What’s left is The Nothing.

“What is left to a people who have believed only in politics after they lose their faith is ‘nothing,’ or perhaps ‘The Nothing.’ And what follows the failure of politics is not another form of political order but most likely the end of political community as such and therefore of properly human self-government. We are on the cusp of a new age that is at once post-political and post-human….”

The quote is from the opening paragraphs of Michael Hanby’s article, “Nothingness Rules,” in the latest Touchstone magazine. Hanby writes about the modern mind, especially its expression in the American vision, and how it sees the world from the standpoint of pragmatism. As an example he quotes John Dewey saying, “things are what they can do, and what can be done with them.” Any consideration of what things are in themselves, what their nature is, is unnecessary; more likely, it is a bothersome hindrance to getting on with controlling and changing what is.

“At the core of this metaphysical vision is the elevation of possibility or power over the givenness of the actual world. The celebration of possibility takes on mythic tones in American romanticism about the ‘frontier,’ in our political homage to the ‘American dream,’ and in a thousand mind-numbing commercials. But it is also deeply inscribed into our public philosophy, both political and natural.

“Liberalism elevates possibility over actuality in the political sphere by identifying freedom with rights. Rights create what D.  C. Schindler calls an ‘enclosure of a field of power’ around each citizen, transforming every given reality that would define me prior to my choosing—God, the moral order, and, now we discover, even my own nature—into a possible object of choice. Liberal order thereby undermines these basic realities while appearing to uphold them.”

Hanby goes on to discuss the difference between Marxist atheism and previous versions, why authority and not power is the “true source of the law’s efficaciousness,” and how “technocracy is not the rule of technocrats, but the rule of nobody.” He points out that the seeds of the new vision of nature are right there in our U.S. Constitution:

“The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to ‘promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts,’ prompting Leon Kass to comment that ‘the American Republic is  . . . the first regime explicitly to embrace scientific and technical progress and officially to claim its importance for the public good.'”

It’s a thought-provoking read which you can access online: “Nothingness Rules.”

3 thoughts on “What’s left is The Nothing.

  1. This is so true of liberals! We’ve seen in in our experience doing foster care. The possibility that a parent might change with proper therapy trumps a child’s safety in the present time. And then there are layers of bureaucratic programs promoting the possibility of rebuilding children’s shattered minds and hearts ~ none of which really work. Everyone is playing a game of pretending there’s services for the mentally ill but there’s really only offices with people doing endless paperwork.

    Like

    1. Your example of “offices with people doing endless paperwork,” expresses the depressing, frustrating reality of the technocratic society Jacques Ellul writes about, in which we all, whatever our political label, are forced to participate. I appreciate your informed perspective from close within that part of the system that is supposed to be helping and protecting children; so many similar stories testify of the rot that has set in, which had its beginnings long ago, as the writer of the article points out:

      “Categories such as ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ and basic concepts like ‘rights’ and ‘liberty’ do not comprehend our nihilism so much as presuppose, and therefore inadvertently perpetuate, it.”

      If the people in general do not have the faith of their fathers, or the even the watered-down virtues of previous generations, what can stop the decline of a society? I heard a conversation yesterday about these political categories, where one person said, ‘I have thought of myself as a conservative, but what am I trying to conserve?’ And the other person said, ‘I prefer the term reactionary, as the aphorist Nicolás Gómez Dávila defined it: “The pure reactionary is not a dreamer of abolished pasts, but a hunter of sacred shades on the eternal hills.”’

      Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.