(no subject)

[randomness]

I really liked this piece from The Epicurean Dealmaker, inspired by an exchange between Leon Wieseltier (in the New York Times) and Kristi Culpepper (in Medium):

More broadly speaking, I get the sense Mr. Wieseltier is fighting a rearguard action against change itself. He does not like the current technology, science, and economic triumphalism sweeping through Western society because it does not value—and it may actively harm—those things he holds most dear, the things he has spent his life learning, loving, and fighting to preserve. This is understandable, if only as human psychology, but it is not an argument. Change is natural. Change is ineluctable. Life is change.

I am not afraid of change, even if not all of it is for the better. Frankly, there are very few human societies—ours included—that couldn’t benefit from a little disruption. The opposite of technological change and disruption is stagnation and the ossification of socioeconomic power structures. Human beings are lazy. (Or, if you prefer a less pejorative characterization: humans naturally and quite sensibly conserve their own energy.) If something does not force us to change, we will not do so. It is too… disruptive. Internally and externally imposed disruption is what forces us, both as individuals and societies, to adapt and change to new circumstances and environments. And let us not kid ourselves: not all change is good, and very little good change is unalloyed with bad. Change, even when positive overall, is painful and annoying, and it often destroys things we hold most dear.

We must strike a balance here. We must neither champion change mindlessly nor suppress it willfully. Neither extreme is healthy, for change will come whether we want it or no, and change is dangerous, for we cannot see all ends. I have cited the maxim of Chesterton’s Fence before, which encourages reformers to educate themselves about the history and intent of social institutions before they decide to destroy them, as a bar to change for change’s sake. But conservatively minded people should heed its message, too: if you discover the purposes for which an institution were created no longer apply, or its effect has evolved into a positive impediment or harm to current objectives, it is incumbent upon you to destroy it also. Chesterton’s Fence is no bar to change or reform. It is a warning to manage change mindfully.

Comments

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

Leon Wieseltier (/ˈwiːzəltɪər/; born June 14, 1952) is an American writer, critic, amateur philosopher and magazine editor. From 1983 to 2014, he was the literary editor of The New Republic. He is currently a contributing editor and critic at The Atlantic. (from Wikipedia)

That is, Leon Wieseltier's social capital (including his ability to make money as a writer and his social status) are being threatened by Amazon and "the greatest thugs in the history of the culture industry". So he is "Among the Disrupted" and he doesn't like it one bit, though he can claw back some social capital by becoming the self-appointed spokesman for the class whose adulation he craves.

Of course, those of us who benefit from this disruption (including the Dealmaker) don't find the disruption so objectionable.

I'm willing to be a bit more surly about it all: It's quite possible to block "change", especially in economic and social spheres. It's done all the time in the US, and even more frequently in Europe. The problem with stopping change is that inevitably the change that's stopped is the change that hurts politically powerful constituencies. And not infrequently it causes larger social problems. For instance, in France, it's very difficult to lay off workers, or even fire them. The consequence is that employers try to minimize the number of people they hire, leading to very high levels of unemployment, especially among discriminated-against groups like Muslims. We've recently seen the sorts of trouble that leads to.

Similarly, Greece has lots of economic regulations that ensure that various businesspeople aren't inconvenienced by change. The result is a sclerotic system with the lowest productivity in Europe and the consequent inability to pay for public services.

In the US, there is less blocking of change, and "Change is a semi with smoking brakes filling up the rear-view mirror." So various weird-ass types can "make a difference" simply because they give some group of people something they weren't getting before. This includes Apple, Google, and Amazon, as well as out-of-the-wings politicians like Reagan and Obama.

As the Dealmaker says, we should exercise care, but if it becomes possible to truly "manage change" by some means, that means will eventually be cooped by some powerful group to ensure that their interests are not threatened, and sclerosis will ensue.