Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXVII
We’re Saved! ‘Good Government’ Has Humanity’s Back. Part 1.
Many (most?) people believe that the problems/predicaments that humanity finds itself having to deal with can be addressed by our governing institutions–especially if the ‘right’ individual and/or political party gets to hold the reins of power. It’s then a matter of simply putting all the brilliant ‘solutions’ waiting to be employed by our ingenious species into action.
This belief in the power of the state is not surprising given the conditioning/narratives we are all exposed to pretty well from birth, and certainly via our educational systems, mainstream media, and the government and its representatives themselves.
In my home nation (Canada), our constitutional framework provides the foundational concept of ‘peace, order, and good government’ (thus the title of this post). This is a phrase from Section 91 of the 1867 Constitution Act (originally named the British North America Act of 1867) that brought the Dominion of Canada into existence. This section was intended to help circumscribe the federal government’s law-making capacity whereby anything that does not fall within the purview of those well-defined areas for provincial authority (e.g., hospitals, education, property rights) would fall under the federal government’s powers; this is especially so for aspects that are considered of ‘national concern’.
Beyond the legal aspects regarding the distribution of powers, the phrase that I highlighted above has taken on a more philosophical interpretation whereby the central government is guided by values that place collective well-being and stability at the forefront of legislation via a strong, national interest-serving central government.
If you wish to help support my writing and online presence, you can purchase the Olduvai trilogy for just $9.99 CDN. Place your order HERE.
and/or
It is the implications of this ‘peace, order, and good government’ phrase that I wish to explore more critically. These few words were designed to help clarify a specific constitutional power (although, and probably quite purposely, extremely vague and ambiguous in its scope) but has become a mantra to suggest how political institutions should operate on a principled and moral level, and which serves the best interests of the nation’s citizens. It implies something both positive and beneficial for all of the nation’s citizens that are impacted by legislation and policy. And although this is the Canadian government and its guiding principles being discussed, many nation states have similar doctrines that colour interpretations and beliefs about their government and how it is to serve the people of their nation state.
The principles of ‘peace, order, and good government’ may be summarised as the political system being: accountable and answerable to the public; transparent in its decisions while providing clear and accurate information; impartial, ethical, and guided by public interest; responsible stewards of public resources; and, led by those who set positive examples. The phrase, then, connotes two notions: legal authority of the federal government, and a guiding philosophy for it.
To emphasise the philosophical aspect, the Canadian federal government created a Trust and Transparency Strategy that aims to put these ideological principles into practice and thus build and maintain public trust in the national government.
A ‘Good Government’ that works solely in the interests of its citizens and that is democratic, trustful, responsible, impartial, ethical, and transparent.
What’s not to like?
Well…
I have previously discussed the two dominant theories that suggest how and why governing institutions came into being. These are the Integrationist and Conflict theories.
I am now going to use these two analytical concepts and their more recent theoretical synthesis to help in understanding state governance in light of the idea of ‘Good Government’, and then suggest that the belief that ‘Good Government’ can address the problems/predicaments that plague our world and all of its citizens is misguided (in the extreme), for a variety of reasons.
Integrationist Theory
Those who support the Integrationist model for how complex governing institutions arose argue that due to a need for organisational systems to help address collective issues, a number of people voluntarily stepped forward and worked for the benefit and in the interests of everyone. In other words, governance emerged from a cooperative drive or motivation and continues as such to this day.
For example, a need for management of relatively large-scale food production and its surpluses arose as a result of increasingly complex adaptations (i.e., labour-intensive irrigation and the storing and redistribution of food). Such centralised roles helped to make these activities more efficient and thus benefitted the entire community. Ceding some autonomy and providing labour or tribute to these community ‘leaders’ were small costs in light of the benefits received. In the beginning, those who took on these roles tended to show some skill or knowledge in helping the group survive and prosper. The process was an evolutionary one where egalitarian bands gradually transitioned to hierarchical chiefdoms and then over time became full states via consensual understanding and appreciation.
The evidence to support this theory comes from the existence of monumental construction (e.g., pyramids of Egypt, Mesopotamian ziggurats) where complex administration was needed to organise the resources and labour, with the collective benefits of food distribution, employment, and a shared identity. It also is said to be seen in redistributive chiefdom economies where a central and benevolent chief would collect and then redistribute food and other goods during times of scarcity. Finally, as societies grew in size, and the long-established kinship-based systems for dispute resolution lost their adequacy, conflicts were adjudicated and social order maintained via a central and neutral authority (e.g., judicial system).
Critics of this model, however, point out some important flaws.
This interpretive approach tends to ignore internal conflict and downplays the role of force, exploitation, and class conflict that arose alongside societal ‘evolution’. It has also been argued that a managerial elite is more often than not seen using their positions of ‘leadership’ to consolidate authority and enrich themselves and their supporters. Critics also contend that large-scale projects were often initiated by a group’s elite to justify their own existence–a means of legitimising societal hierarchies. In fact, archaeological evidence suggests that large-scale irrigation systems were very often created after state formation, not before or during, suggesting that the labour was coerced rather than voluntary.
Conflict Theory
This theory stands in contrast to the Integrationist one of cooperation and mutual benefit, being more about coercion, inequality, and power. It argues that a small, dominant social class, seeking to maintain and/or expand its power over the masses (and consequently its wealth/revenue streams), leveraged its positions of authority to sustain/expand social and economic hierarchies, and thus the interests of a relatively small elite group.
Via this interpretive lens the Neolithic Revolution, with the arrival of food surpluses, was a significant tipping point. These surpluses led to something that could be accumulated, controlled, and stolen. Bands of hunter-gatherers tended to live in egalitarian societies where personal and group labour resulted in immediate consumption with no wealth accumulation. Once surpluses arrived, there existed a basis for power and those who controlled these (be it land, water, livestock, grain) took on potential influence and wealth previously unavailable and eventually came to protect this advantage in a variety of ways.
This control of economic surpluses resulted in a stratified society with at least two well-defined ‘classes’ of people: a ‘ruling’ group that managed important societal systems and thus controlled the primary resources and any surpluses; and, a group of ‘producers’ which carried out the labour that created the surpluses. In order to protect their privileged positions from both internal dissent and external threats, the ruling elite created a variety of institutions and positions of ‘power’–from an all-powerful king to a defied priesthood/ruler to a state ‘security’ force. The ‘state’ served to not only legalise and enforce property rights that benefitted the ‘elite’, but established ideological ‘controls’ to legitimise the established hierarchy and monopolistic violence in order to suppress resistance.
“You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to
So that when they turn their backs on you
You’ll get the chance to put the knife in”
-Dogs, Pink Floyd (1977)
This explanation suggests that the ‘evolution’ that has led to our current sociopolitical structures is not consensual as Integrationists argue but quite coercive and involuntary for the masses who do not benefit to the extent of a well-protected minority of the population. The economic dependence created by the systems in place alongside ideological beliefs and the threat of force has compelled the masses to engage in and support this system.
Critics of this approach, however, suggest it is deterministic in its mostly economic focus and reduces the complexity of societies. It is also said to underestimate the integrative functions that benefit society as a whole–why would the masses accept such an arrangement if there were no perceived benefits? Finally, the Conflict model is more of a ‘chicken and egg’ dilemma in that it doesn’t clarify which caused which: did class conflict lead to the formation of the state, or did the state lead to class conflict?
Archaeological Evidence
There exists material evidence very early on for rising inequality and coercion by an ‘elite’ group; however, there also appears to have been integrative motivations that served to create a base upon which conflict and exploitation were later built.
Archaeological research has found that before there were signs of social inequality and coercion, cooperative social elements were prevalent. Before the advent of agriculture with its food surpluses and social hierarchies, egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies were: engaging in monumental construction in the form of elaborate ritual centres (e.g., Göbekli Tepe in modern Turkey, 9600 BCE); participating in long-distance trade of resources that implies cooperation and conflict mediation (e.g., obsidian and other valuables during Neolithic times); and, cooperating during the development of agriculture and the establishment of early, sedentary societies where collective decision-making and actions would have been required.
While the Integration model provides reasoning for these observations, it does not help to explain how such egalitarian societies transitioned into hierarchical ones and eventually developed state-level complexity where entrenched hierarchies were supported by ideological belief systems and coercive institutions. State-level societies appear to demonstrate right from their beginning social hierarchies and violence.
Burials from both Ur in Mesopotamia and the Shang Dynasty in China exhibit significant differences between ‘commoners’ and ‘royalty’, including the entombment of sacrificed retainers and soldiers to accompany the ‘elite’ on their journey to the afterworld. This suggests strongly that these ‘elite’ were not benevolent managers who volunteered their time and knowledge out of the goodness of their hearts but, rather, a group seeking power by coercing and forcing others to serve in a subservient manner.
Substantial and substantive fortifications, as well as weapons specialised for killing and maiming other humans, are common throughout state remains. Mass graves of executed individuals, including those with bound hands, have been uncovered along with evidence of repetitive warfare between groups. These findings point towards societies somewhat preoccupied with warfare as well as internal control.
Skeletal research shows evidence of significant health disparities with the ‘elite’ taller and exhibiting less nutritional stress and physical trauma than ‘commoners’, suggesting differential access to food production as well as engagement in labour and/or warfare.
Archaeology has also discovered food storage and redistribution centres. Integrationists suggest these are a form of a social safety net established for the benefit of everyone. Conflict theorists, however, counter that these are a reflection of consolidated economic power whereby control of food surpluses meant control over populations.
Modern Synthesis
Today’s scholars tend to mesh these two most prominent models on the development of governing institutions in large, complex societies into a synthesised one that combines elements of both.
It is proposed that what likely began as an integrative function to support a relatively small local population morphed into a larger and increasingly complex society that reflects the Conflict model. Leadership opportunities that grew from community-supporting activities allowed for the accumulation of wealth, privilege, and power that led to hierarchies and eventually the creation of avenues (e.g., societal ideologies, coercion) that served as a means to protect and expand privileges and entitlements.
Generally, the idea is that our modern governing institutions seek to serve its citizens (the Integrationist interpretation) but also–and perhaps more importantly–protect and enforce hierarchical arrangements whereby the majority of benefits accumulate within the top of the power and wealth structures of society (the Conflict view).
The evidence does not support the proposal that the arrival of highly stratified, complex societies was a voluntary or peaceful transition from egalitarian bands and small villages. Complex states with their inequalities and tendency towards systemic violence and force appear to be the result of power and resource struggles that resulted in permanent social stratification. It would appear that the state is more a predator than a beneficent manager solely serving the citizens and their interests.
States do, as the Integrationist model suggests, provide some collective benefits such as security and infrastructure, but the ‘elite’ are motivated to implement such things in order to maintain their legitimacy and societal stability, and not for some high moral and collective-interest purpose–although the ‘everything we do is for the betterment of society’ is the perspective that this elite want the masses to believe; they do not wish their true motivations to be understood.
Circumscription
One version of such a synthesis can be seen in Robert Carneiro’s Circumscription theory. He has proposed that as small groups/villages developed agriculture on limited/circumscribed productive lands (i.e., surrounded by mountains, waterways), the population growth that accompanied this food production method eventually led to competition over the most fertile areas. The resulting warfare and difficulty of fleeing to comparable regions would result in defeated villages becoming subjugated to conquering/winning ones. Tribute in the form of goods or labour formed the first hierarchical societies with a ‘ruling’ and ‘producer’ class. This process would repeat over time with such villages transitioning to chiefdoms and eventually states as populations grew and elite reach expanded. Alongside this would be an increasing use of ideological measures and coercive mechanisms to ensure the maintenance of the class system.
In essence, the ‘ruling’ class would provide the benefits of defence, large-scale construction management, and resource distribution–collective ‘goods’ helping to justify/legitimise their positions within the societal power structures that developed. This hierarchical system, however, was founded upon conflict, economic exploitation, and coercion with complex governing institutions emerging to protect the ‘elite’ class and not on the notion that the ‘elite’ were reimbursed willingly because of their altruistic behaviours and actions.
Legitimising Status Quo Power Structures
Most everyone in a society believes that the status quo power (and thus wealth) structures are legitimate and, for the most part, worthy of ongoing support. While some criticise particular systems or aspects of them, they more or less continue to hold that large, complex societies require centrally-planned mechanisms to keep them functioning for the benefit of all, and to keep disorder and chaos at bay.
Sociopolitically, anyone can rise to the level of a ‘leader’ and do good for society. It’s only a few bad individuals or a misguided party that is ruining things for us all. It’s the other team that is bad/dishonest/corrupt; ours is the opposite and will save us! We can elect the ‘right’ person/people/party that will ‘solve’ all our issues. We simply need to tweak things slightly and all will be okay. The promised land is just over the horizon and can be reached. Any. Moment. Now.
Things are not working out? We need more people voting (for the ‘appropriate’ person/party, of course). Or, as Erik Michaels responded to and agreed with a comment of mine on a Facebook post related to this issue that our sociopolitical systems can indeed ‘solve’ our various predicaments: Vote harder!
The assumption by many is that without governments, anarchy will be let loose upon the land, so get out and vote! And if you don’t, you can’t complain (except: George Carlin on voting).
This, of course, is a notion especially reinforced by those benefitting from the status quo systems, but I would argue it mostly helps to legitimise these systems and helps keep alive the notion that the masses actually have agency in the sociopolitical realm–in other words, the entire election/voting process is performative in nature serving mostly to help enshrine the status quo hierarchies and sociopolitical institutions.
Setting aside the impossibility of human agency countering the impacts of biological principles (e.g., ecological overshoot), thermodynamic laws (e.g., entropy), and/or physical limits (e.g., existence upon a planet with finite resources and compensatory sinks), most people fail to question the sociopolitical systems that they exist within. They have, as I suggested at the beginning of this essay, been conditioned to believe in their efficacy and inevitability. And contemplating or accepting that one’s core beliefs are flawed or misguided is next to impossible to do thanks to the anxiety/distress such thinking raises.
Looking behind the curtain, however, provides a glimpse of the machinations taking place where our thinking and beliefs are manipulated and steered through social stories, and have been for millennia via state and ideological mechanisms.
The oldest of these is through origin myths, whereby ‘rulers’ were said to be direct descendants of a god providing them with divine rights, and/or society arose as a result of some heavenly-sanctified event where a semi-divine individual saved everyone from chaos (i.e., the current system is thus required to prevent a return to survival against Nature and its ravages and unpredictability).
Another approach is via control of language and/or the education system. Modern educational curriculums, for example, tend to emphasise the necessity and benevolence of a society’s ‘ruling’ class, and suggest that status quo systems are the result of natural and progressive social evolution. Language is manipulated to favour power and wealth structures whereby taxes are framed as obligations/tributes to help maintain societal benefits rather than as forced payments supporting the ruling ‘elite’.
The self-interests of the elite are framed as being identical to the public good. What’s good for the elite is good for all. Wealth and prosperity trickles down to the masses. Credit for peace, security, and stability is the result of our ‘leaders’ policies and actions, but hardships and crises are blamed on external factors such as some evil ‘other’ (usually a foreign ‘boogeyman’, but sometimes the political opposition or the state’s citizens themselves) or unavoidable circumstances (e.g., extreme weather, natural disasters).
A support base on the margins of this ruling ‘elite’ class is created through the sharing of some of the privileges that accrue from the wealth-generation/-extraction systems that exist. A ‘retainer’ class, for example, who becomes a secondary tier and receiver of differential benefits from the masses. This group, then, has a vested interest in the status quo systems and become perhaps the most vocal champions of them (e.g., bureaucrats, academics, provincial/state/municipal ‘leaders’).
Keeping the masses mollified and distracted is also important to reduce the risk of domestic revolt. Redistribution of some goods is carried out via ‘bread and circuses’ activities. These tend to be performative public spectacles to showcase a ruler’s (or ruling class’s) benevolence and power while creating a dependency and perhaps a sense of obligation. Oftentimes, the elite help to fund such activities ‘behind the scenes’ simply to keep people’s eyes and minds occupied (and off the pillaging of ‘national treasuries’ that is taking place). Such theatre is especially important during times of crises (when the public may notice that things ‘aren’t quite right’, and take exception to the extreme inequality that exists and seems to be growing).
Other means of guiding societal narratives can be seen through the use of the Overton Window that can help to limit the scope of debate that takes place (e.g., how can we improve voter turnout?). Alternatively, dissent can be marginalised by labelling those who raise questions/concerns as ‘enemies of the people’ or ‘unpatriotic’ and/or crises can be manufactured with a ‘solution’ waiting in the wings (and one that typically brings about the implementation of sought after policies–most (all?) which help to expand/maintain internal control and wealth accumulation among the elite–and can be leveraged to demonstrate the quick ‘action’ of a responsible and aware government).
So, the elite maintain status quo power and wealth structures not simply through their control of important resources but by way of manipulating societal narratives. Such stories serve to instil the belief that their rule is beneficial for all, and they also tend to be less costly (and perhaps more enduring) than the more oppressive and forceful means our governing institutions have at the ready. These narratives additionally help to cover up and place the coercive and violent origins of the state and the ruling elite’s power in the distant past.
Why most support the Integrationist as opposed to the Conflict perspective will be expanded upon in Part 2 of this multi-part Contemplation.
As well I will delve into how the pursuit of perpetual economic growth has become the means by which modern governing institutions claim to best serve their citizens and legitimise themselves, what means pre/historic societies used prior to this narrative, how this quest of perpetual growth collides with existence on a finite planet, and finally the prospects for our future in light of two of the more significant factors supporting continued economic growth: credit-money creation and resource extraction (particularly as it pertains to energy).
What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:
“Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better.
Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.”
If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).
Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).
If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.
Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99
Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…
https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US
If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.
You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.