This is the third of a series, and I encourage you to read the first, entitled Year Zero, and the second, entitled Memory Hole.
Pierre Rosanvallon is a French historian and political scientist who has written extensively on the history of democracy and the challenges facing democratic societies. In his book "The Society of Equals," Rosanvallon notes that the struggle for democracy often involves a tension between the desire for radical transformation and the need for continuity and stability.
In this context, Rosanvallon has been critical of the concept of year zero, which he sees as a dangerous and misguided attempt to create a new society by erasing all remnants of the past. He argues that this approach ignores the complexities and contingencies of history and risks perpetuating the very injustices it seeks to eliminate.
Instead, Rosanvallon advocates for a more incremental and experimental approach to democracy, in which democratic institutions and practices are constantly tested and refined through public dialogue and engagement. He sees this as a more effective way of promoting social justice and equality while preserving the richness and diversity of our cultural heritage.
Benjamin Constant was a Swiss-French philosopher who lived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Constant was a champion of individual liberty and constitutional government, and he saw protecting individual rights as a central value of a democratic society. He was critical of radical attempts to remake society through revolutionary means and advocated for a more incremental and pragmatic approach to political reform.
In his book "The Spirit of Conquest and Usurpation in All Ages," Constant criticized the idea that political change could be achieved through violence and coercion. He argued that such approaches were inherently flawed and risked perpetuating the injustices they sought to eliminate.
Given his commitment to individual liberty and his skepticism of radical political change, it seems likely that Constant would have been critical of the concept of year zero. He may have seen it as a dangerous and misguided attempt to create a new society through violence and as a threat to the individual rights and freedoms that he saw as essential to democratic government.
John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher, political economist, and social reformer who lived in the 19th century. Mill was a strong advocate of individual freedom and limited government. He saw the protection of individual rights as a fundamental value of a democratic society, and he argued that democratic government should be constrained by law and constitutional limits to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
In his book "On Liberty," Mill criticized attempts by society to impose its will on individuals, who should be free to pursue their interests and beliefs as long as they do not harm others. He also advocated for a diversity of perspectives in society, arguing that this was essential for the progress of knowledge and the development of new ideas.
Douglas Murray is a British author, journalist, and commentator known for his conservative views on politics, culture, and society. In his book "The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity," Murray argues that the concept of year zero is based on a flawed understanding of history and human nature. He says that attempts to erase the past and start anew completely are doomed to fail, often leading to unintended consequences and new forms of oppression. He argues that radical political movements that seek to remake society often lead to the concentration of power in the hands of a few and that this can lead to new forms of oppression and inequality.
Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and author, has written extensively on related topics, such as the dangers of political polarization, the importance of viewpoint diversity, and the risks of ideological conformity. Haidt has argued that emphasizing purity and moral righteousness in contemporary political discourse can lead to a dangerous form of moral absolutism, in which opposing viewpoints are demonized, and individuals are punished for expressing dissenting opinions.
In his book "The Righteous Mind," Haidt argues that moral diversity is essential for healthy democratic societies and that the suppression of diverse viewpoints can lead to a narrowing of ideas and a lack of critical thinking.
It's essential to recognize that attempts to create a utopian society often involve significant risks and can lead to unintended consequences. These attempts have sometimes led to authoritarianism, violence, and repression.
Moreover, breaking with the past can also be seen as a form of cultural erasure or amnesia. The past provides important lessons and insights into our shared history and cultural identity, and attempts to completely erase or reject it can lead to a loss of cultural memory and identity.
Therefore, while the desire to create a better and more just society is a common human aspiration, it is important to approach such aspirations with caution and critical thinking and to recognize the value of preserving the lessons and legacies of the past.
The Bible contains many passages emphasizing the importance of remembering and learning from the past. For example, in Deuteronomy 32:7, it says,
"Remember the days of old; consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you, your elders, and they will tell you."
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul also emphasizes the importance of learning from the past. In Romans 15:4, he writes,
"For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."
An advocate of cancel culture may lack humility and objectivity because they may believe that they have a perfect understanding of society's problems and the solutions needed to address them. Cancel culture comes from a sense of ideological certainty and dismissal of alternative viewpoints. Moreover, the concept of cancel culture can involve a willingness to use force and coercion to achieve social and political change, which can lead to disregarding the human cost of such actions and a lack of empathy for those they may harm.
There are some similarities between the concept of year zero in a political context and the phenomenon of cancel culture. It's important to note that cancel culture involves a social movement that seeks to eliminate ideas, practices, or people from public discourse and cultural memory rather than a top-down regime program. This can result in social or professional consequences for the individual in question, such as being shunned by colleagues, losing a job, or being publicly shamed.
While there may be some overlap between the concepts of the "memory hole" and cancel culture regarding their potential to limit access to ideas or information, they represent different social and political control approaches. The "memory hole" is a more systematic approach to control, typically associated with authoritarian regimes or censorship. At the same time, cancel culture is a more grassroots approach to social accountability, often related to social justice movements or online activism.
Cancel culture can have several risks, including:
1. Suppressing free speech: Cancel culture can create an environment in which individuals are afraid to express their opinions or ideas for fear of being targeted or "cancelled." This can lead to a chilling effect on free speech and limit the diversity of viewpoints and ideas expressed in public discourse.
2. Mob mentality: Cancel culture often involves a group targeting and attacking a person or entity for a perceived offense. This can lead to a mob mentality, in which individuals are caught up in the frenzy of the moment and may act without fully considering the consequences of their actions.
3. Lack of due process: Cancel culture often involves publicly shaming or condemning individuals or entities without a fair and impartial investigation or trial. This can lead to a lack of due process and result in individuals being punished without a fair opportunity to defend themselves.
4. Unintended consequences: Cancel culture can sometimes have unintended consequences, such as causing individuals to lose their jobs, livelihoods, or reputations. In some cases, cancel culture can also lead to a backlash or a strengthening of the ideas or beliefs that are being targeted.
5. Stifling intellectual diversity: Cancel culture can create an environment where some ideas or beliefs are deemed unacceptable or beyond acceptable discourse. This can limit intellectual diversity and lead to the narrowing of ideas and viewpoints.
If those who favour cancel culture gain political power, they may be more inclined to use state power to enforce their views and silence dissenting opinions. This could potentially lead to a broader, more systematic approach to cancelling individuals or groups that are deemed to be offensive or problematic and could also lead to a more aggressive approach to removing symbols or artifacts that are seen as controversial or offensive.
Taken together, year zero, memory holes, and cancel culture can potentially be quite dangerous to civil society and individual liberty. When you hear people advocating for removing peoples' right to speak, or to gather, or wanting to remove a statue, understand that they can then do it to you or the causes you support.
As to my novel, The War Nobody Started, it's available in paperback now and can be pre-ordered for Kindle. You are invited to my book launch party on Friday, June 30th, at Hargrave Street Market from 8-10 pm.