Are you familiar with Karl Popper's ideas about "social
engineering" (and I don't mean it in the Mitnick sense of the
word?)
Err, don't think so. Can only guess what it is. Could you provide a
brief outline please?
Here's a very small nutshell, probably doing tremendous damage to
his ideas:
Take essentialism and nominalism in epistemology: "If it quacks
like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck" versus "If it
actualizes the essence of a duck, it's a duck."
Take the intersubjective, provisional, negotiated approach to
definitions: "If we both agree that it walks and quacks like a
duck, we can agree that it's a duck. We can always change our
definition later if it proves to be necessary."
Consider a similar approach to norms that define societies:
(1) "If it works, it's a good norm" versus "If it actualizes the
essence of a good society, it's a good norm." For example, instead
of wondering (for example) "is this norm compatible with Kant's
categorical imperative / the Golden Rule / the Bible / the
liberation of the proletariat" we consider the question "does this
norm make things better or worse in our society?"
(2) Nominalist questions like the one proposed above can be
considered with the intersubjective method (including, of course,
the question of which questions we should be asking).
Therefore, we shouldn't be trying to construct societies based on
essentialist models (revolutionary change), but rather we should
concentrate on improving the societies we have. We can examine
individual norms, whether or not they contribute the well-being of
society, and whether or not we could find better norms that do the
job better. This way, we can "engineer" societies in an
incremental, evolutive way, rather the same way we engineer
engines. We base our intersubjective discussions on objectively
verifiable phenomena (e.g. measurable economic and social
statistics) but more importantly on our intersubjective agreements
about what value we should give them, and what kinds of things we
value about society in general.
Popper came up with this structure in response to what he termed
utopian, essentialist social philosophies (basically everybody from
Plato's Republic to Marx's Communism). He argues that trying to
construct a society based on an imagined one that is founded in a
philosophy that attempts to describe "the good society" starting
from first principles is almost certain to fail at huge human cost.
No matter how good the intentions of the guy who described the
utopia, once the utopian structure becomes the measure of things,
horrible things start to happen.
While Marxism is if not dead at least pining for the fjords,
essentialist political philosphies are alive and well, so I think
his thinking is quite relevant in today's political landscape too.
IMO most of the neo-con disasters stem from this essentialist
mindset -- and of course the "Islamofascists" on the other side of
the divide are identical in this respect.
Check out Popper's "The Open Society And Its Enemies." Fantastic book.
[snip]
Petteri
--
Me on photography: [ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
