Not in My Backyard

Social criticism is all well and good, as long as the society in question begins outside my doorstep.

That is, people in general are quite open to hearing criticisms of society, of the media, of their habits of consumption, and so on; not only will they hear these criticisms, they will applaud them. They will applaud them and cheer them on and likely mutter something to the effect of, "There's someone who really gets it." So long, of course, as the criticism is directed at an elusive people or through the use of an abstract we; so long, that is, that it is not personal. The average citizen can only entertain the prospect of social criticism so long as that criticism presumes that he himself is not part of the "problem." So long as the "problem" is not individualized, so long as it does not have a face, so long as it is a problem among a numberless, faceless mass composed of others, then all criticism goes; but once that criticism reaches the citizen's doorstep, it will find his door firmly shut.

Take, for example, consumerism. It is more or less agreed upon within the opinion-industrial complex (the news media, the politicians, the film/television industry) that America's collective drift towards a society of consumers is problematic. We live in a society of 300 million consumers live off credit extended by banks whose loose fiscal policies are insured by a government that is in turn kept running by other nations' credit; each of the major parties accepts this. Liberals, moderates, conservatives, politicians, pundits, artists; all bemoan some aspect of consumer society, be it our accumulating debt or be it the unraveling of our national character or be it the commercialization and standardization of ever-increasing swathes of our personal lives. So long as criticism is kept at this level, everything is well and good. But say someone takes the logical conclusion that, as this criticism is generally agreed upon, we should now act upon it; such a reasoner would find himself strangely alone.

If one wanted to do something about consumerism, one might begin by doing something about consumption. But to talk thus appears radical; for consumption, you see, is precisely what drives forward the economic-orgy that is modern America. Consumption leads to growth and growth is the supreme good, before which all other goods must lie prostrate; to be against consumption is to be against growth, and to be against growth is modern apostasy. Down with consumerism! shouts the modern citizen, But don't touch my consumption.

This is the central problem of translating social criticism into a social program, or philosophy into policy. Philosophy deals with the realm of ideas, which is abstract, whereas policy deals with the realm of action, which is concrete. Almost all are in agreement that one should not lie; almost all lie regardless. This is not hypocrisy; rather it is a result of humanity's defective nature, which distinguishes and sometimes separates the realm of ideas from the realm of action. So long as something is an idea, it is relatively harmless. Once it begins to be translated into action, it suddenly becomes dangerous. A man of ideas is a radical, because his sphere permits radicalism; but a man of actions is a conservative, because his sphere permits no pipe-dreams. The whole art of governance is finding a way to achieve abstract ends through concrete means.

Yours, &c,