Grand narrative or
“master narrative” is a term introduced by Jean-François Lyotard in…1979.... Narrative
knowledge is knowledge in the form of story-telling….The
narrative not only explained, but legitimated
knowledge, and when applied to the social relations of their own society,
the myths functioned as a legitimation of the existing power relations, customs
and so on.
The grand narrative is presented as a more successful means
of appeal than is an argument based on facts, abstract theories, and
intellectual consistency. It is a
narrative that presents a prevailing interpretation of past events.
Everything from Christianity to communism offers its own
grand narrative. Everything, that is,
except libertarianism – because libertarians rely on facts, abstract theories
and intellectual consistency.
Libertarians are too rational to rely on story, it seems. Unfortunately for libertarians, more people
like “story.”
Hans Hoppe has
proposed eliminating this shortcoming:
…the greatest challenge for
libertarians is to develop a grand historical narrative that is to counter and
correct the so-called Whig theory of history that all ruling elites, everywhere
and at all times, have tried to sell to the public: that is the view, that we
live in the best of all times (and that they are the ones who guarantee that
this stays so) and that the grand sweep of history, notwithstanding some ups
and downs, has been one of more or less steady progress.
In this lecture, Hoppe has offered the first crack at
presenting this narrative, one that can offer a counter-example to this Whig
theory of history. For this, he focuses
on the decentralized Middle Ages:
…I have identified the European
Middle Ages or what is sometimes also and better referred to as Latin
Christendom, the roughly thousand-year period from the fall of Rome until the
late 16th or early 17th century, as such an example. Not perfect in many ways,
but closer to the ideal of social perfection than anything that followed it and
in particular the present democratic order.
…the Middle Ages represent a
large-scale and long-lasting historical example of a State-less society and as
such represent the polar opposite of the present, Statist social order.
As regular readers know, I have been working through a
similar problem – except I never thought of it as creating a “grand
narrative.” I have also come to the same
place that Hoppe came to many years before I did.
Now we have a recent lecture by Daniel
Ajamian that seems to carry this idea of a narrative further along. To summarize: the Enlightenment killed God; once
God has been divorced from the individual and from reason, liberty was
lost. Of course, there are several
aspects of this narrative that were not addressed in the lecture. It is difficult to expect a finished product
when Hoppe just kicked off the project a few months ago.
It seems a worthwhile undertaking, this idea of creating a
libertarian grand narrative. As
mentioned, I have inadvertently been doing something along these lines – all-the-while
not thinking in terms of narrative.
Perhaps it is worthwhile to start putting this together in narrative
form.
There is a filter to run this narrative through, I believe:
Christianity, natural law, and the non-aggression principle. I think liberty cannot stand on just one of
these. In what condition will man find
the most freedom? Perhaps it is the
condition that is consistent with his ends, his purpose – as developed by
Aristotle and through to Aquinas. If so,
why?
If not…then what?
Why is the governance and law of the medieval period most
consistent with man’s ends or purpose?
What made it so? Why was it
lost? These are all questions that must
be addressed if this narrative is to make any sense, if it is to be considered
whole.
As mentioned, I have – certainly inadvertently – been working
on just this project. The first phase –
although I didn’t think of it as such – was my work in debunking the narrative
that we have been force-fed, challenging much of what we were brought
up to believe.
The second phase was to develop
a proper narrative, one that conformed to what I have come to see as far
more accurate – and more favorable to liberty.
The more I worked through this second phase, the less I considered going
back to the first (although I am not ignoring it). Both phases were advanced by an
extended reading list – long and growing, with no end in sight.
Unfortunately, it is not organized in a narrative – and certainly
not one that is useful for all levels from newcomers to old hands.
Conclusion
Owen Flanagan of Duke
University, a leading consciousness researcher, writes, "Evidence strongly
suggests that humans in all cultures come to cast their own identity in some
sort of narrative form. We are inveterate storytellers." … As noted by
Owen Flanagan, narrative may also refer to psychological processes in
self-identity, memory and meaning-making.
Man lives by story – a narrative. Libertarians lack a narrative. Maybe, as Hoppe suggests, it is time for
libertarians to develop one.
Narrative, hmm, the hero archetype?
ReplyDeleteLiberals & Libertarians -> Creators of order -culture- from chaos (Hero archetype)
Conservatives & Authoritarians -> Keepers of culture (? archetype)
Socialists & Communists -> Return to chaos, equalizers (Great mother archetype)
Narrative is everything. Here I am a cradle Catholic, fancying myself reasonably forward-looking (and therefore hopelessly cucked), and I just knew my co-religionists had perpetrated a crime against humanity when they expelled Jews and Mohammedans from 15th-century Iberia. As in Euclidian geometry, this was a given.
ReplyDeleteYears later, I stumble into a handful of outre' websites with idiosyncratic takes on the *Reconquista*. What's this? It seems the Historians of Hate claim some Jews, the *Conversos*, collaborated with Mohammedans to overthrow the Spanish throne!
How would any throne behave under such circumstances? They might well launch an Inquisition!
But wait. This whole thing smacks of an anti-Semitic canard! Does anyone really believe Jews subscribe to a reality tunnel fundamentally at odds with the Christians'? For that matter, does anyone believe that about the Mohammedans? Clearly, Christians on high-alert for subversive elements within their culture are anti-Semitic and Islamophobic.
Damn. I do fear I was flirting with thoughtcrime.
No, no, no! That can't be it! Unlike 20th century Jews uplifting and democratizing Palestine, 15th century Catholics ethnically cleansed Spain out of their evilly hearts! There is no other explanation!
Whew! I knew vanilla history would win out in the end!
Tony, I share similar evil thoughts about the Crusade. Who were the people who lived in the Middle East before the Muslims conquered it? Were the Crusades formed out of whole cloth, with no history before it?
DeleteWhile the Muslims were conquering the Christians in the Middle East, Europe was dealing with Vikings and the like. As things settled down in Europe, they were able to focus attention to where the Muslims conquered.
Not to say one side was saint and the other sinner, but there is a story (and history) behind the events.
"You can't hold Muslims responsible for the assaults and random bombings and skyrocketing rape rates besetting Europe! Borders are artificial! All cultures are equal! Innocent until proven guilty, my friend!"
Delete"The Crusaders waged a war of conquest against the Muslims of the Levant! They raped! They pillaged! They perpetrated genocide! Christianity is a scourge of humanity!"
Same people.
Nice piece bionic, I like where this is going, and have really enjoyed the writing for a long while now keep it up.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Dave.
DeleteNarrative is important and at the focus of creating the libertarian culture - good catch Bionic and hats-off to Mr. Hoppe.
ReplyDeleteAs libertarians, there are many things we have to address:
The Libertarian Narrative.
The nearly universal effectiveness of violence.
The desire of people for power.
The fact that a well-kept slave is safer then the freest of starving wretches.
I also believe that the common man will never embrace libertarianism until we can present a more attractive alternative than the stolen handouts from the totalitarians.
My fundamental question is what differentiates Narrative from History? Much of what you write about here is history, of law and culture and philosophy. How is that different from narrative? I think it is the meat of a narrative.
ReplyDeleteBut to be narrative it has to appeal to the personal. It has to explain not just what was or should be but WHO YOU ARE. There has to be a tribal aspect to it. I think individualists can be in a tribe but it is going to be tricky.
I would say that Narrative differs from History in the way it is presented. Ideally, History is dates and events. Narrative is motivations and reasons. History is dispassionate. Narrative is inspiring.
DeleteRMB, many can agree on the "facts" of the medieval period (as one example): the lack of technology, the lack of a centralizing government, the significant role of the Church, the existence of serfs, etc.
DeleteOne person puts this all together in a story and offers: "it was the Dark Ages." Another puts this all together and says: "it was quite libertarian."
Just a simple example: guilds. There was a time I looked at these as a "bad" thing - limiting competition, etc. Now, maybe not - it seems these were one of many intermediating decentralizing institutions - helping to preserve liberty from a monopolizing power.
The difference wasn't a change of facts - I understand guilds the same way; the difference is a change in story...context...etc.
Which story prevails (setting aside the uphill battle we have against the state and the mainstream)? The one that better resonates, I guess.
Yes, I have written much along these lines - but weaving it all together...and making it understandable to a wider audience...this is not a small task.
Hoppe and Ajamian have given lectures that assume a pretty high level of academic knowledge in the audience. To move this forward, almost each paragraph of each lecture could be turned into a chapter of a book...or something like this.
I think part of the narrative has to include the idea that we never have gotten it just right. When we point back to certain periods in history, we don't have anything that we can say "just like that!". Medieval Iceland and Ancient Ireland could be exceptions, but from what I've learned, they weren't 100% libertarian.
ReplyDeleteWhen the serfs left the farmlands and populated the cities to become burghers, they undeniably gained some freedoms, but they also started the process of centralization of power and authority that would culminate in monopolistic kings or monarchs.
When the monarchies gave way to democratic republics, there were some more freedoms gained, but again, with the new form of government came new and more terrifying encroachments on human liberty and decency. I think that Nisbet is correct that throughout this process of the transformation of government, in each stage, people shed their intermediate institutions in favor of a more centralized authority.
To add to Woody's list, I think a cohesive libertarian narrative must integrate and explain (in no particular order) the evolution of:
1. tyranny
2. warfare
3. trade
4. taxation
5. Church
6. family
7. property
8. government (including and especially the state)
9. law and crime
10. dispute resolution
11. banking and currency
12. technology
13. climate
14. geography
15. more?
That's quite a blanket to weave!
ATL, I was depressed enough about potentially carrying this cross before I read your post. You are not helping!
Delete:-)
Happy to be of 'service'. =)
DeleteIt may be fruitful to measure our libertarian grand narrative against Rothbard's to see where exactly we align and where we diverge from Mr. Libertarian.
In his grand history of the American Colonial era, "Conceived in Liberty", he summarizes his grand narrative as follows:
"central importance on the great conflict which is eternally waged between Liberty and Power"
"liberty of the individual not only as a great moral good in itself (or, with Lord Acton, as the highest political good), but also as the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other goods that mankind cherishes: moral virtue, civilization, the arts and sciences, economic prosperity"
"liberty has always been threatened by the encroachments of power, power which seeks to suppress, control, cripple, tax, and exploit the fruits of liberty and production"
and finally,
"With Albert Jay Nock, the twentieth century American political philosopher, I see history as centrally a race and conflict between “social power”— the productive consequence of voluntary interactions among men—and state power. In those eras of history when liberty—social power—has managed to race ahead of state power and control, the country and even mankind have flourished. In those eras when state power has managed to catch up with or surpass social power, mankind suffers and declines."
So far so good!
Rothbard goes further from the same work to describe the high Middle Ages as the launch pad of liberty:
Delete"Western Europe, during the early Middle Ages, was a stagnant and war-torn region, burdened by feudalism, a hierarchical rule based on assumed and conquered land titles, and on the virtual enslavement of the peasantry, who worked as serfs in support of the ruling castes. A great revival during the eleventh century, inaugurating the High Middle Ages, was based upon the rise of trade between Italian towns that had remained relatively free of feudal restrictions, and the commercial centers of the eastern Mediterranean. The revival of industry and trade and the concomitant growth in living standards provided the necessary economic base for a flowering of learning and culture. The emerging commercial capitalism and growing civilization soon developed most intensively in the city-states of northern Italy, the centers of the vital Mediterranean trade with the East. It was this "international trade" that began to break up the isolated, local self-sufficiency at subsistence levels that had characterized feudal Western Europe."
There might be some friction in here with the narrative presented by Hoppe, but perhaps nothing irreconcilable.
The quote above is found on page 5 (of this 1500+ page tome of early American history) and what follows immediately after it is a fascinating story of the development of Europe through the high middle ages up until the early 1600s and the first attempts at colonizing the New World. It's definitely a worthwhile read for a succinct economic history of Europe during this period.
ATL: "part of the narrative has to include the idea that we never have gotten it just right"
DeleteIs that even possible?
I would expect an optimum solution to depend on the circumstances of the time, not to be an absolute, set-in-stone.
Perhaps the idea of "getting it just right" is utopian. Perhaps we should, instead, strive for a society and culture that maintains liberty for extended periods and, once conquered, constantly threatens tyranny with the possibility of overthrow.
DeleteI also believe that we'll probably never get it just right. I think our purpose is not only to identify the good flame - to separate it from all that is not good - but to keep the fire burning into the future, regardless of the political regime we live under. It doesn't hurt to purify the flame even while we accept or even strive for imperfect conditions around us (i.e. Texas Independence).
DeleteI don't think the 'no true Scotsmen' fallacy applies to libertarians criticizing those who aren't true libertarians. The fallacy is that there is no defined true Scotsmen, but libertarianism is defined first and foremost by the non-aggression principle. Whatever else is theoretically required for liberty must be built on this foundation.
Now those of us who believe can and should be Christians first and libertarians second, meaning that Christ is our foundation (in all things, not just liberty) not the non-aggression principle. When I say the non-aggression principle is the foundation of libertarianism, I mean it is the baseline of ethical behavior regarding the use of force in society - nothing more.
Finding the truth (in Christ and liberty) is one thing, but keeping it and spreading it through the ages is another. Maybe sometimes the truth should be shouted from the rooftops, and maybe others it should be kept secret. Maybe sometimes we should pay taxes and other times withhold it. Whatever keeps people like us and our children alive without committing evil in order to carry the torch into the future is what I advocate.
I don't know if this strictly qualifies but I really enjoyed "Hardyville Tales" by Claire Wolfe. It made me want to move to a "libertarian" community.
ReplyDeleteTahn
While I respect Hoppe, there are two problems here.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the Middle Ages were very, very bad for certain aspects of liberty: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. If you were or had been a Christian and you started saying that Christianity (or just the official version of Christianity) was nonsense, lies, etc., very bad things were likely to happen to you. Like being put to death.
As far as I can tell, the Middle Ages were the most extended period of any human civilization in which there was an intentional and systematic effort to snuff out freedom of thought.
A thousand years of totalitarianism.
Second, if the triumph of liberty depends on belief in God, or, even more, belief in Christianity, then we are doomed.
To put it diplomatically, it is highly debatable whether God exists: the major religions after all insist that this is a matter of faith.
It is even more contentious whether Christianity is true: to put it bluntly, it is hard to see the human race becoming overwhelmingly Christian any time in the next several centuries. Indeed, the de-Christianization of Europe is a process that has been accelerating for centuries since the Enlightenment.
Personally,, I think that is a good thing: Christianity is not true, and it is good if people stop believing in things that are not true.
But, good or bad, if the progress of liberty depends on the human species becoming Christians, well, we might as well just give up.
Fortunately, as the great Christian apologist C. S. Lewis pointed out in his Abolition of Man, the basic rules of morality can be known independent of one's religious beliefs.
Morality hinges on the nature of human beings, and one can understand that nature regardless of how one believes that human nature came into being (i.e., via God or natural processes).
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Physicist Dave, I recall you from long ago…but you haven’t commented here in some time. It might even be that I recall you from the Daily Bell days? In any case, one thing I can say about your comments – it would be easier to deal with these if you challenged actual discussion points that have developed at this blog over the years – or even actual discussion points in this post and the embedded links.
Delete“…the Middle Ages were very, very bad for certain aspects of liberty: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.”
Please cite examples and demonstrate that during the Middle Ages such examples were significantly worse or more frequent than during virtually any time before or thereafter.
“…very bad things were likely to happen to you. Like being put to death.”
Please cite examples and demonstrate that during the Middle Ages such examples were significantly worse or more frequent than during virtually any time before or thereafter.
“…the Middle Ages were the most extended period of any human civilization in which there was an intentional and systematic effort to snuff out freedom of thought.”
Please cite examples and demonstrate that during the Middle Ages such examples were significantly worse or more frequent than during virtually any time before or thereafter.
You live in a space of stereotypes. You look at the period of the Middle Ages and since it wasn’t utopia you condemn it based on your stereotypes. In addition to your shortcoming of living within stereotypes, you demonstrate that you have not thoughtfully considered the question “compared to what?”
“A thousand years of totalitarianism.”
Definition of totalitarianism: 1: centralized control by an autocratic authority; 2: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority.
You demonstrate once again that you only know stereotypes – and this one might be your most egregious example. There was no totalitarian authority during the Middle Ages – most certainly not by law, and predominantly not in practice.
“Second, if the triumph of liberty depends on belief in God, or, even more, belief in Christianity, then we are doomed.”
As compared to belief in what? The non-aggression principle? Science? Markets? On which god do you pin your hopes?
“…it is hard to see the human race becoming overwhelmingly Christian any time in the next several centuries.”
I don’t concern myself with any type of universalist lingo such as “the human race”. What matters is the belief and actions of the people with whom I share – willingly or otherwise – political bonds. This, most certainly, is not the entire human race – although universalists wish it to be, thereby dooming us all to hell on earth.
“…the de-Christianization of Europe is a process that has been accelerating for centuries since the Enlightenment.”
And you see liberty increasing during this time? Did you sleep during the twentieth century? Are you asleep today?
“Fortunately, as the great Christian apologist C. S. Lewis pointed out in his Abolition of Man, the basic rules of morality can be known independent of one's religious beliefs.”
I don’t know if Lewis said this or not, and it is irrelevant whether he did or didn’t. It isn’t important merely that these rules are “known” – they must also be acted upon.
Today’s modern atheists – the Sam Harris’s of the world – are losing the argument. An even better argument on my side: look around you and tell me if the basic rules of morality are known – and being acted upon – while “de-Christianization” is occurring.
It is easy to argue against something – and easier still when one is ignorant of that which he is arguing against.
Well, BM, I mentioned Lewis' book because I think you and others here might profit from reading it!
DeleteIf you don't want to, don't.
Since I don't know what the Daily Bell is, I doubt you remember me from there! But, it is possible that I posted something there, wherever it is, long ago and have forgotten about it.
As to what happened to Christian apostates and heretics in the Middle Ages, you could check out John Hus and the Hussites or the Albigensian Crusade, just for starters.
In all honesty, this is a bit like asking me for sources showing that Washington and Jefferson owned slaves: all educated people know this (or knew this before education in history ceased).
I will, though, point out one specific case to show the attitude of the most famous theologian of the Middle Ages: Aquinas' conclusion on the issue of "Whether Heretics Ought to be Tolerated?", from the ST, of course.
Read it: Aquinas was kind of like Hitler without the mustache. Except, unfortunately, Aquinas had an even greater influence on history than the monster Hitler.
I do know you are a young fellow and that the teaching of history has collapsed between my generation and yours. But, you really do not know any of this at all???
I can list all of the evils of the medieval period, this is really not complicated at all. You, on the other hand, conveniently neglected dealing with the question...compared to what?
Delete"I do know you are a young fellow..."
Interesting. How, exactly, do you know this? Through the same medium by which you know your history? Tarot cards, perhaps?
"...that the teaching of history has collapsed between my generation and yours."
I guess you also believe Hoppe is a young man, as your initial post was regarding him? Why the ad hominem? No substantial arguments available to you?
As to my knowledge of history, start here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/p/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none_30.html
You really should stick to topics you know...presumably...physics?
Yes, I do indeed think you are stunningly ignorant of history based on your posts and, specifically, on your request to me to give you cites on the fact that the medieval period systematically denied freedom of speech and religion, brutally and for many, many centuries.
DeleteNo one who knows anything about history could honestly deny that. (If you actually read my link to Aquinas, you will see that, even today, some people like that aspect of the Middle Ages: thugs.)
And, no, I am not impressed in the slightest by your reading list: it appears that you are rather systematically choosing books that back your biases ("confirmation bias," it is called).
You asked me, "You, on the other hand, conveniently neglected dealing with the question...compared to what?"
Anything at all. I literally know of no other extended period of history in which there was as systematic an effort for as long a time to brutally suppress freedom of thought as the Middle Ages in Catholic Europe. Yeah, the Nazis were nasty: but that only lasted twelve years. The Stalinist terror lasted a few decades.
The Christian terror of the Middle Ages lasted close to a thousand years. Kinda a Big Deal.
You are trying to deny that this is truly exceptional in human history. Fine: a simple matter -- just tell us all where else freedom of speech and religion were as systematically and brutally suppressed for nearly a millennium as in the Age of Faith in Catholic Europe.
You haven;t and you can't.
You are either ignorant or disingenuous.
I am just slightly younger than Hans: if you are as old as we are, well, congratulations! Hans does overstate his points to counter opposing views, though not, I think, as much as you.
Truth matters. If you or Hans or anyone else can come up with any time and any place in human history in which freedom of speech and religion was as brutally and systematically suppressed for as long a time as in the Catholic Middle Ages, really, please let us all know.
Easy. Just tell us.
All the best,
Dave
BM asked me: "As compared to belief in what? The non-aggression principle? Science? Markets? On which god do you pin your hopes?"
DeleteNo god at all, young fella.
I really am a scientist (Ph.D. from Stanford): "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis."
Since you did ask, I think the "non-aggression principle" is an ineffective way to convey the libertarian position. Most statists do not think they are advocating "aggression," and it is pointless to argue about the "true" meaning of the word "aggression."
It is sometimes possible to get them to see that they are happy with the "state" engaging in actions that they would never condone if carried out by a "private" individual -- their neighbor, their brother, etc. The problem is that they have reified the state, so that they do not see state actions as the actions of actual concrete human beings, such as their neighbor or their brother.
As to "Science," serious scientists do not "believe" in some monolith called "Science": indeed, the job of a scientist is to be a skeptic, especially when it comes to supposed authorities in "Science." As my mentor, the Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
And, free markets are just what happens if you leave people alone to pursue their lives as they wish. No need to "believe" in free markets. It would never occur to anyone to attack free markets, any more than it would occur to anyone to attack breathing, except that some power-hungry crackpots over the last couple centuries have hit upon this as an alternative to older con games (such as "the divine right of kings") by which they hope to gain power.
So, no, BM, no god at all. (And, no, for the record, I do not "believe" in "atheism," either. There is no evidence that any gods exist, and therefore I do not have a belief in any gods. No positive "belief" in atheism, just a lack of belief.)
PD: "And, free markets are just what happens if you leave people alone to pursue their lives as they wish."
DeleteDo you have any proof for this?
BM: "Please cite examples and demonstrate that during the Middle Ages such examples were significantly worse or more frequent than during virtually any time before or thereafter."
DeleteI only want to make a suggestion here, the books by Edward Dutton, or his podcast "The Jolly Heretic" will shed some light on this question.
And yes, in the run-up to the western peak (from 1800-1850) the selection pressures were considerable. Much, much higher than after the peak, while today selection pressure has gone strongly dysgenic.
PhysicistDave,
DeleteNo one here is saying that Latin Christendom was perfectly consistent with liberty, but there's no question that it preceded the rise of statism in Europe and was subsequently displaced by it. It was also a period of polycentric and often competing law and authority, which most of us here in the comments have come to believe is necessary for the creation of a lasting order of liberty.
As for the Hussites, I think the Church can be forgiven for punishing John Hus, because his ideas directly led to the rise of radical nationalist leftism in Europe (i.e. the French Revolution, the Soviets, the Nazis, the Italian Fascists - the 'Progressives'). Do I agree with how he was punished? No, but I understand the motive.
"The death of Hus resulted in the establishment of two groups: A more moderate one, the Utraquists, content with administration of communion under both species, bread and wine, and a radical one, the Taborites, which found its center in the newly established city of Tabor. (Tabor in Czech means camp.) The Taborites were extreme fanatics, and they were organized militarily. Their leader at the beginning was Jan Ziika, scion of a recently nobilitated family of German origin. Their ideology was chiliastic, nationalistic, puritanical, democratic, and socialistic. Here we have a real and concrete prefiguration of all the isms of our times in a dynamic synthesis. By filiation perhaps more than by analogy the mass movements of our days are related to Taboritism." - Leftism, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
These heretics of the Middle Ages were not espousing peaceful ideas; they were talking about upending society - and often by military force (remember the Anabaptist takeover of Munster?), sort of like what happened with the most successful heretical revolution: the Reformation. It was the 30 years war between the Catholics and the Protestants that struck the deathblow to the lasting decentralized order of the Middle Ages and spawned the modern monopolistic state.
"No god at all... I really am a scientist (Ph.D. from Stanford)"
It's really all so predictable who will be opposed to a positive historical analysis of the Christian Middle Ages. Without God, there can be no law above mankind. With no law above mankind, there will always be men above the law.
Jan Huss was preaching against the excesses, corruption and error of church leadership. He was absolutely correct. Church leaders had no right to punish him. The only good decision they could have made was to listen to him, repent, and reform their churches themselves. The fact that they killed him and other pre-reformers meant that the Catholic church was unwilling to accept criticism and reflect on their error and that the stakes were raised to life and death. Because of this when the Reformation did come, the Reformers had to enlist the protection of noblemen that agreed with them. It was the murder and violence of the Catholic church that necessitated the Reformation and initiated the wars afterwards.
DeleteThere were grave consequences to that hostility. There were really crazy people on the fringes too. I agree. But the Reformers were more concerned with correct doctrine and spiritual living. Huss, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther (don't know about Calvin) were not trying to upend society. They didn't want revolution. Other powerful interests took advantage of the disruption to pursue their violent goals. However, the actual Reformers just wanted to be able to preach the truth in their churches.
I don't agree with Dave. I agree with bionicmosquito and you about how instructive the Middle Ages can be. But I find the common depiction of the Reformation here as distasteful.
"But I find the common depiction of the Reformation here as distasteful."
DeleteRMB, I hope by "here" you are not suggesting a general view, i.e. a general tone that I set. If so, I will work on this as it is not my intent.
To summarize: there were legitimate reasons for the Reformers to seek to reform - and it was "reform," not revolution or civil war, that most of these were after. With that said, I am not sure that if proper reform took place that European medieval society would have continued as it had in the centuries before.
In other words, I suspect medieval Europe with a unified Church had run its course. Then, as now, it seems that those with power prefer to maintain power as long as possible, regardless of what it means to the larger society.
Not you really, but some of the commenters have made some general statements about how bad the Reformation was.
DeleteI can't say what would have happened if the Catholic church made different decisions along the way. I can say there would have been more of a chance that the church would have remained organizationally unified. If indulgences and simony would have been removed the people would have trusted their church leaders more. If they would have allowed Bible translation, violence wouldn't have been visited upon the priests and laymen. If popes hadn't proclaimed infallibility for themselves, there could be some possibility for discussion and correction.
Maybe there were other factors that would have ended unification in Europe but I am not aware of them. Maybe I have missed something in your writings.
I have just started reading a book on Luther and the Reformation. The book was recommended to me by a CRC pastor. Let's see where this leads.
DeleteATL wrote to me:
Delete>No one here is saying that Latin Christendom was perfectly consistent with liberty, but there's no question that it preceded the rise of statism in Europe and was subsequently displaced by it. It was also a period of polycentric and often competing law and authority, which most of us here in the comments have come to believe is necessary for the creation of a lasting order of liberty.
I largely agree with the paragraph I just quoted.
However, I do think that our host here and, to a lesser degree, Hoppe fail to make the distinction you make: i.e., the Middle Ages were horrific in many ways; nonetheless, there are things we can learn from the Middle Ages (perhaps the evolution of the Law Merchant, for example).
There was, after all, some great music composed in Stalinist Russia: e.g., Prokofiev and Shostakovich. On the one hand, the horrors of Stalinist Russia should not cause us to deny the genius of Prokofiev and Shostakovich, but, on the other hand, their genius should never cause us to neglect the horrors of Stalinism.
BM quotes Hoppe as saying of the Middle Ages, "Not perfect in many ways, but closer to the ideal of social perfection than anything that followed it and in particular the present democratic order."
Our contemporary "democratic order" is certainly deeply flawed. But the idea that a social order in which people could be tortured and executed for the wrong religious opinions is better than our own society is simply bizarre.
The link I provided to Aquinas' commentary on this matter in the ST shows that this was not an occasional aberration in the Middle Ages: in fact, this was part of the official ideology endorsed by the highest authorities.
I also think there is a problem with viewing the Middle Ages as not being statist. A central part of feudalism was to devolve many state powers, especially judicial powers, down to local members of the nobility.
Now, devolution of power and authority to local government can be a good thing, if and only if this enables subjects of the government to pick and choose among the local governments. That is part of the genius of our federal system: if I get sick enough of the California state government, I can mover to Nevada.
But, under the feudal system, peasants could not move: they were bound to the land. This pretty much vitiates the supposed advantages of devolution, of a polycentric system of governance.
(By the way, I do know that for almost any statement about feudalism, a counter-example can be found somewhere in western Europe. I'm trying to describe what was typical, not universal.)
Details matter. It is certainly interesting that medieval Europe had a decentralized, polycentric political system. But, the fact that peasants were bound to the land largely negates the positive value of that system.
All the best,
Dave
Unbelievable comments. I can't keep up, albeit I have addressed all of these fallacies more than once in the past.
DeleteIn any case, regarding your comments about free speech and free thought in the Middle Ages:
https://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2019/04/physicist-heal-thyself.html
By the way, there is already a fine and readable "libertarian narrative" by one of the founders of "world history" historiography, William H. McNeill, which, for some reason, most libertarians seem to be ignorant of.
ReplyDeleteMcNeill's classic The Human Condition: An Ecological and Historical View argues that human history is largely molded by "microparasitism" (infectious diseases) and "macroparasitism" (i.e., the state).
Government is like germs, but bigger.
A number of other writers have contributed to this gneral field of analysis, such as Robert Carneiro ("circumscription theory") and, recently, even some leftist writers.
I'm afraid that most libertarians are rather parochial and not very well read (rather like Randians), which may explain why one rarely sees libertarians reference McNeill.
rien wrote to me:
ReplyDelete>>PD: "And, free markets are just what happens if you leave people alone to pursue their lives as they wish."
>[rien]Do you have any proof for this?
Economics.
To be more specific, read Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State. Or Alchian and Allen's University Economics. Or any decent text that talks about the "double conincdence of wants," etc.
Or, if you prefer a philosopher, Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
Or Adam Smith or...
This has sort of been known for a really, really long time. Even (intelligent) socialists know this.
PD: I am not interested in more books about how things would 'certainly' turn out. I wanted a real life example that this is indeed the case. For all that I can see, 'free people' organise themselves into tribes and compete at that level. In the micro cosmos, sure people compete against each other, but on a macro scale, I only see organisation against organisation.
DeleteImo, organising means compromising, means less freedom. I consider it impossible to maintain individual freedom in any kind of organisation.
Btw: I consider this the curse of the leftist, communism works great in the household, but it cannot be translated to larger units.