Reports from the Telos Student Seminars in Irvine and Nanjing

The Telos Student Seminars provide a forum for students around the world to engage with critical theory by discussing a common set of paired texts from Telos—one current essay and one pertinent essay from our archives. The following reports from our first Telos Student Seminars at Concordia University in Irvine, California, and the Hopkins-Nanjing Center in Nanjing, China, compare Paul Kahn’s “Law and Representation: Observations from an American Constitutionalist” (Telos 195, Summer 2021) and Paul Piccone’s “The Crisis of Liberalism and the Emergence of Federal Populism” (Telos 89, Fall 1991). The Irvine seminar advocates addressing the political challenges highlighted by Kahn and Piccone through a new American civil religion “built on mysticism,” while the Nanjing group took the seminar as an occasion for a wide-ranging, cross-cultural discussion about society and politics. Telos Student Seminars participants across the globe will gather virtually for a discussion with Paul Kahn at the end of this month. For more details about the Telos Student Seminars, including summaries of the two essays under discussion, click here.

From Irvine, California

The Crisis of Liberalism and Constitutionalism Requires a Metaphysical Solution

Seminar coordinator: Timothy Jackson Stueve
Seminar participants: Eva Gahn and Emily Yamada
Faculty convener: Dr. Camelia Raghinaru
Concordia University Irvine

Throughout Paul Piccone’s “The Crisis of Liberalism and the Emergence of Federal Populism” and Paul W. Kahn’s “Law and Representation: Observations from an American Constitutionalist,” a central, national struggle comes into view: America is having an identity crisis, both political and social. This crisis began with the beginning of the new form of globalism after the dissolution of the USSR—the “other” by which America defined itself. New approaches to the political have emerged in response to this lack. All these approaches seek to divide, but when they fail to identify enemies without, the enemy becomes found within, resulting in a national-scale identity crisis where half the population seems to think there are clear-cut sides and the other half is wondering what the sides even are. The solution, whatever it is, must cut through the left-right divide and reanimate what Kahn calls the faith in “civil religion.” What is needed in particular is a new, common understanding of metaphysics built on mysticism.

In Piccone’s words, “having lost its totalizing other, the US liberal consensus of the Cold War years is . . . confronted once again with those old international conflicts which it had managed to externalize for over forty years.” These conflicts are the most immediate and important political themes today: “[the conflicts] between labor and capital, freedom and equality, public and private.” The loss of an other creates both a lack and an opportunity for America to define itself. Yet in this moment, when new self-definition is needed, we were left with what Piccone dubbed “the shallow consumerism” of contemporary American culture. Perhaps indeed it is this very consumerism at the forefront of the American identity that has led to the loss of faith that Kahn describes. When one’s ultimate role in society is shopping, it becomes easy to become disillusioned with the abstract ideals of liberal constitutionalism.

Various strategies to combat this state of affairs: the Straussian neoconservative exaggeration or fabrication of threats of terrorism in an attempt to unite the country; the rise of identity politics, which offers a consumerist approach to social issues (Values, Attitudes, Lifestyles) and thereby eclipses addressing material economic equality; and most recently a form of political passivity (and inauthenticity) that sees the current form of neoliberal free-market capitalism as the only viable political option, dubbed “Capitalist Realism” by Mark Fisher. The never-ending wars waged in the Middle East and attempts to combat terrorism, empowered by way of the Patriot Act, have offered to create a new “other.” There was an appreciation among neoconservatives that there must be some type of friend/enemy distinction that would empower a revived American identity. The consumerist approach to social issues offered a way to focus politics around individual expression rather than praxis. So, why are we still in this crisis?

The loss of faith coincides with the widespread feeling of passivity. This cannot be separated from a cultural movement towards secularism, which in a sense is the outgrowth of seeds which liberalism planted. As thinkers such as Patrick J. Deneen demonstrate, liberalism inherently sows the seeds for its own destruction due to its absolute focus on individualism, which overrides other ideals. This runs parallel with Piccone’s assessment of liberalism’s overemphasis of individuality as necessitating “the deployment of an increasingly powerful state, independently of whatever particular crises may have historically precipitated the actual centralization of power.” By making the rights and freedoms of the individual a type of metaphysical necessity, liberalism begins to hand over more and more power to a centralized government and a marketplace that increasingly becomes virtual: transitioning from a physical location to an abstract entity intertwining itself with everyday life and activities, until it ultimately becomes a type of artificial intelligence (as philosopher of cybernetics Nick Land would put it). Capitalism and liberalism inherently outgrow themselves and become something entirely beyond their origins in humane ideals. In addition, the inauthenticity is “as above, so below.” Experts and theorists have adopted machinist views of human activity, particularly thanks to the influences of game theory in the realm of economics and physical reductionism in the realm of psychology. These theories trickle up to those in power who adopt a “resigned” view: humans are inherently self-interested, acting on biological impulses, and can be boiled down to various types. The elites influence the strategies of those in power, whose dispositions serve as models for America’s citizens, resulting in widespread political passivity.

We often underestimate the influence of the realm of ideas upon real, everyday life. Yet the humans of the modern world have in fact chosen to see themselves and others as machines, and assume time and time again that nothing can be changed. Yet all true revolutions are slow, long-form revolutions and find their origins in the freedom of human consciousness. This was profoundly understood by the recently deceased anthropologist David Graeber, who claimed, “the ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently.” The only way to find a way out of this inauthenticity is consciously to shift the most fundamental aspect of our worldview from machinist, materialist, and political dualisms to one that finds its roots in religion. The domains of metaphysics, spirituality, and theology are fundamental to human thought; indeed, as Radical Orthodox thinkers claim, we have really been doing theology all along (even in our disenchantment)—we have just been doing it poorly. Only by digging deeper into the roots of our philosophical and political disposition can we cut through the left/right dichotomies in order to actually progress forward. This direction forward must contain an element beyond material understanding through a deliberately mystical bent: both a willingness to admit humanity’s incapacity to comprehend everything and a real-life treatment of others as more than material. Otherwise, potential political futures will always regress into viewing people as numbers, animals, and machines.

From Nanjing, China

Report from Nanjing

Li Yuying and Yang Chen
Hopkins-Nanjing Center

The student discussion of Paul Piccone’s and Paul W. Kahn’s essays in Nanjing launched a wide-ranging conversation about a range of topics, such as the representation of the majority and the minority, the rights of free speech and free press, and the loss of confidence in the government to address the problems illustrated in social media. A total of eleven participants from China and America joined in the discussion, including nine students from China, one student from America, and one teacher from SAIS. Both Chinese and English were used. The discussion benefited from the different cultural backgrounds, and this interaction helped to shape a deeper understanding of the issues as manifested in different countries.

Participants began with a heated discussion about the widespread problem of participation. One of the perspectives hinged on the use of “majority” and “minority” as social and political terms. One participant supposed that the amount of people in the group could be the standard to distinguish the majority from the minority. In response, several agreed with Piccone’s idea that in a plural society it is hard to use existing democratic institutions to reconcile the plurality of public opinion. The essence of the democratic systems suggest that they can represent “the people” by holding due process, strikes, constitutions, etc., but nation-states nowadays usually do not aggregate the opinions from the minority (e.g., ethnic minorities, sexual minorities). It was discussed whether there was still a need to use the empty concept of “the people” given the failure of the nation-state to represent people’s needs.

This was also a reason for the widespread phenomenon of people feeling unrepresented and therefore apathetic about politics. For example, in America, the problem could be how one party is able to voice its members’ needs when the majority in government belong to the opposing party; and, in China, the difficulty that minorities have in expressing their opinions given that their beliefs differ from the mainstream. Parties other than CCP may face a similar situation. One participant mentioned that in America, people feel they’re not represented and do not matter in a big picture. For example, Biden said in his campaign that he would have a woman of multiple ethnicities as a vice president, but she has done little to represent the people who supported her for these reasons. Liberals try hard to get everyone involved, as with the ethnic minority vote, but it has become more of a way to attract new votes while supporting the same repressive institutions that conservatives do. Money in American politics was also discussed, where the lobbyists tend to represent the big companies for their political interest and money. The elite, therefore, may have more ways to influence policymaking than the general public realizes.

Participants also concentrated on the second topic related to free speech and free press. One participant mentioned that some actors were seriously punished and prohibited from reentering the entertainment industry because of their inappropriate comments. The participant provided examples of why people are more cautious to express their ideas, which limits free speech via self-censorship. In other words, ordinary people worry that if what they say deviates from the mainstream, they will encounter a similar situation of isolation or repression.

One participant further explained the rise of populism by asserting that against the background of a plural and diverse society, people advance their own interests by invoking populism. Another participant shared his own experience. One book he wrote has not been published yet because of an inappropriate word choice. The censorship is too strict to limit the full expression of academic views, such as on peasant issues in China. One participant pointed that such an issue also exists in the United States. She added that experts and bureaucrats have less power than we think because they have a tendency to act as political puppets, and those hidden behind them, through financial support, actually have more power. The media content read by ordinary people has been screened and edited by those in power that the general public is not aware of. She concluded that it is hard to change the situation when there is not a government in place that proactively reduces the amount of corruption and gives people more opportunity to know what is going on.

Finally, participants heatedly discussed the reasons why people feel little sense of opportunity to participate in a common political space and feel ever less optimistic about their ability to influence important things that affect their lives. One participant noted that people feel pessimistic about the political situation because they can’t change anything institutionally. Furthermore, he questioned the reasons behind the pessimistic feeling and emphasized that the issue needs to be more contextualized. One participant attributed the phenomenon to official mechanisms. She took China’s civil service system—a closed system, she thought—as an example. Only those who passed extremely formal examinations, interviews, and background checks are involved in politics while the ordinary people are excluded. Another participant compared the situation in the United States to that in China. The reason why people lack the motivation to participate in government is because there is a lack of representation. For example, only 7 out of 115 Supreme Court justices have not been white men, so laws are upheld supporting white supremacy. Therefore, riots and demonstrations are common because people feel that they can only be heard through chaotic action. Lobbyist issues were also mentioned by many participants. Some people thought the decreased willingness of ordinary people to participate in politics is due to the lack of money. One participant added that checks and balances is an important aspect in the United States, since big companies wield enormous power within politics. She pointed out that such an issue is absent in China because China has realized politics could be severely influenced by business, and has taken some regulation measures. On the other hand, one participant thought people are more willing to participate in politics because she observed that people have the right to share their ideas associated with politics on the Internet without any consideration of responsibility. Another participant mentioned that different political cultures shape the role of political participation. Some Americans, for example, feel that the absence of extensive democratic involvement endangers the rights of Chinese people. However, most Chinese people believe there are sufficient mechanisms to secure their rights.

To sum up, the main points in Piccone’s and Kahn’s essays were discussed with examples from the participants’ experience in political life. Participants overcame some possible stereotypes about political life in China and America after the discussion.