Philadelphia, PA

Dear Casajus, 

Thanks for your reply which may certainly suggest some related lines of research. It seems to the point, however, to briefly mention that De Tocqueville's work had no special relevancy to Indian society in particular --so far as I know. In addition, The British Whigs were among the first important critics of the British administration of India--and were generally sympathetic to the American Revolution as well. They tended to view the expansion and prerogatives of empire as a threat to their conception of the proper limits of monarchy and the traditional British constitutional order.

BTW: De Tocqueville's book, The Ancient Regime and the Revolution (L'Ancien Regime), is available on line, in an early English translation:

 https://archive.org/stream/oldregimeandrev00tocqgoog#page/n6/mode/2up

H.G. Callaway 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Casajus, 

Thank you for your further clarification of the relevancy of Louis Dumont and Indian society. I selected the word "caste" with some forethought, and it does seem relevant in its general English usage--which departs in degree from the term used to describe the traditional religiously based "caste system." of India. I think of a caste system as one which forbids extensive or more intimate contact between member of different levels or classes in a given society, and which surrounds the prohibition with taboos and punishment of offenders. This idea is relevant to the usage I want to evoke. As you clearly see, De Tocqueville's analysis strongly opposes a caste system, as I've contrasted this with "an establishment" --because the rigid divisions destabilize a changing society.

So, perhaps the traditional Indian caste system is an example at the extreme, but this point seems somewhat incidental to the general character of my question. I think we can imagine, without too much trouble, various degrees of rigidity of establishment groups in regard to the severity of exclusion and of the means and methods of exclusion.  I assume that almost no one would want the extreme of taboo-laden exclusion, and that few would think that society could get by on a purely democratic, popular basis, with no reserve of established authority within society --this, I take it, is very close to the idea of constitutional order. (I recall Jefferson in his first inaugural address: "We are all federalists, we are all republicans" --or words to that effect.) But where do we draw the line?

It seems to me that deference to existing authority (or those in a position of power generally--and in a position to offer patronage) can sometimes become so rigidly established in a society that all other consideration are virtually ignored. Though such strategy is often regarded as "clever" and useful to the ambitious, if carried on more generally, it produces such a degree of conformity and uniformity that the established goals of those above in the hierarchy become practically immune to internal criticism--and the entire formation functions as a kind of juggernaut --only to eventually colloid, typically, in conflict with the juggernaut of some other society.  

Perhaps you are in a good position to elaborate on some related points. It seems to me that the history of the British and American Whigs is much to the point. The American Whigs displaced the Federalist party of the early American republic (I think of Washington, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton as typical of the Federalists), and subsequently the American Whigs fused with the Lincoln Republicans at the time of the American Civil War. 

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G. Callaway,

the main advantages of American democracy Tocqueville saw in solving the problems of equality and freedom of citizens. Real democracy , for Tocqueville , is when civil and political rights and freedoms provided by law and the state. Justification of the role of law in the regulation of political , economic and other relations between the people expresses the idea of the rule of law . Democracy implements the principle of sovereignty of the people, and this power should be strong , be embodied in the work of a strong state that protects the common interests of the nation and creates conditions for the implementation of the interests of different social groups and individuals. He highly appreciated the role of the Protestant religion in the development of freedom and democracy in America. Once installed agreement between politics and religion ensures the existence of democracy in this country.

Especially stops Tocqueville on analyzing the problem of separation of powers . It appreciates the mechanism of this principle in the United States , while stressing the role of the judiciary . A high position in the state hierarchy takes US Supreme Court . Tocqueville thought it was important to ensure real democracy .

I agree with you.

"Extending De Tocqueville's ideas a bit, it seems clear that the danger of caste is especially prominent whenever the boundaries of the establishment are drawn on ethnic lines in a multi-ethnic society". 

Thanks to both for a fascinating discussion!  I was raised in Britain and knew my 'class' intuitively. The British class system was distinctly heirarchical, and the 'upper classes' were relatively established. The system is somewhat more porous now than it was then. The term 'establishment' was used to refer to those people who hold power and whose children were likely to hold power. Fluidity for individuals among the classes was possible, but slow and tended to be resisted on both sides.

On moving to Canada, I initially found society to be relatively class-less. With time, however, I discovered that classes (social groupings with a tendency to heirarchy) exist in Canada based on ethnicity and wealth. These are not as heirarchical as in Britain and thus inter-class mobility is easier. The ethnic classes dissolve with inter-marriage. While the wealth classes are not absolutely defined by income and assets, they have very porous boundaries.

While this experience has limited relevance to the question of the difference between 'establishment' and 'caste', I think that 'class' in western society is a porous form of 'caste' (i.e. it is inherited socially and biologically). 'Establishment' in Canada exists more in the form of institutions than of groups of people, though the people who control the institutions do tend to beget those who control the institutions, and this pattern does not seem to be changing rapidly.

I agree with the idea that societies that balance the benefits of conservatism and liberalism, rather than leaning too far one way or the other, tend to be more successful. This tendency is also seen in natural systems (generally it is beneficial to have a reproductive strategy that includes, but limits, out-breeding).

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Zabrodskii, 

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this thread. I certainly think you are correct to emphasize the theme of "the rule of law," in the present context. That is especially important, I think, regarding the relations of ethnic differences in a multi-ethnic society.

Perhaps there will be some tension with your remarks, however, in observing that the Jeffersonians are usually credited with resolving the problem of the relationship of equality and freedom --in the early republic. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and the idea of freedom as equality is there. Consistent with the resistance to empire, the freedom of the citizens is to be thought of in terms of their natural rights and equality before the law --no special power or entitlements for the couriers of the king or those closest to the centers of economic and political power. The Jeffersonians, however, were often quite sympathetic to the French Revolution which De Tocqueville viewed very critically.  On the other hand, when the Jeffersonian republicans of the early American republic were critical of one of their Federalist colleagues, then often the best that would be said was that the fellow was a "good Whig." That was enough and implied support for the common goals of the American Revolution.

Americans have always been somewhat ambivalent on the theme of the "strong state." Generally, if we use the term "the state" it is usually understood to refer to one of the states, e.g., Pennsylvania, New York State or California, etc, which is standardly contrasted with "the federal government."  Otherwise, we habitually speak of "the country" as contrasted with "the state." We debate over and over, what belongs to the powers of the states and what to the power of the federal government. There is a very significant division of powers between the states and the federal government. Again, the "sovereignty of the people," --it is "We the people" who establish the federal constitution (though changes have to be approved by the states) --is limited by the rights of individuals and the powers of the states. The states existed before the federal government existed. Conflicts are resolved in the courts, and all officers of the courts, federal, state and local are sworn to up-hold the federal constitution.  Nonetheless, there are separate state and federal courts, state laws differ from one state to the next, and the states have the power to tax. Its a pretty complicated system, and the complications allow for detailed consideration of issues and problems --as they wind their way through. You might say that the American solution to the overbearing power of "the state" is "divide and conquer." 

Protestantism was very influential and formative in early America, though somewhat less so now.  Though chiefly "protestant" early on, the differences between the protestant denominations were quite pronounced, and the chief political problem in this was to prevent any single denomination from dominating politically and having itself established as a state religion. Almost no one wanted that. Several of the states did have established religions in the early republic--down to 1833, as I recall. But establishment of religion by Congress and the federal government was prohibited in the First Amendment to the constitution of 1787--in fact it is the first thing in the first amendment. Still the states which had their own religious establishment eventually abolished it themselves. As updated, the federal constitution both prohibits establishment of religion and protects "free exercise" no matter what the denomination. So, we don't have any established religion and we don't want one. It remains a problem that one or another denomination might effectively, though not legally, dominate politics in some locality. 

Given what you say above, I am not entirely sure that you will agree with all of what I say or suggest here. So, perhaps you might want to clarify some of your comments. However, I do see a danger in the kind of "caste" which rigidly restricts entry to an establishment along ethnic, religious or racial lines. "E Pluribus unum," is the national motto. The country has always been multi-ethnic and multiracial. 

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Willison, 

Many thanks for your comparison of your British and Canadian experience. I though the following passage you wrote particularly interesting, and thought to emphasize what you say there: 

While this experience has limited relevance to the question of the difference between 'establishment' and 'caste', I think that 'class' in western society is a porous form of 'caste' (i.e. it is inherited socially and biologically). 'Establishment' in Canada exists more in the form of institutions than of groups of people, though the people who control the institutions do tend to beget those who control the institutions, and this pattern does not seem to be changing rapidly.

---end quotation

What you say here brought me to reflect that our contemporary emphasis on the institutional in American society arose partly out of resistance to the more class-based social system connected with great families owning great industrial enterprises--during the late 19th-century "Gilded Age" in particular. You will recall our Rockefellers, Carnegies and Fords, etc. Our contemporary great institutions are less often controlled by any single family, of course --though this still exists in business. But, if an "establishment"  moves in the direction of "caste,"  (becoming less "porous"), then you might expect that particular established groups would be in a position to use even public institutions as their vehicles of predominance. I think you are right that "class" systems in Western societies may be viewed as "a (more) porous form of 'caste'," and that ethnic class tends to be broken up by intermarriage in multi-ethnic societies. But there is more to the story.

I wonder if you can go on a bit further with your comments. I pose this question in part, because growing inequalities seem to be a problem virtually everywhere --in the globalizing world. But I think this is not simply a problem of economic distribution. It is also a problem of  social rigidities or growing "caste" -like structures in the various national establishments. I'm inclined to think that globalization has been chiefly a mutual benefit arrangement among national elites--exchanging favors, as it were, even to the disadvantage of their own fellow countrymen or fellow citizens. After all, if someone puts a great deal of money in a foreign country, then they want to have the good will of the local establishment there, in order to be sure of being able to get the money back. The national governments, in turn, are too much beholding to these national elites. That's the way it strikes me.

Globalization may not be a modern kind of "empire building" on the classical model of the European empires of old, but it is about the closest thing we have to it. Something of the same kind of economic motivation is there, at least. 

H.G. Callaway

Happiness is in Consciousness, not on Wealth or Social status ( caste or establishment ). Have a nice and productive day !

Martha   서 

Following the archaic Indian model, a caste is much more hereditary than an establishment. In every-day life, an establishment is determined by the distribution of power in a given community (city, federal state, millieu) - and is somehow neutral from the point of view of morality - there are examples where an establishment can get even morally good decisions. In contrast, a caste must have some kind of original sin that lead to the creation of the caste. In India, the original sin has been the original segregation in castes. In the absolutist  France, the original sin of the establishment has been also to close itself and not admit the new middle class. But there are stronger examples: in the present eastern Europe and Rusia the establishment acts like a caste because originates in the former secret services of the communist countries (Securitatea, KGB, etc...) The establishment there tries to remain closed, is based on occult decisions and on the common history in some secrete service and has an original sin. Moreover, they try to trasmit their power to their children, so they build again a kind of caste. However, the difference between establishments and castes will always remain very fluid and strong definitions intended to make a good separation will be also very dependent of particular social conventions. I think that we agree that in a real good working democratic system castes should not exist.

Dear H.G. Callaway,

read with great interest your comment. I understand your thoughts, and I agree with you completely. 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Prunescu, 

The following passage in your posting to this thread struck me as particularly interesting. You wrote, of stronger examples of the "caste" phenomenon: 

But there are stronger examples: in the present eastern Europe and Russia the establishment acts like a caste because [it] originates in the former secret services of the communist countries (Securitatea, KGB, etc...) The establishment there tries to remain closed, is based on occult decisions and on the common history in some secrete service and has an original sin. Moreover, they try to transmit their power to their children, so they build again a kind of caste.

---end quotation

I want to take your comment here in its general significance and sponsor no claims here about particular countries. These are empirical matters, and I am in no position to describe the empirical conditions in Romania or in Russia for that matter, having never lived or even traveled in these countries or mastered their languages, etc. However, I have some familiarity with the ways in which the former secret intelligence agencies of some eastern European countries have been dealt with subsequent to the fall of the old system. Likely the example most generally known is the East German STASI and how its files and activities have been archived and made public after German reunification. But I treat these details of particular societies chiefly as background--likely more familiar to others than they are to me.  

I think there can be no doubt, however, that a secretive "national security state," to use the American phrase, may adversely influence social structures and social-institutional developments in undesirable ways. More generally, established hierarchy invested in conflict almost always has similar negative and exclusionary tendencies, and the control of such agencies and structures by civilian, and democratically legitimate authority is little less than imperative. I can say there is much criticism of the excesses of the national security state in this country. 

I think you are quite correct to emphasize what we might call a "security mania," or, think of in terms of an excessive concern with security which manifests in extensive surveillance, secret files and information, circulated only within very limited groups; and there is the tendency of others, more generally, to look to such secretive organizations to ensure their own "security," --even by association or funding, and etc. The general rule is that if Agency or institution A pays the bills of agency or institution B, then, over time, B becomes ever more like A. 

How far things have gone in fact, in any particular time or place, is a difficult question to answer. But consider an analogy. A scientist may decide to work on weapons or national defense, etc. or decide not to do so. The microbiologist, for example may simply decide never to work on biological weapons--regardless of career or opportunities. No doubt, someone or other will do so anyway. I do not mean to make blanket judgment here of their decisions. My point is, instead, that it is a worthy choice not to become involved or associated with secretive organizations --leastwise in time of peace. This is especially true in times when their activities have become a matter of public controversy. 

H.G. Callaway

Dear H. G. Callaway,

The historical phenomenon I have meant in Eastern Europe and Russia cannot happen so easy in Western Europe and US. In EE and Russia private economic activities were prohibited untill 1990. The whole economy, from the big producers to the back street market, were in the hands of the communist state. In the moment that the communist regimes were broken, the first people able to buy, steal and develop an economic basis were the people able to have access and to control the information - ancient secret service people and ancient members of the communist administration. They have been the first capitalists and they were already grouped in a caste - originating in oppression acts commited by the installation of the communist regime (their original sin). The new establishment was not really able to do business, and this became clear when they had to face a stronger concurence with western competitors, but they achieved an enormous local power. 

In US or W. Europe the secret services cannot achieve so much (local) power because there is already a concurential capitalist system which already control the markets and is much more able to defend itself. However, they can be a danger for the right develpment by accumulating too much power, as you have already noticed.

I totally agree with your opinion about moral responsibility of the individual that have to choose if hecollaborates or not with such structures. It was the same in the communist period: should I collaborate in order to live better (but I have to reveal and betray my own friends - because I have to report what didthey say or think) or should I remain asside and risk to be betrayed by my friends. Finally, everyone is free to be unhappy of what his caste really does, and step asside - assuming a lot of negative personal consequences.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Prunescu, 

Your further comments recalled for me one of President Eisenhower's final speeches to the nation, from 1961. This is his famous warning against the dangers of the "Military-industrial complex," a warning given by Eisenhower as he left office.

The speech is short and the text is available on-line:

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Eisenhower didn't believe that the existing power of business or free institutions in the country were any guarantee against the dangers. Instead meeting the challenge and dangers requires active concern and engagement to preserve free and democratic institutions and to look after, and take trouble to preserve, political and social ideals. One might think of the opposite as the tendency to simply "go along in order to get along," or the tendency to jump on any "moving train" that comes along. Not doing so, of course, may be regarded as a kind of sacrifice for the public good.

"As we peer into society's future," Eisenhower said, "we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."  (No to opportunism.)

A bit more of the speech:

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.

--end quotation.

This is an old soldier evaluating the significance of the military in human affairs.

He warns against the "military-industrial complex":

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

--end quotation

More specifically, Eisenhower was concerned with the influence of the great commitment to arms and armaments on the universities. He says: 

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

--end quotation

What stands out to me in all of this is the need to actively "balance" contending social and political forces, as contrasted with passively accepting them or uncritically exploiting them for personal advantage. Its an active process of continual balancing and re-balancing. 

H.G. Callaway

Yes. It seems that nobody have understood Eisenhowers visionary warnings, which are now maybe more actual as they were than. And how sophisticated means for new powerful and dangerous castes to appear. Thank you very much, Prof. Callaway, for this opportune qoutation of stringent actuality.

Dear Mr. Callaway,

I first want to thank you for the question sparking this discussion. However, I am puzzled by a few claims and would like some clarification if possible. My questions, I admit, comes from a Critical Social Theorists point of view and therefore, explains my query into statements made. My first concern is in the ending of your question "Extending De Tocqueville's ideas a bit, it seems clear that the danger of caste is especially prominent whenever the boundaries of the establishment are drawn on ethnic lines in a multi-ethnic society". I think an argument can be made that the history of the U.S. is such a history that the formation of a "caste is especially prominent" due to our establishment being "drawn on [racial] ethnic lines". This fact must be recognized.

Second, is your response to Mr. Zabroskkii, "E Pluribus unum," is the national motto. The country has always been multi-ethnic and multiracial". Here again I would ask for clarification. It is well known the brutal treatment of both indigenous peoples and the enslavement of Africans before and after 1776. The denial of citizenship towomen, indigenous, and other immigrant groups along with the continued enslavement of Africans until 1865. The exclusion from education of the same three groups, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 leading to the Trail of Tears. Jim Crow laws in the South, anti-miscegenation laws until 1967, laws banning the education of Blacks until 1896. Separate but equal until 1954 actually continued until the 70's under protests of bussing laws. Forced removal of the indigenous peoples, the homestead acts, the 600 wounded March 7, 1965 at the bridge in Selma Alabama. The current wealth gap, chipping away of the 1964 voters rights act, NAACP report schools to prison pipeline, the racial disparity in sentencing for similar crimes, and death penalty convictions all demonstrate that the establishment is aligned on racial/ethnic boundaries.

I could go on but I think my point has been made. I would add two more items to the list and they are the most troubling to me. Stating we have "always been multi-ethnic and multiracial" implies a happy union of two people in love. This is not the truth however, the multiracialness of the early U.S. was due to a large extent by rape. Last, having a rapists head carved into Mt. Rushmore as a symbol of the greatness of Jefferson is only a story that can be told from one perspective and that being the colonizers.

The U.S. is exactly the conditions that "seem clear that the danger of caste" would form from. The question is why hasn't it? Marxism (all three forms) Hegelian Marxism, the Frankford school, all have predicted a revolution by the working class or "proletariat" or a caste. Nor could these social theories, in particular Horkheimer & Adorno's Frankford school explain why there theories were in error as Hitler began to rise to power during the 1920's and 30's in Germany.

One last point, in my life time there has been one formation process that had the potential to become a caste but did not. That was in the 60's with all the social movements focused on creating a better society. The Black Panthers in Chicago, Chicano movements in LA, peace and love in San Francisco, war on poverty, protest of the Vietnam War, and the fear of Big Brother. Folk music, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.. and the Civil Rights Movement, all singular but conceptually it can be argued under the same umbrella. If a peaceful potential cast was to be formed this would have been it. Something stopped it and all different explanations have been offered but I would posit this.

People, groups, or nation societies do not change until the pain of remaining the same is greater than both the fear of the unknown and the pain it take to pier into.

I look forward to reading your comments Mr. Callaway

In Peace

Douglas

Dear Douglas, 

Thank you for your pertinent answer and comments. As  I was a high school student, I was always asking, why the colonized peuple should be grateful to their conquerers ( It was written in history books ). They have never cared about their stolen freedom. It was  forbidden to speak korean in school during Japanese occupancy .Many people are critisizing the North-Korea for human-rights. However, they have never thought who divided the Korean peninsula !!( Certainly not we koreans. )

Have a nice and productive day !

Regards,

Martha 서 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Daugherty,

The tone of your critical comments are not unknown to me --or to others, I expect. I would say, that in spite of many flaws and failings, the U.S. is a very robust country and capable of renewed growth and improvements. It has its own living constitutional tradition and related means of dealing with its problems. My judgment of the matter is that we will do best in dealing with our problems by placing proper emphasis upon our own distinctive traditions and ideals and working out their consequences. This implies as well, that it is unhelpful to continually emphasize the negative. This judgment implies a certain optimism and positive outlook which your own comments appear to lack. Reading what you say, I gather the impression that you think the U.S. has accomplished nothing at all in several hundred years. 

Is the glass half empty or half full? As it appears to me, it is on the answer to this question that out views may chiefly differ. We seem to agree, however, in rejecting the domination of caste configurations. 

I think it well beyond the purview of the present thread to debate critical theory or the viability of related critiques of American society. We have our own critical perspectives and analysis, thank you. 

H.G. Callaway

Dear Mr. Callaway,

What an interesting response, perhaps it is I who needs to clarify: 

The U.S. has in fact accomplished a great many positives over its history. Examples would be in medicine, intellectualism, science, life expectancy, and lowering U.S. infant mortality rates. In the social world civil rights, voting rights, striving toward equal pay, women in politics, social security, Medicare, and the latest slow walk to gay marriage. In the economic field, the transcontinental railway, highway system, flight, and space flight. In education the university system, K-12, and hopefully prekindergarten for all. I grant all of that from where we were to now given the ideology, is tremendous for some.

If my passion was expressed a little strongly it is do the imbalance of the thread and the reality of the everyday life of the families I work with. I also agree strongly with the need to not be locked into a panoptic dialectical discourse of "glass half full-half empty", (exclusion-inclusion), (recognized-unrecognized), (heterosexual-homosexual), and (patriarchal-matriarchal) binaries or "the Olympics of oppression". Language is power as I am sure you are well aware of, and limiting discourses, Foucault argues, is even more powerful. Just as you point out the half empty discourse can be so; so to is the half full discourse on other ears.

I am also sure Mr. Callaway you would agree that line of scholarship that founded this nation was the rejection of Hobbes, (1651) and Burke, (1790); and into the Enlightenment of Lock (1689), and Rousseau, (1761); Hume, (1738), and Montesquieu, (1789); Kant, (1781) and Spinoza (1670); and the economic rejection of Jefferson (1787) in favor of Hamiltonian Smithism (1776).

The critique of the U.S. began with the importing of Marxist thought (1867); socially with Du Bois, (1903) and Woodson, (1933); Memmi, (1959) and Fanon, (1961); through Freire, (1968) and hooks (1994); currently in the hands of Habermas (1981) and Leonardo, (2009). All pointing out the trouble located in a colonial regime. By extention and the context of this thread, the danger of a caste created out of an establishment based in domination and privilege (oppressed and oppressor). Not in the sense of a violent revolution, that is given, but what has also been critiqued by the same scholarship is that which sprang forth from those ashes. (see Fanon 1989 and the scholarship of the decolonization of Africa) The New Establishment is the old establishment dressed in different social hierarchical clothing. Warning us that the real danger of a caste is after the revolution the new establishments reproduction sameness.

All crying out for the philosophical line of scholarship based in healing, re-humanization, and love. A love not practiced in the sadomasochistic relationships of romanticism (Fromm, 1956, and hooks 2001) but a critical love based in the courage of honesty, the dignity of humanism, and the respect of Subject-Subject not Subject-object. The discourse created in open dialectical conversations between oppressed and the oppressor through critical consciousness.

Mr. Callaway, that was the spirit behind my response and I respectfully suggest you may want to review the thread. Nowhere to be found is a hint of our past wrongs continuing in modernity. Nor was a hint that our past was checkered at best and acknowledging that fact by a statement such as "given our past" or "in spite of mistakes".

Mr. Callaway I do have great respect for the ideals and the words this country proclaims to be and would hope one day will achieve. The words penned in the writings of Jefferson's, Hamilton's and Adams but lived practices of these men tantamount to cognitive dissidence and quite possibly, why Thomas Pain left for France.

I hope the discourse of Plato's forms can once again begin today with a dialogue between you and I and others in the quest of clutching the form from the imaginary to the concreteness of codification. Where the mistakes of the past are the foundation of the praxis of social justice in equity not equality. I hope will be judged by the social policies we create for the much maligned and marginalized in our society.

Remember, Mr. Callaway, the sentiments of Thomas Jefferson himself, "a revolution every two hundred years or so may not be such a bad thing"! That sir, is an act of critical theories praxis of self- reflectivity and I trust it can start today.

I hope to read your reply,

In respect and in honor of the 600: March 7, 1965, America's Bloody Sunday.

Douglas R. Daugherty

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Daugherty, 

You have made it quite clear that you have a wide-ranging critical view of American society which you have expounded at considerable length. You are free, in terms of the general rules of RG, and so far as I am concerned,  to make your critique in any form you may like. My sense of the matter, though, is that your intervention on this thread is chiefly counterpoised to its announced and limited purposes. I find it unhelpful.

The question here concerns the difference between an establishment and a "caste," and not the question of the general direction of normative social and political judgment and advancement. In consequence it appears to me that though you may have criticisms relevant to your own particular conception of damaging social formations, you have little to say on the precise differences of chief interest here. Your comments range widely indeed, but in such a scattered and unfocused way as to make their evaluation extremely difficult.  You chiefly distract from a sharper focus on the precise question at issue. I suggest you ask your own questions elsewhere and wait to see what response you get to them.

Let me quote from the question I posed at the outset:

The argument is, then, that one better maintains a free and stable society by maintaining a balance between the liberal democratic and the authoritative, established aspects of society.

--end quote

Crucial in this, as I see the matter, is to understand the general character of how an existing establishments can or might turn itself into a self-insulated "caste."  One prevalent means is to prevent discussion or exposure of its caste-like character. 

H.G. Callaway 

Thank you,

I although I disagree I shal honor your wishes,

Douglas

A Simple Note: The Whigs dominated British politics with the Tories for almost 2 centuries before the Liberal Party emerged in the 1850s. They took on the power of religion & the monarchy and advanced reforming constitutional policies, most notably under Robert Walpole , who is considered to be the first Prime Minister. However, the Liberal Party was later marginalized while the Labor Party & the Tories came in front as we see today. But the "real" rulers of Great Britain are the aristocratic families (such as the Windsor) & their favorites are the Tories. I forgot the name of the English politician who said that the Tories will form the next government whether they win the elections or lose them. 

Philadelphia, PA, December 26, 2014

In response to the recent contributions to this thread, I want to suggest turning the discussion a bit back toward the theme of the Whig tradition. It may be helpful to contributors and readers of the thread to consider the following brief review of a new book on Edmund Burke --who counts as a paradigmatic Whig thinker and politicians. Like De Tocqueville, he was very critical of the French Revolution yet argued for the limitation of the powers of the British monarchy --and was sympathetic to the American Revolution. 

The title of the review is "How to Think like Edmund Burke," and it appeared in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, pp. 156ff:

 http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142487/iain-hampsher-monk/how-to-think-like-edmund-burke

The author of the review, is, Iain Hampsher-Monk, a British academic (political scientist) at the University of Exeter, U.K., and the review is based on a new intellectual biography of Burke, written by David Bromwich, The Intellectual Life of Edmund Burke, Belknap Press, 2014. 

Here are a few quotations from the review: 

Explaining a central thesis of the book, the reviewer states that Burke focused on,

...what people today might call good governance. At its most basic this means considering whether policies are suitable to the customs and nature of the people to whom they apply and considering the likely effect of any particular policy before establishing it. To prevent abuse, Burkean good governance requires constraining political power, even, perhaps especially --the influence of majorities. And it requires regularity, consistency, and predictability when it comes to interpreting and enforcing laws. 

--end quotation 

Again, the emphasis is on avoiding ideology and following common sense, as the review puts it:

This is what Bromwich means by thinking like Burke: understanding how leaders arrive at the right decisions in particular cases and how they ensure that decision-making in the future will also be guided by good judgment. 

--end quotation

Good governance is a matter of balancing and re-balancing contenting issues, problems and ways of thought-- in contrast with taking up one way of thought and running with it. "We compensate, we reconcile, we balance, " says Burke, "We are enabled to unite into a consistent whole the various anomalies and contending principles that are found in the minds and affairs of men." 

The review ends with the following comment:

Almost any theory, even those espoused by self-proclaimed conservatives, can be held in an absolutistic way such that it poses a threat to institutional and political stability. That is perhaps the most crucial lesson Burke has to offer modern politics. 

---end quotation

It is to the point here to remark that globalization seems to have empowered more conservative forces or political configurations within each of the polities it has effected--so that we see growing economic inequalities over decades.

Still, in the present perspective, the related interests in expanding commercial and financial elements of existing societies do not accord with the Burkean ideals here briefly mentioned, since big finance and big commercial business and globalization are much more a matter of "creative-destruction," even at their best, and thereby function against the kinds of fine-tuned, culturally based adjustments which Burke recommends in the interest of "good governance."  (Burke's criticisms of the excesses of the British Empire both in America and in India are highly relevant here.) Too often, it seems, the politicians have simply jumped on the globalizing roller-coaster --to the detriment of good government. 

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Kadri, 

You ask a question: 

A question arises; what is the difference between these two concepts: ''establishment'' and ''nomenklatura'' ?

--end quotation--

I think this an interesting question, especially in light of the distinction introduced between an "establishment" and a "caste."  The idea of an establishment, as contrasted with a closed caste, is that there is some recognized social and moral authority in a given society capable of mediating conflicts which arise, for example. This seems especially important in an ethnically pluralistic society, where conflicts of perspective and custom may be expected to arise. That a society encompasses difference and diversity seems a good thing--but only so long as there are sufficient means of mediating and settling conflicts. 

I take it that the word "nomenklature," comes specifically from Russian and relates to the state and party officialdom under the old, one-party system. (The cognate English "nomenclature" is usually understood to refer to a system of biological classifications.)  Prima facie, then the distinction relates to that between rule by one, tightly regulated, top-down party, on the one hand, and multiparty democracy on the other.  In view of the possibility of switching party or starting a new one, it seems clear that the "party discipline"  will be weaker in the multiparty system.  That will, in turn, tend to make the party less like a closed caste or sect. Ideally, one aims to have all interests represented in the law-making body or legislature. 

BTW: I seriously doubt that the old aristocracy has as much say in the U.K. as you seem to suppose. The U.K. is nominally a monarchy, of course. But it has long been substantially controlled by parliament and the governments elected from parliament. One might argue, of course, that the governments have sometimes been too deferential to big money, old or new. But that is a different question. 

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Matar,

You wrote:

But the "real" rulers of Great Britain are the aristocratic families (such as the Windsor) & their favorites are the Tories. I forgot the name of the English politician who said that the Tories will form the next government whether they win the elections or lose them.

---end quote

I wonder how many readers would agree with your analysis of contemporary British society and government. It is certainly not what I would have said. But in an important sense, it is not to my point to give an alternative analysis of contemporary British society and government--and not to the point of the question above. Likewise, it is not to the point here, as I see it, to dispute your analysis.  

You are right of course that the Whigs were replaced by the Liberal Party, and the Liberal party later substantially displaced by the Labour party. (Still the present British government is a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberals, with Labour in opposition.) But none of this history seems to me inevitable.  

I think it important to understand that every society has its more conservative elements. I think it a mistake to try to eliminate such influences in any society. The point about the contrast between "establishment" and "caste," is more directly concerned with the possibility of reform, and a more Whig-like understanding of society and government is, in fact, an element of conservative self-understanding throughout the English-speaking world.  There are always other elements of conservative self-understanding. (I use "conservative" here, broadly, to suggest all those elements which favor continuity with existing intellectual, moral and cultural elements--in any give society.) In a sense the question here concerns what kind of conservatives one would prefer to have. In that context, it seems that you want to reject the question --by suggesting that there is no alternative. But you don't do more than make a suggestion.I see no argument.   

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Daugherty, 

I have just come across your lengthy reply from December 13th --and here we are at the end of January! I hope you will forgive my lack of reply to this point. I just didn't see your note before today. 

In any case, I am not entirely sure that I have much to say in reply to the specifics of your posting. Much of what you say seems to me simply not the best way to put the issues, even where I might manage some degree of agreement. It all seems quite high-flowing and set in place --if you will forgive my saying so. You appear to be ready to march off on some sort of political crusade, and I find that I my approach to related issues is not political but instead scholarly. I am not so much concerned to mount generalized criticisms as I am concerned to build on positive accomplishments of American history and society. My impression is that much criticism of American society is disoriented or disorienting, because lacking in due concern to preserve the positive accomplishments.

 I keep a definition of "oppression" on my desktop:

Oppression: prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control (OED).

In my view, oppression is very, often, perhaps chiefly, motivated politically. It may be large-scale or smaller scale. In the most prominent cases, some great overall vision is posited, and then the assumption is made that this great end justifies whatever (often horrible) means expediency may suggest. The bigger the projected objectives, not untypically, the more fearsome the political means employed.  I believe that we do better to break down larger aims and objectives, realizing that there is not going to be complete uniformity of opinion regarding them, and then work to enlighten and inform from the bottom up --changing existing forms from time to time, but always preserving, in the first place, the kind of liberal order which encourages tolerance, open discussion and freedom of exchange and association. The general conditions of a free society are the same conditions which allow for its gradual improvement or reform. This is to say that it is not viable to attempt to change everything at once. At the same, time, accepting the need of reform is not to be equated as an agreement with anyone who may be marching by with banners. 

I believe that Jefferson said a revolution might not be a bad idea every 25 years or so, or every generation. But consider his own example. The "Revolution of 1800," when Jefferson came into office as President, was in fact a continuation of the American constitutional order and the first change of the political parties or orientations in power. Jefferson famously said, in reconciliation with his opponents, "We are all federalist, we are all republicans." I think we could do with some similar sentiments of reconciliation in this country just now. To my mind, what is most needed to diminish the contemporary divisiveness, contrasts, quite obviously, with any form of political or ideological stridency. The tendency of ideological stridency is to form an exclusionary political caste --even where it aims to abolish one.

H.G. Callaway 

Dear H.G.,

If you would look at December 14th, after you had replied to my post in essence you asked me politely to refrain from your thread. Even though I disagreed and stated so on Dec 14 I honored your request even though I have been following. In so doing I have had to remain silent on many substantive issues of concern.

I will remain in science (honoring your request) unless these points you would like to discuses in open forum.

Thank you for your replies to my questions this week, and be well,

Douglas R. Daugherty 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Daugherty, 

Perhaps this is my oversight, and I do not want to bring up old differences to no point. However, you have to realize that I have no control over how postings are displayed when I or others look up the question to see if there have been additions. 

It looked to me, as RG displayed the thread, and I revisited the display on-line, that yours had been the last posting on the thread. So, I added my little note in reply, in the interest of the continuation of the thread. 

In any case, I stand by my point that strident, ideological politics is a kind of social excess productive of divisiveness and new versions of old castes. Its an excess that I reject. That is why I avoid politics. 

H.G. Callaway

H.G.

On that point we agree

Douglas

Dear H.G.,

You are correct when you write,

"Much of what you say seems to me simply not the best way to put the issues, even where I might manage some degree of agreement. It all seems quite high-flowing and set in place --if you will forgive my saying so. You appear to be ready to march off on some sort of political crusade, and I find that I my approach to related issues is not political but instead scholarly"

and for that please forgive me. I hope and intend to keep the focus on the scholarly but I must remind or bring attention to what Freire (see Pedagogy of the Oppressed 1977) points out "all education is political". 

I start with Foucault's (1977) philosophical question, as published in his (1975) book The Archaeology of Knowledge when he examines the transformation of power in France from its monarchy into a democracy. His philosophical inquiry (and admittedly) political, it seems to me, is whether use of any of the existing philosophical discourses (i.e. political, judicial, and social) could be applicable in a democracy. Basically stated can any old political or social systems be applied  in the new democracy. In philosophical scholarship one might argue the query is framed by Hobbes and Burke's philosophies on the one hand and the other those of Rousseau and Montesquieu. The argument presented and concludes with suggesting in order to progress a complete rejection of the old is necessary. This is the point in which I reply tonight.

In my reading and following the question you pose I began to become concerned that the discourse was based in a discourse I am very familiar with. That being the history of and the discourse used by the colonizers after conquest of a foreign land (see A. Memmi 1978 The Colonizers and the Colonized). It is a factual truth that the battle for "American Independence" was a war fought by two colonizing forces. It is also a factual truth that our history and prosperity is due in large part to the subjugation and enslavement of many differing peoples (see R. Frankenburge 1999, The Social Construction of Whiteness White Women Race Matters) and from my scholarly view appeared to be ignored at best or dismissed as irrelevant at worst.(see D.Roediger Black on White, Black Writers on what it Means to be White) Hence the motivation for my first two posts which again I apologize for both tone and lack of a framed argument. 

My concerns are even stronger now after reading your last two posts but a brief history is in order. You write, and I believe this statement by you is the reason for my responding tonight. You write,

"I believe that we do better to break down larger aims and objectives, realizing that there is not going to be complete uniformity of opinion regarding them, and enlighten and inform from the bottom up --changing existing forms from time to time, but always preserving, in the first place, the kind of liberal order which encourages tolerance, open discussion and freedom of exchange and association". This statement appears to me a very Burke like position (E. Burke's 1959, Reflections on the French Revolution) To further this apparent position I bring attention to

"The general conditions of a free society are the same conditions which allow for its gradual improvement or reform. This is to say that it is not viable to attempt to change everything at once". It would seem to me that both the French and American Revolutions would cast some doubt on this position.

I close with these statements which I believe demonstrate the importance of tonight's reply and the concerns I raise regarding the discourse used in this thread although on the surface they may appear to be tangential to the question you pose (see Bonilla-Silva 2003, Racism without Racist: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial inequality in America). I ask; how can a person with the intellectual abilities you obviously are gifted with write; 

"I am not so much concerned to mount generalized criticisms as I am concerned to build on positive accomplishments of American history and society. My impression is that much criticism of American society is disoriented or disorienting, because lacking in due concern to preserve the positive accomplishments". Given the barbaric and inhuman treatment of many peoples in the actual/factual history of the U.S? We, as researchers, cannot simply sweep the conquest of America under the rug and I claim we have a fiduciary duty and moral obligation to acknowledge this fact. I further contend that our past/history frame our scholarship, discussions on RG, and be prominent in all of our future publications and conferences. It is, as researcher up to us to not only inform the general population but, in time, be on of the leaders in the quest for a more just society.  

I concluding with,

"what is most needed to diminish the contemporary divisiveness, contrasts, quite obviously, with any form of political or ideological stridency. The tendency of ideological stridency is to form an exclusionary political caste --even where it aims to abolish one". 

I must contend that I am absolutely in agreement with most of what your write above yet the point of departure for me is the claim you appear to be making and that is; given the brutality of U.S. history it is not germane  to the question at hand.

Douglas

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Daugherty, 

It is easy to give examples of brutality in American history, as in just about any other history. It is a very large step from there to simply ignoring anything positive and speaking of it, categorically, as "not germane"  to the question of reducing contemporary divisiveness and contention. Whether or not you agree with them, there are simply too many people who disagree with you. Your rejection is itself the core of a caste like political configuration.  

It appears that you think that anyone who disagrees with your analysis is not entitled to their views of the matter--and not entitled to conduct a reasoned examination of positive elements. I submit that this is the core of the stridency and the decidedly ideological cast of your response to this thread of discussion.  It is worth noting that you say almost nothing specifically about the Whig tradition, De Tocqueville, say, or related themes in Burke. But the supposition of my question is that these themes are worth exploring in their own terms. If you believe these themes are not worth exploring, then I would think it sufficient to say so, and go on to something you think of as more worthy. 

Instead, you persist in your replies, repeatedly emphasizing the idea that American history is one long story of oppression and exploitation. This approach I regard as both disoriented and potentially disorienting to others. The American Revolution was itself an anti-colonial movement; and Burke's sympathy with it, and, again, his criticism of the British administration in India, surely expresses significant skepticism of imperial-colonial regimes.  The argument as so far developed, is that the American Revolution succeeded, just because it did not try to change everything at once, and, as the Burkeans have famously argued, the French Revolution fell into the terror and later transformed into Napoleonic excess just because it did try to change everything at once. Now these points might well be disputed. But your approach seems to simply beg the question and to contentiously equate any alternative to your view with endorsement of the worst historical elements you can think to mention.

 So, I will close, here, by simply reiterating the point that the general conditions of a free society are the same conditions which allow for its gradual improvement or reform. This is to say that it is not viable to attempt to change everything at once. But I will go further and add that it is decidedly anti-intellectual and divisive to make the attempt. 

H.G. Callaway

It's a pleasure to follow this thread.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all, 

Some further reflections, suggest to me that caste-like structures, in contrast to a morally competent establishment (capable of settling conflicts within a society as they arise), will typically close off communication and discussion of issues affecting its power and status. Flows of communication will be typically restricted to insiders as contrasted with outsiders. What we might call the permeability of insider discussions, or openness to outsider influence, is a key ingredient of the democratic legitimacy of any proper establishment --if it is to retain its needed moral authority.

Comments invited.

H.G. Callaway 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

I ran across a short on-line discussion of the theme of "power," and I think to add here some points that I take from it. The character of power relationships seems to be essential for a proper understanding of the distinction between a legitimate establishment and a democratically illegitimate caste-like system.

Consider the following distinction: (1) A's power consists in being able to get B to do something (for some person B.) vs. (2) A's power consists in being able to reduce the range of options available to B.

The idea is that (1) captures a general concept of interpersonal power. This incudes the power of persuasion. In contrast (2) is a kind or element of coercive power. Those who wish to eliminate or limit persuasive power tend to reduce all kinds of power to (2), thereby making discussion and argumentation over into an equivalent of (2). (Its all a matter of where advantages might go.) This encourages the identification of persuasion with coercion.

If this is correct, then the implication follows that liberal society works properly only if we get the right definition of power --distinguishing between persuasion and coercion. Where that distinction is weakened, the particular moral character of liberal society is lost from sight along with the moral distinction between persuasion and coercion. Liberal society rests on limitation of coercive power.

By means of persuasion, we may evoke appropriate actions from others in accordance with their own (new-found) conviction or belief. This is capable of increasing the degree to which the affairs of society are conducted and problems understood, on the basis of mutual agreement and consensus. However, if persuasion is equated with coercion, then the degree to which society is regulated or controlled by coercion (and extraneous incentive) is increased; and this is productive of social tensions and divisiveness. Hence, in a period of increasing social tensions and divisiveness, we should seek to limit the role of coercion in social relations and seek to increase the role of persuasion.

The caste-like character of any society can be reduced by increasing the role of persuasion and open discussion; and that is a central purpose of democracy and representative government. Right?

H.G. Callaway     

Dear Dr. Callaway,

The coercive power can be illusory. I mean that A legally cannot reduce the options of B but in practice he does it dedicating much time and ability. In this case it is also important that B evades the confrontation for some reasons.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Kazarian,

You are right, of course, that supposed coercive power may be illusory; still the illusion of coercion can be equally coercive--just as in the classical arguments, where evil is supposed a mere illusion, still a pervasive illusion of evil is itself an evil which may cause much suffering. Again, the supposed inevitability of this, that or the other thing is often an illusion, but metaphysics shows us a long history of people attempting to portrait their social and political aims as inevitable results --of history, or relation to the means of production, Divine will, or what have you.  

My plea for persuasion should not be looked on as sponsoring a policy of confrontation. Quite the contrary. I assume, though, that you otherwise agree with my prior remarks on the role of persuasion in democracy and liberal society--and the need of limitation and moral self-constraint? Social power, after all, may be simply a matter of deference evoked by apparent coercive power --bluff and gossip. But a society organized around bluff and gossip is on its way down.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Callaway,

Sorry, I have missed your post. It is difficult to determine if   coercive power in a society is illusory or not. But if we study these phenomena on a personal level then it can be done easily.

If we differentiate our life in the family, in the street, in the workplace and in the scientific environment then phenomena of coercive power can be observed on each of these “worlds”.

In these cases the person who is the subject can claim if the coercive power is illusory or not. 

establishment is a community and caste is a social group.