The Ideology of Individualism

“…in modern times much more depends on the correct thinking through of a situation than was the case in earlier societies.”—Karl Mannheim in “Ideology and Utopia,”(1936)

“They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.” — Margaret Thatcher

Ideology is a pre-constructed abstract interconnected pattern of a unified thought system that gives order to the multiplicity of experience, but is not necessary for experience. Ideology is not just about facts—but also about the order of the totality of facts. The concept of the atomistic individual is a theoretical abstraction also, not only society. If there is no society, there can be no markets but only buyers and sellers according to this nominalistic reasoning. Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and existentialist philosophy all use the concepts of “individual” and “individualism,” so that it is a highly ideological term that ranges from philosophies of atheistic egoism (Rand) to theistic existentialism (Kierkegaard). I want to revisit Hobbes again, but focus instead on his view of the individual in civil society.

The very act of static conceptual abstraction of a particular behavior of humans removes it out of context thereby circumscribing any greater significance it may have. The “economic man” is an unconscious distortion by static model driven abstract classification, “the act of rationally objectifying,” that reinterprets human beings as “individuals” absent from a greater community matrix and history. Collectivism says, “E pluribus unum,” or Latin for "Out of many, one." Individualism says, “From the one, many.” Separating the one from the many invite false assumptions about human existence. According to this ideology a mythic-philosophic “individual” drops from the theoretical sky into history miraculously already having fixed unbounded knowledge of all world history. All human motivation is reduced to a search for exchange value in this version of theoretical economic individualism. Human beings become a contractualist wealth-accumulating self-directing machine only seeking power over others. She is the Hobbesian possessive accumulator of wealth so that individualism produces a rational exchange agent from a natural human process. Hayekian Libertarianism and the other Austrian Economic School variations distort the human face—it is reified fiction.

A systematic analysis of the atomistic egocentric individual can be found in Thomas Hobbes’ (1588-1679) book, Leviathan, wherein he describes the self-interested economic man and a theory of the state and society. Hobbes’ philosophical anthropology of human behavior has a familiar ring with today’s popular version of Libertarian philosophy represented by Ayn Randian psychological egoism.[1] The Leviathan’s theory of state is linked to a belief in the intrinsic competitive nature of human beings. For Hobbes the natural condition of men is “war of all against all” for without the nation-state each person has a right to everything. Such an irrational society ruled by self-interested human beings would be chaotic making commerce impossible since no one would be secure against violence from another. In order to avoid this natural state of war rational human beings accepted, in theory, a social contract by which all persons give up some freedom for protection from another. Such a regulating state could have the form of a Monarchy, Aristocracy, or a Democracy.

[1] Footnote: Randian Self-Interest Egoism is really an anti-ethical theory. “Interest egoism,” means “Everyone always acts so as to promote his own self-interest either immediately or long run, to the exclusion of everyone else.” The first modern schools of ethical theory were moral sentiment theories (not "emotionalism") based on human "sympathy" and "empathy" which is the opposite of self-interest egoism of which there are other versions. Randian Interest Egoism is a version of “Want Egoism” or “Wantism” that states  “X wants Y; therefore, Y is right.” An ethical theory only based on self-interest is no ethical theory at all, but uses the language of ethics such as "happiness," "rational," "good," "life," "prosperous" and other tautologous names for their definition of immoral selfishness. And then out of thin air the interest egoist proclaim a universal a priori prescription--even a Duty! (Categorical Imperative)-- saying, "Everyone should seek their self-interest." If a person really believed in “self-interest egoism” they wouldn’t tell anyone since others acting in their self-interest is just more uncontrolled social competition against one’s own self-interest. I just killed Ayn Rand in a footnote.

In Hobbes’ Leviathan the state is not founded on universalistic morality, nor on political human rights, but on non-traditionalist human economic self-interest. Cultural norms are not completely arbitrary because there are some unchanging laws of nature on which norms can be based. In this case normative laws are derived from the biological competitive nature of humans according to Hobbes. Interpreting social competitiveness as human nature legitimizes competition as part of a false social totality. Karl Popper calls this interpretation “biological naturalism.” Man is only an accumulating machine seeking power over others. Biological naturalism is essentially a zoological definition of human beings.

The Hobbesian economic man is intrinsically anti-social who forms the basis of an inherently unstable community that is only designed to assist in exploiting members and accumulating power. In this view there is nothing else to connect private individuals in society except competition and human convention. Each wealth accumulator has no ethical responsibility for his beaten competitor- the poor, or anyone else. Both the unfortunate poor and the shameful criminal are indistinguishable and expelled from society as unproductive. Hobbesian power philosophy has been adapted to popular Libertarian sects in America. Libertarianism and Neoliberalism embrace this anthropological view of humans as a capital-accumulating machine. Libertarian atomized anti-social community doesn’t exist on any other foundation than self-interested advantage, possessive individualism, competition, economic contractualism, and ethical egoism if not crude materialistic nihilism. Hobbes does not deny the existence of society, only that in its natural state society is disorganized war.

For Hobbes there are no absolute values. Where there is no social covenant, no act can be called unjust. Hobbes writes in the Leviathan, “…the notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues.” And there is “…no dominion, no mine and thine distinct; but only that to be every man’s, that he can get: and for so long as he can keep it." In modern advanced industrial society this competitive comportment minimizes the civil and familial to emphasize vocational privatism characterized as possessive individualism, utilitarianism, and un-coerced obedience to external authority with a fatalistic acceptance of conventional work morality (Habermas and the Dialectic of Reason, David Ingram, Yale University Press, 1987, p.15).

The Free Market Fundamentalist thought-system is based on the view of human relationships as primarily economic and transactional with rational self-interested agents producing, distributing, and selling commodities in a market that reflect rational consumer demand. The entire premise of Free Market Fundamentalism is based on a fallacy—the informal logical Fallacy of Composition. One cannot infer something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. In other words, the buyers and sellers may be “rational,” but the market can stay “irrational” longer than you can stay financially solvent. This is the reigning ideological view today in America and is not new in the life cycles (Greek: Kuklos) of societies. See, Kuklos: The "Cycle" of Government Types From Aristocracy To Tyranny.

Market fundamentalism, Hyper-Individualism, Libertarianism, and Neoliberalism all seek to deny an obvious fact --we are all members of society and much of what we prize as the best of human achievements has come from collective effort in building a commons. We must examine human processes in a fuller socio-historical context to truly understand human existence—to recover lost human experience, and not accept an ahistorical ideological characterization of human being. When Libertarianism describes humans as merely Hobbesian wealth accumulating contractualist machines they are not only describing a false philosophical anthropology, but also prescribing a set of behavioral goals for society. The description of human behavior as egoistic self-interestedness is self-fulfilling by ideologically re-enforcing the very attributes that are supposed to be inherent unchanging laws of biological naturalism—the economically strong rule over all. As one author wrote, “the docile and gullible come in droves to prove the now tautologically objectified point.”

Chris Hedges' description of society emphasizes the importance of “place” and “community” and is identical to Schleiermacher’s view of society as a community of individuals:

“...societies are held together by a web of social bonds that give individuals a sense of being part of a collective and engaged in a project larger than the self. This collective expresses itself through rituals such as elections and democratic participation, or appeal to patriotism and shared national beliefs. The bonds provide meaning, a sense of purpose, status, and dignity. They offer psychological protections from impending mortality and the meaninglessness that comes from being isolated and alone. The shattering of these bonds plunges individuals into deep psychological distress that lead ultimately to acts of self-annihilation...” —Chris Hedges, On Contact, 1/12/19.

In America today the very concept of community is under endless attack. Within the sphere of community are cultural values that are the source of social rationality in science and knowledge (theoretical), religion and morality (practical), art and taste (aesthetics). It is these strengths within the sphere of human community that monopoly capitalism is attacking and colonizing private civil life through extreme privatization. These market forces reduce the theoretical to ends-means instrumental technology; the practical is replaced with nihilistic contractual possessive individualism; and aesthetics are reduced to manipulative consumer marketing by multi-national corporations. Society is transformed into a network of dominating pseudo-democratic administrative systems of constraint. Culture becomes an elaborate set of ideologies of socially pragmatic functional false beliefs. The personal sphere metamorphoses into social alienation, fatalism, and mental neurosis. Then in the midst of all this debris of damaged life Free-Market Fundamentalism alleges that human nature and democracy are the root problems.

Do humans have a nature? Going back to antiquity we find in the fourth century B.C. Aristotle writing in Magna Moralia about a “first nature,” and “learned custom” which can be as strong as first nature.

Schleiermachian Sociology And A Critique of Ideology

“Individualism sees man only in relation to himself, but collectivism does not see man at all, it sees only ‘society’. With the former man’s face is distorted, with the latter it is masked… …Modern individualism has essentially an imaginary basis...modern collectivism is essentially illusory....”-- (Between Man and Man, Martin Buber, 1947, Macmillan, p. 200).

“The subject no longer revolves around the object in our critical epistemological system; rather, the object now revolves around the subject. This altering shift has occurred because the object has shown itself to be an imposter.”—Anonymous

The critical philosopher should be aware that the strict distinctions between the State, Society, Church, and Education are only for the purposes of organization and analysis. A person could be a physician employed by a state university and who is religious moving seamlessly through each sphere of civil society routinely. There is a violence of abstract idealization in the process of analysis that distorts the observed object by minimizing how these spheres overlap and interact dynamically, or dialectically in everyday experience. There are two meanings of “critique” used in Critical Theory: 1.) Critique focused on the conditions for the possibility of knowledge. 2.) Critique as examining systems of constraint. We have extensively discussed a Neo-Kantian critique of knowledge using the concept of ideological paradigms. The critique of systems of constraint is best exemplified in the critique of Originalism and Textualism. These two types of critiques will also overlap in this present analysis of society by applying the concept of ideological paradigms as we examine the power of society to construct social reality through a coercive system of illusions.

Christian theologians recognize Schleiermacher as the founder of modern theological ethics. A necessary condition for a moral agent is that she is free to choose between moral and immoral action. However, we are only “free in as far as we can act from our own inner being; we are not free in as far as we can be determined by the objective whole, of which we are an integral part” (Munro, p. 231). Material existence is not viewed inferior as in Platonic Idealism. Most modern Western legal systems understand that the person is not in control in all circumstances; therefore, actions are judged by a person’s conscious “intention,” the nature of the action, and circumstances of the action. In this theological model the individual, or person is believed to be created in the image of G-d as a self-determining and self-authenticating being that is the center of finite existence acting as a “mirror of the universe” (Munro, p. 139). Consequently, by Natural Law humanity is endowed with human rights. Schleiermacher believed “…a person should be an individual ‘without violating the laws of humanity’, that ‘each human being should represent humanity in his own way’, and that what is valuable is a person’s ‘distinctive being and its relation to humanity’ “ (Stanford Encyclopedia: Schleiermacher). Through human reason and volition the foundation of ethics is established and the entire cosmos is given meaning. Schleiermachian teleology views human beings not as accidental to existence, but indispensable to achieving ethical purpose of the cosmos.

As Martin Buber noted, collectivism and individualism are polar opposites between which society swings from one extreme to the other extreme. Christian Pietism is inherently individualistic. Schleiermacher adds community as an important organ of balance to enhance the greater good of society:

”Society…is the union of men for individual organizing activity. The aim of social fellowship is the mutual culture of individuals. It proceeds upon the recognition of personal rank and grades of culture and enlightenment; and its sphere is boundless as the intercourse of humanity. It is in no way limited by the State; for persons of similar tastes and education, no matter to what nation they belong, are drawn more closely to one another than they are to persons of their own nationality who occupy a lower plane of thought and life. Friendship, hospitality, courtesy, are some of the manifestations of this organism or community” (Munro, p. 242).

Amazingly, Schleiermacher’s view of German society in the early 1800 is in many ways more politically progressive than America is today. Schleiermacher was committed to the welfare of humanity and respected cultural diversity while encouraging intercultural exchange and discourse to gain valuable insights into life for the greater good. He did not believe any one society had a monopoly on truth and that other cultural perspectives are life enriching. Schleiermacher held the same cosmopolitan views for cultural diversity in religion. He defended the Jews from discrimination and exploitation that forced them to be baptized to obtain legal rights. Schleiermacher advocated the abolition of capital punishment as revengeful and viewed the death penalty as deeply un-Christian. Criminals instead should be educated and reformed for re-entry into civil society as productive citizens. If the State or civil society is itself corrupted, reform must come from the individual member of society for reform, not revolution in the Schleiermachian view.

Even more surprising is Schleiermacher’s pre-Marxist view on labor in his 1799 essay Toward a Theory of Sociable Conduct. Remember, Karl Marx was not born until 1818! Schleiermacher is not Marxist, but a proto-Marxist! Great Britain did not start legislating a series of English Factory Acts to regulate worker’s rights until 1833 through 1864 (Marx, Capital Vol. 1, chapter 10, sec. 6). Schleiermacher was concerned about three major issues with labor: existential de-humanization, spiritlessness, and the total scientization of life by instrumental reason:

”…Schleiermacher implicitly criticizes modern division of labor on the grounds that it blinkers people, inhibiting their development of their own individuality and their sense for the individuality of others...Second, in On Religion (1799) he criticizes the deadeningly repetitive labor that is typical of modern economies as an obstacle to spiritual, and in particular religious, self-development...Third, in On Religion and the Soliloquies(1800) he criticizes the hedonism, utilitarianism, and materialism of the modern age for preventing people’s spiritual and religious self-development. His proposed solution here is mainly the sort of revival of a vibrant religious and moral life for which On Religion and the Soliloquies plead” (Ibid.).

Schleiermacher was the first male proto-feminist and encouraged women to enter areas of society traditionally male dominated. He wrote in a short essay, Idea for a Catechism of Reason for Noble Ladies (1798), to “Let yourself covet men’s culture, art, wisdom, and honor.” Amazingly, in his Confidential Letters Concerning Friedrich Schlegel’s Lucinde, he encouraged “women to seek sexual fulfillment, and to free themselves from inhibitions about discussing sex” in 1800!  He viewed women as an even greater benefit to society when they are allowed to contribute intellectually and spiritually. He thought women are the moral counter to violence and cruelty within society based on their personal experiences of having limited freedoms. He wrote in Idea for a Catechism, “You should not bear false witness for men. You should not beautify their barbarism with words and works”(Ibid.).

The Interpreter's Purpose

(…ruled by the Pharisees.)

Originalism's avoidance to making normative legal decisions is a calculated effort to hold back the legislature from making broad regulatory government policies. Judges, like Scalia, are deceptively advocating a theory of legal interpretation that is designed to diminish the court’s role in protecting society and realizing democracy. Originalism's goal is to undermine the legislative and judicial function of the courts by instituting a purposely dysfunctional interpretive ideology that achieves its goal by abstaining from reinforcing the values and principles of a normative democratic legal framework. Textualism is incoherent in principle and practice. Originalism is political activism directed toward omitting the principles and norms of democracy. But publicly this laisser passer, do-nothing doctrine of constitutional interpretation is presented as being cautious, objective, conservative, and original to the constitution's meaning. Originalism is an ideological mechanism for changing the minds, judgments, and values of its adherents by providing a frame of reference for systematic falsification. Professor of Law at the University of Southern California, Andrei Marmor, writes in his paper entitled, The Immorality of Textualism:

"In any complex organization, broad policy changes can only be accomplished if those who determine the policy and those who are supposed to carry it out act in concert and share the spirit of the general goals to be advanced. Imagine, for example, a large corporation that strives to implement a new policy. If the mid and low-level executives could require very detailed instructions on every move they have to make, and then they would try to follow the instructions to the letter in a Textualist fashion, it is difficult to imagine how the new policy could ever be implemented. Textualism is motivated precisely by denying the legislature this spirit of cooperation that is needed to implement broad regulatory policies"(Ibid., p.16).

Conversely, Originalism’s scheme to incapacitate constitutional interpretation must not itself be a list of detailed instructions. Instead, embracing an unified passive methodology result in non-action and is much better suited for dealing with the variety of legal situations that are likely to come before a Originalist judge. This way the judge can spontaneously and independently determine how to interpret law that is consistent with Originalism. First, there must be an effort to persuade the legal community to think and act in a desired pattern and to achieve conformity of beliefs, thoughts and actions--or inaction. Enlisting members for an ideological school of legal interpretation is a subtle and invisible way to unify, or integrate group opinion and beliefs. Such homogenizing of opinion and beliefs is what Ellul Jacques called “sociological propaganda.” Sociological propaganda characteristically is not easily recognized even by its spokespersons.

The Originalists’ criteria and rules for interpreting the constitution overshadow the constitution itself. Legal formalism requires ignoring purpose, values, and goals of the original authors such as Edmund Randolph’s contribution to the preamble of the Committee of Detail at the Constitutional Convention in which he advised in writing the constitution to “1. To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events: and 2. To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the constitutions of the several states." But this is all extra-textual information and is not to be considered by the interpreter. In some cases, Originalism is ignored, and in other cases, Originalism is adhered to even when it contradicts the constitution’s text. Originalism has metamorphosed into Constitutional Scholasticism. The Latin word “scholasticus” means, “that which belongs to the school.” Scholasticism has the tendency to transforming from a school in search of the truth to the Truth itself. The Medieval Scholastics would be asked, “How many teeth are in a horse’s mouth?” They would then search all the ancient texts of Plato to find every reference to a horse to find the answer until one day someone said, “Let’s look in a horse’s mouth and count them.” That is when scholasticism ends.

Purposive Interpretation In Law

 

The antithesis of Originalism is known as the “Purposive Interpretation,”or the “The Living Constitution” principle for interpretation.

The arguments presented so far are not the only counter-arguments against Originalism. The critique only touched on the methodological problems of this school of legal interpretation.  Legal theorists have argued that Originalism ignores the obvious relation between the law and society’s political power structure. Legal rules are applied without regard to the real complexities of society that include structural inequalities of classes and the historical context that social behavior is acted out. These existential factors cannot be subtracted from the application of law—that would be selectively non-empirical.

Such abstract formalism is dangerous as exemplified by the Originalist German judges’ failure to stem the rise of totalitarianism in Germany during the 1930s.  Law is politics, and legal decisions are also political decisions. Historically, the law has advanced the interests of the wealthy elites by subordinating the interests of women, minorities, the poor, and the working class. An Originalist reading of the constitution intrinsically reinforces the historic acceptance of slavery and denial of women’s rights.

Taking into account society’s complexity, history, diversity, social structure, and system of cultural values, interpreting constitutional law is portrayed by Originalists as “judicial activism” since a judge can overrule any law as unconstitutional. This is not just an issue of interpretation methodology, but of the judge’s role and duty to protect the Constitutional law that represents other implied values. The exercise of judicial discretion does not necessarily lead to chaos and abuse of power just as judicial inaction does not necessarily mean sound neutral judicial judgment. The effort to avoid “judicial activism” is itself taking into account the hypothetical consequences of judicial decisions and does not automatically negate the judge’s political intentions, but instead merely conceals, or masks them.

There is in physics the concept of the observer effect that postulates the very act of observing itself changes the thing being observed.  An observer does not have direct access to phenomena because interaction is unavoidable. A common example of this principle can be found in physics where any effort by a scientist to observe an electron would require a photon to interact and change the path of any targeted electron. The subjective observer, no matter how passive, can only be artificially subtracted from the objective event or thing perceived. Analytical separation of the passive Subject on the one hand, and Objective reality on the other, is a conceptual falsification of experience.

Likewise, the interpretation and understanding of text involves an interaction of the parts with the whole.  The whole text can only be understood by reference to the isolated parts and yet each part can only be understood by referring to the whole. These two conceptual polarities of the general and the specific are essential to understanding text. This circular character of interpretation is called the Hermeneutical Circle. The meaning of text can only be understood if its entire historical context, cultural values, authorial intentions, and literary traditions are included.  This approach is the antithesis of Textualism that assumes words have a fixed, or static meaning whereas words are actually imprecise and often deliberately ambiguous to convey their meaning.  Terms like “equal protection,” “cruel,” “Liberty,” “Freedom,” “Rights” are used in the constitution precisely because they are ambiguous and yet remain powerful normative abstract concepts that remain meaningful in all ages. The most hideous effect of Textualist propaganda is its de-realization of these Universal concepts of democracy as products of mere functional political bureaucratic processes and not of a way of life, of a concept of society, of a system of democratic values and historic vision

This inherent ambiguity of language and intended imprecision of words—especially of normative concepts—is what makes judicial reasoning indeterminate and unpredictable. The history of the Supreme Court is a history of disagreement and dissent. The Originalists’ belief in only one correct judicial deduction from legal text is itself yet another non-textual assumption brought into litigation to determine legality. Alternative interpretations of law are not a weakness as the Originalist claim, but a great strength for anticipating historical change and different mitigating circumstances by providing flexible interpretations.

In 1944 a young child named Aharon Barak was smuggled out of the Nazi created ghetto Kovno in a suitcase by a Lithuanian farmer. Aharon Barak later became a professor of law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and President of the Supreme Court of Israel from 1995 to 2006. He is known for his theory of Purposive Interpretation of reading constitutional texts.  He has presented his interpretive methodology in this book entitled, Purposive Interpretation in Law, (Princeton University Press, 2005, pp. 464).

There is one section of the California Penal Code that has always impressed me. In the “California Peace Officers Legal Sourcebook (March 1994)” there is a section under Criminal Law (13.1) where it says the following:

"While California legal system is, for the most part, based on the English common law system, California law is less tied to tradition and more “people-oriented” than the old common law. Common law is bound to the letter of the law. The California legal system is directed toward the spirit of the law. The California Legislature expressed its intent specifically when enacting Penal Code section 4:"

This is actually how the California Evidence Code 4 in 1994 reads:

“The rule of common law, that penal statues are to be strictly construed, has no application to this code. All its provision are to be construed according to the fair import of their terms, with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice” (California Penal Code, Evidence Code, 1994, Division 1, section 2, p. 135).

The Legal Sourcebook further says, “…when a reasonable question arises as to the meaning or intent of a given law, the courts will look at not only the literal meaning of the words used, but also the spirit in which the statue was written, its relation to other code provisions, the legislative intent behind it, and the scope of its effect.”

There is hope! Originalism is easy to defeat, the living constitution is easy to defend. Transforming the US court system is a necessity for preserving democratic values, and living a lofty, great, rounded, splendid life.

The Hopi Indian word

“Koyaanisqatsi”

Textualism Is Not In The Text

 “… the ontology of a false condition.”--Adorno, Negative Dialectics, p.11.

Textualism is a theory of interpretation used by Originalism. The term “Textualism” was coined by Mark Pattison in 1863 to criticize Puritan theology (Wiki) for some of the very same reason that Originalism is criticized—a too narrow reading of text that ignores the larger principles, intent, and spirit of the subject. Theologians criticized Christian Protestants for allowing biblical scripture to become a “Paper Pope” and replacing genuine spirituality with a strict moralistic legalism in an idolatry of the text. Ironically, Christianity itself originated as a reaction against ancient Talmudic legalism and the rabbinic court system that regulated matters of dietary and ritual law, marriage, divorce, and social organization. Remember the biblical story of Jesus' disciples picking grain for food on a Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28 ). When the legal scholars of the time, the Pharisees, challenged Jesus over their violation of the Torah’s text to observe the Sabbath, he declared, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Or analogously, one can say, “the constitution was made for man, not man for the constitution.”

Further parallels can be made between Christian Biblicists and secular Textualism, but our immediate concern is how this theory is being applied to interpret constitutional law. The appeal of Textualism is also an appeal to empiricism--one simply refers to the words of the text and reads the meaning. Thus, there is an unambiguous procedure, a set of objective steps, to understanding and applying the law. Likewise, the words themselves are defined by a set of operations—an empirical methodology-- to determine their meaning. This methodology is called “Operationalism” by which “the process of defining a concept as the operations that will measure the concept (variables) through specific observations.” Operationalism is characteristic of technological reasoning and scientific positivism.

One consequence of this theory of interpretation and methodology of defining linguistic meaning is a tendency to identify names, or words with their function, properties, and processes used to measure them. This identification has a profound effect on how language is viewed and used in analysis:

”In this behavioral universe, words and concepts tend to coincide, or rather the concept tends to be absorbed by the word. The former has no other content that that designated by the word in the publicized and standardized usage, and the word is expected to have no other response than the publicized and standardized behavior” (Herbert Marcuse, One Dimensional Man,1964, p.87, referred to here after as "ODM").

The principles of textualist interpretation are designed to minimized or even nullify concepts supporting legal human rights, personal freedom, and quality of life. Words, especially of normative concepts, are stripped of their larger conceptual meaning and become names only. Textualism reduces concepts even further to mere text. Thus, Universal concepts like “Freedom,” “Democracy,” “Life,” “Rights” and “Truth” are demoted, if not discarded, by a reductionist ideological empiricism that has an ulterior purpose of its own:

”This style is of an overwhelming concreteness. The “thing identified with its function” is more real than the thing distinguished from its function, and the linguistic expression of this identification…creates a basic vocabulary and syntax which stand in the way of differentiation, separation, and distinction. This language, which constantly imposes images, militates against the development and expression of concepts. In its immediacy and directness, it impedes conceptual thinking: thus it impedes thinking….”(ODM, p. 95).

"Word" and "Reason" are derived from the same Greek term "logos," but positivist Textualism leaves only the "word" and the larger ontological concept of "Reason" is excluded from its meaning. Universals are demoted to the particular. Textualist analysis is inherently restrictive, reductive, and exclusionary so to lockout normative issues and questions. This specialized methodology represses intuition, conceptual thinking, and critical analysis since its scope is limited to the concrete fixed image of written text:

”… linguistic abridgments indicate an abridgment of thought which they in turn fortify and promote. Insistence on the philosophical elements in grammar, on the link between the grammatical, logical, and ontological "subject," points up the contents which are suppressed in the functional language, barred from expression and communication. Abridgment of the concept in fixed images; arrested development in self-validating, hypnotic formulas; immunity against contradiction; identification of the thing (and of the person) with its function-these tendencies reveal the one-dimensional mind in the language it speaks”(ODM, p. 96).

Originalists argue that this exclusion of normative questions is a virtue of their methodology and that addressing normative issues is actually harmful to democracy. The interpreter's eliminationist intent is the true intent of Textualism: "The analysis is ‘locked’; the range of judgment is confined within a context of facts which excludes judging the context in which the facts are made, man-made, and in which their meaning, function, and development are determined"(ODM, p. 107). Not only is this reductionism internal in how it understands language, but also extends externally to non-textual factors by eliminating the author's intent and historical context to determine textual meanings. The historical developments of democratic values are reduced to rejectamenta of a legal formalism. We get a textual interpretation that is even proud of its ahistorical character, lacking intentionality, and references only the lexicon. Marcuse writes, "Where these reduced concepts govern the analysis of the human reality, individual or social, mental or material, they arrive at a false concreteness--a concreteness isolated from the conditions which constitute its reality. In this context the operational treatment of the concept assumes a political function"(ODM, p.106).

The resulting interpretations are highly biased being derived from the neutrality and objectivity of nihilism that re-enforces authoritarianism by default. Interpretation by this method is a highly political act in which democratic rule really means indifference to the democratic citizenship--that is to say, it is anti-democracy. Legal interpretation independent of society’s normative democratic tradition actually gives the judge greater license to apply any meaning they understand to be "plain" and "reasonable." In fact, we do not even need a judge, just an ordinary English speaking person.

“What was in the past no longer counts, only that which actually is. Oblivion is the basic trait of such a life, whose outlook upon past and present shrink so much that scarcely anything remains in the mind but the bald present"--(Karl Jaspers in the Modern Age, p.50 [trans. altered] on the rise of Nazi Fascism).

The word hermeneutics is a term derived from the Greek word for "interpreter" and is likely taken from the name of the Greek g-d Hermes, who in Greek mythology is the interpreter of the messages from the g-ds which he would sometimes mischievously change! Hermeneutics has since come to mean the theories of the interpretation and understanding of texts. By using a hermeneutical theory to interpret possible meanings of a text, it does not help deciding which theory of interpretation to apply to determine its legal meaning. There is nothing in the constitutional text itself that instructs the reader to interpret by intent, plain meaning, or as a reasonable person. Textualism is not in the text! To select one method over the other is a conscious political choice. Normative choices cannot be avoided by the very question posed, "What is the best way to interpret the text?" The law is not a hidden calculus concealed within text, but is normative in character. Interpreting text is ultimately a normative act that produces a norm, or law backed by government power. The normative and empirical components of interpretation cannot truly be separated analytically.

In the philosophical area of study called meta-ethics, the is-ought problem was posed by David Hume by stating “Is cannot be derived from ought.” Here, the ‘is’ refers to facts, and “ought” to normative, or ethical concepts that describe or prescribe what should be. Hume, the famous classical empiricist, is saying one cannot formulate a normative rule just by examining nature because “ought” statements are evaluative statements concerning a potential non-existing state. A fact can be perceived, but an “ought” is a hypothetical (subjunctive future mood) since it has not come into being yet (indicative mood), “…the tension between the ‘is’ and the "ought," between essence and appearance, potentiality and actuality--ingression of the negative in the positive determinations of logic. This sustained tension permeates the two-dimensional universe of discourse which is the universe of critical, abstract thought. The two dimensions are antagonistic to each other; the reality partakes of both of them…” (ODM, p. 97) But if only facts, minus their historical context, are recognized as the only basis of meaning, law, and understanding then normative interpretations become impossible:

”The suppression of this dimension in the societal universe of operational rationality is a suppression of history, and this is not an academic but a political affair. It is suppression of the society's own past-and of its future… A universe of discourse in which the categories of freedom have become interchangeable and even identical with their opposites is not only practicing Orwellian or Aesopian language but is repulsing and forgetting the historical reality-the horror of fascism; the idea of socialism; the preconditions of democracy; the content of freedom….The re-definitions are falsifications which, imposed by the powers that be and the powers of fact, serve to transform falsehood into truth”(ODM, p. 97).

"Facades"

by
 Philip Glass

The Nihilist’s Hermeneutic

”Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them. Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery, rape, and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."-- Caius Cornelius Tacitus ,Roman Senator, 120 A.D..

The Same Suspects

I want to discuss the use, or more accurately the misuse, of language that the Right-Wing propagandists Frank Luntz employed to construct political talking points for the Republican Party. His methodology has its roots in Language Analysis epistemology that treats language like a behavioral machine and focuses on form rather than content—they focus on the ‘Is’ of the text rather than the “Ought” of ethics. The goal of Luntz’s analysis is to “clarify” how language is actually used by the common man in the street. Critical observations on language analysis and a critique of Luntz can easily be applied to Originalism. This is no mere accident; both language analysis and Luntz’s research share the same epistemology thus making this critique inherently integrated. I want to restate three important points about Luntz’s modus operandi prior to examining Originalism.

1. Luntz is a radical empiricist. As a classical empiricist there are only two kinds of language propositions: propositions of fact and propositions of definition. Propositions of fact can be verified as true or false by observation. Definitions are tautologically true. So if one said that a garden is shaped like a regular triangle, they would only have to measure all three internal congruent 60-degree angles. And it may be true or false that the garden is shaped like a regular triangle. However, if I say all regular triangles have three internal congruent 60-degree angles, we don't have to measure anything because it is true by definition--no observation is necessary. The first statement "The garden is an regular triangle” is a "synthetic” proposition. The proposition, "A regular triangle has three internal congruent 60 degree angles" is an "analytic" proposition. In logical positivism all propositions are either analytical (definition), or synthetic (factual). Later on normative (prescriptive) statements were recognized as another kind of meaningful proposition for analysis. And many others proposition types were added by Wittgenstein that were not normally the object of philosophical analysis such as “…reporting an event, speculating about an event, forming and testing a hypothesis, making up a story, reading it, play-acting, singing catches, guessing riddles, making a joke, translating, asking, thanking, and so on”(Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 1953, paragraph 10)--but I digress.

2. Luntz avoids all value statements or ethical propositions. He always avoids words like “truth” “good” “right” “wrong.” This is because prescriptive statements are neither synthetic proposition nor are they analytic. In Analytic Language Analysis ethical statements are only “prescriptions.” If I say, “X action is right,” I am merely prescribing an action as the way people should act. When I state, “Always keep a promise” I am really saying “No one should never break a promise.” I am only prescribing a certain kind of behavior. The same with the “prescription” that one should never murder children. The prescriptive proposition is merely a personal preference. This is because there are only three kinds of meaningful statements: statements of fact, ethical statements uttering a prescriptions, and tautologous definitions. There is a huge body of philosophical writings by this school of thought presenting this very argument.

For example, if one said to another, “What you do is immoral,” an ethical nihilist would say, “You are only saying ‘I don’t like X (gambling),’or ’I like Y (gaming),’ and ‘I want Z.’ ” Ethical nihilists consistently avoid the language of ethics. This ideology understands itself not as immoral, but amoral. One would expect an “ethical argument” but we only get the language of convention, appetite, emotion, preference, and sense impression—synthetic statements. Nihilism consistently avoids the language of ethics because they believe there are no values.

3. Luntz’s ideology is inherently conservative. In the discussion on gambling, for example, Luntz can only appeal to how language ‘is’ used—not its validity or truth. He avoids ethical questions but instead appeals to the status quo--how a word ‘is’ used in general--because there is no other real standard for determining the question. One can only appeal to polls, focus groups, to convention, or the unconventional. This static and limiting form of extreme empiricism, nihilism, and conservatism is the politically safe ideology promoted by academia, science, business, and government. Language analysis’ mission is only to “clarify” words and meaning then describe as a passive observer how language is used by the common person.

Language Analysis makes a metaphysical desert and then calls it truth—and sometimes does not even admit that it is truth. This nihilistic instrumental reasoning is anti-human because it is anti-divine. We will see these same theoretical, and ultimately, political tendencies in Originalism’s formalistic and inflexible judicial linguistic interpretation of the constitution. Textualism is to legal theory what Skinnerian Operand Behaviorism is to psychology. De-realization of ethical concepts ultimately leads to de-sacralization and de-humanization of society. Chris Hedges recently quoted a passage from Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s book “Ethics.” Here is a short excerpt:

”…Breaking away from all that is established, it is the utmost manifestation of all the forces opposed to God. It is nothingness as God; no one knows its goal or its measure. Its rule is absolute. It is a creative nothingness that blows its anti-God breath into all that exists, creates the illusion of waking it to new life, and at the same time sucks out its true essence until it too disintegrates into an empty husk and is discarded….”(Chris Hedges, an ordained Presbyterian minister, gave this sermon Jan. 20, 2019 at Christ Church Cathedral in Victoria, British Columbia, in Canada).

Couperin - "Les Baricades Mystérieuses " 

Interpreting Original Meaning

Within the same year of corporate lawyer Lewis Powell’s memo and his appointment as Supreme Court Justice, a new organization named “The Business Roundtable” was formed. This organization is only limited to CEOs such as its founding chairman W. B. Murphy of Campbell Soup Corporation. TBR now has 160 members which include Phil Condit of Boeing, John Dillon of International Paper, John Snow of CXS Transportation ( later George W. Bush’s Treasury secretary), Drew Lewis of Union Pacific Corporation (later Reagan’s Secretary of Transportation). Other members are the heads of Aetna, Alcoa, Allstate, American Express, Archer Daniels Midland, AT&T, Dow, FedEx, GE, General Motors, JP Morgan, American Express (list of BRT members).

The Reagan Administration seized political power in 1981 by deception and advanced this new theory of constitutional interpretation called “Originalism.” Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork are the most famous judges known to subscribe to this theory of legal interpretation. Pseudo-Conservatives argue this school of constitutional interpretation most closely reveals the true meaning of the constitution and results in sound court decisions that maintain the authority of the people. Originalism, they claim, guarantees consistent court rulings based on a clear and accurate understanding of the constitution’s meaning instead of a judge’s personal beliefs and prejudices. These extremist ideologues claim that Originalism produces clear, predictable, impartial, and stable court judgments. Furthermore, Originalism insures that a judge’s ruling will remain within the domain of the judiciary and not the legislature, or executive so as to preserve the balance of power between the three branches of government.

Originalism is a mixture of other theories of interpretation, language meaning theory, and philosophy of law combined to interpret constitutional law.

Original Intent is a theory of law by which one is to interpret a legal text. The basic approach is to interpret legal text to determine what its author intends to achieve with a particular law even if the intent contradicts the actual wording, or legal text. Here the author’s intended purpose of a law is more crucial than the written historical text itself. Intention determines semantic meaning that in turn creates the legal meaning. Not all constitutional Originalists accept this “intensionalist” theory of interpretation.

Original Meaning is a closely related, but very different theory of legal interpretation that understands the meaning of a law as identical to the plain meaning of legal text at the time it was ratified and became law. Original Meaning is actually a combination of three legal theories of interpretation: 1.) Legal Formalism, 2.) Legal Positivism, and 3.) Textualism. First, Original meaning theory analytically separates empirical legal reasoning from normative issues and political concerns. Authorial subjective intent is irrelevant. Originalism assumes legal formalism, which is concerned with what the law “says” and not with what it “should say.” True interpretation of law requires analytic understanding of language, logic, and definitions. Secondly, this theory of legal interpretation is also positivist because it views law as strictly an institutional, or bureaucratic process of government procedure. Again, intent of the author is irrelevant. Thirdly, the theory of Original Meaning is a form of Textualism that holds that a legal text’s ordinary meaning (not just dictionary definitions) as understood by a reasonable person’s reading of that text should determine interpretation. Non-textual information such as intention, purpose, system objectives, designs, fundamental values, or goals are external --ex post facto-- to the interpretative meaning of law. Subjective “intention” is expelled from legal reasoning by these three different interpretive criteria of Originalism.

This description is a very abstract summary of Originalism. Justice Antonin Scalia is currently the most well known representative of this theory of constitutional interpretation. And from his scholarly speeches on the lecture circuit about Originalism, we can better understand how this theory guides his interpretation of constitutional law and its meaning.

Legal text is the proper domain of legal interpretation in which the objective text transmits the constitution’s message. The text is the object of interpretation:

”I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an Originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words”(All quotes taken from, "A Theory of Constitution Interpretation" Remarks by Justice Antonin Scalia at The Catholic University of America Washington, D.C. Oct. 18, 1996).

”The words are the law,” rule anchors the law to a fix point of meaning avoiding transitory interpretation of the constitution. Scalia is concerned that changing interpretations of law will result in a weak relativistic constitution:

”Immutability was regarded as its characteristic. What it meant when it was adopted it means today, and its meaning doesn't change just because we think that meaning is no longer adequate to our times”(Ibid.).

Consequently, Originalism claims, that appealing to what the constitution “ought” to be goes beyond the static text into the realm of normative subjectivism (Ethics), and legal relativism (Anarchy) that result in superfluous rights not found in the original text. The goal of constitutional interpretation is not what “ought to be” constitutional law, but what empirically ‘is’ constitutional law in text:

”… this development, away from originalism, has [sic] occurred within the past forty years. [sic] Today, we say in our opinions. We believe, the court believes, and worst of all the American people believe that not only the 8th amendment but the whole Bill of Rights, the whole Constitution, "reflects the evolving standards of decency of a maturing society." Or, to put it more simply, the Constitution means what it ought to mean. Not what it did mean, but what it ought to mean. And so, all sorts of rights that clearly did not exist at the time of the Constitution today”(Ibid.).

Those who view the constitution capable of change are “evolutionist” and even the concept of judicial review--that the Supreme Court can nullify a statute unconstitutional --is the result of misinterpreting the role of the Supreme Court as a court of “Super-Law.” This was the original disposition of the Constitution. Further, he warns, “”I think we depart from the traditional view of the constitution[sic] at our own risk.” So for Scalia, interpreting the constitution is strictly non-normative [Non-ethical]: culture, democratic society, politics, and current social trends are ex post facto to the written legal text. Shockingly, but consistently, Scalia said, “I'm not very good at determinating what the aspirations of the American people are. I am so out of touch with the American people. I don't even try to be in touch”(Ibid.).

In this speech at The Catholic University of America Washington, Scalia presents a challenge to non-Originalist critics:

“Originalism has a lot of problems. It's not always easy to do. Sometimes it's very hard. Sometimes it's awful hard to tell what the original meaning was. I'll acknowledge all of that. But the real problem is not whether it's the best thing in the world, but whether there's anything better”(Ibid.).

Therefore, the challenge proposed is to answer the normative question, “Is there anything better?”

Originalist Constitutional Interpretative Theory And Judicial Nihilism

”The denial of reason in the classical sense is antihuman because it is antidivine.”—Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology,Vol. 1, p. 72.

Since Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell authored the “The Powell Memo” to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Education Committee on August 23, 1971 there has been a highly organized effort to dismantle the American State by a faction of corporations and well-financed think tanks. For the last fifty years Neo-Liberalism has injected the poison of Originalist Textualism into the fount of American Democracy—the US Constitution. I want to closely examine the concealed ideologies and ultimate goal of Originalist Judicial Theory.

My analytical approach will be in the tradition of Critical Theory focusing on propaganda, hermeneutics, and epistemology. There are two meanings of “critique” used in Critical Theory: 1.) Critique focused on the conditions for the possibility of knowledge. 2.) Critique as examining systems of constraint. We have extensively discussed a Neo-Kantian critique of knowledge using the concept of ideological paradigms. The critique of systems of constraint can include all ideologies, including ideology itself.

Sociological propaganda

To identify propaganda is not an easy task, but analysis of propaganda can reveal how it works and expose the subordinated ideologies and concealed epistemological assumptions delivered in seemingly simple, and not so simple, slogans, doctrines, and opinions. Philosopher Jacques Ellul defines propaganda in his book, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, (1965) as “… a set of methods employed by an organized group that wants to bring about the active or passive participation in its actions of a mass of individuals, psychologically unified through psychological manipulations and incorporated in an organization.” To “organized,” “unify,” and “incorporate” are key concepts of how propaganda begins its work on the oblivious propagandee.

Assuming the propagandee is unintelligent must to be rejected: persons most susceptible to propaganda are the highly educated that monitor media, current events, and who believe they have immunity to propaganda influence. Thinking propaganda is easily detectable and crudely simple exposes one to possible unconscious manipulation. There are various types, or functions, of propaganda that operate in areas not typically thought to be in the sphere of propaganda.

Ellul makes a distinction between two general types of political propaganda: 1.) Agitation propaganda and 2.) Sociological propaganda. Agitation propaganda is what most people think of when they hear the word propaganda. It is the kind of propaganda characteristic of elections and campaigns that seek immediate limited results for some specific short-term goal. The politician who, for example, agitates for revolt using pamphlets, speeches, posters and rumor is utilizing political “Agitation propaganda.” Also referred to as “Agitprop,” it is very energetic, but short in duration. Agitprop is relatively simple to disseminate and is inexpensive. Agitation propaganda is sometimes referred to as “vertical propaganda” since it originates from the top directed downward.

On the other hand, “Sociological propaganda” is the opposite in many ways and is typically not seen as propaganda because of its passivity, low profile, and directed to achieve long-term goals. Sociological propaganda is also known as “horizontal propaganda.” However, sociological propaganda requires a large communications infrastructure, many organized participants--and it is very expensive. Its long-term goal is not to agitate, but to integrate and include:

”…the group of manifestations by which any society seeks to integrate the maximum number of individuals into itself, to unify its members’ behavior according to a pattern, to spread its style of life abroad, and thus to impose itself on other groups. We call this phenomenon “sociological” propaganda, to show first of all, that the entire group, consciously or not, expresses itself in this fashion; and to indicate, secondly, that its influence aims much more at a entire style of life than at opinions or even one particular course of behavior”(Ibid., p.62).

Sociological propaganda functions as “integration propaganda.” Integration propaganda is designed to persuade persons to think and act in certain desired patterns. Its goal is conformity by individuals and uniformity of society as a whole by establishing shared stereotypes, beliefs, and group reactions. In many ways, integration propaganda is the antithesis of agitprop. Integration of persons ensures stable behavior, reshapes thought and action by unifying, remolding the person, and reinforcing group relations. This type of propaganda is much more complex requiring long term planning for permanent--not temporary--effect. Thus, it is subtle, if not invisible, acting slowly and gradually assimilating the total persona. Integration propaganda is most effective with the highly educated. Rationalization, not wild emotion, is the primary function of integrating propaganda. Whereas agitprop only requires leaflets, posters, and rumor to trigger mob violence, integration propaganda must have the communication infrastructure of mass media and the State. Integration propaganda appears in film, education, literature, social service, and non-political organizations that are not ordinarily categorized as propagandist by the average person. In order for propaganda to be effective, it must encompass the entire life of the propagandee:

”Alongside the mass media of communications, propaganda employs censorship, legal texts, proposed legislation, international conferences, and so forth—thus introducing elements seemingly alien to propaganda…. The judicial apparatus is also utilized…during a trial…the judge is forced to demonstrate a lesson for the education of the public: verdicts are educational”(Ibid., pp. 12-14).

A judicial system itself can act as a platform for propaganda.

With such total saturation of society with propaganda from government and non-government groups, the propagandee suffers from various psychological effects. There are two effects that may explain the indifference we see by the average person to the substantial changes of our system of government and laws. First is “mithridatization” in which the propagandee ignores the intellectual content of propaganda, but continues to obey its rules:

”It is known that under the effect of propaganda the individual gradually closes up. Having suffered too many propaganda shocks, he becomes accustomed and insensitive to them. He no longer looks at posters; to him they are just splashes of color.... Nevertheless, this same individual continues to turn on his radio and buy his newspaper. He is mithridatized…but only to the objective and intellectual content of propaganda…He knows their ideological content in advance and that it would change none of his attitudes…He is deeply imbued with the symbols of propaganda; he is entirely dominated and manipulated”(Ibid., pp. 12-14).

A second psychological effect of propaganda is “privatization” which is “…the feeling that leads man to consider his private affairs as most important and produces skepticism toward the activities of the State.” Propaganda can either encourage privatization, or discourage it depending whether the government wants to encourage participation in affairs of the State such as warfare, or if necessary, to discourage resistance to the State:

”…One aspect of privatization propaganda by the State seems to us even more important: when it creates a situation in which the State has a free hand because the citizenry is totally uninterested in political matters. One of the most remarkable weapons of the authoritarian State is propaganda that neutralizes and paralyzes its opponents…by reiterating a simple set of “truths” such as that the exercise of political power is very complex, and must therefore be left to professional politicians….”(Ibid., p. 192).

Those uninteresting “very complex” issues include constitutional laws and the balance of powers in government. One writer made the comparison between political life and a vast ocean. On the ocean’s surface are the waves, wind, and turmoil, but deep below the surface are vast currents that move slowly and massively, but are undisturbed by the chaos above. Likewise, American politics is active with elections, campaigns, symbolic acts, and partisan conflicts. These events capture our attention and give the impression of change and progress, but these do not change the forces beneath the surface where real power is working to determine the State’s direction.

Sociological propaganda conceals the application of legal theories of Originalism that are used today in constitutional jurisprudence interpretation. The courtroom is also the propagandist’s podium. Legal theories based on an epistemology of totalitarianism will have a predetermined outcome for legal decisions and a built in methodological bias for identifying what are the issues of the day.

The question of Constitutional interpretation is only a symptom of a systemic problem in American society. Originalism is consistent with a governmental system that only uses democratic concepts as slogans or an advertising brand. The American government is at its heart totalitarian and makes use of propaganda just as any totalitarian government. Jacques Ellul argues that no democratic government can use propaganda effectively without becoming totalitarian itself because propaganda is inherently totalitarian. The effect of propaganda on democracy “is comparable to radium and what happens to the radiologists is well known” (Ibid., p. 242).

The False Memories of a Reified World

The myth of a “social contract” is not unlike the Adam Smithian Barter Savage myth that Polanyi critiques in his criticism of Neoliberal ideology. The common thematic thread the two economic myths share is they are designed to provide ideological justification and therefore acceptance of wealth inequality and commodification of money in a self-regulating economy. An important aspect of ideological justification of this particular kind of Smithian market capitalism is to present the state as rational and scientific:

"The argument is part of modern day economics, which was supposed to be a scientific endeavor to explain the underlying scientific principles behind this concept, and Adam Smith is credited with being the perpetrator of this so-called science. Because it's considered a science, it fits with the classical liberal trend towards rationalism, which is given credence as being the basis for an advanced society, towards which some people see humanity moving in a progressive fashion" (Brian Miller, Executive Director - United for a Fair Economy (UFE) & co-author of the new book The Self-Made Myth).

Science plays an important role in laying the foundations of Neo-liberalism ideology so as to be accepted as true by society, and to resist criticism when markets fail:

"Not only does the myth of the Smithian economic accumulating savage provide a perceived “scientific” justification of minimizing the role of government in protecting society against the vicissitudes of market imbalances like unemployment, hunger, and poverty, but the classical market mythos “naturalizes” these inhuman conditions by argument of analogy, “The laws of commerce were the laws of nature and consequently the laws of God”(Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Beacon Press, Kindle Edition, p.122).

This perceived scientific and naturalistic myth is actually an irrational reified philosophy that distort experience. Society (Community) and the Subject (Individual) are distorted according to narrow political interests by subtracting the community’s complexity and history through ideological abstraction. Yet, freedom in the reified theory of the self-regulated market is reduced to a “market view of society which equated economics with contractual relationships, and contractual relations with freedom”(Ibid., p. 266).

Reified concepts result in a reified intellectual life in which experience is distorted and impairs our ability to articulate the complexity of our own lives and world. Reification is radical objectivism that reduces the irreducible object to a limited false concept. Reification is a false consciousness that embraces a “Naive Realism” that gives epistemological validation to reified assumptions in which “the object is independent of subjectivity and is apprehended as it is in-itself. It presents the order of knowing as a fully given object being passively received by a subject”(Brian O'Connor, Adorno's Negative Dialectic: Philosophy and the Possibility of Critical Rationality, p. 50). Radical empiricism, or positivism is distinguished as an epistemology of the passive subject: the passive knower merely collects data. The reified consciousness cannot conceive of objects that are not already reduced to pre-fabricated ossified concepts.