More on Charles Taylor and the causes behind the “success” of the Western world

From an historical and political perspective, I also found Charles Taylor’s Modern Social Imaginaries very interesting.  His central aim, of course, is to identify those "deep" elements of "modernity" which represent the core elements around which "multiple modernities" cluster and ramify.  As noted in my previous post (which may have been less than intelligible for readers who haven’t been talking with me for years about culture and evolution — and all five of you know who you are!), this is one of the most attractive parts of Taylor’s argument to me. 

Taylor’s notion is that societies feel "modern" to us once they begin to have three basal elements:  a notion of the economy as a first-level concept (in Taylor and Polanyi’s terminology – "disembedded") separate from "society" or "us as a people", a notion of a public sphere of discourse as privileged and separate from either politics or the household, and a notion of "popular sovereignty" which provides legitmacy only to forms of governance that (theoretically) derive from the consent of the governed.  Given these basal elements, England began to be "modern" in this sense in the late seventeenth through the eighteenth centuries, giving rise to the United States as the first "from scratch" modern nation.  By contrast, Spain and Portugal (as I’ve written before on EP) continued to lack the robust public sphere and popular sovereignty which would have helped them "catch up" in terms of economic and social development.

Which brings up an important point about the comparative success or "fitness" of the so-called "modern" societies, starting in the seventeenth and leading up to the early twentieth centuries.  It has become something of an orthodoxy that "democracy" and "capitalism" were the major factors in creating the primacy of the most "modern" of societies clustered around the Atlantic rim.  Certainly this has been the view of American economic conservatives in the tradition of Milton Friedman, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union and most "communist" autocracies in 1989 it became the orthodoxy of former-leftists-turned-neoconservatives, leading to poorly theorized but spectacular pronouncements like Francis Fukuyama’s "End of History" thesis.  But if we were to approach the subject without the self-congratulation, without the destructive reification of categories like "democracy" and "markets" into meaningless slogans — in short, if we were to approach understanding our success as if we were studying a colony of, say, particularly successful ants rather than ourselves, to what would we really attribute our success?  How would we go about determining the factors which led directly to this success, as opposed to those factors which are merely correlated with our success, as against those factors which are actively detrimental to that success but are not strong enough to stop our momentum? 

One place to start is to note how Taylor’s schematic dovetails nicely with accounts of Western economic success like North and Thomas’s classic The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History.  Taken together, these accounts suggest that Taylor’s modern "imaginary" provided the cultural and intellectual framework within which politics could alter long-standing notions of economic relations towards a now-familiar concept of "property rights."  The latter — in essence, a legalistic rather than moral notion of economic "ownership" — is the factor which generates sustained growth in economic activity by the late seventeenth century, which leads to the accelerated spread of the control of selected Western nations over larger areas in the 18th and 19th centuries, which leads to the spread and near-ubiquity of the Western "social imaginary" by the late twentieth century.  Landes makes a similiar point in his fascinating The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, essentially crediting the successful spread of Western hegemony to property rights and what Taylor calls the "public sphere" element of the social imaginary.

A nice story, and interestingly one that does not rely on the absolute "moral" superiority of democracy, capitalism, or any other "ism" to explain the eventual dominance of Western societies.  The real question, if we trying to be accurate rather than self-congratulatory, is how we test such notions?  Answering that question brings us back to the subject matter of the last couple of posts, and to the work of folks like Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis, Joshua Epstein, Robert Axtell, and my friend and colleague, Carl Lipo, bridging the natural and social sciences in both theory and method.  I’m hoping this post explains a bit more about why and how I’ve been interested lately in Taylor’s work, and how that dovetails with me playing around again with simulation models of economic and social actors. 


21 Comments so far. Comments are closed.
  1. MonsterCommerce Releases DataPort Version 5.0, Allowing Online Businesses to Achieve More Effective Data Import and Export Including Feeds to BizRate Shopping

    sites that drive customers to online merchants. The newest release of DataPort also makes bulk updates and

  2. Yahoo! Helps Alta Vista’s Babel Fish Swim

    Babel Fish at midnight, Wednesday night. Yahoo! has has revitalized Babel Fish at

  3. Grads Conflicted by High Ideals, High Debt

    in Low-Paying but Socially Useful Fields to Reassess Their Chosen Professions

  4. GEEK: Skype Will Do Real Time Language Translation

    level of intimacy, the phone call.

    The big day is just 24 hours away, when she

  5. Sportfishing Television Releases Video Podcast of There Award Winning TV Show Now Can be Downloaded

    Television Releases Video Podcast Fishing The Yellows Catalina Island Style. (PRWEB May 15, 2006)

  6. 7 GIs Killed Over the Weekend in Iraq (AP)

    al-Qaida militants south of Baghdad and killed two soldiers, bringing the weekend

  7. A Super Cure for the Superbug?

    erck Scientists Discover Potential New Antibiotic in African Soil

  8. Weather Report Expect Changes In Rankings

    that might occur. Additionally they have updated the way to contact them. Instead of relying on email, they have…

  9. New Summer Designs Make Groovy Patches Sizzle For Diabetics Using an Insulin Pump

    at the beach, the pool, the gym or anywhere else. (PRWEB Jun 1, 2006)

  10. Cathay Pacific to Buy Out Dragon Airlines

    Pacific Reaches $1.05 Billion Deal to Buy Out Hong Kong Dragon Airlines

  11. Mozilla Community Put Two-Page Ad on New York Times

    one month after the release. The advertisement features a full-page, black and white

  12. Ex-Enron Execs Found Guilty

    Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were convicted of conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud in a case born from one of

  13. Bernanke Remarks Push Stocks Down

    ints That the Fed Would Continue Raising Rates Sent Stocks Falling

  14. Riley Admits Ego-Driven Past

    Heat coach Pat Riley evaluates his second NBA Finals appearance since 1988 thusly: ‘I don’t

  15. Comparing AdSense Income Versus Requesting of Donations.

    other overhead is to solicit donations from their readers. We are fortunate not to need to do that at SER (although

  16. Court Upholds Arizona Limits Imposed on Insanity Defense

    ruled that states are not obliged to permit a defendant to argue that mental illness prevented him from forming the requisite intent

  17. I think Fukuyama explains little, almost nothing. And I say this because, at a minimum, he’s many decades behind the “end of history” claim. Spengler, Cortes, and so on, to name just two obvious choices, both writing in the 20s. That and Fukuyama expressly links this particular end of history to an oddly eschatological praise for Judeo-Christian thought (the two pillars concept testifies to this), a link for which I have little patience.

  18. Mark,

    This is a really important topic, so instead of simplying responding given fairly old memories of Fukuyama’s 1989 article, I’m spending some time this evening re-reading it and then I’ll write more. I’ve actually been meaning to think about this exact topic, and discuss it here, for quite awhile, but just haven’t figured out all of my points yet. So I’m happy you started this comment thread – it’s a fun topic. More soon.

  19. David Airth,

    I agree about self-congratulatory propaganda. If Fukuyama’s thesis or any other is worth its salt it shouldn’t even go there. Imagine if the theory of evolution was touted like that. Then, IDers might have something to squawk about. Nevertheless, I think the emergence of democracy/capitalism as the chief governing system for humankind, including its variants, is a triumph of evolution, human governance evolution.

    I think there is a good reason why democracy/capitalism has come out on top. Because for a modern world it is the only system possible.

  20. Mark,

    Only a quick comment in between meetings, but here’s a bit about why I made that claim about Fukuyama. I’m certainly *not* saying that I don’t find Fukuyama’s thesis an important set of ideas; clearly it has formed an important part of the discussion (I don’t think Fukuyama precisely *started* it because the history of his thesis goes back quite a ways, but he certainly focused a tradition of market triumphalism around the major changes of 1989).

    What I am saying, though, is that we need to be careful when we say that he “explained” those changes. More accurately, he *described* those changes well, and provided one possible explanation for them which accords well with the underlying principles of our common social imaginary. Whether that explanation is “true” or not is a much tougher problem, depending as it does on how one really believes social and cultural changes are explainable — i.e., what constitutes falsifying a theory of cultural change?

    I’ll try to get into this more when I’m free tonight, but in essence my stance is that Fukuyama and the neoconservative explanation for the current dominance of “democracy” and “capitalism” is a bit self-congratulatory and relies on collapsing a lot of variation within “democracy” and “capitalism” in order to depict historical change as a more-or-less straight line trajectory of progress. Clearly, as one looks around the world, there is more going on than simple convergence on one mode of governance and one way of running a market economy, and oversimplifying the story doesn’t really help us understand that diversity and where it might be leading.

    Where such oversimplification does help, however, is in propagandizing a population, as I’m sure Ken Rufo would be quick to point out. And to some extent, that’s precisely how I think people *use* Fukuyama’s thesis — as self-congratulatory propaganda designed to situate our current actions, domestically and internationally, within a framework that makes them seem both morally right and historically inevitable. And I think this use of Fukuyama’s ideas is very, very dangerous.

    Anyhow, some random thoughts for the afternoon before I get submerged in meetings again. More later….

  21. David Airth,

    I really think Fukuyama’s theory does explain the west’s success. It may have been a poorly thought out theory. But it started the conversation we are having today. He pinpointed a period in history that really was a turning point in history. Much of his theory is metaphoric. It is that way because we still don’t have full comprehension of what real happened in 1989. Nevertheless, it was an empirical development, not something that just happened randomly, That is what Fukuyama was trying to explain, that we are on a trajectory and been modern is a big part of it.