In my last post, I provided a schema of four “spaces” in society:
Each spaces has two characteristics, one each from two different categories.
· Restricted vs. Unrestricted
o Restricted spaces cannot be “expanded” to encompass a greater number of groups, positions, awards, viewpoints, etc. Restriction can derive from limited space, limited time, or limited resources.
o Unrestricted spaces are capacious enough to allow for a variety of different and even competing goods, services, or opinions.
· Public vs. Private
o Public spaces contain elements (such as rules, social practices, or physical objects) that must be used by everyone in them.
o Private spaces are spaces where one or more people associate voluntarily to perform something in common, while excluding all others.
“Political” spaces are public and restricted; “The Public Square” is public and unrestricted; “Civil Society” consists of private and unrestricted spaces, and “Intimate Associations” are private and restricted.
How should postliberal conservatives respond to this analysis? I hinted in my previous post that each space might require a different strategy to deal with diverse or dissenting people or viewpoints. Below I examine each space and consider how to approach diversity within them.
The Failure of Multiculturalism
Before doing so, I want to stress that “multiculturalism” is not an optimal strategy for any space. Humans differ naturally, but societies should not seek to maximize this diversity. Being “open-minded” seems to go against the grain of human nature. When most people speak of “multiculturalism,” they mean different kinds of ethnic restaurants. It is very difficult to expect people with wildly different cultural practices—eating habits, naming habits, habits of respect, parenting styles, moral views, behavior, etc.—to mesh well together. In these kinds of societies, each ethnicity or cultural group generally keeps to itself.
“National conservatives” are right, therefore, to insist on cultural uniformity as a precondition for a strong society. “Diversity” on some irrelevant characteristic (like skin color) is only made possible by a deep cultural similarity. Progressives do this as well, in their own way, especially when they demand public conformity on sexual morality. I think it is a mistake to desire “diversity” in any area that causes social conflict, including religion, culture, language, and morality. In these areas, adherents of competing groups cannot all experience respect from society.
Political Spaces
“Restricted” spaces cannot be enlarged or opened up to accommodate more people, things, or ideas. So, for instance, members of a family love each other specifically, and cannot share that love with non-family members. (They may, of course, be friends, but that’s a different relationship with a different dynamic.) Politics is a restricted space in that a single morality or worldview must inform the laws and regulations that all citizens share. In the absence of a governing ideology, the laws or regulations will be chaotic and contradictory. Postliberal conservatives, therefore, should not be shay about encoding their beliefs into law.
The political realm includes libraries, museums, and school curricula in addition to the laws proper. Some people think we can keep schools neutral by sticking to the “three Rs:” reading writing, and ‘rithmatic. But even this choice is not neutral, and in any case, education has always been about more than technical knowledge. We will have to talk about history, and science, and other contested topics. (Even math is not neutral anymore. A math teacher I knew told me he was encouraged to introduce non-mathematical discussions of ethical dilemmas into his classroom, and from what I understand discussions of “justice” are a common practice.) Having a “conservative” curriculum in public schools does not mean, though, that private schools or homeschools should be outlawed, as I explain later.
Nor does this strategy require abandoning political competition or creating an authoritarian monarchy. Political parties can fight it out, with the winner setting the terms in political spaces. To say that a space is restricted does not mean there cannot be competition to control that space. The stakes will be high, of course, and so the competition can be expected to be fiercer. As America becomes more divided, we are already seeing political battles intensify and coarsen. Unfortunately, if I’m right, this trend is inevitable, so we might as well embrace it. Our ultimately hope should be widespread agreement on core values.
Intimate Spaces
With regard to “intimate spaces,” the state should take a more hands-off approach. Of course, a single worldview must inform the “public” aspects of intimate relations, such as marriage laws and sex assignments on identification cards. In the legal realm, postliberal conservative state should adopt and enforce a traditional view of both marriage and gender (sex).
However, I don’t generally support legislation that punishes consensual sex, including homosexuality. (Prostitution would be one exception, although, even here, authoritative voices in the Christian tradition argue that it should be tolerated.) Trying to publicly regulate sex has never worked well and requires an omnipotent and highly intrusive state, which would do more harm than good in our current context. Even though many American colonies and states—most notably the Puritan New England colonies—enacted laws prohibiting adultery and sodomy, these laws were rarely enforced. A moral reformation would be necessary before I would even consider adopting similar regulations today. Sexuality is better regulated at the level of custom and informal social pressure (i.e shame).
The Public Sphere
Uniformity is not necessary in unrestricted public spaces—the “Public Square.” Conservatives should not seek to ban progressives from Twitter or YouTube, or to prevent progressives from gathering in public places. As the leftist experiment with “content moderation” has taught us, this kind of censorship fails to prevent the spread of “bad” opinions but always provokes obstinate opposition.
Allowing diversity in the public square doesn’t mean that content that ought to be illegal must be tolerated. The question of what should be legal or illegal is a political question, and so must have a single answer. So, for instance, pornography or libel may be forbidden on social media, or elsewhere. But appropriately legal things—like opinions—can coexist without the need to censor or impose a single viewpoint. Again, it would be better not to have this diversity, but since it exists, we should accommodate it.
There is one downside: an “open” public square will provoke intense emotions. Humans, as we’ve seen, are not naturally tolerant or open to alternative viewpoints. If you tolerate “offensive” content, people will get “big mad.” However, I’m not sure how you can prevent this in a diverse society. We will all have to grow thicker skins.
Civil Society
In the realm of “civil society,” or private but unrestricted activities, I propose something close to “pillarization.” Pillarization, according to Wikipedia, “is the politico-denominational segregation of a society into groups by religion and associated political beliefs.” On this model, each major group will have their own clubs, churches, school, and even possibly businesses. Because civil society is an unrestricted space, there is no limit, in theory, to the number of groups that can be accommodated in this way.
The best-known historical examples of pillarization are the Netherlands and Belgium. In order to manage ferocious conflict between the primary social groups—Protestant, Catholic, Liberal, and Socialist (i.e. atheist)—the Dutch decided to give each group its own things. Each of these three groups had its own radio stations, schools, and other cultural organizations. Even social welfare was mediated through the pillar, not society as a whole. It was widely accepted that these entities would be allowed to “discriminate” in favor or their own people—for instance by excluding those from other groups and assuming the group’s teaching as authoritative within the context of “pillarized” spaces.
The image at the top is a political cartoon about a Dutch man who accidentally tunes in to the “wrong” radio station.
Pillarization accommodates the human imperative to form groups better than “multiculturalism,” which paradoxically asks groups to remain separate and yet constantly interact while understanding each other’s customs perfectly. (In practice, multiculturalism demands that “illiberal” groups adopt modern West-European moral and social values, even as people eat different good and listen to different musicians.) Pillarization acknowledges that groups find it hard to get along but prefers segregation to open conflict. It allows for the cultivation of intensive bonds between people, something that multicultural erodes, without requiring that minority groups lose their distinctive features.
However, under pillarization, still there must exist a common sense of nationhood and a common set of norms in the political sphere. In the Netherlands, state exams impelled the various schools to teach similar material, since students from all pillars sought careers in public service. The various pillars would live under the same laws. There would still be a dominant culture that sets the terms in the public sphere. Muslims don’t get to have polygamy. Maintaining a balance between unity and diversity within a pillarized state is difficult, but pillarization does not mean relativism or confederation.
Arguably, minority groups in the United States who wish to remain separate already adopt a “pillarized” existence. I am thinking mainly of the plain Anabaptists (i.e. Amish, Old Order Mennonites, and Hutterites) and Orthodox Jews. Both groups create their own institutions, restrict contact with outsiders (to varying degrees), and shun people who adopt the customs of the broader culture. Without such actions, these groups would have perished long ago.
Perhaps conservative Christians should think more like the Amish. Pillarization would encourage the growth of homeschools and religious private schools, along with other institutions. Mathew Peterson’s New Founding, for instance, seeks to create a “parallel economy” to help conservatives escape the clutches of leftist corporations and Big Tech companies. But Christians need not maintain such a radically separate existence as the Amish. Safe within their “pillar,” conservative Christians could engage the outside world politically and socially.
I hope to write more about pillarization in the future, but this will have to do for now. Suffice it to say that, in a sharply divided society that cannot be made less diverse, pillarization is the only option that respects the existence of each group without expecting them to change.
Conclusion
To sum up: people demand respect from society, which means affirming them and their beliefs and identities. When beliefs or identities conflict, social conflict occurs. It is difficult or impossible to satisfy everyone’s demand for public respect. Of necessity, some people will feel like “second-class citizens.” Neutrality is impossible because respect (recognition) is cultural and social.
Navigating diversity in a postliberal world requires balancing the need for uniformity and the need to avoid provoking hatred and backlash among those outside the ruling coalition. I have suggested different tactics in different spaces, which you can see here:
Conservatives should push for several things at once: a coherent moral vision to govern the political realm, principled liberty to govern the public square, parallel institutions in civil society, and social (but not legal) pressure to guide behavior in intimate associations.
Your content is fantastic. It's a real shame you don't have more subscribers.
How can I help you promote this blog?