Thursday 28 March 2024

The Ordinary Man

The Long Way Home, CHAPTER SIX.

First read the previous post.

Has subservience been inculcated in the ordinary man since the Industrial Revolution? Where is this ordinary man? The world is full of extraordinary people!

Of course we must rely on technical experts. We cannot all be motor mechanics, computer technicians, plumbers or brain surgeons. But we soon complain when the experts get it wrong. There is a general distrust of professional politicians although not yet any general recognition of an alternative. In adversarial political systems, each of two major parties spends all of its time denouncing the other and encouraging its supporters to do the same. This does not inculcate much subservience. In dictatorial systems, there is dissent and opposition despite repression. Some people are unfortunately in prison or dead but not subservient.

There have been political upheavals since the Industrial Revolution. There are frequent mass expressions of discontent. In London alone, there have been ten national mass demonstrations on a single issue in the last five months and there will be another the day after tomorrow. Of course we can make an artificial distinction between "ordinary people" who watch television and "extremists" who demonstrate but governments know better than this. The "extremists" are a sometimes smaller, sometimes larger, subset of "ordinary people." These are not two different populations. On any large demonstration, many people are demonstrating for their first time and, of course, a large demonstration also represents a larger although indeterminate number of people in agreement with it. "Ordinary people" can play some role in shifting governments and in changing the conditions in which they live.

So, again, what would liberation be? There is no need for genetically engineered slaves, however efficient or contented. There is plenty of scope for robots and automatic production. A liberated population would, at least:

be technologically liberated from drudgery;

be engaged in activities transcending the distinction that we still have to make between fulfilling work on the one hand and meaningful recreation on the other;

be informed, educated and involved enough to participate in public discussion, elections and referenda on common issues, all this facilitated by the widespread use of information and communications  technology;

at the same time, enjoy full privacy and autonomy as individuals.

On the second point above, I am a pensioner. This means, in effect, that the state and my previous employer (also the state!) pay me to live, breathe, exercise, socialize, philosophize, meditate, read books, lobby the City Council and blog about Poul Anderson. I could try to make some of these activities a source of further income but don't need to. We can build a culture more amenable to people and their needs. The Solar Technate in The Long Way Home certainly has the capacity to start moving in that direction but is ruled by "the strong" and by professional psychotechnicians. Surely some of the latter group can see a better way forward?

8 comments:

S.M. Stirling said...

Actually, the industrial revolution -decreased- the subservience of the ordinary person.

What it did do was make people more -systematic-.

Sharpening contrasts between leisure and work, for instance.

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Yes, that revolution made all sorts of dynamic changes.

S.M. Stirling said...

Traditional forms of deference were rural-based.

Eg., there was a criminal case in the 1670's about a Quaker who refused to remove his hat for the local squire (saying he only did that for God) and addressed him as "thou", which was the familiar form then.

The squire (who was on horseback) knocked his hat off with his riding-whip; when the Quaker tried to protect his face, the squire booted him -in- the face with his stirrup several times and then flogged him unconscious.

The Quaker tried to bring a lawsuit; he ended up in jail, and only barely avoided being transported to the colonies.

(He did leave for Pennsylvania a bit later, being understandably a bit disenchanted with England).

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

Thomas Hobbes would have disagreed with that Quaker. He had no problem with showing customary forms of respect, civil and religious.

Still, I think Charles II and Louis XIV would have disapproved of how violently that squire reacted.

Ad astra! Sean

Jim Baerg said...

I have difficulty thinking of a situation in which I would not be put off by someone treating me as *either* a social inferior or superior.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Jim!

Humans being what they are we are always going to have some arrogant boors, oafs, and jerks. I was also reminded of how Arthur/Artorius, in the revised sample chapters of TO TURN THE TIDE, reflected on how he didn't like the arrogant atheist faculty of Harvard University--because he resented their snidely sneering disdain for how he went to church with his devout Baptist wife.

Not everybody will have either the easy going affability of Charles II or the determined good manners of Louis XIV.

Ad astra! Sean

Jim Baerg said...

One can believe someone is badly mistaken without feeling or expressing contempt for that person. My impression is that the "angry atheist" is someone who had very bad experiences growing up in a religion, while those who merely have reasons for believing religions to be mistaken find it easier to have polite disagreement with a believer.

"Baptist wife". There are Baptists and there are Southern Baptists. From what I have read the latter separated from the former over disagreement over slavery pre- US Civil War. I do get the impression of general residual racism etc in the Southern Baptists, which makes the plain Baptists easier to get along with. I would need some personal experience with both varieties of Baptist to confirm or refute that impression.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Jim!

No objection to your first paragraph. But the impression I got from Arthur/Artorius was that the Harvard atheists belonged to neither of these categories--they haughtily despised the Baptists.

Your second paragraph does not fit in with what I read in those sample chapters. Not a word was said in the alternate timeline of circa AD 2030 of how either racism or the politics of 1860 caused a split in the Baptists. My impression was of how the Harvard atheists were contemptuous of the devout Protestant Christianity of the Baptists.

Ad astra! Sean