|
Few people alive today in the West can remember a time when people were free to associate with whomever they chose. It requires some mental exertion to imagine a society in which a tavern or men’s club could legally exclude women, or a commercial enterprise could hire (or refuse to hire) a person for any reason it pleased—and nobody saw it as any of their damn business.
Though human nature can be suppressed, it usually manages to reassert itself in one form or another. “Birds of a feather flock together” and all that. People find workarounds. In our current world, an approximation of free association is most often achieved via narrowly-defined interest groups. If you establish a gun club, specializing in cowboy-style revolver shooting, you will probably not be bothered by the presence of too many woke lesbian illegal aliens. But this method is far from airtight, and one is always fearful of complaints, lawsuits, and other harassment. There are, however, a number of loopholes that are entirely legal. For example, the family business, which I believe is still exempt from certain kinds of interference. Another is the residential community with an “over 55” age restriction. Money certainly helps. If you have a lot of it, you can buy your way into association with a better class of people. You can live in the best neighborhood, send the kids to private school, etc. But this path is not what it used to be, as every word and action is under scrutiny. A path to free association that once saw widespread use in the U.S. was the ethnic enclave. Remember the tapestry of ethnic neighborhoods in New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and other large cities? The iron fist of “civil rights,” notably the destruction of neighborhood schools via forced integration, put an end to that culture. Once a common feature of American life, today a successful enclave requires extremely high levels of homogeneity and unity. The groups that can still pull it off include the Amish, Orthodox Jews, lower-class blacks, and various Asian nationalities. And let us not forget the Indian reservation, which is the gold standard of exclusivity. Strong communities and a true aristocracy cannot develop unless people are allowed to segregate themselves into micro-worlds, based on any number of parameters: education, political views, religion, wealth, to name just a few. The difficulty in achieving this detachment accounts for much of the reticence to form families. Free association manifests itself in effective separation between classes, and in social and occupational groupings that are composed exclusively of a specific human type. These types evolve and are maintained by means of closely-held traditions, and strict rules for recruitment. Naturally, the rules are set by the people within a given domain, not by the legislature. This ancient social foundation was largely in effect in the U.S. until the 1960s. In Western Europe, it lasted even longer. Today, we still have traces of this structure. Almost every field retains an image, however archaic, of its consummate type: the orchestral conductor with long, unkempt hair; the stocky, wisecracking taxi driver; the stoic, unflappable nurse; the absent-minded professor; the slimy salesman; and so on. Until recently, when you stepped onto a commercial airliner and peered into the cockpit, you were almost guaranteed to see two physically fit white men, former Air Force pilots, clean shaven, with short hair. This is the human type most suited to the task at hand. And it could develop and be sustained only under conditions of free association. Obviously, this logical and natural organization of society has been largely destroyed. This accounts for much of our dysfunction and chaos. However, as we transition back to a reality-based world (see my post of 2/10/25), perhaps free association will make a comeback. The dismantling of DEI and other forms of government meddling is an encouraging sign. This must continue until the entire “civil rights” edifice is demolished, to be replaced by a resurgent zeitgeist of liberty, and its corollary, a decentralized, spontaneous ordering of society.
0 Comments
As more and more of the business of life is conducted electronically, one might be tempted to pause and consider the advisability of this trend. I believe that in most cases, the abandonment or minimization of in-person contact is detrimental to the future health of mankind.
Our species has a deep need for community, and the online world is a cheap substitute for the real item. Think of the small town or urban neighborhood of yesteryear. Its beating heart is Main Street, the primary thoroughfare of commerce, where flesh-and-blood humans interact to meet each other’s basic needs. They exchange physical money for physical goods; a value-for-value transaction occurs. Meanwhile, the humans speak to each other, cementing the bonds of community. Even the most trivial small talk helps to fulfill this function. This is one reason why using cash is so important. Granted, our fiat currency is a pale derivative, far removed from real money. Nevertheless, some-thing at least is being exchanged. Cash is a key vestige of meaningful human interaction in commerce. This is gone when you interract with a screen, avoiding the direct transfer of an object of value to the person with whom the transaction is made (if a person is even present). Returning now to the small town/urban neighborhood model: Expanding outward from the commerce of Main Street, we see schools, churches, playgrounds, parks, stadiums, courts, and the private offices of physicians. All of these are the scene of face-to-face encounters, most involving (gasp) actual physical contact. Schools, universities, and the learning of trades can never complete their mission in an online environment. Sure, via a computer screen a person can accumulate facts, but not craft. Craftsmanship, including in the white-collar world, can be acquired only from live human interaction. One must see the trade being practised, and receive on-the-spot feedback for one’s own tentative efforts. This is why true experts almost always had a tutor, mentor, master, or coach to guide them in the early days, and even throughout their careers. Let us take a step back from this later stage of education, and consider child-rearing. The creation of offspring is obviously a physical, in-person act, but so is proper upbringing. Once again, only live human role models can do the job. Integrity, character, honesty, etc. cannot be transmitted on line. My heart breaks when I see a parent giving a child, often a very small one, a screen of some kind to play with. I wonder whether this phenomenon contributes to the plague of autism-like behavior among our youth. We lament the rise of loneliness and alienation in our society. The causes are many and varied, but part of the story is surely the factors cited above. Of all the manifestations of the dehumanized society, one that is emblematic, in my mind, is “working from home.” Very few individuals possess the maturity and intelligence to work effectively in this manner. For the vast majority, it is the adult equivalent of playing hooky. This computer-age farce contributes to the angst that sits on us like a heavy fog. The infamous lockdowns, along with other totalitarian measures, led to the normalization of “working” from home. The bonds of human society were degraded. Small business was dealt a blow. Feelings of alienation were exacerbated. The building of real community, from out of the miasma that is contemporary Western civilization, would require the curtailment of lawlessness on our city streets. It also would require the restoration of freedom of association. I will cover this concept in a separate post. |
Dystopian literatureWelcome to the blog! While you're here, check out the six dystopian novels by Gary Wolf. His latest is The Cubist Supremacy. 
Archives
March 2025
Categories
All
Interesting viewpointsAce of Spades |
RSS Feed