| | It is certainly a passionate attack on uninformed social change, but surely begs some crucial questions. For example: it would follow logically from the proposition of freedom rooted into our inviolate right to enjoy the time we have, to enjoy most the experience only we can experience, namely our own experience of life, that the only social structure was multicultural, groups of like minded accumulated about certain ideas and enjoying the company of each other. Such is the experience, the living reality of multiculturalism, but then where is the social cohesion? I call socialised sets of ideas about which people aggregate 'social nodes', this being the core explanation of social structure and development. Living cultures are such nodes, they enable satisfaction for those at the node, but are quite unable to offer insight or assist in forging coherence, and this of all things is likely the greatest issue with which modern societies yet wrestle. The politically naive view of multiculturalism, based only on the experiential view of culture, leads into 'whose culture will dominate?' I propose we need accept and understand two levels of social nodes, the first, the typical cultural level, largely experiential, the second, what I call the pan-cultural nodes, these involve issues of centrally funded education, economics, nature and role of the firm and wealth creation, law and government, crucial infrastructure such as roads and sewage, and the like. These necessary cooperative issues are crucial if we are all to enjoy freedom. Society cooperative only in abstract, experienced in passion coherent only in intellect. Surely social engineering is making these things better and more effective, so not 'should we', but 'how do we do it better?', and I suggest that it can only be made better by better models.
|
|
