15 hrs ago·edited 15 hrs agoLiked by William Green
Reading this makes me wonder if we are still treating the present as if it were the end of history. Perhaps we want "ideological resolution" and its "cultural stagnation," so long as culture stagnates the way each of us wants it (and, I'm afraid, tries to live it). The apolitical promise of 1992 has yet to arrive. Perhaps also the need for resolution is inherent in ideology, which I think is a cheap substitute for actual opinion. Arendt (who, as you've gathered by now, is the brightest star in my constellation of political theorists) worried that our country's unity would not remain in plurality, as it was for the Founders, but would come to resemble the French Revolution’s concept of “le peuple,” which, Arendt said, carries “the connotation of a multiheaded monster, a mass that moves as one body and acts as though possessed by one will." If we don't want to develop and discuss opinions -- if we want to stay at home and cling to prepackaged ideologies instead -- we may end up with the wrong kind of unity, the kind you describe here. Anyway, I found your call for democracy as a way of life stirring.
Yes! Your comparison with Arendt’s fears about “le peuple” highlights the potential danger of collective unity morphing into something monolithic, driven less by genuine plurality than by a kind of ideological possession. Arendt understood unity as a dynamic coexistence of perspectives, and without that plurality, we may indeed drift toward a unity that stifles the diversity it should protect. Thank you for pushing this conversation forward!
Reading this makes me wonder if we are still treating the present as if it were the end of history. Perhaps we want "ideological resolution" and its "cultural stagnation," so long as culture stagnates the way each of us wants it (and, I'm afraid, tries to live it). The apolitical promise of 1992 has yet to arrive. Perhaps also the need for resolution is inherent in ideology, which I think is a cheap substitute for actual opinion. Arendt (who, as you've gathered by now, is the brightest star in my constellation of political theorists) worried that our country's unity would not remain in plurality, as it was for the Founders, but would come to resemble the French Revolution’s concept of “le peuple,” which, Arendt said, carries “the connotation of a multiheaded monster, a mass that moves as one body and acts as though possessed by one will." If we don't want to develop and discuss opinions -- if we want to stay at home and cling to prepackaged ideologies instead -- we may end up with the wrong kind of unity, the kind you describe here. Anyway, I found your call for democracy as a way of life stirring.
Yes! Your comparison with Arendt’s fears about “le peuple” highlights the potential danger of collective unity morphing into something monolithic, driven less by genuine plurality than by a kind of ideological possession. Arendt understood unity as a dynamic coexistence of perspectives, and without that plurality, we may indeed drift toward a unity that stifles the diversity it should protect. Thank you for pushing this conversation forward!