I see two solutions to this:

(1) Create myths which are consonant with state interests. (The North Koreans have done this well through the autarkic doctrine of “juche.”)

(2) Justify neutral and prudent policies with allusions to otherwise potentially injurious myths. (This has been the American way until recently, when the bullshitters came to believe their own bullshit. Most of the founding fathers, for example, were desists or non-believers. Nevertheless, their public writings and oratories are saturated with biblical references and prophetic language).

As to your other point, while Strauss discussed religious and nationalist myths as potentially effective, it was Kristol who pursued them, and only his followers who bastardized/amplified them into injurious forms.

Religious and nationalist myths are not themselves malevolent, it is only the propensity (based on the historical record) for these forms to become abused and injected with fervor which gives me pause.

With or without religion/nationalism, I am confident, nonetheless, that (1) and (2) are achievable.

One thought:

Amongst other things, my problem with this is as follows: Suppose one were to come to the conclusion that some sort of lie is necessary for “stability”. You’re problem with this is that the “neoconservatives” chose lies that were “foolhardy and injurious to American interests”. Secondly you say that that the “neoconservatives” came to believe their own propaganda…In doing so…genuinely pursued policies” based on these lies. To understand these as mistakes that the “neoconservatives” made, is itself a mistake. What would a “prudent noble lie” look like? If you are going to have an “elite” espouse a lie to the “masses” in order to placate them, you’re going to end up making policies consistent with or at least cognizant of that lie. And that’s, perhaps, exactly happened. To say that Reagan and Bush made what you see as bad policies, because they actually believed these lies is to avoid the reality that. No-one can know exactly what anyone else believes. Belief is internal. However, someone can certainly appear to believe something. My suggestion is that you don’t necessarily know that they believed these things but that they appeared to believe them. So whether or not Reagan or Bush believed in some myths about America, whether or not that acted on genuine beliefs or on what they saw as necessary illusions, they ACTED and made POLICY based on some ideas as if they believed it. This, as I understand it, is the POINT of the lie in the first place! Furthermore, as far as I know (and please correct me if im wrong) the “myths” of religion and nation were precisely the myths that Strauss suggested.

More will have to wait until a post-seminar meal perhaps, lol.

Also, if you’re interested or have the time, this is a decent and related documentary: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#

2. My argument is what it is and I think we are both clear on what that amounts to.

This control has the same effect of the bureaucracy’s “Iron Cage”. They both limit an individual’s ability to function as an individual.

I find it interesting that you tell me you are “not arguing that Calvinism leads to individualism” and immediately describe:

Calvinism -> Capitalistic Bureaucratization -> destruction of value-creation -> Individualism

Second, I never said I was a Weberian. I said I saw relevance in his diagnosis of modernity. His conflict theory is part of his prescription (or mere acceptance) of the problems he foretells. I never claimed to accept that.

Third, where have I said that some kind of social-control is not an objective?

Fourth, Marx sought to overthrow a very specific type of social control that is foreign to my argument. I’m not sure how he fits into this discussion beyond a basic mutual recognition of the existence of social manipulation. The type of control and what to do with it, however, differ variously among Marx, Weber, and myself.

Fifth, I am not arguing for a society based on Marxist or Weberian principles, whatever those are. Again, I don’t see how your point–even if valid, which remains unclear–relates at all to my discussion.

Finally, if history has told us anything, it is that the politicization of the crowd leads invariably to social collapse. How we placate the crowd in the context of democracy, not revolution or nihilistic disregard, is the task at hand.

First, I’m not arguing that Calvinism leads to individualism, and neither does Weber. Calvinism leads to capitalistic bureaucratization, which expunges itself of Calvinism (see p. 123-5 of Protestant Ethic [Routledge]) when it is full formed. That leads to the individualism through the destruction of value-creation in all spheres.

A few things you have left out which I think have an impact on your deduction.

First off, the Calvinist approach had a very strong emphasis on thrift and self-denial. These are thus contrary to your current argument that the Calvinistic approach, in and of itself, has led to this extreme individualism.

Also, if you are going to take a Weber-ian stance, you should also take a look at his Conflict Theory. He argues that conflict is an inevitable and permanent part of social life. Trying to remove this would be contrary to his beliefs.

His idea of rationality states that social life is increasingly organized principles of rational calculation, efficiency, and control (i.e. the “mystery” of life goes away).

The most “pure” form of rationalization under his definition is the modern Bureaucracy where organizational goals take precedence over the welfare of others.

In this, he argues that the “Iron Cage” of bureaucracy is what he is most afraid of. He is afraid that bureaucracy would be come overly powerful and would come to control people’s lives.

It seems to me, that by trying to create a new “moral order” is doing this exact thing, controlling people’s lives.

Your end decision seems to be based more on the idea of Marx where he believed that he *knew* what was best to be in the minds of workers. Weber, on the other hand, admits that he does not know what one thing is best, but rather we must look at each individual and how they *subjectively* interpret their own behavior.

History has shown that societies based upon an extreme view of Weber or Marxist principles inevitably fails. See France after the Revolution and a number of failed attempts at Marxism.

Are you a follower of Weber’s Social Theory?