Sometimes I even have to remind myself that there's a difference between doing science and being a part of a society that all but demands that you have an opinion. Opinion allows society a chance to change and thus survive. Keeps shit moving, going, reaffirming and asking. In order for something to be stabilized it cannot be stagnant, for risk of being forgotten. So something has to challenge.
Anyways, why I say that I have to remind myself the difference between doing science and having an opinion is because of this whole American 'Trump vs. the Squad" thing. Opinion wise, I mean, I hate Trump. I hated Obama too though, so... Politically, I'm certainly more aligned with what is termed "The Squad," which comprises of 4 "Democrat" house reps, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib. The quotation marks are being used to connote the fact that "The Squad" seems to be more at odds with the majority of Democrat politicians than they are with them. This is, at a more basic level, a general trend among "The Squad" and is one of the things that absolutely fascinates me about this situation, scientifically.
First, however, the concept of system closure has to be introduced in order to really get at what's going on here that fascinates me on a social scientific level. For brevity, I'm just gonna quote from Dirk Baecker's article "The Meaning of Culture" (Thesis Eleven, 1997, 51:37). I apologize if it seems like there's a need for preliminary knowledge, or that this quote seems to need some context to be truly grasped.
The first closure of a system removes one degree of freedom: anything happening inside the system has to obey the condition that any ends must be a beginning as well; else the system stops. Of course, a wealth of structures is possible if only this conditions of operational closure (Maturana's 'organization') is complied with (Maturana and Varela, 1980). The second closure removes a second degree of freedom. Now, any regulation of the operations of the system must be accommodated not only with these operations but with the regulation itself as well, viz. the regulation must self-accommodate. There is a self which is introduced and which serves as an authority on all questions of just how operations are to be reproduced. Note that this authority works separately from, yet possibly seeks contact with, the natural reproductions of the system. It doubles the operations as operations not only reproduces but to be reproduced.
I haven't a goddamn clue why that is so big, and don't know how to change it. Whoops...
Let's use the example of the nation. The important thing when discussing the nation in this context is to remove it from the state. For the sake of this argument, assume that the nation and the state are separated. The nation, in this case, is more so cultural and narrative based. The Canada of yesteryear and the Canada of today are seen as one part of a whole. The history of Canada is understood as a linear line of change. The state, however, is a far more technological system where in the holders of positions change, but the responsibilities of those roles barely, if ever, do when one person comes in and another leaves. Of course, the responsibilities of these roles change, but these changes are not based on the whims of any one individual. If a roles duty's change, it is often, but not exclusively, gradual, temporally based and draws upon a system's history.
Going back to the above quote, the first closure of the nation occurs when it becomes apparent that to speak of the nation is to be a part of the nation. This first closure is readily apparent in the debate occurring between the Democrat representatives and Trump. Both parties in this debate have rallied around the idea of change, which it would seem is the theme du jour for any political today. This will probably the longest lasting effect of the Obama administration. The power of invoking the idea of change.
Yet, where is this change coming from? For Trump, Obama and the Democrat representatives, it is through the nation that the nation can be changed. It is through an abidance with the nation that the nation can be changed. However, a teleology reveals itself in this case and we are left wondering how is it that you can change the tools of the nation by using those tools for whatever change you wish to achieve? Rationally, it makes little sense. This first closure becomes less of a stabilizing force and more so a re-opening.
With this re-opening, the system is challenged and, in my opinion, it is in dealing with this reopening that minor social systems become separated from major ones. In this second closure, an authoritative self is introduced. The question of "how do you change something?" becomes complimented with "what should that change be?" The cumbersome teleology of having to simultaneously re-affirm and challenge a system gets minimized by a significant shift in perspective because, in this case, it creates sides, an Other, to be used for the reaffirming of one's own ideas and existence. In the first closure, there's the potential, in the case of Trump vs. the Squad, that both are seen to be fighting a battle of little meaning because America changing to become America essentially means nothing. But, when this teleological challenge to the stability of a nation becomes exposed to the idea of authority, or what is right/wrong for the nation, the system achieves some calmness, as ironic that may seem.
It is in these debates of what the nation should be that we are no longer talking about whether or not the nation, itself, is at all worth debating. The validity and the legitimacy of the nation becomes assumed as true when the discussion becomes not what is a nation, but what it is that the nation should be. For Trump, the nation should be one thing and for the Squad it should be the other. Regardless of what comes from this debate, you can bank on two things; one, the nation will always have debates surrounding it, and two the nation will continue to be seen as the best means of achieving change for itself.
Comments