life is one or simply that all is one, these formulations fail to address the incredibly complex structure of life that is everywhere both one and many.  This duality is clarified in Aldo Leopold’s essay “Thinking Like a Mountain”15 and Craig Holdrege’s commentary on it in his Thinking Like a Plant.   

Leopold laments how mountain ecosystems have been severely degraded by deer following the human destruction of their wolf populations.  The howl of the wolf, he writes, fully penetrates the landscape, expressing that animal’s pervasive presence which conditions everything organic and inorganic that belongs to its habitat.  Holdrege takes this observation literally, remarking, “For Leopold the wolf is not a separate organism that outwardly interacts with other organisms and the landscape. The wolf is present (or is a presence) in the whole landscape.”16  Although wolves especially attract our attention, what is true of them is also true of their prey the deer, other species, indeed everything that belongs to a mountain.  Each thing may be regarded as forming a dimension or layer of life with greater or less extension over that mountain and all of which constitute its total life. 

Applying this conception to humans means that we have a presence in the world as well for better or worse.  Leopold’s and Holdrege’s reflections trade on the dual denotations of “wolf” as both the species and an individual.  A single wolf, the last of its kind on a mountain, would have a different impact from a population of a size appropriate for the ecosystem.  So in making the comparison with humans, it is evident that their significant presence in the world is that of the aggregate.  Still, although individuals generally feel like tiny powerless specks in the total scheme of things, each of them has a considerable presence within a certain range.       

Delving deeper into the meaning of “presence,” we understand that in the case of the wolf, one need not be close to a deer and seen by it in order to have an effect, for the herbivore is always wary that a wolf might approach it, and its whole behavior reflects this ever-present threat.  Leopold relates how the presence of wolves determines the size of the deer population and the kind of vegetation living on a mountain.  Conversely, the wolves’ behavior, indeed their very presence, is conditioned by the presence of the deer population and ultimately that of each individual one, for the wolf population doesn’t feed off the deer population, but rather individual wolves kill and eat individual deer. 

Similarly, a person’s presence is their behavior which conditions the objects they affect in their environment, for instance a person owning a home which is recognized as private property that others do not enter.  That individual may have a yard with a lawn which they keep mowed,  preventing weeds, trees and wildlife from coming to inhabit it.  While the person’s presence conditions other people and things, their presence is similarly conditioned by a multitude of other objects as each thing forms a layer in a certain place, and altogether these constitute a spatially and temporally continuous functional whole.  Like with an ecosystem, this model for humans is readily imagined in the case of a small self-sufficient community.  Otherwise to the extent that a person’s presence is dispersed, its space is as well, possibly resembling an amoeba that is far more pseudopods than main body.  In our time of work in places far away from home communities, not to mention vast electronic communication, the presence of individual humans is both spatially and temporally discontinuous, indeed scattered. 

Regardless, wherever a person is they fill that place with their presence, and this is manifest in their experience.  I see the things around me as a three-dimensional panorama of visual images surrounding the image of my body.  My visual perception extends around my body and constitutes my presence as a seeing subject which intersects and conjoins with likewise extended present objects in their visible capacities to produce images of them in my extended consciousness.  Being extensions of me, images belong to and are organic parts of me in a way that is analogous to that in which parts of my body belong to me and are mine.  My consciousness of external objects is not limited to sense perceptions, for I also have intuitions of their natures, and these, like sense perceptions, are located where the objects in their intuitable capacities and I as an intuiting subject intersect.  Like sense perceptions, my intuitions are extensions of and belong to me.  

The space of my perceptions and intuitions is not the same as that of my body or external objects insofar as these exist independently in a solid form and arrayed in what we understand as objective space, as it is perspectival and private to me.  It does however evidently exist within the objective space as subjects and objects intersect within it and there is an orderly correlation of spatial relations between the two.  It is to be noted that “objective” space is a map or picture drawn from the evidence of human perception. 

My account expands our understanding of presence, revealing how experience is a matter of objects entering the lives of subjects as subjects simultaneously enter the lives of objects.  When the intersection of lives produces images and intuitions, these belong to the subject as extensions of it while also being extensions of the objects, for the subjects and objects are conjoined in the images or intuitions.  The object’s particular function in such a relation makes it part of the subject’s life.  Understanding a thing to be the unity of all its functions, its presence can be defined as its action of entering into the lives of other things and becoming or being parts of them.  A wolf enters into the life of a deer through the sound of its howl which modifies the deer’s life with a sense of fear, movements to protect itself and the creation or reinforcement of memories.  Meanwhile deer enter into the wolf’s life insofar as its movements are guided by the scents, sounds, images and memories produced by them.

My mention of memory raises the factor of lived time.  In speaking of presence and experience I have emphasized space – the space they occupy and extend over.  But the ultimate subject is an entity’s life which is spread about through its functions, making visual images and intuitions parts of a person’s life along with the actions of living in their house, working in their office and so forth.  All interaction between things involves presence since each thing conditions the other as, for example, when I stand on the ground my feet press against it while it simultaneously presses against my feet.  Because the lives of things continue over time, repeated and sustained interactions assume larger roles in those lives.

How I Began Livin’ 

This reality was forcefully impressed upon me in a NIMBY battle in which I was involved many years ago.  My husband and I owned a house, behind which was a small creek on the opposite bank of which was a beautiful high tree-covered bluff that contributed greatly to my enjoyment and love of my home.  One day a developer arrived with a plan to build dozens of condominiums on that bank. These would rise two stories above a ground-level garage, presenting a solid wall of construction mere feet from my property, looming over it and the entire neighborhood. 

I immediately felt a sense of personal violation, for my view and intuition of the bluff, through which I had a vital connection with the site, had become cherished parts of me.  While the initial response of the neighbors whose properties bordered the creek was that you can’t fight city hall, I was determined to stop the development.  Knowing nothing of the usual tactics, I just walked up the hill and knocked on the door of the house on the top.  The neighborhood consisted of around seventy homes bounded by a wide boulevard, the creek and state institution grounds which together set it off geographically.  It was further an officially designated city neighborhood with a then-inactive neighborhood association.  With a ready-made canvass turf I proceeded to visit every house in the neighborhood, seeking to gather their residents behind me to oppose the development.  As I told folks about the plan I made a point of mentioning that I had just talked to the residents next door, referring to them by name and thereby connecting the households.  Once I completed the circuit I then re-walked it.  My property was truly ground zero for the impact of the development, since it was beside where the creek bed was narrowest and the bluff steepest, thus the most scenic section.  In the course of the campaign we learned that what I call the bluff was not a natural formation at all but was rather a great pile of fill material that years earlier had been dumped over the ridge above it.  As it created the bluff, the dumping also shifted the creek much closer to the homes on the opposite bank.    

Constantly reaching out and talking to people, especially those living closest, I made the street in front of my property the hub of the neighborhood where we would meet and talk almost daily.  This activity became a social life for us that created bonds extending to the place as we formed a community consisting of the people and the place – its geology, infrastructure, homes, flora and fauna.   So unified, this total community became an object of intuition for me, with its elements that included the bluff and me being intuited as parts of the whole and indivisibly united within that whole.  I ceased to regard the view and intuition of the bluff as mine and now claimed them, in fact the bluff itself, as ours, organic parts of our total indivisible living community.   

My experience vividly illustrates Holdrege’s conception of presence.  For me, an individual person, the neighborhood was a place that I affected extensively by walking all around, talking, organizing and forming bonds with the neighbors.  Further, like the wolves, the people acted to protect its natural features.  Overall consciousness of the unified activity was love, awareness of the conjoined lives of the people and the place.  In this the nonhuman elements were active as well, for in being there, in being objects of sight and intuition and as physical bodies and organisms the bluff and its vegetation actively entered into the people’s lives, forming parts of them and the whole living community too.   

Acting as a part of the total community, especially as an organizer, I looked upon and treated the other people specifically as parts of it as well, keeping them engaged and maintaining the collective intention to preserve that body.  This was no small feat, as the matter dragged on for several months while babies were born, personal conflicts and threats of defection arose.  At its peak the unity was a beautiful thing, something which I have subsequently observed coming into being in other groups that unfortunately have tended to dissolve or devolve into cliques.    

What I have described was a powerful experience, the like of which is related by other people in particularly intense activist efforts.  Sartre and de Beauvoir found existential freedom in their engagement with La Resistánce, and at the time I shared their sense of  deliverance, feeling rather like Dante that I had emerged from the dark wood of society’s false construction of reality.  What I had achieved was living consciousness which is opposed to the life-denying one-dimensional outlook that dominates our culture. 

The Place and Time of Livin’

My mind was permanently changed by the endeavor, and I have ever since regarded my visual images and intuitions as extensions of me literally existing in the space around my body, being parts of my life, belonging to me and through which I am conjoined with their objects.  Acknowledging that the latter possess a measure of separate existence and autonomy I further view them, like myself, as parts of the community, nature and the world.  This viewpoint drives my continual activism for the environment, democracy and many other campaign objectives, and it is the basis of my fundamental belief that other people’s inactivity or limited engagement is largely due to their lack of living connection with their community.  I frequently repeat Grace Lee Boggs’ words “You cannot change any society unless you take responsibility for it, unless you see yourself as belonging to it and responsible for changing it.”17  Our current culture pulverizes humanity, in fact the world, into innumerable separate fragments.  Under neoliberalism people regard themselves as agents of free choice in all matters, so, in pointillist time, they are continually deciding anew what they will do, for example, watch television or attend a rally to save democracy.     

In Thinking Like a Plant Holdrege describes the expansive multi-dimensional unity of plants with the things around them – the soil, water and multitude of other organisms.  Unlike plants, animals are mobile, but they have and are bound to habitats.  For some animals these are vast or far-flung, but they are nevertheless communities, for species that migrate across land or through the air or water must still eat, drink and breathe along the way.  Their migration moreover carries them between their primary seasonal territories or waters in which they have a presence even in their absence, for the effects of their activity remain when they leave.

Plants and animals superbly demonstrate that the life of an individual involves vital connections with its place and everything in it.  Each one is an extended presence or layer of the indivisible whole living place and as such parts they serve their own interests, those of each other and that of the whole.  Obviously this involves trade-offs, as animals and pathogens consume and prey upon plants and other animals, but this is all for the purpose of perpetuating themselves, others and the whole.    

This aspect of life is negated in current one-dimensional human life for two very disturbing reasons: First, the principle of neoliberalism isn’t just every man for himself, but universal competition, truly the war of all against all.  Second, as the condition Marcuse diagnosed persists, the whole system’s destiny is massive destruction and death.  While it is headed for doom, the people within it are not only radically diminished, each one’s activity contributes to the final demise.    

Having explored the continuous, multi-dimensional spatial aspect of life, I now turn to explain its temporal nature.  I have mentioned Bauman’s conceptions of “pointillist time” and the “liquid” character of our lives.  Another term that has come into currency is “nowism” which refers to an attitude by which the world is viewed as being created anew at every moment, dismissing the past and the future.  These positions don’t merely conflict with the truth of biological time, they negate that time, which is not an external structure in which things exist but is rather the very propagation of life.  We commonly think of time in a way that is analogous to the way in which we conceive of space – as a bare surface or empty container.  But that is an abstraction, because there is no such space, rather only place which is occupied by innumerable presences forming a single total indivisible living presence.  In the same abstract manner we speak of time as a quantity, a period, even “space” of time.  Aristotle defined time as the measure of motion: an hour, for example is the period in which the little hand moves from one numeral to the next on the face of a clock.  But such uniform motion is also alien to the functioning of organisms, whose time is their creative continuance in which they persist in ever-newly modified forms, temporally and spatially indivisible.  Exhibiting duration their entire histories are continually carried into each successive present moment of their lives.   

There are thus two aspects of biological time – an organism’s progressive development and the retention of its past, which is continually absorbed into every new present configuration.  These phenomena are what we commonly understand as maturation and aging which are particularly evident in higher life forms including humans.  As we grow into adulthood then age, we continually build a living legacy, for our bodies are ongoing records of everything they have ever done or has had done to them.  What I do at this moment is conditioned, for example, by my act of eating breakfast this morning, for that literally fuels it, as each meal fuels each day’s action day after day after…  Our environment is also such a record of our activity, a living legacy as well because as we make our marks on the world our lives are extended into and continued in it.  This is most evident with one’s offspring, for whose well-being one naturally has as much or more concern as for one’s own.   Life is fully ongoing, so even if a particular individual has no direct descendants, by nature their activity serves the continued life of the environment that sustains them.  

These facts of life are reflected in people’s normal conscious desire to create and have legacies.  For Sennett satisfaction as an employee involves building a legacy through long service and promotion in a single workplace.  He points also to the durable products created with pride by individual craftsmen which contrast with rapidly disposable stuff mass-produced by impersonal teams and operations that are highly automated or geographically dispersed.18  Although the premier legacies would seem to be achievements that make history, nature speaks resoundingly in people’s common satisfaction and sense of fulfillment with children, grandchildren and other living things that they have brought into existence or preserved.  These values tend to become especially conscious when their objects are threatened with destruction or actually perish, as evidenced by the profound grief of parents when a child dies, the poignance of The Cherry Orchard as well as the passion with which campaigns to protect natural places and things are carried on. 

Satisfaction, indeed joy, is felt by gardeners when their plants come into flower or fruition, and the degree of this pleasure is proportional to the length of time it took them to bring about the result.  A mature perennial garden produces greater delight in its creator than one planted just this season with annuals.  The length of duration makes a difference in a way that is comparable to the aging of wine which produces progressively complex, full-bodied and deeply pleasurable taste sensations.  Time isn’t the only factor in the enjoyment of a legacy, as the scale and intricacy of one’s effort figure in it as well.  

To the extent that one interacts with other things their life is conjoined with them, expanding and deepening one’s presence in the present and into the future, enriching their legacy.  One’s own performance and pleasure are compounded when the activity is shared with other people, as in gardening together individuals not only work with the plants to bring them into fruition for themselves, but also establish and maintain friendly relations with each other.  In this way each person’s legacy consists of both the garden and the society of the gardeners, which combined form a single and comprehensive whole life.  I underscore life because the purpose of the whole endeavor is to sustain the lives of each plant, each individual person, the garden as a whole and the community of gardeners, all of which constitute the single whole life.

Restoring the Livin’ World

This is the model of life, but of course, actual lives are not so contrived or limited in reach.  Regardless, it is diametrically opposed to the order in which we are presently living wherein the action of the whole and of every part is directed at destruction.  Shifting to a life-affirming system requires that people, in the words of Bernie Sanders, “come together” and work in cooperation to create a world in which each part supports the life of every other part and that of the whole.  Doing this is now urgent just to preserve life from the ravages of climate change and mass extinction.  Indeed these crises have awakened us to the reality that livin’ today is global cooperative human action to serve and regenerate life on earth.  Being the greatest crisis in the history of humanity, it is at the same time the greatest opportunity for each person to live to the maximum degree by dedicating themselves to the effort.  This moment also brings about true understanding insofar as people come to know their own lives as shared with the people and things around them, all serving each other and life as a whole.

This last is a general idea that is presently widely shared, however it not sufficient for achieving the change that is necessary, which is to put an end to the whole one-dimensional mode of existence.  Such total transformation has innumerable parts, one of which is an entirely different world view.  Einstein said, “If we want to change the world we have to change our thinking… We must learn to see the world anew.”  In this essay and in others published on my website I present a new life-affirming account of the world and the role of humans in it.  Such thinking is essential, and it includes a new political economy, various proposals for which are now appearing at an accelerating pace.

I leave the detail of these schemes to the experts and limit myself to assessing their consistency with my philosophy.  The core idea that best fits it is presented in David Korten’s Agenda for a New Economy: from Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth which calls for a global order of “coherent, self-reliant local economies that function as subsystems of their local ecosystems.”19    Recently Richard Heinberg20 has amplified Korten’s argument for degrowth, while programs for sustainability are multiplying under such labels as “regenerative culture” and “circular economy.”  Meanwhile a whole new model has emerged which is set forth in Chris Benner and Manuel Pastor’s Solidarity Economics: Why Mutuality and Movements Matter.21  Moving beyond capitalism and socialism, these authors advocate a system that promotes co-ops and includes a “social wage,” housing, healthcare and employment as rights in addition to recognizing resources as commons.  Their basic principle is that because everyone contributes to the economy and society they should receive the support of them in order to live with dignity.  Knocking down economic self-interest and welfare programs, they present a plan founded on the values of human solidarity, mutuality and universal justice, applauding the Green New Deal as a vehicle for combatting climate change and inequality. 

Dr. Pastor was a panelist in a recent webinar hosted by the Institute for New Economic Thinking22 in which it was brought out that to adequately respond to the climate crisis we need a functioning government that reflects the identities and interests of the people, yet achieving such a democracy requires people’s confidence that can only be won by the government actually making people’s lives better.  This is a chicken-and-egg problem that I believe Benner and Pastor resolve by offering a vision in which both objectives are fulfilled. 

In my view solidarity economics is the best plan to come along, especially to guide immediate action against climate change, while long-term it should be the organizing principle for the  decentralized future mode of existence advocated by Korten.  In their book Benner and Pastor are silent on the matter of finance, which for Korten is the fundamental problem, as our method of creating money as debt produces a growth imperative.  This can be changed with public banking in accordance with modern monetary theory, a logical complement to solidarity economics. 

We should also pass over Benner and Pastor’s dismissal of degrowth, which, I believe has already begun thanks to the pandemic.  Insofar as the best way to bring about human population reduction is to empower women their model assists degrowth.  As the pandemic has catalyzed the trend of population degrowth it has empowered workers, portending the gains to be had by continuing it through humane policies rather than by the hand of the Grim Reaper.  Extreme population density has been a factor in COVID mortality, driving many people to temporarily or permanently move out of cities.  Indeed, Marcuse’s principal argument for reducing human numbers was to provide more space for each person, what we now call “social distance.”  If managed equitably, degrowth amid the inevitable resource reduction coming from climate change would mean less competition between people and therefore a larger share for each person. 

The Green New Deal avoids the notion of degrowth, which stands outside the Overton window for American politicians including even Sanders.  Fortunately at this time Europe is doing better, with Amsterdam having officially adopted doughnut conomics and regenerative technologies rapidly advancing on that continent.  Still, plenty of economists and engineers both here and abroad are presently conceiving alternative structures to address the total global crisis. 

As a philosopher and organizer my focus is on changing people’s outlook on the world and behavior toward it, especially with an eye toward resolving the chicken-and-egg problem identified above.  For my purpose one-dimensional thinking is a huge obstacle.  For the one-dimensional world is basically a machine consisting of so many parts linked together that constitute its total operation, and as with any machine, breakdown is always considered to be a problem with a particular part or parts, never due to the whole thing being a failure or totally misconceived.   But this is precisely what is the matter with the world, especially the U.S., where the system is designed to build and maintain the dominance of the rich and powerful on the backs of the rest of us and through the destruction of nature. 

People see countless things that are wrong and mostly go after them one-by-one in single-issue campaigns or identity groups.  They seem to believe that all these projects together move the world toward ideals of sustainability and justice, but the goals are not consistent nor is the effort continuous.  What we see is much swarming of people from one highly-publicized mobilization to another, leading some leaders to link their project to the hot topic of the day as was seen with other concerns being attached to the Black Lives Matter movement. Presently there is no unifying total counter-narrative to the status quo.   

Activists reading this will inevitably respond by saying that they have only so much time and energy and therefore must limit themselves to working on only one or a few projects.  This attitude is perfectly valid, and I admit to concentrating my effort on particular campaigns that are the most urgent or fundamental.  But I want to say here that people’s time deficit is chiefly due to the nature of the system in which work, commuting, continuing education and just recovering from the grind needlessly consume nearly all of people’s waking hours.  In regard to volunteer work, there are way too few of us doing it, so with decent manpower there would be less burden  on each one.  Finally, organizations and campaigns need to have broader scope with work on different parts of the agenda divided among the members.  Too often in organizations everybody joins in the same function or series of activities one after the other.  There are countless progressive organizations doing electoral work, but why has the national campaign to pass legislation protecting and expanding voting rights, end gerrymandering and dark money in politics had such difficulty engaging folks?  As a volunteer organizer in it I have found that the reasons are those I identify in this essay.          

Moving on, as it is evident that the problem is total, the solution must be as well.  Central to any campaign is its message, for which there is a standard formula: define the problem; identify the villain; define the solution; identify the hero, which is always the people.  As for the definition of the problem, I have referenced the work of Heinberg, an energy issue expert, and Korten, an economist.  They stress the severity and totality of the environmental crisis that is now inseparable from the current and widely-acknowledged crises of democracy and social justice.  While the goals and strategies of the two thinkers are technically compatible, their timelines differ.  Heinberg is in a rush, issuing a call for movement organizing, echoing Bill McKibben’s recent New Yorker article23 and Benner’s and Pastor’s book. 

As an activist and organizer I know that along with defining the problem and the solution it is necessary to change people’s thinking.   Years ago I was at a festival collecting signatures on postcards to a U.S. senator and approached people asking, “Are you for good jobs, wages and healthcare?”  If they hesitated I would add, “Or are you for bad jobs, wages and healthcare?”  Today my question would be, “Are you for livin’ or are you for dyin’?”  In this work I have defined “livin’” in the hope that it will lead people to abandon one-dimensional thinking and behavior in favor of living consciousness and action.   Everything must change, and all of our moves must be understood as parts of the total transformation, having their particular places in it and related to the rest.  There can be no isolated issues, and relations must be recognized, especially order of priority.   

A person is an extended presence as I have described, with their body being the center of their action which is in some degree autonomous and free.  They have the ability to think differently, step outside the one-dimensional machine and engage in livin’, which is actually a natural imperative.  The reality of this responsibility is captured in Leopold’s observation of the call of the grebe which, it seemed to him, sustained the courage of all the marshland creatures by reminding them “…if all are to survive, each must ceaselessly feed and fight, breed and die.”24  

Despite the fractured condition of human life and the world, there is an immediately available means for people, particularly Americans, to assert their presence, and this is by fully exercising their rights as citizens.  Many times I have come forward as a voice in the wilderness, attracted support and achieved some policy objective.  Right now everything is at stake – not only climate and life on earth, but our very ability to act on these matters as democracy is also in grave peril.  My model of life includes participatory democracy in local communities and robust citizen participation in higher levels of representative democracy which must further extend to global governance.  One of the points made in the INET conference was that the Green New Deal transforms not only power for lighting and transporting things, but also human and citizen power.  The chicken and egg challenge is met by redefining all the problems as one, and the solution as one as well – system change that restores we the people as the sovereign and delivers justice for all, humans and nonhumans alike.  Progress toward this goal is made with the same old formula – educate, agitate, organize. 

Time is of the essence, not only in regard to climate but also democracy.  Dividing the single whole issue into isolated pieces is a mistake.  Recently 650 abortion rights events were held across the country that were attended by tens of thousands of people, while a few weeks earlier a mere 47 Finish the Job rallies for the Freedom to Vote Act attracted far fewer.  The same people who were invited to rally for voting rights turned out en masse for abortion rights.  Their engagement was commendable, but it’s a fact that abortion rights depend on voting rights, and those folks weren’t making the vital connection.  So much activism is one-dimensional in this way, and I fear that too many progressives are like the benevolent Eloi in The Time Machine who were preyed upon by the underground-dwelling Morlocks.  The latters’ present counterparts are at this moment preparing for an historic conquest. 

My emphasis on broad perspective isn’t a merely rhetorical matter, as the fate of my neighborhood paradise reveals.  The developer had applied for a conditional use permit, so the city officials finally required him to slightly reduce the number of units, dealing a financial blow to the project and leaving it in limbo.  As time passed my husband got a job in another state, so with much regret I sold our house and moved away.  Eighteen months later an extreme rainstorm caused the creek to flood the neighborhood, killing two people, demolishing or heavily damaging several of the houses.  Remarkably, the city accepted responsibility for allowing extensive development up the watershed without providing for flood control, so it bought the properties adjacent to the creek and turned the land into a park.  Having withstood the flood my former house was moved to another town.  When in the course of our campaign the risk of flooding was raised we were informed that the solution was to channelize the creek – another aesthetic disaster!  These two threats became tied to the development but apart from it set aside as remote possibilities. 

As I write there is a city near me in which the citizens are doing many good things to advance local sustainability, yet it lies between two heavily-traveled highways along which warehouse development is rapidly destroying farmland.  The topography and diesel truck traffic volume has caused the region’s air quality to become some of the worst in the country.  This situation is one of I’m sure very many cases that demonstrate that community-focused action, though critical, is insufficient to resolve our total problem.   

I have elaborated Leopold’s and Holdrege’s notions of presence, but the former had a bigger concept in mind when he wrote “Thinking Like a Mountain.”  As the mountain is the indivisible unity of all its component presences, it is this total living being that Leopold bids us to think like – multi-dimensionally from the perspective of every presence that is a part and of the whole as well.  For the mountain is also a presence within its larger environment, as we see that a drought can create the condition for a wildfire that consumes every living thing on it.

Thinking multi-dimensionally like a mountain, we must also act multi-dimensionally like one.  This is livin’ – at once affirming our own life and that of the world.  As I have said, technologies and models currently exist and are rapidly expanding that would permit humans to establish an ecological civilization.  A major part of the transformation must be people fully engaging as citizens in local participatory democracy and representative democracy at the state, national and global levels to assert their presence as their constitutional right and by this means equitably secure it.  Supreme livin’ is precisely people working together privately and as citizens to reverse the ongoing global dyin’ and to advance the goal of sustainable livin’ for all.  With this monumental opportunity, indeed necessity, we are truly living in the greatest moment of human history which further offers the most noble legacy.   

Right now the forces of light need the kind of full-spectrum movement that is currently being carried on by the forces of darkness, the latest moves of which include propagandizing and taking over school districts.  Our message must be spread at the most local level with candidates being recruited and elected there and higher up who are committed to the agenda.  As we are presently seeing, like many times before, party affiliation is no predictor of an official’s actions on specific issues, especially insofar as they rely on the power elite for their campaign funding.

Livin’ Now

The life-centered, life-based system change that I am advocating offers security and fulfillment in life.  While at this time people are justifiably skeptical of dependence on government bureaucrats and wild swings of the political pendulum, personal human support remains scarce.  It did increase some during the pandemic lockdown, but community social bonds, which reached a nadir before then, still need vast improvement.  Our current crisis is an historic occasion to restore and expand them to the environment, make real the promise of democracy and attain livin’ for all. 

Having begun this essay with reflections on a film I will conclude it with comments on another that won an award at Cannes the same year.  Luis Buñuel’s The Exterminating Angel25 opens with a group of upper-class guests enjoying a house party.  As the event winds down first one then others walk to the door but turn away, apparently unable to open it and walk out.  They seem to be trapped in the house, and after days marked by a couple of deaths and general lapse into savagery one person walks to the door, opens it and leaves, moving the rest to follow.  The message is that people are the hostages of their own mindsets from which, nevertheless, it is possible for them to escape.  Though people have long freely allowed themselves to be confined within a one-dimensional mode of existence, today they must make the choice between livin’ or dyin’.  To pick the former they must first wanna be a livin’ man, woman or youth, then act as such.       

Notes

1.  La Rivière du Hibou, directed by Robert Enrico (1961).     

2.  The Twilight Zone. Season 5, Episode 22, “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.” Directed by Robert Enrico.  Aired on February 28, 1964.   

3.  Jeremy Lent, “Nature Is Not a Machine – We Treat It So at Our Peril.” Resilience August 3, 2021, https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-08-03/nature-is-not-a-machine-we-treat-it-so-at-our-peril/ .  

4.  Jim Mason and Peter Singer, Animal Factories, (New York: Crown Publishers, 1980).

5.  Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1964).

6.  Christopher Lasch, The Minimal Self: Psychic Survival in Troubled Times, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1985).

7.  Zygmunt Bauman, Liquid Modernity, (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2000).

8.  Ibid.

9.  Richard Sennett, The Culture of the New Capitalism, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006). 

10.  Søren Kierkegaard, Either/Or, trans. Walter Lowrie, (New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1959).

11.  Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, 85-120.   

12.  Noam Chomsky, The Common Good: Interviews with David Barsamian, (Berkeley, CA: Odonian Press, 2002).  

13.  Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, 56-71. 

14.  Ibid., 236-244.   

15.  Aldo Leopold, “Thinking Like a Mountain” in A Sand County Almanac with Essays on Conservation from Round River, (New York: Ballantine Books, 1970).   

16.  Craig Holdrege, Thinking Like a Plant: A Living Science for Life, (Great Barrington MA: Lindisfarne Books, 2013), 168.    

17. Grace Lee Boggs, “Revolution as a New Beginning: An Interview with Grace Lee Boggs.” Interview by Adrian Harewood and Tom Keefer. Upping the Ante, March 26, 2005.

18.  Sennett, The Culture of the New Capitalism, 141.

19.  David C. Korten, Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2010), 169.

20.  Richard Heinberg, Power: Limits and Prospects for Human Survival, (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2021).

21.  Chris Benner and Manuel Pastor, Solidarity Economics: Why Mutuality and Movements Matter, (Medford, MA: Polity Press, 2021).

22.  “INET Live!/Just Transition and the Transition to Justice.” Institute for New Economic Thinking, September 28, 2021.

23.  Bill McKibben, “The Answer to Climate Change Is Organizing,” The New Yorker, September 1, 2021, https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/the-answer-to-climate-change-is-organizing .

24.  Leopold, A Sand County Almanac with Essays on Conservation from Round River, 172.

25.  El Angel Exterminador, directed by Luis Buñuel (1962).

Seeing the One in the Many

Published at https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-09-01/seeing-the-one-in-the-many/

Harlequin Playing at a Guitar by Pablo Picasso

As ecological consciousness grows more thinkers are putting forth holistic interpretations of the world which tackle the age-old problem of the one and the many that poses the two questions, how can a thing with many parts be one and how can there be many things of one kind?  The classic formulation of it was given by Plato, to whom writers today still refer, dismissing his solution as it is commonly but incompletely understood.  In this essay I present that philosopher’s brilliantly insightful approach to the riddle and use it to explain how we in fact see and know the one in the many.       

The usual view of Plato’s position is taken from The Republic in which he presumes that the objects of human thinking exist in a realm of ideas separate from the material world.  According to this view my thought of a triangle is not of this one drawn on the paper in front of me but of the eternal perfect triangle in that other realm.  Going further, Plato ascribes the reality of all things to those ideas, reducing the familiar material plane to a shadowy reminder of it. 

Delving into that intelligible world the later dialogue Parmenides particularly examines the “One,” which is both the idea and the reality of unity.  The character Parmenides reasons that if unity is such a distinct entity, there must also be the indefinite “Others” which is every other kind of thing and quality in the universe massed together and combined in a manifold in which they are different but not distinct.  This conception of the Others can be traced to the Greeks’ mythological notion of Chaos that existed before structure came into the world.  Having introduced the One and the Others as separate the philosopher then brings them together in thought, causing all the Others to become unitary distinct things and qualities.  Combining with each of the formerly indistinct other things and qualities, the One is multiplied in all these new units while itself remaining distinct as the One.    

Plato is above all a logician chiefly focused on analyzing our concepts or ideas of things.  Every one includes unity, for it is a unified concept or idea.  Our idea of a triangle is such a one, and we think of the figure as a unitary object.  Meanwhile it has parts – lines and angles which are identified in its definition.  The ideas of these are also separate units, and we consider their objects to be discrete as well.  So in thought and in Plato’s intelligible universe the triangle is not one but seven!   For the combination of lines and angles is one; the three lines that compose it are each one as are its three angles.  The marriage of the One and the Others spawns as units every different thing and quality and every combination of them in which their components, which remain manifold, are indivisibly united.  

The triangle is composed of the parts I have identified, and they are related; for example one of the lines may be the hypotenuse of a right triangle.  While in the world of ideas the individual lines and angles are distinct from the plain triangle, the hypotenuse intrinsically belongs to the right triangle.    So unlike the simple combination of lines and angles that forms the basic figure, this specific kind has a two-dimensional component.  In thought the hypotenuse is present in the foreground, so to speak, while the right triangle is in the background of a single indivisible idea.  There is no separate idea of hypotenuse apart from that triangle, although one might think of it separately as a line.   

One of the qualities included in the Others is existence, so from it, and contrary to the common interpretation of Plato’s work, come all distinct things in both the intelligible and material worlds.  The problem that arises from this consequence is that while a combination of ideas or Forms might have material existence, the component parts in it discerned by thought remain in the intelligible world.  A particular cat, which is a unitary combination of a multitude of qualities, is present before me, but its specific quality of “catness” that I behold is not in it but rather in the intelligible world. 

Although Parmenides discloses this drawback in Plato’s system, it otherwise presents a superb model for understanding nature as both one and many, for our acts of perceiving and apprehending objects in thought function like the One combining with the Others.  I look upon a prairie and have a single image of it in which certain defining features such as the level expanse of grass are prominent.  The object of my attention is the prairie, the whole, so I see all of the particular things that compose it indistinctly.  Now I focus my gaze on single bison that appeared in the previous image, this time seeing it distinctly as a single whole object while the prairie appears less distinct as its background.  The image of the bison specifically is not cut out of the first image, nor is it a magnification of a part of it.  Rather, it is a separate and different image that highlights certain defining features of the bison.  In the first image the bison is an indivisible part of a certain whole, and in the second it forms a new whole.  The first image is analogous to the bison as it might exist in an indefinite state within the Others, while the second image corresponds to what it would be distinct and unified in combination with the One.         

This exercise can be repeated with the bison as a whole animal having parts.  When I look at the whole certain defining features such as shape, colors and texture of fur stand out.  Now I look specifically at the tail, and this image highlights its defining features – the long thin shape and tuft at the end.  Like the hypotenuse of the right triangle, this image is of the tail of the bison, as the animal’s body or at least some rear portion of it appears less distinctly in the background of the single image in which the tail appears distinctly in the foreground. 

In addition to the visual image of an object I also have an intuition of it.  Intuition is the immediate apprehension of the function of a thing and is distinct from sense perception.  It takes place concurrently with such perception, but one can focus their attention specifically on either an intuition or sense perception, shifting the other into the background of one’s awareness. 

Intuition proceeds in the same way as focused sensory perception: I’m aware of the animal as a living whole with manifold functions.  Those of walking, breathing, perceiving and all the rest cannot be separated, although I can focus my attention specifically on its walking, eating or other single activity in a two-dimensional intuition of that function of the animal.  I can also separately intuit parts of it and different aspects such as those by which it is classified as a mammal, bison, female or mature. 

Along with the kinds of wholes and parts I have named, I can see and intuit collective wholes and parts, for example a bison herd or a single member of it.  Likewise I can experience an ecosystem in perception and intuition or organic parts of it separately.  In this last kind of act I experience the part specifically as a part, for the other option exists of experiencing it as a distinct whole.    

Seeing the one in the many is thus a two-part process: first one sees or intuits the whole, then sees or intuits different parts as parts of the whole.  In these last images or intuitions the parts appear distinctly in the foreground while the whole appears less distinctly in the background of single unitary intuitions or images.  As I indicated above, neither the parts nor the whole appear quite the same in the successive views of them. 

We understand nature to be an indivisible whole composed of innumerable things that have multiple identities as they function as whole entities and as parts of so many other nested and intersecting whole structures.  This makes each a functional manifold in a total universe in which no thing is absolutely separate or distinct but only relatively so.  Our acts of seeing and intuiting carve the indivisible world into so many different objects, but this is not random because our consciousness is an indivisible functional part of the whole as well.  By nature it delineates  bodies and their relations, identifying natural kinds which are the essential characters shared by many things that are yet individualized in nonessential respects.  Properly seeing and comprehending the world requires that we understand how our consciousness operates: it does not begin with separate building blocks then construct whole objects but rather begins with whole beings then discerns the parts that belong to them.        

From Systems Theory to Action

Published at https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-07-28/from-systems-theory-to-action/

Good Trouble Candlelight Vigil, Reading, PA, July 17, 2021

At this time ecological thinkers are emphasizing systems, especially as these are defined by systems theory.  This interdiscipline is a life-saving departure from traditional reductionist methods in science but has yet to be made relevant to people’s individual everyday conduct.  The objective of this essay is to develop the notion of systems to explain how people can act systematically now to advance the ecological civilization, indeed to avert imminent environmental and social catastrophe.   

Focusing on relationships within systems, some writers give too little consideration to the nature of the things which have these relationships, that is, the components of the systems.  From the concept of a system a definition of the components may be directly inferred: A component is a thing that participates in a system, functioning in a specific capacity as a part of it.  Systems are therefore wholes of which things, performing specific functions, are parts.   

Ecological systems theory takes particular interest in organisms which, in contrast with more diffuse and inorganic systems, are unitary lives that function in a variety of larger systems and constitute organic parts of more comprehensive unitary lives such as ecosystems and the biosphere. The unity of an organism’s life is precisely the totality of its various vital functions, what Aristotle called its essence.  He identified growth, nutrition and reproduction as the essential functions of plants, these plus motion and perception as those of animals, and the latter plus reason as the essential functions of humans.  In addition he declared that humans are by nature “political animals,” that is, creatures belonging to a community possessing a government. 

I resurrect Aristotle’s essentialism because it ascribes to human nature the essential function of participating in a governed community.  Though he admitted that democracy is the most stable form of government, his wish to provide a model for the perfect state led him to prefer rule by a philosopher-king.  Of course there never has been and never will be a perfect state much less a perfect philosopher-king to rule any state.  Moreover, history has irreversibly established democracy as the ideal, and today in America and many other countries the people remain the sovereign. 

Grace Lee Boggs said, “You cannot change any society unless you take responsibility for it, unless you see yourself as belonging to it and responsible for changing it.”*  What is missing in the response to the crises of our time is the sense among most people that they belong to, are organic, vital parts of their communities, their nation and nature and further, that the well-being of each of these requires vigorous commitment of everyone to achieve it.

The essentialist viewpoint restores people’s identity as parts of such living systems, wholes or essences.  Awareness of it is presently lacking because communities, polities and nature are in states of severe degradation with individual people existing like cells in a very sick body.  As such organic parts they must together undertake to recover their proper functions of sustaining themselves individually, each other and the larger bodies. 

Being parts of the wholes to which each person belongs, the principal capacity in which people act in the recovery effort is as citizens.  Presently polluting industries maintain a strong grip on governments at every level, as they increasingly support measures to eviscerate democracy.  There is much that people can do working together privately, but the actions that are most needed at this time are public policies.  For people to mobilize on the necessary scale they must develop the consciousness Boggs refers to, organize and act as citizens to defend their communities, democracy and the planet from destruction.     

Functioning according to one’s primary identity is as a citizen requires attention to the full indivisible complexity of the world and individual’s lives.  The reductionist method and some applications of systems theory carve the world and people’s existence into so many compartments, ultimately treating human actions and relations according to one-dimensional models.  Indeed, the whole mechanistic paradigm from which we are trying to escape approaches everything in terms of instrumentality – how people and objects can be manipulated and used for specific purposes. 

Mindful of this, Grace Lee Boggs also said, “To make a revolution, people must not only struggle against existing institutions.  They must make a philosophical/spiritual leap and become more ‘human’ human beings.”  Regenerating the environment and revitalizing democracy requires restoring living social relations among people.  The common instrumental nature of human relations tends to reduce behavior to so much performance and judgment of performance, leading to wholesale burning of bridges between people or at least failure to construct them.  While this goes on like-minded folks circle their wagons, and the vacuum in human dialogue is filled by the media.    

Government is the formal means, though not the only one, by which a community secures the well-being of all of its members and the community as a whole.  Participating in their government is the way in which each citizen engages in the total effort.  The community is a relational whole, of which each member is a complex indivisible human being who must be recognized as such for the civic purpose.  At the same time it is understood that their well-being is linked to that of every other member and that of the whole community, with these requiring a healthy environment and robust democracy. 

The logic of systems theory and imperatives for survival require that we cast off one-dimensional thinking and action, reframing everything in terms of life.  That life is a total indivisible unity is now the widely accepted view, and my multi-dimensional essentialist interpretation of human life provides a guide for individual action as an organic part of it.  This is precisely working as citizens with the people in our communities, nations and across the globe to restore the nested living systems in which we all exist.    

A feature of systems that especially interests theorists is that of emergence – their function of spontaneously self-organizing into novel forms.  Human history can be interpreted as a chain of emergence of so many cultural configurations.  In our own time we witness movement after movement for this, that and the other cause, most of which soon peter out.  As an organizer I have learned that such emergence does not magically sustain itself: It requires clearly defined goals, strategy, organization and people’s commitment.  At this time everyone, as parts of the human systems constituted by communities, polities and humanity as a whole, must consciously, collectively and urgently strive to realize the ecological civilization.   

*Adrian Harewood and Tom Keefer, “Revolution as a New Beginning: An Interview with Grace Lee Boggs,” Upping the Ante, March 26, 2005.

Grace Lee Boggs, Living for Change (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2016) 153.   

Change the Dominant Idea

Published in Resilience https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-03-10/change-the-dominant-idea/

Green journals spotlight projects around the country with stories showing people doing good things.  But what are most Americans thinking?  I’m an issue and electoral campaign organizer who does endless door knocking, phonebanking and event coordination. Through this activity I know the outlook of the people I deal with in several communities in eastern Pennsylvania.  Liberals and conservatives alike basically believe in the classical liberal doctrine upon which the country was founded.  This is centered on the idea of freedom.  

Our big idea of freedom belongs to a series in Western history.  That history shows that one after another such ideas become dominant, determine the zeitgeist for a certain period, break down into contradiction and then a replacement big idea arises.  In our time the destruction of resources, people’s health and lives is due to industry and individuals pushing the limits of  liberal freedom.  The present crisis is the material expression of the big idea of freedom hitting the wall.

Because it has defined the zeitgeist, people have taken the idea of freedom for granted.  Yet it was conceived by Enlightenment thinkers who presented it through the myth of the social contract.  According to that story God created humans in a state of nature in which each one exercised virtually unlimited God-given freedom to seek their own self interest.  A moment came when they formed the social contract and established a government which placed some limits on that freedom to protect everyone’s rights to life, health and property.  At the same time it protected their right to exercise their remaining unlimited natural freedom.

The social contract story reflected the science of the time.  That was classical mechanics which depicted the universe as composed of discrete elementary particles and collections of them, all having internal inertial states of motion and operating strictly in accordance with Newton’s Laws.  Applied to humans this model defined people as discrete individuals whose nature it was to serve their own self interest, thus validating individual freedom as the supreme value of liberal political theory.

Claims for individual freedom today that include refusing to follow COVID public health rules, rejecting regulation and defying criminal laws now threaten life on every level.  Freedom has become slavery to the global power elite and to leaders who, in Orwellian fashion, represent slavish allegiance to themselves as freedom.

The next big idea is fast emerging. “Water is Life” and “Black Lives Matter” are literal expressions of the new supreme value of our time.  That life is the current priority is underscored by the urgent attention now demanded by the pandemic and climate change.   These two issues have ascended to the top of a long list of abiding threats to people and the planet.   

As the previous big idea of freedom rested on the foundation of Enlightenment physical science, so the new big idea of Life is backed by today’s life science.  No longer are organisms understood as discrete entities whose sole purpose is their individual survival.  Now the world is defined as so many whole living systems and living parts of those wholes.  According to this view each organism functions to sustain itself while it sustains the whole systems of which it constitutes various parts.  

Applying this model to humans means that people are whole living beings who are at the same time living parts of multiple other whole living systems.  By nature individuals function to sustain themselves while they sustain these larger systems.  The latter include particular local ecosystems as well as the total biosphere.  Among them are also human communities which exist at multiple levels ranging from villages to nations and finally the global population.  

Human communities contain specific functional systems, similarly to the way that a body contains systems that perform the functions of circulation, digestion and so forth.  One such structure in the community is its government whose function is to secure the well-being of all the members and the community as a whole.  As the government is a vital part of the whole system, every person who is a part of the community plays a role in sustaining it.  Also as every cell in the body participates in all its system’s processes, so every person participates in their government.

The new big idea of Life gives rise to a new conception of the social contract.  It is every person’s commitment to function as a citizen of their community to secure its well-being and that of all of its members.  People are parts of multiple communities, so this commitment applies to all the jurisdictions of which they are citizens.  Meanwhile, communities are parts of many other living systems, so the social contract requires ecologically-sound practices on the part of individuals and the full hierarchy of political bodies.  In this way the social contract secures for everyone the primary freedom to live as well as freedom to participate in robust democracy.  

The perfect structure for actualizing the big idea of Life is created by the global plan for degrowth and establishing largely self-reliant and sustainable local economies that conserve the environment. This model centers people’s lives in their communities and thus provides for the local participatory democracy required for them to fully honor the new social contract.  Far from reducing individual freedom, it liberates people from innumerable onerous constraints imposed by the current political economy.  

As it defines each person as a vital part of multiple living systems constituted by communities and their political bodies the new big idea transforms people’s conceptions of themselves and others.  For it means that someone else’s condition affects me and vice versa.  This is actually a simple truth that is now becoming fully evident especially in regard to politics.  People whose adverse economic or social situations causes them to not vote or oppose the public interest bring harm to me.  Conversely, my support for the conditions that produce their misfortune injures them.  It is always correlative.  In a properly functioning living system different parts do not harm but rather support one another.

The old big idea of freedom for everyone to seek their own self-interest with minimal limits has brought us the triple crisis of pandemic, climate change and assault on democracy.  A life-affirming economy that supports the most robust democracy will take time to achieve.  It must however be the ultimate goal of progressive action.  A major initial step is people consciously adopting the new big idea of Life.  As they do this they must further recognize that big ideas whose time is past don’t go down quietly.  Rather, they are displaced by people animated by the emerging zeitgeist determined to elevate the new idea to dominance. 

My essay Freedom: A 21st Century Update – Phila Back expands the subject of this article.  It elaborates how classical liberal freedom has devolved into slavery and ways in which the sustainable community model secures real freedom.  It concludes with actions everyone can take now to put life first.   

Freedom: A 21st Century Update

Free ebook at Freedom A 21st Century Update

Contents

Introduction                                                                 

The Original Social Contract Story                   

From Liberalism to Neoliberalism                     

The Culture of Neoliberalism                             

Brands Take Over                                             

When Freedom Becomes Slavery                     

Freedom and Reason                                        

A New Social Contract                                     

A New Political Economy                                

Getting There                                                    

Freedom Now                                                   

Notes                                                                 

About the Author                                              

Introduction

With Trump out of the White House America continues to face the triple crises of pandemic, climate change and assaults on democracy.  His conduct as president made them especially severe because he set a standard of virtually unlimited personal freedom – whatever one can get away with by means of their fame, power, connections and money. The infamous remark “When you’re a star…you can do anything,”1 perfectly expressed his attitude.  In myriad ways – refusing to wear masks, storming the capitol then expecting clemency, denying the election results and more – his followers seek similarly unlimited freedom.  With or without the former president, the movement he led will continue, to be halted only by a stronger one that upholds limits on freedom for the common good, social justice and stewardship of the commons.   Presently the Right has many tens of millions of supporters plus majorities in the U.S. Supreme Court as well as several state and local governments.  It may win majorities in both houses of Congress in 2022.  With the start of a new administration and congress advocates on all sides are now mobilizing to push their agendas.  Yet piecemeal change will not conquer the crises of pandemic, climate change and democracy under siege.  They require a unified approach based on a forward-looking conception of freedom.   

Americans have long held a very broad notion of freedom.  Now however the views of the Right and the Left are in mortal conflict, with both standing on the antiquated Enlightenment myth of the social contract. That there is no longer any social contract is well known and also that our government is now lacking in the legitimacy conferred by that contract.  To restore its legitimacy, to protect both freedom and life, we need a new narrative that redefines freedom and democracy to meet the urgent needs of our time.  In this essay I will first review classical liberal political theory then trace how that doctrine devolved into the neoliberal political economy that reached its climax in Trumpism.  In this Orwellian world freedom indeed became slavery, and I explore some of its varieties.  Using the Enlightenment’s own method I next offer a new social contract narrative that satisfies the requirements of reason as it enhances freedom, democracy and life.  The present extreme threats to life that include climate change, pandemic and environmental destruction further demand a new political economy for which I present a basic model.  This provides the optimal structure for democracy and, with it, legitimacy.  My review of history, ideas and current conditions leads to a new conception of freedom which people can adopt now to embrace both liberty and life.    

The Original Social Contract Story

America’s founding documents – the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – are based on the classical liberal political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Their views differed in some respects, but they agreed that the authority of government is derived from the consent of the governed which was originally granted by the social contract.  The story of the social contract is a myth according to which humans initially lived in the “state of nature.”  Hobbes identified this state with anarchy, “the war of all against all.”2  For Locke it was a mythical society in which people had unlimited freedom subject only to the law of nature which was basically the Golden Rule that everyone enforced for themselves.3  Rousseau depicted it as the original condition of humanity in which people all lived separately like Robinson Carusoe.4  They concurred that God created humans in the state of nature, granting them vast freedom to act within their physical and mental capacities.  Hobbes considered humans to be savages by nature, while Locke and Rousseau ascribed to them kinder dispositions.  In all versions humans by nature originally acted in accordance with their individual self-interest.  People in the state of nature were however endowed with reason, by which they saw that they would all be better off with some cooperation among themselves.  So they unanimously formed the social contract which established a commonwealth, political society or body politic, agreeing to limit some of their natural freedoms in exchange for collective protection of those now limited ones as well as their remaining unlimited freedoms.  By this means they transformed, with some restriction, their God-given natural freedom into fundamental constitutional rights. 

Establishing the social contract did not abolish the state of nature but rather created a new civic order which superimposed a civic identity upon the people who otherwise retained their natural character.  As citizens people had a duty to abide by the laws, but as private individuals they were free to do anything which was not prohibited by law, with this freedom being protected by the law.  Our philosophers stressed that the body politic was “artificial” to distinguish it from the underlying natural order.                          

The social contract story was embedded in the broader outlook of the Enlightenment.  This included Newtonian science, natural law theory with its long history from Antiquity through the Middle Ages and natural history.  Calling itself “the Age of Reason,” thinkers in this period employed rigorous methods of reasoning, believing that such techniques certified the material truth of their theories and assertions. 

From the discovery of the same constant mathematical patterns in the motion of bodies ranging from pebbles to planets Enlightenment scientists conceived an entire world view.  It represented the universe as composed of elementary material bodies and discrete collections of them acting at every level according to Newton’s laws.  Being thoroughly quantitative it defined everything in terms of units which, according to the concept of partes extra partes exist alongside, beyond and exterior to each other with no interdependence, only external independent existence.  All objects were understood to have internal inertial states of motion exemplified by the uniform rectilinear motion of planets whose paths were bent into ellipses by external forces of gravity.  As the laws were verified with observations of innumerable kinds of macroscopic objects they were declared to be the universal laws of nature attributed to God the creator who imposed them on his creation rather as human lawmakers impose laws on citizens.  Further, assuming the conceptual character of mathematics the laws were claimed to be absolutely true and necessary, indeed revealed by the light of reason.  Hope for the new science took the form of a belief in inexorable and continual progress.  

Nature and reason were the two sources of authority with which our political philosophers disputed monarchs’ claims to divine right based on religious grounds.  Supported by the advance of science, they were inclined to identify the two, elevating the tradition of natural law to rational truth as well.  Locke wrote, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that… no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”5

Reports of Indigenous Peoples newly discovered in America were seized upon as representations of the natural, original state of human beings and as evidence for the species’ progress.  Our thinkers’ method of reasoning and intellectual heritage however led them to quite mischaracterize such “natural” men. Hobbes was a mechanistic determinist, believing that people were collections of physical particles behaving strictly in accordance with Newton’s laws.  Locke and Rousseau meanwhile held to the traditional Christian notion of free will.  Above all they adhered to the Enlightenment’s precept of partes extra partes.  Humans were a priori conceived entirely as individuals, a viewpoint which was central to the Enlightenment overall. 

Another critical feature of their method was Aristotelian syllogistic logic according to which the conclusion of a deductive inference is assumed in the major premise.  This, paired with the principle of sufficient reason underlay their “self-evident truths.”  An example is that all men are created equal, a conclusion they deduced by first defining humans as a natural species of animal, then asserting that there are no natural social rankings among animals of the same species which thus makes them equal in rank.  This claim was reinforced by the principle of sufficient reason according to which there is nothing in the idea of man so defined which would indicate any difference in rank among them.  Following this reasoning it is seen that “all men are created equal” simply means that insofar as they are all members of the human species, there are no differences in rank among people, making them in this respect sthe same as swine or sheep.  

The total Enlightenment approach to ideas and method was reflected in the classical liberal political philosophers’ construction of the social contract narrative.  It presumed historical progress and defined human beings as individuals in internal states of motion seeking their own self-interest.  Claiming the authority of reason it further asserted that humans were all created equal.  All this moreover was the work of God the creator and lawgiver of nature.  Finally, the source that revealed natural and mathematical truths to humans – the light of reason – also led humans to establish the social contract.  As this light was believed to continue to reveal the secrets of nature forever into the future, so it was expected to guide political conduct following the creation of the social contract.  Like Newtonian science which combined the pure rationality of mathematics with much empirical content, our philosophers sought to justify their vision to the greatest possible extent by means of formal reasoning while also drawing on material representing the human condition past and present.

The story of the social contract established the fundamental rights and the origin of the sovereign which served to legitimize the government that it created.  Our three philosophers presented different models of what that government should be: Hobbes was a theocratic monarchist, while Locke advocated representative democracy. Rousseau favored participatory democracy like that of his native Geneva and ancient Greece.  The American Founders followed Locke, securing very broad fundamental rights and trusting that legislators and the sovereign people would always sustain the common good. 

Supreme among the values guiding the Founders and which their successors were intended to uphold was personal liberty.  They declared

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of 
Happiness - That to secure these rights, Governments are 
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed...

By liberty they meant the freedom to do anything that does not harm others.  Moreover, they held that government must not impose any limits on this freedom except those which preserve the liberty of all and are specifically established by law.  

From Liberalism to Neoliberalism

As the American political order was being constructed to implement classical liberal political theory, science continued to advance.  Its method was extended to new areas of study including economics.  In 1776 Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in which he asserted that the free market was governed by the law of supply and demand.  Under this law buyers and sellers necessarily benefit fairly in every transaction because of the universal influence of the benevolent “invisible hand.”  Smith’s subject of study was the specifically economic aspect of people’s lives which he called homo oeconomicus or “economic man.”  Rooted in classical liberal philosophy and emphasizing national policy, his new science was what is known as classical liberal political economy.

America declined to adopt Smith’s pure laissez-faire approach and for several decades after the founding managed its economy according to the American System whose principal features were tariffs, a national bank and federal subsidies for infrastructure.  Following the Civil War big business boomed, igniting first the populist then the progressive movements which gave birth to big government programs and regulations.  Much reform came about from fear of communism and fascism which drove American policy makers to put the demands of working and poor people ahead of those of the wealthy and businesses.  Once big government came into existence it became a magnet for all manner of interests.  While the chief contenders for most of the twentieth century were business and its countervailing force labor, our government became consumed with responding to the multitude of competing claims placed upon it.  

As New Deal policies were advancing in America in the 1930s reaction against socialism was building among some European economists.  Neoliberalism, the Austrian School’s new model of political economy, gained traction after World War II when the Allies were constructing the post-war social democratic order.  With the goal of replacing that system with his neoliberal vision Friedrich von Hayek enlisted a number of European and American economists and businesspeople.  Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago was on board with von Hayek from the beginning, and the two made rapid progress at that institution with each winning Nobel Prizes.  Their efforts were crowned with the elections of Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in America, both of whom shifted their countries to the neoliberal model of political economy.  

Neoliberalism is a radical revision of the core ideas of classical liberal political philosophy and political economy.  Like them it affirms maximum individual freedom but asserts that this requires a free competitive market that embraces all aspects of life.  Insisting that socialism, even the tiniest speck of it, necessarily leads to fascism, neoliberalism demands that government must be reduced to its barest functions of securing persons, property, contracts and the value of money as it promotes capital accumulation through the maintenance and expansion of the competitive market.  For neoliberal capitalist enterprise harmful impacts to people and the environment are “externalities.” People are defined all-inclusively as homo oeconomicus, meaning that all facets of their lives are matters of market competition.  Being “entrepreneurs of themselves,” they must competitively market themselves in any and every human relationship.  As these are multiple, people are thus “bundles of enterprises” always employing or investing their natural, inherited and acquired “human capital” for personal gain.  Though it exalts freedom neoliberalism asserts that people’s actions are determined by “rational choice.”  That is, among possible alternatives, they choose the one that they judge best serves their individual self-interest and competitive advantage.  Ultimately their fates are determined by the invisible hand of the market which ensures that the necessary and universal law of supply and demand always prevails and can never fail. 

Classical liberal philosophers defended their model as being the way of God’s creation and reason.  Neoliberals however swear by the God-almighty market and further insist that their system is the only means of avoiding the descent into fascism or the “road to serfdom.”  Moreover, while liberal government is formed and maintained by popular consent, neoliberalism has been imposed on nations by force or leaders making deceptive promises of freedom and prosperity, never by the fully informed consent of the governed.  Freedom within neoliberalism is, in Milton Friedman’s words, nothing but “freedom to choose” between competing market offerings within the system.6   They deny that the neoliberal system itself is an object of choice, insisting that “There is no alternative” (TINA).  

This is what the freedom of the Founders has devolved into today.  In violation of the core principle of competition in their ideology the Reagan administration early on virtually abandoned anti-trust policy.  Corporate giants decimated smaller businesses, and wealth became highly concentrated, a consequence Hayek in fact foresaw.  His vision for free enterprise also included free trade, so today the market is dominated by the global corporate elite which has established institutions of global governance that can override sovereign nations’ law-making authority.  Competition between businesses is now waged globally as they all strain to increase profits, reduce expenses and raise stock values.  This compels countries to compete against each other to attract global businesses by offering business-friendly conditions consisting of cheap labor, little regulation and low taxes.  Domestically states and communities must compete for businesses to locate in them with an array of taxpayer-funded enticements.  Four decades of neoliberal off-shoring, M&A, downsizing, union-busting, relentless quest for greater efficiency, deregulation, privatization and financial crises have exacted an immense toll on the American people.

The Culture of Neoliberalism

As our economy has been transformed, so has our culture. While Thatcher was declaring, “…there is no society. There are individual men and women and there are families,”7 Americans were shifting to what Christopher Lasch called the “culture of narcissism.”8  Change in the nature of work played a large role in this, as the previous model of long-term full-time employment with companies providing generous benefits was overturned.  It was progressively replaced by an array of precarious arrangements – contract work, on-demand schedules, temps – plus continual market flux that requires people to often seek new jobs, update skills, reskill and work two or three jobs at a time.  The fluid nature of work spread to social relations in general, making them particularly superficial and transient or “liquid” according to Zygmunt Bauman.9

Being centered on competition has given neoliberal culture certain distinctive features.  Robert H. Frank and Philip J. Cook have named it “The Winner-Take-All Society”10 in which corporate boards of directors, universities, sports teams and television networks set the standard by elevating a few people to the status of stars for the purpose of successfully competing with their rivals.  This has produced the overall cult of celebrity which trickles down to ordinary people who engage in more or less universal individual and group competition.  The neoliberal imperative of maximizing the return on one’s human capital in a competitive market means that people will make the most of whatever advantages they have from their birth and upbringing, most notably white privilege.  Competition, as Paul Riesling observed in Babbitt, isn’t aimed at achieving something but rather at defeating one’s opponent.11   Systemic racism is thus baked into neoliberalism, as is patriarchy.  Individuals compete to get jobs, then to move up the ladder in their organization or industry, while even staying in the same position entails competitive effort.  Being in an organization involves playing on its team in competition against rivals, and this requires team members to fit into its culture.  The team model is reproduced across the spectrum of human associations, with each person having multiple identities as employees, members of families, churches, political parties and more. 

Apart from the particular circumstances of one’s birth and upbringing, which it insists can always be surmounted, neoliberalism claims that an individual freely chooses the components of their identity – their job, hair style, religion, political affiliation and so on.  This view pretends that a free individual with an original nature exists, but that is mostly a myth.  Individuality is a creation of the free market.  Offering Fords and Chevys, Starbucks and Dunkin’ Donuts, CNN and Fox, marketers exhort us to make the choice that expresses our “individuality.”  In fact however our choices define our individuality.  If there were only one kind of car, individuality in choosing one would have no meaning.  As we proceed in life our identity builds with the choices we make among alternatives for education, jobs, cars, social groups, virtually everything. 

By insisting that people make free rational choices solely to advance their individual self-interest neoliberalism denies the immense influence of marketing.  Yet as it defines everything in terms of the market it construes all human behavior as basically consumer behavior.  Under neoliberalism marketing as well as propaganda profoundly affect people as consumers.  Although their identities are defined by their consumer choices and they are influenced by marketing, individual people remain the agents making the choices.  Indeed, as Bauman says, “Consumption is a supremely solitary activity…”12 This fact explains how individuality and communality are conjoined in neoliberal culture and why the pendulum has swung from people touting their singularity to packing into its distinctive type of tribes.

Brands Take Over

In the early days of neoliberalism in America people were bent on escaping collective behavior and thinking, hence the culture of narcissism.  Robert Bellah’s 1985 book Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life described how people insisted on forming their own opinions, doing their own things and expecting others to do the same. They constructed their individual identities by collecting assorted bits from a vast smorgasbord of choices exemplified by “Sheilaism,” the personal patchwork religion of a woman named Sheila.13    People still insist on making their own choices, but market alternatives have now been considerably consolidated into a limited number of broadly inclusive packages.  How this came about is the story of brands related by Naomi Klein in her 2000 book No Logo.14 

At its most basic level marketing aims not to sell a product to a consumer but some personal, often intangible, reward from it, e.g., not some food, but the enjoyment of the food, not the Cadillac, but the status of the Cadillac.  Klein explains that in the 1990s marketing was dramatically transformed through a shift of focus to brands.  Nike led the pack by divesting from the production of sneakers and undertaking to market its name and logo to represent such ideals as athleticism, winning and freedom.  By doing this it sought to satisfy people’s desire for meaning in their lives and the world.  The brand represented by the logo was extended to a wide array of products, teams and events, achieving a degree of saturation.  With advertisements featuring athletic stars, notably Michael Jordan who even got his name on one line, the brand defined a lifestyle.  All the branded products, people and events together formed the Nike universe which consumers entered when they bought the goods and in which they were immersed when they attended the events.  Live Michael Jordan games were particularly intense Nike universe experiences, while the televised games were lesser ones.  As consuming something involves identifying oneself with it as well as with other consumers of the same brand, gatherings under a brand validate and reinforce each person’s identification with that brand and create a form of communality.  With immersive events, videos and superstar role models Nike produced and marketed a broad and vibrant mindset by which consumers in some measure transcended their reality.  This was especially illustrated by the passion with which impoverished inner city youth embraced the Nike and Jordan brands and their success with teenagers around the world.

The Nike marketing technique was carried to its ultimate extreme by Donald Trump.  Early in his career he established an image as an icon of success, wealth, glamour, ruthless business practices and, above all, winning.  Like Nike he diversified his business empire to include office buildings, hotels, resorts, golf courses, casinos, a university, book, steaks and even endorsement of Oreos.  Further, like Nike, much of this consisted in selling licenses for the use of the Trump brand rather than actual ownership and operation.  The brand not only spread the glow of Trump’s stardom over consumers’ experience of the branded products and services, it literally incorporated them into his world as tenants, guests, members and students.  Starting with the Miss Universe pageant he progressively moved onto television, the optimal platform from which to promote himself and his brand.  A 2018 New Yorker article explained how The Apprentice resurrected Trump’s then failing empire and paved the way to his presidency.15   The program was created specifically for Trump by Mark Burnett who had previously conceived and produced Survivor. As a youth Burnett was fascinated by Lord of the Flies, and his first series embodied that novel’s ethos.  Depicting Trump as a business superstar The Apprentice vastly expanded the Trump universe and amplified its values.

In The Apprentice people came onto the program to compete for the favor of Trump in his stage persona to win jobs in his real organization.  With his power over the contestants he rather played God by passing final judgement on them, treating losers with his signature cruelty.  While the contestants were literally immersed in Trump’s universe as program apprentices viewers of it were immersed in it vicariously.  As with any successful narrative the audience identified and connected with various characters.  What was significant about the show was how it dramatized the neoliberal culture of competition by exalting winners and demeaning losers.  Identifying with the Trump character, viewers shared the brutally competitive, even sadistic sentiments portrayed as emblems of spectacular success.  The show added new elements to the Trump universe – the character which was a mythical version of the real person and the whole television audience which affirmed its values to varying degrees. 

Emboldened by his increased celebrity, Trump went on to wage his birther campaign, adding a racist contingent to his universe.  His presidential campaign may have been intended as only a marketing stunt for his brand, but with it he exploited white nationalist tendencies, absorbing another bloc into his base.  Central to his campaign were the rallies that could be compared to Michael Jordan basketball games with the brand emblazoned all over, frenzied fans wearing the brand caps and shirts and a spectacular performance by the candidate who had assumed a rock star-like image. 

With his entry into the presidential race and his campaign messaging, Trump magnified another aspect of that image – power.  Michael Cohen, his former lawyer and fixer said “…He’s very much like a cult leader. When you’re in his good grace, you believe that you have this enormous amount of power, which you do…”16  The candidate Trump projected an image of extraordinary power with fantastic campaign promises such as that he would make Mexico pay to build his wall, abolish all regulations and lock up Hillary Clinton.  Like branded crowd events his rallies validated and reinforced the participants’ identification with his brand and further generated communality among them.  Moreover, because a celebrity or popular candidate owes their status to their fan or supporter base, this dependence creates a bond between them and the star. Trump the candidate’s power was also very visibly augmented by his rally crowds’ electoral power.  Once he was elected he proceeded to abuse the power of his office to enforce the loyalty of other officials, and on his way out he weaponized his command of his electoral base for the same purpose.

Trump expanded Nike’s brand saturation strategy to the nth degree.  Impacts to matters great and small around the world essentially bore the “Trump” stamp.  At the center of the Trump brand universe stood the man himself, a paragon of power, wealth and unrestrained freedom.  As president he received immense media coverage, some of it fawning as from Fox, and the rest moderately to brutally critical.  For Trump’s purpose however there was no such thing as bad publicity as he employed Twitter as a 24/7 personal media channel.  The Trump universe was coextensive with the globe, but there were degrees of inclusion in it.  Just as seeing the Nike logo on some object or ad places a person in the Nike universe in a minimal capacity, so merely reading or watching the news drew people into Trump’s, at least on the fringe.  His fiercest opponents were in well into his realm, as he dominated their thinking.  It had a fervent hard core, one medium for which was his campaign’s online alternate universe.  Thomas Edsall described this website and app as “a self-contained, self-reinforcing arena where Trump reigns supreme” and which traps people “inside an ecosystem of dangerous misinformation, conspiracy theories and grievance politics.”17  Providing nightly live shows and training videos with surrogates and senior campaign staff it aimed to make the experience as fun and exciting as possible with the app serving to capture ever more people.  For sharing it supporters won points redeemable for campaign merchandise discounts with the ultimate prize being a picture with the candidate. 

Over his career Trump has become increasingly audacious with his defiance of normal standards of civilized, decent and moral conduct.  Edsall goes on to relate how in politics he poses as a champion for people who believe that they are the victims of social control by the established political leadership.  The more he lies, brazenly violates norms and antagonizes the establishment, the more credible is his claim to be the leader of those who feel disenfranchised by that establishment. As a model of uninhibited freedom Trump brandished his exercise of the ultimate freedom of a ruler – the power of life or death over particular individuals, the methodical use of which is known as “necropolitics.”   

The supreme freedom that Trump finally has most consistently exercised is the freedom to create one’s own truth.  At the center of his universe there is a realm of thought in which global warming and coronavirus are hoaxes and he won the 2020 election.  Like the more devoted Nike brand enthusiasts, Trump supporters transcend their reality by believing his representation of the world and embedding themselves in his alternate universe.  Relentless attempts by state and federal officials as well as unruly mobs to overturn Trump’s defeat in the election brought that alternate universe closer to reality. 

I compare the Trump phenomenon to the Nike and Michael Jordan brands in order to demonstrate how individual freedom figures in each.  Like Nike purchasers, every Trump supporter functions as a neoliberal free agent of rational choice, which means basically as a consumer.  This is how they safeguard their foremost value of individual freedom, the more unrestrained the better.  Solidarity, a fundamental feature of labor movements, is alien to Trumpism.  Trump himself, with his everlasting antics, is not only the fountainhead but represents the very incarnation of uninhibited freedom along with the rest of the values of his universe.  Advocates of unlimited freedom rally behind their idol, emulating him with acts of intimidation and violence against officials and citizens.  He can’t admit that he lost the election because winning is absolutely essential to his image.    

Trump and his universe did not come about in a vacuum; rather he rose as a marketing sensation within the total neoliberal culture.  That culture glorifies material success and condemns failure with media feeding a winner-take-all spirit.  Trump’s political success depends on his image as a billionaire businessman celebrity – the ideal fulfillment of popular aspiration.  Neoliberal subjects are driven by competitive self-interest, so they naturally choose to ally or identify themselves with people and brands that promise to advance it.  With brand marketing consumers are drawn into universes of products, activities, media, lifestyles, values, superstar idols and communality in which they transcend their realities and at the extreme abide in alternate ones.  All these elements of neoliberal culture were brought together by Trump to create, grow, consolidate and tyrannically preserve his domain.     

While his doing this is not news, I have sought to illuminate how it embodies standard features of our culture and shall now describe how these figure in group affiliations in general.  Textbook neoliberal subjects freely choose their jobs, education, social groups and even association with family once they become adults.  Of course this is nonsense, as, in addition to marketing, family influence and peer pressure, not to mention individual economic circumstances, play large roles.  Still, these are individual choices, free or otherwise, that define people’s identities and can therefore be treated as consumer decisions.  

Contrary to neoliberal doctrine, not all such choices are made for individual self-advancement.  They do, however generally reflect neoliberal consumer culture in several ways.  The consumer market is driven by novelty: people are constantly exhorted by advertising to buy the newest thing and discard the old.  This impels people to seek immediate gratification and guaranteed satisfaction.  Consumer offerings are designed to provide only short-term contentment, setting the consumer up for the next powerful marketing hit.  With products quickly wearing out, breaking down, becoming obsolete or passé and novelty soon wearing off, the consumer outlook is short-term. 

This is yet another component of the overall liquid character of culture rooted in transitory work described by Bauman which especially reduces and weakens social commitments.  Within neoliberal culture group affiliations are frequently approached as short-term affairs, sometimes lasting only a matter of hours or minutes.  Examples of the latter are many rallies and marches such as the 2014 People’s Climate March.  Bauman has called this kind of gathering “swarms.”18   They are intended, above all, to get media coverage, so they prioritize crowd size, visuals and celebrity speakers.  Longer term but still light commitments he calls “cloakroom communities” – regular actual or virtual gatherings of people who share a single narrow interest.19 Reflecting the domination of media and celebrity culture these tend to consist of followers of a single person who has successfully marketed the organization and themselves, delivering the “verdict of the market.”  As with branded crowd events people joining swarms and cloakroom communities demonstrate mutual approval of each other’s participation which amounts to “validation by the market.”  The least engaged form of group affiliation is that of membership in staff-run organizations.  Robert Putnam has called this phenomenon “consuming a cause” or “citizenship by proxy.”20   In these different ways people adopt so many group identities in the manner of consumers, similarly to the way they acquire furniture for their homes or clothes for their wardrobes.

Although the phrase “identity group” commonly pertains to racial, ethnic and gender distinctions, people with the affiliations I have just described constitute identity groups as well.  Early in the twentieth century sociologist Georg Simmel observed that, as a defense against anomie in mass society, people form groups with like-minded others.  In assembling they automatically establish a distinction between insiders and outsiders.  Over time enforced conformity within groups grows, producing their distinctive groupthink.21   Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm maintained that the purpose of identity groups is not to include but to exclude.22 

I have given an account of group affiliation according to basic consumer behavior.  It has been significantly modified by the advent of big group brands starting with Christian, which Reagan annexed to the Republican Party.  That party brand has since devoured blocs of former Southern Democrats, union members and even People of Color.  Like Hannah Arendt’s totalitarian onion, it has a hard right-wing core with increasingly moderate surrounding layers.  Still it is a brand that commands its registrants’ votes.  Americans are deeply polarized, with their positions defined more in negative than in positive terms.  The Republican brand mostly represents anti-socialism, while the Democratic brand has no fixed meaning beyond being the anti-Republican brand.  In the meantime, the Independent brand is the anti-Republican and anti-Democratic brand.  These brands form parts, sometimes large parts, of people’s identities while, like at Nike, the brand universes are controlled by marketing pros for the organizations’ profit.     

Much of neoliberal culture can therefore be understood in terms of brands, including neoliberalism itself which goes by the name “capitalism.”  As brands such as Nike, Trump and the Republican Party form universes of meaning and action, so does capitalism, which is a total universe.  And here is the contradiction at its heart: people freely choose to be a part of it, paradoxically meaning that they freely choose to be enslaved by it. 

The reality of neoliberalism is that it is a contrived system dominated by the global elite which is ever increasing its own wealth and power but which disseminates a libertarian message.  Thus we have masses of people who are libertarians at heart passionately serving the masters of global neoliberalism.  Some support virtually unlimited personal freedom as exhibited in the resistance to wearing masks to reduce the spread of COVID-19.  Trumpism is very much a personality cult to which its members surrender their personal autonomy.  Strict loyalty to the Republican or Democratic Party are surrenders as well.  Considering the group structure of neoliberalism with its identity groups and groupthink the overall truth about “freedom” in this system can be clearly seen. 

When Freedom Becomes Slavery

The Western tradition since Antiquity has been to define freedom in such a way as to make it the opposite of slavery.  So I now turn to bringing some historical perspective to current popular notions of freedom.  A key text for this project is Albert Camus’ 1951 essay The Rebel, in which the author recounts several approaches to freedom that end in slavery.  He traces the movement for total freedom, which he identifies with nihilism, from de Sade through nineteenth century Russian anarchists and twentieth century absurdists, concluding “that the negation of everything is a form of servitude.”23 Several figures he names were willing to die for unlimited freedom, the very claim made by some anti-maskers and insurrectionists today.  One slave to his ideology was Saint-Just, the extremist leader in the French Revolution who was sent to the guillotine by his rivals.  Camus cites the lesson on freedom in “The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor” from The Brothers Karamazov.  In that tale Christ returns to establish heaven on earth, but, seized by the Grand Inquisitor, he is told that people don’t want freedom but rather to be controlled by the Church.  This is not because they are cowardly, but because they are lazy.  Ordered by the Inquisitor to leave and never return, Christ retreats to heaven in defeat.  Another dramatic historical example he gives is that of Spartacus, leader of a famous Roman slave rebellion.  The slave, Camus says, achieves a measure of freedom in the act of rebellion.  To this insight I add Hegel’s analysis of the master-slave relation which reveals that the master is in bondage insofar as he is dependent on his slave and must continually act to keep him oppressed.  In this respect the slave is independent of the master and thus his master.  By destroying the relationship a slave rebellion liberates both masters and slaves.  Camus’ final study is of twentieth century communism, relating how the Russian Revolution inevitably led to Stalinism.  Addressing contemporary French communists he condemned their slavery to an ideology that promised perfect freedom in some distant future while presently sanctioning bloody repression. 

Slavery to ideology is notoriously irrational or Orwellian. People today are not so much enslaved by ideologies as the types of brand universes that I have described.  Trump’s alternative universe is one extreme example, but there are several other more or less comprehensive or immoderate such realms.  For charismatic evangelicals God is the guiding force in their lives and the world, and they tend toward vehement anti-intellectualism.  Otherwise the groupthink of all the kinds of associations I mentioned is at least limited in its scope and therefore lacks full rational justification.  This ranges from blind loyalty to a party brand to people who exclusively follow some single political commentator.  There are certainly some good ones among the latter, but it must be recognized that insofar as those are mere journalists they are not historians, political philosophers or activist movement leaders.  None of them present full visions of how the world should be, much less roadmaps for how to make it so.  Celebrities take a national perspective, never adapting their messaging to particular local audiences and their unique conditions.  Finally, they are creatures of the media market in either its mainstream or niche form. 

Freedom and Reason

Decades ago Herbert Marcuse explained that the structure of scientific understanding, advertising and propaganda has spawned a pervasive “one-dimensional” mode of communication and thought.24   Its basic constructions are absolute declarative sentences and standard heavily connotative adjectives attached to certain proper and common nouns.  Examples of the former are “the universe began with the big bang,” “Healthcare is a right,” “Walmart. Always low prices,” while the latter are represented by “quality affordable healthcare” and “crooked Hillary.”  One-dimensional speech, writing and thinking preempt further reflection which might negate or qualify it, rendering it simple dogma.  The identity groups that I have described are formed around doctrines commonly expressed as slogans and labels that reflect the one-dimensional character of the groups’ positions.  Examples include “Make America Great Again” and “Pro-Choice.”      

For Enlightenment thinkers the exercise of reason was a vital component of human freedom, but they differed on what that meant.  Our Founders believed that the laws of nature and the liberal political order were revealed by the light of reason which would continue to guide the leaders of the state.  Rousseau was more pragmatic and democratic, respecting the ordinary rational faculties of individual citizens.  In his native city-state of Geneva he had first-hand experience of its tradition of participatory democracy, regarding the social contract of every individual with every other one as the enduring ground of the body politic.  Factions were therefore antithetical to his model.  George Washington warned of “the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party,”25 which promotes government corruption and inefficiency, divides society and fosters conflict, encourages political instability and weakness and exposes the state to foreign infiltration.  Ironically, as Americans condemn our partisan politics, their resistance mostly consists of forming new factions – supporters of Trump, Bernie Sanders, Proud Boys, Democratic Socialists, and so on.     

In our time group identity and groupthink are two sides of the same coin.  Identifying with a group means thinking and speaking like them, at least in their company.  Conversely, taking one’s thinking from a particular group means identifying with them for their specific purpose.  People’s identity and thinking therefore mostly consist of a set of consumer choices like what they wear, e.g., Hanes T shirt, Levi’s jeans and Nike sneakers.   

Light of reason notwithstanding, classical liberal political theory is an ideology, as are its successors neoliberalism, libertarianism, Christian nationalism and progressivism.  Within the neoliberal system, which isn’t offered as an object of choice, the latter three creeds are consumer options.  Obviously, apart from broad principles, many people mix and match positions on particular issues, refining their consumer choices in the same manner as they go to this or that supermarket and choose among their selections of identical or similar products.  There are conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans whose views agree or differ issue-by-issue.  Everyone is alike in making choices in political matters whether they are narrow or comprehensive, with no opinion being a choice as well. 

Eschewing factions Rousseau envisioned all the people engaging as citizens with the full exercise of their powers of reason.  Except for the principle of popular sovereignty, this view is devoid of ideology or some scientific model of public affairs.  It amounts merely to people rationally working together to address concerns that affect their collective well-being.  Eliminating slavery to factions, ideologies and brands, it represents the supreme freedom of the citizen.  For it embodies the core concepts of the social contract – that people exercise freedom without harming each other and that they share equally and rationally in governing themselves.  

A Twenty-First Century Social Contract

In so many ways America has drifted far, far away from its original ideals of freedom, democracy and legitimacy.  It is now in the throes of three major crises – the pandemic, climate change and right-wing extremism.  The election of Biden and Harris alone certainly won’t bring about the fundamental change that we need to survive these threats.  I have traced the history of liberal democracy to reveal how it has degenerated into our current state.  Now I propose to repair the damage with updated, improved understanding of freedom, democracy and legitimacy in a new political philosophy.  

In all the systems of thought in the Western tradition methods of strict reasoning are paramount.  The wide variation among these interpretations owes much to the difference in the first principles they postulate which are the premises upon which they rationally build their structures.  Our Enlightenment political philosophers made human freedom their first principle.  Relying on Aristotelian and medieval methods of reasoning they developed the rest.  They chose freedom as their foundation because that was supreme political priority of their time.

Following that precedent, I ask, What is the most urgent concern of our time?  Devastation from climate change and the pandemic, “Black Lives Matter,” “Water Is Life” – it’s obvious: our chief priority is life.   Michael Tomasky wrote in the New York Times that in response to the anti-maskers’ defense of their freedom, liberals should say, “Freedom means the freedom not to get infected by the idiot who refuses to mask up.”26   This is a clever point, but it still subordinates life to freedom.  I note that the Declaration of Independence lists the God-given inalienable rights as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in that order.

In identifying life as our premier value, I further ask, Why?  How has this come about?  Climate change and the zoonotic coronavirus have arisen precisely from people exercising their neoliberal freedom, dismissing environmental harm as an externality.  As I have indicated, racial and wealth inequality are inevitable consequences of that freedom as well.  Harm to the environment is abuse, and systemic racism is oppression, a version of the master/slave relation which the master must exert much effort to maintain.  The classical liberal/neoliberal doctrine of freedom is the problem, which I propose to replace with one centered on life. 

While classical liberal thinkers interpreted human life in terms of the partes extra partes concept fundamental to Newtonian mechanics, the exclusive reign of that scientific model was short-lived.  Experimental researchers soon discovered a multitude of patterns in nature that were not directly reducible to the motion of elementary bodies.  The study of organic nature – biology and medicine – proceeded on a different track, acknowledging their subjects as living systems.  Over time Newtonian physics has been circumscribed by relativity and field theory as well as quantum mechanics, and life science now firmly embraces the study of systems.  The physical science upon which the classical liberal conception of freedom was founded is obsolete for that purpose, as it is now understood to represent the mechanistic but not the living aspect of nature.      

Although Enlightenment thinkers claimed that natural science and their political knowledge were revealed by the light of reason as absolute and necessary truth, science, which now includes social science, has long abandoned such pretension.  Science is about theoretical models which have some measure of experimental or empirical support and of which competing ones exist within disciplines.  I have stated that neoliberalism is a model that has been imposed by the power elite on the global economy.  While it has self-fulfilled many of its prophesies, it was in fact decisively falsified by the 2008 financial crash and remains on life-support through ever-growing government and central bank interventions.

The perennial Western method of reasoning does not by itself find or establish truth but develops systems of inferences from axioms and definitions in mathematics, hypotheses in science and first principles in philosophy. Traditionally the latter have been claimed to be self-evident, so I now ask, Is not life also one of or even the first principle of human knowledge?  Descartes declared, “I think, therefore I am,” proceeding to “prove” that he was an immaterial ghost in a physical machine.  An even more self-evident truth is I think, therefore I live, for there is no inference, not even a statement, unless I exist for the time it occupies, that is, unless I live as I make it.  I could provide more arcane reasons for adopting life as the first principle for political philosophy, but in the end, the choice is somewhat arbitrary.  The Enlightenment selected freedom because it was the burning priority of their time.  Life, understood in the broadest sense as the biosphere, is now literally burning, making it the premier issue for humans in our time.

Classical liberal political thinkers fixed on the first principle of their theory then applied the knowledge and method of their day to develop it.  Having selected my first principle I shall follow their precedent by next elaborating it in accordance with the basics of current life science.  Far from the seventeenth century’s universal principle of partes extra partes living things today are understood in terms of systems – the interconnections between organisms, their inorganic environment and among themselves.  Systems analysis involves defining things not as isolated and independent atoms but as parts of systematic wholes.  Nature consists of infinitely numerous whole systems that intersect and form parts of yet larger wholes, encompassing organic and inorganic objects alike. 

Living things act to sustain themselves within the manifold systems of which they form parts, and as parts sustaining themselves entails sustaining those systems.  Individual organisms all have finite lifespans, but there is reproduction within their populations and species by which these endure indefinitely as they too sustain the systems of which they form parts.  In fact, living is chiefly aimed at the continuation of life at every level.  The simple act of eating serves to provide energy for an animal in the future, after its body has processed the food.  Likewise throughout populations of species and across the biosphere life is directed at perpetuating itself indefinitely.  At the same time natural history tells us that systems do undergo change, can suffer damage and recover or even be destroyed, especially by major short- or long-term geologic or meteorologic events. 

Though death is inevitable, our priority is life.  So as I proceed to recast the understanding of human life to align with current life science, I will focus on the characteristics of living systems that sustain their life.  This endeavor requires first redefining the human individual as a whole organism which is also a part of larger whole living systems.  As such their essential function is to sustain themselves while they sustain these other systems: this is the ecological imperative.  It contrasts profoundly with the classical liberal conception by which an individual seeks their own self-interest by any means whatsoever as long as they do not injure other people.  That basic right is at the bottom of every environmental and social justice conflict which all revolve around direct versus indirect harm.  The  fundamentalist approach confines it to immediate injury while the systems view has potentially unlimited reach. 

Freedom in my story is freedom for the individual to live and to function as parts of the larger living systems that literally support their individual life.  The first component is presently the standard progressive agenda expressed in the slogans “Black Lives Matter” and “Water Is Life” as well as demands for clean air, universal healthcare, basic income and so forth.  The second component implies a far more ambitious program, as those kinds of systems are currently badly damaged or do not exist at all.  To take air, for example, such freedom means living within a mode of production that does not poison the atmosphere and overheat the planet.  This condition for freedom is an objective to be achieved along with many others including a thoroughly healthy biosphere in the place of the one that is now dying before our eyes.

A conception of individual freedom involving conditions for the realization of that freedom is not new.  While the Founders accentuated their idea of freedom, most of their effort was directed at establishing the conditions in which it could exist.  The Declaration of Independence is mostly a list of grievances against restraints and abuses inflicted upon the colonists as it asserts that government is instituted precisely to secure fundamental rights or freedoms.  Following this precedent, my version of freedom is also to be secured by a government. 

My first principle for political thought with its definition of the human creature leads to a new view of the social contract.  It defines the political body or polity as a living system which is a living part of another living system that is the community with which it is coextensive.  The parts of the polity are all the citizens who count as essential, with no one cast as worthless or disposable.  People who, despite the best efforts of the polity, persist as threats to it are of course treated as criminals.  The purpose of the polity is to secure the well-being of the community and all its members.  Insofar as the polity is a part of the community and citizenship is a part of its members’ lives, it also functions to secure the well-being of itself and the members in their capacity as citizens.  The social contract is precisely people’s continual commitment to perform the functions of citizens in the polity.  While no kind of formal law itself, it serves as the moral foundation of the constitution, legislation, executive and judicial decisions.  The government that is made legitimate by this social contract is most directly local participatory democracy that adheres to the rule of law.     Legitimacy of higher levels of government is similarly established by the peoples’ commitment to perform the functions of citizens in the representative democracy of those levels to secure the well-being of their jurisdictions and residents under the rule of law.      

Thus defined as a living system that includes all the citizens as essential parts, the polity accords with the systems model of nature.  So my social contract does not represent the exit from the state of nature, but the return to it.  It contrasts with the previous social contract story in certain vital respects. 

First, the earlier philosophers asserted that the polity was an artificial creation of all the people who entered into the social contract.  That narrative preserved a “natural” sphere of life, distinct from the polity, in which people retained their natural unlimited freedom.  Within the political realm citizens were subject to the rule of institutions and laws, but otherwise they enjoyed freedom to do as they liked with such unconstrained freedom being protected by the polity.  In a natural system, however, there is no distinction between natural and artificial components.  The whole is indivisible with its parts which have multiple natural aspects, for example, people’s private, spiritual and political functions.  Our thinkers’ master of logic Aristotle had in fact said, “Man is by nature a political animal.”27  My social contract undergirds a polity modeled on nature which has no need to drive a wedge between the civic realm and others, as each person is a whole human individual and an organic part of the whole living community.

Another respect in which my view of the polity as a natural system differs from the classical one is in regard to the origin.  The latter characterized people as being by nature unorganized individuals, but there is invariably not only order but systematic order in nature.  Humans are social animals, and their groups, even mobs, always exhibit some organization. The primary questions are which system dominates and to what extent does it does it support and sustain human life.  For a battlefield littered with dead and dying soldiers is something of a natural system teeming with vultures, flies and bacteria.  Moreover, at a minimum everything in the biosphere is a part of that total system, so there is also the issue of boundaries for the polity.

To elaborate my conception of the polity as a natural living system, I offer an analogy with the human body, comparing individual persons to individual cells.  In the body there are systems such as the circulatory system which has a certain structure but in whose function every cell participates.  They all receive oxygen and nutrients while disposing of wastes via that structure which also provides the means to protect cells from disease and to heal them if they are harmed. Different cells primarily belong to different systems, but their functions are all integrated into the whole system, with all functioning to sustain themselves, each other and the whole.  The system that correlates to government is the nervous system which is literally the nerve center of the body that coordinates diverse functions, is the repository of habits and makes decisions.  In addition, it performs an enforcement function for the body which is pain.  The feeling or threat of pain is a signal for the body to avoid certain actions which if committed would be punished with pain.  

Comparing the government of a community to the nervous system of a body, it is seen that as long as the body lives, unless on artificial life-support, that system functions to some degree.  So with government: it may be very corrupt or even so deranged that it amounts to virtual anarchy.  Moreover, as long as a body or a community live, they are systems which also may be in very damaged, degraded or corrupted states.  Impaired parts no longer function in support of other parts, but possibly in opposition to them.  Failure to heal tends to produce a cascading effect among parts that causes more damage and ultimately death of the body. 

For the body to live and perform all its functions its parts must properly function, that is, be healthy. Likewise with a community which is a living system.  The community as a whole is in good condition insofar as its parts which consist of its members, are also in good condition.  Government serves to coordinate the functioning of the parts to maintain their health and that of the whole, and it is good government insofar as it is successful in doing this.  In my model the most immediate level of government is local participatory democracy which corresponds in a body to the ultimate participation of every cell in the functioning of the nervous system.  With government the relationship is not totally reciprocal because it has distinct enforcement authority over the parts. 

Although participatory democracy includes some officials in addition to all the actively engaged citizens, ultimately the government is the people who ideally have no need for heavy official regulation and policing of themselves.  A formal structure of laws, justice and enforcement does exist, but the well-being of the community is sustained by what Rousseau called, after the three conventional kinds of laws – fundamental, civil and criminal, the fourth

…the most important of all.  It is engraved in neither marble                                                                                                      nor brass, but in the hearts of its citizens; it forms the true                                                                                                        constitution of the state: it renews its vigor every day, and                                                                                                      when other laws become obsolete or ineffective, it restores or                                                                                            replaces them; it keeps the people in the spirit of its institutions,                                                                                               and gradually substitutes the force of habit for that of authority.                                                                                                                I am referring to morals, customs, and above all, public opinion.                                                                                                    This category of laws is unknown to our political theorists, but it                                                                                                 is essential to the success of all the others; the great lawgiver                                                                                            concerns himself with it in secret, while seeming to limit himself                                                                                                to specific regulations that are only the sides of the arch, whereas                                                                                       morals, slower to develop, eventually form its unshakable keystone.28

I have presented a picture of the ideal democracy in which all the people continuously uphold the social contract that I have described.  In the original story the social contract was a once and done affair that established the government as a distinct entity with authority over the people.  Compared with that model my version which focuses on individual citizens’ continuous responsibility initially appears rather loose and informal.  I will therefore now fill in some details which make it firmer and address human imperfection.  Returning to my analogy with the body I want to stress that while the whole is ultimately indivisible, its systems, the nervous system in particular, function in an orderly fashion.  Likewise, there is structure and orderly process in government, that is, rule according to law.  Meanwhile, humans are unlike cells in the body in that they can choose whether or not to act in the interest of the community and even in their own self-interest.  In the Christian tradition this distinction has been attributed to man’s free will.  Aristotle, who was fundamentally a biologist, saw natural variation among members of the same species, finding some imperfect in a multitude of different ways.  His science reflected the general view of the Greeks who were notable for their great attention to education to not only remedy human deficiencies but to nurture excellence.       

Like the original one-time social contract, my continuously renewed one is completely voluntary.  It is people’s ongoing commitment to each other to support the proper operation of their government, which is a function of all the citizens some of whom are officials.  This contrasts with a current misconception of the social contract – that it is a unilateral obligation of the government to the people.  Although my ideal social contract is a commitment of each individual with every other individual, in reality it is likely to only be such a pledge between some individuals and some others.  Hopefully this includes most of them and all of the officials.  Their engagement does entail an obligation to seek to include all of the people in the commitment.  While in my analogy the nervous system is the principal one coordinating all the others, this function is in fact somewhat shared by the others.  Similarly, insofar as the people are the government, it is their adherence to the social contract that keeps the community functioning well overall. 

Within living systems some parts inevitably fail.  My social contract involves a responsibility to restore such parts to their proper function.  Criminals, for example, must be rehabilitated.  There will also be irreparable defects which may be congenital or acquired which living systems naturally deal with.  If someone loses the use of their right hand, they will adapt by making new use of their left and other parts of their body.  Assistance to disabled people is therefore an obligation under my social contract, along with effort to prevent people from not joining the contract, violating it or becoming unable to honor it.

In reality the effect of my social contract is a matter of degree – how many people commit to it and how thoroughly they do so.  This commitment is also the measure of the legitimacy of the government of which it is the foundation.  Indeed, this is the measure of the legitimacy of any democratic government.  Turning again to my analogy with the body we know that the health of a body is a matter of degree and probably none can be judged to be in perfect health.  Imperfection is obviously inevitable, but like a body, the polity must guard against threats to its deterioration, recognizing that the failure of any part threatens or impairs all the other parts and the whole.  This fact is vividly illustrated in the spread of COVID-19 by people who refuse to follow public health safety practices.   

So far my account of the new social contract has only defined it in terms of a natural system.  Also included in the original story were declarations that all humans are equal and they possess certain fundamental freedoms.  The systems model of nature establishes human equality on the ground that people are living units of a single kind that all together constitute the community.   Being parts of that community involves them exercising their common rationality as officially equal citizens in the democratic government of the polity.  Like cells in a body that all ultimately participate in systems, notably the nervous system, people are all parts of the polity whose function is to ensure the well-being of every part and the whole indivisible body.  Regarding freedom, my model gives the highest priority to the freedom to live.  In today’s neoliberal system, which is the wreckage of classical liberal democracy, people’s right to life is infringed upon in a multitude of ways.  It wasn’t so long ago that broad environmental, labor and civil rights protections were in effect, and they now need to be not only restored but strengthened.  My social contract significantly increases people’s freedom from what it is now.  For one thing it secures the freedom for everyone to fully participate in collective self-government which ensures each citizen’s rational autonomy and freedom from factions.  I will show in the next section that it ultimately provides everyone the freedom to realize the range of their potential and further that it frees people from injury and oppression by others as it simultaneously frees the perpetrators from the compulsion to commit such acts.  Finally it frees people to affirm life, overcome alienation and to reject inauthenticity and banality.                      

Government isn’t the whole story because, as I have indicated in my historical review, particular models of political economy have furnished the conditions for the exercise of first liberal, then neoliberal freedom.  Of course this last is not freedom at all but slavery in innumerable respects.  The new social contract requires a new political economy which provides the material framework for people to live full lives as essential parts of so many living systems and thus enjoy maximum human freedom.  I now turn to a description of that model, emphasizing that it embodies the ideal democracy. Initially presenting it as a utopia or vision to guide our action I then bring it down to earth by urging the implementation of several proposals on the table now.  Preempting the likely objection that it is utopian, I remind the reader that all the models I have discussed – classical liberal political philosophy, classical liberal political economy, neoliberalism, not to mention the Founders’ vision – are all pictures of perfect systems that have never been fully realized and never will be.  They serve, however the indispensable function of providing goals to strive toward, enabling people to map and follow routes to get as close as they can to the destination.  

A New Political Economy

My method is reason in the service of life.  Climate change and colossal environmental destruction are urgent existential threats underway now which demand an all-out global effort to reverse the trend.  A plan for global sustainability created by David C. Korten, founder and editor of Yes! magazine, is presented in his Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth.  He asserts that significant degrowth is required to establish a new economic system consisting of “coherent, self-reliant local economies that function as subsystems of their local ecosystems.”29  A key element in his agenda is changing the way that money is created.  Presently it originates as debt, compelling businesses to always be expanding, increasing their revenue and incurring more debt in order to pay off the principal and interest of the earlier debt.  This process, he declares, creates an inexorable growth imperative.  His book focuses on the economic aspects of the model, so my purpose now is to explain how his concept embodies the systematic character of life and therefore provides the economic structure for democracy and freedom in the future. 

As the Founders were crafting a government for the nation Thomas Jefferson found in the town meeting democracy of New England “the wisest invention ever devised by the wit of man for the perfect exercise of self-government and for its preservation.”30  Decades later de Toqueville observed democracy in America flourishing particularly in small towns.  Where people live is their principal habitat, providing the real estate which they either own or rent, their water and air.  It is also where they vote to elect local, state and national officials.  Civic life for better or worse is rooted in the community, and for this reason should be its focal point. 

Bowling Alone explores the array of ways in which community life in America has lost the cohesiveness that de Toqueville judged was essential for democracy.  That consisted in vigorous civil society with a multitude of local organizations and amiable social relationships.  Korten’s model is the means for restoring that.  His local productive and sustainable economies serve local consumers and rely on small locally owned businesses which should also be mostly employee-owned.  In them there is little wealth inequality.  Overall, human interaction is community-centered and therefore diametrically opposed to the current state in which most people commute, sometimes far away, to work and likewise travel out of their communities for shopping and entertainment.  Presently people know few, if any, other people who live around them; their lives are geographically scattered and, as neoliberal bundles of enterprises, fragmented and conflicted.  One of the primary impacts of the competitive global neoliberal economy is the destruction of local economies as people are now mostly employed by entities in the system that contribute to growing global business consolidation, inequality, deterioration of public services and infrastructure. This system has immediate negative environmental effects on everyone.  Whether they commute to work, are employed in a fossil fuel-related industry, sell imported or plastic-packaged goods or do any other kind of work, everyone is a part of the climate change and environmental problems.  In the sustainable community, people cease to harm themselves and their families as they earn their livings.           

Not only does work in the neoliberal system serve to maintain and grow that system, it has scant meaning and provides little or no satisfaction for people.  Mostly people work to earn the money which they then spend in the consumer economy for necessities plus goods and services to gratify desires created by marketing.  This highly artificial system with its extreme division of labor contrasts with the character of living systems in which every function directly serves life and virtually all potential functions are actualized.  In the life-centered economy I am describing people’s work is diversified.  Marx envisioned an economy in which one might “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner . . . without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman, or critic.”31  My model further promotes craftsmanship, in which a worker creates their product from start to finish and, as Marx also said, “sees himself” in the result.32  Finally it includes much meaningful, indeed essential, non-work activity for everyone.

In our time extreme division of labor is defended as providing for the fulfillment of individual potential epitomized by Mozart or Shakespeare.  Frank and Cooke point out that the best-selling authors of our time are the likes of Danielle Steele who owes her success to promoters in a rigged market.  Shakespeare, whose literary genius has never since been surpassed, lived long before culture became dominated by big business and institutions.  It has been noted that the Bard, who had only seven years of formal education, would today be hopelessly lacking the credentials required to teach high school or college English.  Historically many of the greatest people excelled in diverse fields.  Benjamin Franklin, for example, was a writer, printer, political philosopher, politician, postmaster, scientist, inventor, humorist, civic activist, statesman and diplomat.

One of the chief human potentialities to be more fully actualized in the new order is everyone’s faculty of reason.  Currently people’s minds are occupied with micro-specialized work and consumer activity, especially forms involving media.  The followers of Locke’s brand of liberalism reserved the light of reason mostly for the republic’s officials, assuming that it would break forth among the citizenry should it fail those leaders.  In Rousseau’s model state citizens governed themselves with the exercise of universal rationality.  Under my proposed social contract citizens make rational decisions with reference to themselves as private individuals and as parts of their community.  At the same time these decisions reflect their interests as citizens who are parts of the polity.  Finally, vital consideration is given to the larger living wholes of which their community and polity form parts. 

My understanding of the way of nature that puts life first draws very different conclusions than those of classical liberalism.  While they agree on human equality, mine asserts that people’s essential functions are to serve themselves and their community, ultimately the world.  Further, in virtue of the human faculty of reason, nature points to government chiefly by participatory democracy.  Korten’s sustainable community model, which is now necessary for human survival, is the perfect structure for it. 

Participatory democracy is in fact alive and well today in Vermont town halls.  By state law all municipalities hold them one day each year.  All registered voters may attend, elect local officials and vote on municipal and school policies and budgets.  Drawing on data collected over decades at hundreds of town meetings Frank M. Bryan concludes that real democracy requires small jurisdictions and in-person assemblies.  He notes that town halls have passed resolutions supporting the ERA and a nuclear weapons freeze, and majorities in many of the rural communities vote for Bernie Sanders.  In them there is real debate over matters, which may become heated, but after the town hall people return to their normal and usually close interaction where civility prevails.33

For the same reason that each individual has a role as a citizen in their community, they also have roles as citizens of larger political units.  The sustainable communities in the model are not isolated and closed but rather have economic and political interconnections.  Larger jurisdictions cannot practically operate by participatory democracy and thus require representative democracy which still provides for a high level of citizen engagement.  Not only to restore the environment but also for human well-being this model must be implemented globally, the product of an international people’s movement which establishes some measure of global governance as well. 

Up to this point I have mostly described the world as so many three-dimensional systems.  Yet as I indicated earlier, the fourth dimension, time, is perhaps the most important one for life.  To live is to continue to live, both for individuals and systems.  Sustainability does not simply mean enduring over some time, it means persisting within nature’s scale of time – very many generations and ultimately eons.  Sustainable communities therefore operate with an indefinitely long-term outlook that also applies to their governance.  Our classical liberal political philosophers and the Founders devoted particular attention to the means by which their models of government would persist.  As nature is trans-generational, so are polities, thus as each generation must conserve natural resources for future ones, so must they act to preserve their democracy.               

Much of our present trouble can be traced to the current attitude toward time.  As he has decried the liquid quality of human relationships, Bauman has highlighted how the modern short-term perspective now approaches instantaneity, an orientation he calls “pointillist time.”34   This is certainly a product of consumer culture and its premier marketing instrument media.  The infosphere disseminates items to be consumed now which will be displaced by new ones later today, possibly only seconds later, or certainly by tomorrow.  Brands continually push short-lived hot products as well.  All of this is marketed especially by the biggest players with the objective of maintaining consumers in a state of intense stimulation and craving the next new sensation.

Ideas are no exception to this regime with a simple example being the Bush to Obama voters in 2008 and the Obama to Trump voters in 2016.  In our time ideas are consumer fads mostly pitched in winner-take-all or at least rigged markets.  Ever-shrinking turnaround time reduces the content of communication, which is increasingly measured in mere numbers of characters.  Much material is therefore just ephemeral bytes hurled against the backdrop of the neoliberal system.  Insofar as they arise at all, big elaborate ideas are pulverized into dust and rapidly blown away.  

The model of sustainability that I advocate is a comprehensive vision that calls for people to grasp it fully and make a long-term commitment to bringing it about.  This places me outside the neoliberal marketplace of ideas and denies me the validation of the market which the agents who manage it attribute to the “wisdom of the crowd.”  Absence of their blessing is actually proof that my model liberates people from the tyranny of neoliberalism’s idea market and restores their rational autonomy.     

As they enjoy independence of thought the considerable self-sufficiency of local communities in my proposal also makes their members interdependent in a multitude of respects.  Such range and diversity of community interaction is the very thing that de Toqueville identified as the crucial ingredient in America’s democracy and the feature whose absence Putnam claimed had virtually destroyed it by the year 2000.  Now, as in 2021 the threat of fascism is high, we urgently need to create inclusive multi-dimensional human bonds within a system of green participatory democracy.                     

Presently there are two basic views of government: those on the Left say, “Government works for you,” while those on the Right say, “Government suppresses our freedom.”  Both define government as separate from the people who, in the first case, constitute consumers of services provided by the government and in the second represent victims of government abuse.  In my view both are wrong, for I maintain that government is the people.  Participatory democracy is all the people together making public decisions.  This means every person participating as an independent citizen and not as a member of an interest group or faction.  For as each citizen is a constituent part of the governing body their citizenship is an aspect of the unitary living person who has multiple functions and, in their capacity as a citizen, serve their several interests.  This further means being parts of other living systems and therefore serving the interests of those as well.  The community itself is one such system which includes organic parts, intersects with other systems and forms parts of larger ones.  As citizens individuals therefore serve all of those in addition to themselves.  With their diverse functions and particular positions in space and time they all have unique, though intersecting and interdependent perspectives which they express in the exercise of participatory democracy.  They also privately function as organic parts of the community and larger living systems, observing the morality of which Rousseau spoke as they act to sustain themselves, the community, the polity and the world.

One of the defects of interest group politics and citizenship by proxy is that they reduce people to uniform numbers, which they are in their capacity as members of particular identity groups.  Such depersonalization, indeed profiling, has spurred two forms of reaction.  Groups now often spotlight personal stories in which members relate their individual experiences relative to the groups’ specific purposes.  Meanwhile, Blacks involved in the Women’s March and Black Lives Matter have argued that women’s experience differs significantly for Blacks and whites and that there are many other issues intertwined with the single one of police murdering Blacks.  They have laid bare the system of racism that affects every person through education, employment, healthcare, housing and more.  All these different strands of the whole fabric intersect in every individual, oppressing Blacks and conferring privilege on whites.  As they affect each person they are at the same time public issues for each citizen who should therefore participate in regard to all the individual, shared, simple and complex issues in their personal and public lives. 

The sustainable world I am describing is an ideal in which citizens resolve issues through formal democratic processes.  Yet as Rousseau, de Toqueville and Putnam stress, much of the practice of democracy is informal – social interaction in a variety of contexts.  Having immediate vital stakes in the community, people naturally talk about matters among themselves.  This is a necessarily universal activity not only to realize people’s full citizenship but to reduce division.  John Stuart Mill believed that liberty required conversation between people who disagreed.35 Vance Packard’s 1958 The Status Seekers describes how patterns of socialization at that time divided people.  In regard to Jews he observed that the best mixed relationships were between people who visited each other in their homes as friends.  He wrote, “Personal friendship appears to be a more powerful motive than any abstract sense of justice in getting barriers removed.  And friendship can take root only where there is informal intermingling.”36 Democracy makes citizens equal, and green democracy under my social contract ensures economic security for all while eliminating significant wealth inequality.  At the same time racial, ethnic and cultural variety is essential in communities, just as resilience of natural systems requires rich diversity of species.  Packard lamented the dull sameness of American social groupings which tends toward insularity and intolerance.

How people talk to each other in the informal and formal practice of my green democracy is quite different from the present one-dimensional manner.  Apart from dogmatic sound bytes, public discourse is woefully fragmented.  To give one example, consideration of transportation tends to be just about roads and the current modes, so highway expansion continues unabated.  Regard for climate isn’t part of that conversation except insofar as it includes electric or hydrogen-powered vehicles, both of which would ultimately require a vast supply of energy, only a fraction of which could be produced from renewable sources.  Marcuse contrasted the one-dimensional form with dialectical discourse à la Hegel and Marx that seeks out contradictions in understanding as well as Plato’s more eclectic style.  He took particular issue with Aristotelian logic which has dominated Western thought for millennia and profoundly shaped Enlightenment thought.  Rational discourse in green democracy must be thoroughly logical, but its chief distinction is its very broad scope.  It doesn’t isolate topics, but looks far, wide and deep to find the connections between them.  In our current system the vehicles of public policy are legislative bills, executive orders and judicial decisions, the vast majority of which are very narrowly focused.  Multi-purpose actions mostly aim to balance the gains and losses of opposing interest groups.  Rarely, if ever, do we see officials advancing creative and unitary solutions that satisfy everyone.  Our adversarial politics has the effect of making the condition that created the conflict continually worse.  That condition is precisely the total system’s thoroughgoing non-sustainability, which multidimensional rationality that puts life first overcomes.       

In addition to being extremely limited in range, conversation today has a disagreeably impersonal character.  We find that, as Henry Miller said, “We do not talk – we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests.”37 Then there is the conceit of “critical discourse,” that detached, disembodied style standard in the academy and professions which has a particularly universal and authoritarian tone.  The discourse of green  democracy is dialogue, which is the respectful exchange of information and ideas.  In dialogue, Nietzsche said, everything that one says is “…in strict consideration of the other person to whom he is speaking…”  It sharply contrasts with the common performative style in which “…it is as if the ground bass of all speech were: ‘That is who I am; that is what I say; now you think what you will about it!’”38                                   

Rational discourse and decision-making in green  democracy further depends on true information.  Our current vast universe of information is a product of the total neoliberal system, and though a great deal of it is superfluous or harmful, much of it would be valuable, even vital to the green democracy.  Shifting to the new order requires that we discard the unsustainable apparatus while retaining and improving upon what serves us.  From the start of the Industrial Revolution humans have allowed technology to become the master which enslaves them.  The very idea of rationality however demands that people can and must control technology for the good of man and now all of life.  Managing information is but one area in which people must determine what is the optimum scale of human activity in the future. 

Apart from physiological impairment all humans possess the faculty of reason, but how they use it depends on education.  The current state of the world, America in particular, is a miserable commentary on our educational practices.  Alongside our public education there is a good amount of private education that includes evangelical religious instruction which promotes zealotry à la Betsy DeVos and Amy Coney Barrett.  K-12 and higher education in general are, as Henry Giroux has maintained, quintessential neoliberal structures whose primary function is to program people to participate in the competitive neoliberal economy, selecting some and eliminating others.  The abysmal level of civic awareness and involvement among young people speaks volumes about the system’s priorities.  Such disengagement is also reinforced by the segregation of formal education from the rest of society. 

In the green community there is much integration of functions such as that advocated by Grace Lee Boggs who led the effort to establish a neighborhood economy in Detroit following the 1967 riots.  She urged including students in the community’s productive and civic activities, indeed enlisting “the tremendous energies and creativity of schoolchildren in rebuilding and respirating our communities and our cities now, in the present.”39  Although Rousseau the romantic believed in inherent human virtue and wisdom, giving Émile the subtitle On Education, there is certainly a substantial place for academic instruction in skills, content and values that prepares students for full participation in green participatory democracy.                                                                                                                                                             I have outlined this new order, which I confess is an ideal, but which must be our guiding vision as we strive to save human life, democracy and the planet.  Obviously change will take time, so, having defined our destination, the next step is to decide how to approach it.  The number one priority must be to forever keep the goal in view.  Presently there are innumerable limited projects aiming at greater democracy and sustainability, but they don’t add up to a single vision, much less the one that I have presented as necessary.  Many of these conflict and further involve major concessions, reflecting the persistence of one-dimensional thinking.  A prime example is the objective of 100% renewable energy that omits the fact that solar equipment manufacture currently relies on scarce natural materials and generates much toxic waste.  Its scenario also leaves everything else untouched, that is, the rest of the planet-killing human environmental footprint.  Declaring that the climate crisis “changes everything,” Naomi Klein is one of a growing number of thinkers who insist that we must remake the whole system. 

Getting There

With our destination always in mind, we may proceed to lay out the pathway to it.  Urgent climate action is imperative, and the most sensible immediate course of action is the Green New Deal.  One of its many virtues is that it employs Modern Monetary Theory for its funding, thus meeting Korten’s objection to borrowing money into existence.  MMT has the federal government create money to invest in such things as infrastructure, healthcare and education.  Although the 2020 election has somewhat dimmed the prospects of the GND and disclosed a fairly benighted electorate, the bright spots are some cities and towns, especially those that have embarked on local initiatives for clean energy such as Ready for 100.        

As the federal government remains relatively conservative, that reality continues to shape citizens’ attitudes toward it.  Gridlock or regression at the national level impel local action, and this is the premier advantage of green participatory democracy.  When it comes to their water, their land and their air, people of all political persuasions tend to support conservation and their local government’s protection of these resources.  Grassroots activists now firmly understand that there is no substitute for face-to-face conversations between community members who share their individual difficulties and can organize for collective resolution.           

This brings us to the practical first step: people talking to each other rationally and multi-dimensionally.  Changing the culture to make this widespread and routine requires getting the next generation on the right track with innovation in education.  The other major challenge to this plan is the identity group and formal organization mentality.  Racial and ethnic groups are more trusting of their own, and organizations are often narrowly-focused cloakroom communities.  Thankfully there is a now a surge of leaders of color moving to elevate their followers to full and permanent civic engagement.  Insofar as groups have limited objectives, they must advance to coordinating with each other for unitary changes that benefit all.   

Issues that communities can unite on are water, air, land and energy.  In his 2015 documentary Time to Choose Charles Ferguson declared that the number one global threat of climate change is the loss of clean fresh water.  From widespread lead pollution exposed following the Flint disaster to persistent extreme drought in western states, oil pipelines, fracking, PFAS and more, local water supplies need citizens’ attention now.  Meanwhile the pandemic lockdown revealed how much business as usual pollutes our air and damages our health.  There are many things that communities can do to reduce their air pollution, which has the worst impacts on poor people of color.  The issue of land relates to land use and housing, with concern for the last starting to explode as an eviction crisis unfurls.  Land is earth, which is the source of our food.  To address growing food insecurity people must boost local food production which may include community gardens and urban farms.  With the recent massive Russian hack we are reminded of the extreme vulnerability of our electrical grid and the urgent need to decentralize generation and transmission, therefore making now the perfect time to shift to local green energy.  The foregoing are issues for which citizens can come together immediately to move toward green participatory democracy.

Another high priority is electing enlightened people to office, starting at the lowest level and moving them up the ladder to higher positions.  Republicans have long surpassed Democrats in recruiting candidates.  Since 2016 Democrats have become better but still need improvement in the way of cultivating the right values in them as well as the voters.  As we see with Trump, Bernie Sanders and Biden, leadership is worth a lot as people are inclined to uncritically follow the person in the spotlight.  It is vital to elect candidates committed to green democracy while building support for it among voters through grassroots activity.       

Ours is an extremely challenging time, for as we progress toward our vision there is enormous defensive work to do as well.  Following the record voter turnout of 2020 Republicans are determined to heavily suppress the vote in future elections.  Also on their agenda are rigging the next redistricting and obtaining extreme right-wing Supreme Court decisions.  To achieve progressive goals we must defeat these attempts, fighting on several fronts at once.  This is yet another reason why people should understand separate issues as parts of one big picture.

Until we get beyond adversarial democracy with warring interest groups dominated by lobbyists and big campaign donors we must unite on the urgent priorities.  This does not mean abandoning the agenda I have set out but paying attention to the details to ensure that we keep on track.  Thus, for example, while unions require solidarity vis-à-vis management in the short term, their ultimate goal should be worker-owned enterprise.  This is an objective that can be pursued by workers at every level now.  So much responsibility and power have been given to the federal government, and as media consolidation and loss of local coverage have magnified its stature, people mostly look to it for answers.  At present we do need major action by the federal government, but we must also recognize that it is like the figure in the book of Daniel which has a head of gold and feet of clay.  One man nearly caused it to topple!  Real progress requires transforming the culture, and this involves changing citizens’ fundamental understanding of freedom.  Margaret Thatcher knew this well, saying of her neoliberal program, “the object is to change the heart and soul.”40      

The federal government – the creation of the Founders – needs serious repair.  My critique of their efforts does not imply that that we should ditch the Constitution.  On the contrary, we mostly need to restore some implicit original limits and expand others.  Too many fundamental rights have been stretched beyond recognition, for example, money is speech, corporate personhood, restricting the use of property is “taking” property, owning AK-47s is protected by the Second Amendment and so forth.  These are just a few prominent examples of how the original understanding of freedom has come to undermine true freedom.  The local participatory democracy that I have advocated would obviously depend on federal and state laws as well as international agreements reciprocally conditioned by robust democracy across the country and the world.  There is much fundamental law-making potential, for example green amendments to state constitutions and community bills of rights.  In our country there is a tradition of protecting the government from the people to the point of aggressively excluding them from it.  Our predecessors were doubtful that civic virtue might prevail within the population and went to considerable lengths to establish institutional safeguards.  Yet their basic conception of freedom was the genie they released from the bottle that has lately almost destroyed the whole shebang.  With widespread corruption among leaders, especially those who enslave their followers with Orwellian representations of freedom, it is up to the people to mount a full-spectrum mobilization to secure real freedom now.   

Freedom Now

The triple crisis of our time – climate change, pandemic and subversion of democracy – is the long-term consequence of basing our political order on the classical liberal view of freedom.  Persistent and growing assault on people’s lives and rights as citizens amounts to anything but liberty.  I have shown that at present people are further enslaved by their identification with branded identity groups, which ultimately includes the total neoliberal system.  As a guarantor of freedom the Founders’ approach is obsolete.  I have offered an updated view of freedom that entails a particular model of economic and political organization.  The economic structure provides a response to climate change and urgent environmental threats overall including zoonotic disease.  It is a model for long-term sustainability, assuring people the most essential freedom to live.  This structure further supports the maximum freedom of citizens to govern themselves through robust democracy.

For Locke the social contract was formed in the dim and distant mythical past, granting citizens the right to overthrow a government that violated it.  Rousseau, in contrast, saw it as enduring but requiring people to continually honor it in the day-to-day practice of democracy.  Waiting to repair a system until it is utterly broken is no way to operate a government.  In reality people expect the social contract to be continuously upheld, and the way to make this happen is for the people to themselves actively be the government. 

The fatal flaw of the original social contract story was its claim that the human animal possesses virtually unlimited God-given natural freedom or rights over which the contract imposed only slight specific legal restrictions.  It was the product of an historical period that was rapidly expanding individual opportunities on a vast scale.  That trend has continued up to our time, culminating in today’s nihilistic demands for personal freedom.   Inflamed by Trump, slaves to right-wing extremist ideology have become militant in their determination to share the unbounded freedom that he flaunts which now infamously includes freedom from retribution for his crimes.     

In my account of freedom there are no individual natural rights of any kind given by God, existing in a pre-civilized state or acquired at birth.  Rather, there is the fact of life which imposes certain conditions on human existence.  Freedom consists in living with these conditions being fulfilled, for example, breathing clean air and drinking clean water, plus creating and maintaining the conditions for life by engaging in sustainable economic activity and robust democracy. The historic social contract version makes the private exercise of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness primary. This has led many people to profoundly neglect or totally ignore their responsibility as citizens to ensure that their government represents and serves them, having instead, in Gibbon’s words, “insensibly sunk into the languid indifference of private life.”41 My approach makes it absolutely clear that freedom necessarily entails full civic engagement. 

The recent Supreme Court decisions that prioritize religious freedom over public health in the pandemic are stunning illustrations of the inverted values of our time.  For me the purpose of political freedom is to secure life.  I have mentioned slogans such as “Black Lives Matter” and “Water Is Life,” but who can doubt that life is the highest consideration for most people?  The premier issue in the 2000 presidential election was Medicare coverage for prescription drugs, and Obama won in 2008 with “quality affordable healthcare for all.”  Trump promised a healthcare plan to replace Obamacare in 2016, then Biden won by focusing attention on the pandemic.  With the economic damage from the disease the necessities of life, specifically food and housing, are also now major issues. 

That life should be the objective of freedom goes without question.  I have explained that we are not to view life as bare individual survival, but rather as broad and full, that is, also involving sustaining the environment and actualizing the range of human potentiality.  The latter especially means rational thinking and robust civic engagement.  One lives freely to the extent that they are an active citizen applying their rational faculties to the affairs of a sustainable and democratic polity.  Still, citizenship is not possible as a solo act but requires numbers of citizens finding or establishing agreement plus dialogue with the rest.  One-dimensional speech and thought must be set aside to achieve comprehensive and creative public policies.  The highest freedom consists precisely in citizens first talking, then working together in the interest of all of their lives and all of life.   

I have sketched the ideal political economic structure for restoring democracy and freedom, addressing climate change and the present environmental devastation, concluding with some specific steps to take toward it.  As I write, defenders of the status quo and slaves to the Trump brand remain resolute, even emboldened, making our situation both complicated and dire.  Attention to our local communities is critical in this time of near iron-clad loyalty to political brands.  People on opposing sides do unite over an array of local issues, and such association provides opportunity to establish human connections and broader dialogue.  An increasingly valuable tool in electoral campaigns is friend to friend communication.  With the 2021 election cycle beginning and 2022 approaching this technique will be vital for penetrating brand barriers in individuals’ networks.  There remains the obstacle of people’s availability, as their time is taken up with work, commuting, attention to family and recovery from the grind that crushes their spirit.  This is no accident but rather a core strategy for keeping people in bondage to the masters of global neoliberalism.  It also divides us and keeps our attention on ourselves, the present and immediate gratification.  But people must mind the warning that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.  They must break free from all the branded mindsets and recognize the extreme urgency of stepping forward in their communities, reaching out to their neighbors and asserting themselves as citizens, collectively as the sovereign, to secure the future of their children, their homes, humanity, the planet, our democracy and freedom.

NOTES

1.  David A. Fahrenthold, “Trump Recorded Having Extremely Lewd Conversation about Women in 2005,” Washington Post, October 8, 2016.

2.  Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.

3.  John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government.

4.  Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality; The Social Contract.

5.  Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, §6.

6.  Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

7.  Douglas Keay, “Interview with Margaret Thatcher,” Woman’s Own, September 23, 1987.

8.  Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations, (New York: Norton, 1979). 

9.  Zygmunt Bauman, Liquid Modernity, (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2000).

10. Robert H. Frank and Philip J. Cook, The Winner-Take-All Society, (New York: The Free Press, 1995).

11. Sinclair Lewis, Babbitt (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1922), 55.

12. Bauman, Consuming Life (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2007), 78. 

 13. Robert N. Bellah, Steven M. Tipton, Ann Swidler, Richard Madsen and William M. Sullivan, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 221. 

14. Naomi Klein, No Logo: 10TH Anniversary Edition, (New York: Picador, 2009).

15. Patrick Radden Keefe, “How Michael Burnett Resurrected Donald Trump as an Icon of American Success,” The New Yorker, December 27, 2018.

16. Josephine Harvey, “Michael Cohen on Why Republicans Support Trump: ‘We’re Stupid,’” Huffington Post, September 17, 2020. 

17. Thomas B. Edsall, “Trump is Staking Out His Own Universe of ‘Alternate Facts,’” New York Times, May 13, 2020.

18. Bauman, Consuming Life, 76.

19. Bauman, Consuming Life, 111.

20. Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 158-60. 

21. Georg Simmel “The Metropolis and Mental Life” in The Sociology of Georg Simmel (New York: Free Press, 1976).

22. Eric Hobsbawm, “Identity Politics and the Left,” New Left Review, May-June, 1996.  

23. Albert Camus, The Rebel, trans. Anthony Bower, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1956), 94.

24. Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1964), 14. 

25. George Washington, “Farewell Address.”

26. Michael Tomasky, “There’s a Word for Why We Wear Masks, and Liberals Should Say It,” New York Times, Oct. 17, 2020.

27. Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, Section 1253a. 

28. Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book II, Chapter XII.

29. David C. Korten, Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2010), 169.

30. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816.

31. Karl Marx, “The German Ideology,” in Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society Translated and Edited by Loyd D. Easton and Kurt H. Guddat (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1967),425.

32. Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in Easton and Guddat, 295.

33. Frank M. Bryan, Real Democracy: The New England Town Meeting and How It Works, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004). 

34. Bauman, Liquid Modernity, 114.

35. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Chapter II.

36. Vance Packard, The Status Seekers: An Exploration of Class Behavior in America and the Hidden Barriers that Affect You, Your Community, Your Future, (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1958), 281-2.

37. Henry Miller, The Air-Conditioned Nightmare, (New York:New Directions, 1945), 109.

38. Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Section Six, Aphorism # 374.

39. Grace Lee Boggs, “Paradigm Shift in our Concept of Education,” Speech, State Theatre, Detroit, MI, August 20, 2002.

40. Ronald Butt, “Interview with Margaret Thatcher,” Sunday Times, May 1, 1981.

41. Edward Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 2.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Phila Back is an issue and electoral campaign organizer and independent philosopher.  Issues that she has worked on include land use and preservation, water, air, energy, mining, endangered species, public lands, climate, education, fair trade, healthcare, campaign finance reform and voting rights.  She has participated in an anti-poverty commission, revitalization plan committee and community garden project in Reading, Pennsylvania.

In 2015 and 2016 Back published a series of articles on neoliberalism in The Lehigh Valley Vanguard.

This work is the product of decades of training, experience and thought about how to get large numbers of people engaged in the democratic process.  She was a candidate for delegate to the 2020 Democratic National Convention pledged to Bernie Sanders.

Back has a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Reed College.