The short answer is that to successfully implement one, you must also have the other. (Soc 101).

The West, the US, Canada, and most countries in Europe have all adopted multiculturalism and promote the concept of the cultural mosaic versus assimilation to a central host nation culture. Assimilation was assumed to imply a negative judgement of an immigrants home culture, and instead the celebration of diversity or difference became the accepted policy.

However, as with a tribal culture or modern developed nation, there has to be some common ideals that all can find and hold in common, or else diversity assumes a profound centrifugal force in the modern nation-state.

So enter cultural homogenization. If diversity is the ideal, homogenization is the reality. Western nations under the neo-liberal rubric unite all one idea that all can agree to, consumerism.

Despite the attempt to set global harmony to economic globalization, the move towards cultural homogenization that is implicit in consumerism and in globalization has significant consequences. Cultural homogenization substitutes a kind of decontextualized materialism for a more grounded and authentic sense of identity that can be found in a culture grounded in ethnicity, heritage, spirituality, language and soil. Hence, the often profound sense of alienation and emptiness that accompanies life in these de-cultured societies. (born out by numerous quality of life surveys)

Harvard’s Huntington and Putnam have extensively researched and written about the consequences of these policies and the real impact they have on societal institutions, group cohesion and mutual trust, and public spiritedness.

It would seem that with so many progressive think tanks there might be a unifying ideology or set of principles that most would adhere to, but perhaps not as you say.

I like a lot of ideas of the continental New Right thinkers, but reject some as well, enough that if asked I would not consider myself one of them. As a traditional, orthodox Christian, their atheistic neo-paganism is a spiritual no-go for me.

The new right critique of popular democracy, globalization/corporate-capitalism, multiculturalism/cultural homogenization and utilitarianism I tend to agree with.

There are a lot of schools of thought within Right or Right leaning ideology, and apparently among the Left and New Left as well.

Actually the results have been overwhelmingly positive. Muslim women in the USSR went from being property(in certain cultures within Central Asia and the Caucasus) to educated scientists and intellectuals. In many socialist states, people looked beyond nationality. Nationalism only began to rise as economic problems mounted, and nationalist propaganda hammered at the door via organizations like Radio Free Europe. You see people of different cultures will work and live together in harmony as long as there is economic and social equality. If one group starts to feel they are getting screwed(a common feeling in Yugoslavia), they may lapse into romanticist nationalism.

“What universal standard would you apply in the attempt to treat all equally?”

I think it is more important for YOU to explain the standards you would use for treating people differently.

” More importantly, how would you apply it and why? Modern European and American feminists and LGBT advocates would be horrified to live in Iran under Shia law, do we have an obligation to liberate them?”

There are Iranians in Iran who struggle for a secular state. It is primarily their responsibility. Also, we can make judgments about theocracy. I’m sorry but a secular state is better than a theocracy, it doesn’t matter where you were born.

” Is popular democracy superior to tribal culture in all circumstances?”

Here’s where New Right racism shines through. It attributes tribal culture to peoples themselves, not to a particular stage of social or economic development. Not only democracy, but even concepts like the nation-state can fail when the level of development favors clan-based society. This explains the failure of independent Chechnya as well as the break-down of the Barre government in Somalia. However, this does not mean that people should be forever condemned to this mode of organization. With economic development comes the development of nation and new identities extending beyond the tribe or clan.

“…all of my commentary as to core values comes from the Center for American Progress, an excellent source of progressive-liberal commentary and advocacy.”

Yes, and as I said before, and as you’ve stated even more explicitly, you seem to think modernism and liberalism are the same thing. You’re wrong. Whatever modernism is, it’s not identical with liberalism, so arguing against the one is not equivalent to arguing against the other.

As for reductionism, here’s your statement that I was responding to:

“…a reductionist argument that seeks to either redefine the position differently than stated and held or to insinuate nefarious, disengenous motives masked by stated rhetoric.”

Your reformulated version after I criticized the first version: “I have used reductionism correctly, in that most progressives I have spoken to or read reduce most right thought to one thing, racism or repackaged fascism, ignoring the broader commentary as meaningless or accusing them of having disengenous motives and masking true intent.”

Here’s the Merriam-Webster definition: “1: explanation of complex life-science processes and phenomena in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry; also: a theory or doctrine that complete reductionism is possible
2: a procedure or theory that reduces complex data and phenomena to simple terms.”

Your version, especially your second formulation, is a sort of impaired version of definition 2. What you’re really doing, of course, is trying to pre-emptively stop people from stripping your statements of their rhetorical decorations and exposing their fundamental emptiness.

“… the modernist idea … is running into this blood, soil and religious retrenchment. If you see another trend on the international scene, please elaborate.”

You do seem to love false dilemmas, but I’ll decline the invitation to endorse this one. You also seem to see no self-contradiction in espousing postmodernism while eagerly buying into the newest, shiniest mental construction, or meta-narrative. To those of us outside your bubble, things look rather different.

I think it is impossible, and actually quite foolish to attempt to define ‘liberal progressive values and beliefs.’ To me, it would be akin to attempting to define ‘terrorism.’ Just as with any esoteric term, each person’s definition is slightly different; no two definitions are alike.

I follow a mixture of Jamesian Pragmatism mixed with Hegelian Constructivism. To that, I add a dash of Social Democracy, more out of love for the working man more than anything else.

I am bourgeois. I’ll be the first to admit it. The son of a successful entrepreneur, I’ve lived a moderately spoiled life. But I know that wealth comes from the bottom, not the top. Happy and comfortable workers are productive and loyal workers. (I feel much admiration for the Carnegie Ethos.)

But I also know that ideals and reality are generally mutually exclusive. So I lean more toward pragmatism because I simply want the job to get done in the best possible fashion.

(And regarding my comment describing your writing as ‘similar to that of an acolyte,’ I wasn’t calling you an acolyte at all. I simply feel that the reverence displayed in your comments is starting to approach a nearly ‘worshipful’ level…)

Unless we can frame the discussion properly, identify what each other believes and why, then exchange and understanding is impossible.

So weigh in, what are liberal progressive values and beliefs?

What do you mean by acolyte by the way? Acolyte of what or who?

It is funny that you speak of Pragmatism, and yet your arguments are so convoluted, so full of sociological and metaphysical ‘woo,’ that I really am starting to believe you have no idea about which you speak. While you are certainly better written than either of them, you have placed yourself in the same class as Funinsnow and Jason Smith. Namely, your refusal to compromise on even a single point.

Your writings very much have the air of the ‘acolyte’ about them, and it seems that people are finally starting to take notice. You might wish to lay aside your Mid-Century Continentals and venture out into the real world. I’m fairly certain that Post-Modernism has received the same fate as Benthamite Utilitarianism.

“What it sounds like you’re saying here is that the most postmodern response to the modern is to revert to the premodern, the mediaeval, the tribal, primitive, or more likely some “neo-” construction of those things. There’s a wide streak of Nietzscheanism in that sort of thinking.”

From conflict study, especially in light of post-ideological thinking, it is our observation that much of the world is reverting to pre-modern criteria for context and identification. The collapse and separation of Sudan, the Balkans conflict, identarian movements within the EU, conservative pan-Islamism, all are indicative of this trend. The Arab Spring is not about true liberalization in the Western sense as another example.

Put simply, the modernist idea of increasing centralization of the nation-state system into effective transnationalism, continuing progress and advancement of the ideological unification of mankind under one rubric, and global cultural and economic unification is running into this blood, soil and religious retrenchment. If you see another trend on the international scene, please elaborate.

You two are the most intelligent of the commentators here at SPLC and both of you do an excellent job of explaining your positions.

However, at this point, I believe we have reached an impasse. Just as there is some variation within Right, Far Right, and New Right positions, perhaps the liberal-progressive movement finds itself with some of the same disagreement of what is or is not fundamental to its core values and beliefs.

CM, all of my commentary as to core values comes from the Center for American Progress, an excellent source of progressive-liberal commentary and advocacy. Is there broad disagreement with their positions? Again, a strawman is a position not argued by your opponent, I have endeavored to respond to the core intellectual values posted on their website and attached position papers.

Posner is an outspoken and influential advocate of the concept of universal human rights, to be applied at all times to all people. Is he not representative of SPLC’s position on human rights and if not, could you elaborate on the differences? (Ruslan as an avowed Marxist has already done so, impossible to apply because of class differences)

I have used reductionism correctly, in that most progressives I have spoken to or read reduce most right thought to one thing, racism or repackaged fascism, ignoring the broader commentary as meaningless or accusing them of having disengenous motives and masking true intent.

In my humble opinion, modernism in its broadest context is foundational to progressive-liberal thought. Post modernism (of which there is much disagreement what constitutes the core of post modernist thinking) nevertheless posits a very different worldview than the modernist narrative.

Ruslan, in accomodating inherent, intrinsic differences of human beings and varying worldviews/cultural context, how and by what criteria do you come up with a systematic, standardized “equal” response? The Western attempt (and Soviet in its day) was to always apply some universal ideological criteria in dealing with different cultures, (democracy in a tribal culture, womens rights in a conservative Islamic culture, neo-liberal economics in traditional societies, etc) almost always with unintended results. What universal standard would you apply in the attempt to treat all equally? More importantly, how would you apply it and why? Modern European and American feminists and LGBT advocates would be horrified to live in Iran under Shia law, do we have an obligation to liberate them? Is popular democracy superior to tribal culture in all circumstances?

If you don’t believe me consider the works of one New Right author, Tomislav Sunic. He profiles the New Right in a book called Against Democracy and Equality. In it, we see the same beat-around-the-bush stuff that we see in all New Right publications. However, read another book of his called Cool Croatia, and you will see a very different tone.

As for equality, can you explain to someone why they should be treated differently, simply because they were born with the wrong sex or of the wrong group? Shouldn’t they be treated as an individual and allowed to do whatever they can show aptitude for?

As for science, empiricism, and materialism well I’m very sorry but I prefer to live in a world of the real, governed by reason, not metaphysical woo-woo.

Jean-François Lyotard, the founder of postmodernism, defined his thinking in terms of Wittgenstein’s concept of language games. I don’t think what he had in mind was the kind of game you’re playing, which is just old-fashioned sophistry.

Your three-part definition of “modernism” is a straw man, and your supporting arguments are immaterial. (And incidentally, you apparently have no idea what “reductionist” means.)

For example, you claim that modernism advocates “universal values” and also advocates imposing those values forcibly on others. A bad thing, no question, and one of the traditional underpinnings of colonialism; nothing very modern about that. But what does this have to do with Human Rights Watch, which undertakes the admirable work of helping to ensure, among other things, that no one is forced to submit to another person’s ideas about value? You’ve committed an equivocation, substituting “universal rights” for “universal values.” Worse, you’re being self-contradictory, first arguing that if someone imposes their values on you, they’re violating your rights, then claiming that there’s no basis for asserting any such rights.

Then there’s your claim that “modernists” advocate equality. Apart from the fact that postmodernism as such certainly doesn’t provide any basis for arguing that equality or egalitarianism is a bad thing, there are of course movements within a broad conception of “modernism” that very obviously are anti-egalitarian, such as Fascism. Clearly, egalitarianism must be optional for modernists, if any exist.

But it does appear that you may just be using “modernism” as a synonym for “liberalism,” as when you note the “core values I have taken from progressive liberal intellectuals and organizations” in your response to Ruslan.

Lyotard certainly wouldn’t agree with that, and he wouldn’t much care for your plea that “we must come to some agreement as to basic philosophical foundations of our respective beliefs.” On the contrary, “I define ‘postmodern’ as incredulity toward meta-narratives,” he wrote in The Postmodern Condition.

Speaking of meta-narratives, you’ve already supplied us with one: “The Age of Ideology ended in 1991, and around the world many are returning to the old values of ethnicity/Spirituality/Soil as a response to globalization, neo-liberalism and transnationalism.”

What it sounds like you’re saying here is that the most postmodern response to the modern is to revert to the premodern, the mediaeval, the tribal, primitive, or more likely some “neo-” construction of those things. There’s a wide streak of Nietzscheanism in that sort of thinking.

I do agree that much of modern culture, for various reasons, is spiritually sterile and ethically vacuous, overly reliant on instrumental rationality and mired in physicalist absurdities. But I don’t think the remedy is to dream up new ways of dividing people and setting them against each other. From that point of view, your version of “deep ecology” sounds a lot like social Darwinism, or maybe Lord of the Flies. I’m more inclined to look for pathways to unity.

Michael Posner: Undersecretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.

“The work of Human Rights First is based on the principle that core human rights protections apply universally, and thus extend to everyone by virtue of their humanity.”

2. “Equality/egalitarianism:”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Really? So we (The progressive West) define those rights, to be adopted by everyone regardless of race, religion, or culture and enforce it how? That people are different and inherently unequal is intuitive the moment you step out of a developed country. Again, to make the above happen worldwide would require a coercive force greater than was implemented by Stalin or Hitler.

3. Materialism/Empiricism:

“liberal ideology is not materialist, and often not empirical”

.?Pragmatism, both in its philosophical form of evaluating ideas based on their real world consequences rather than abstract ideals, and in more practical terms as an approach to problem solving grounded in science, empirical evidence, and policy experimentation

“The original progressives charted a new and more realistic path in economics that preserved a market based society and private enterprise while strengthening democratic control over the economy and employing the positive power of the state to advance human welfare and national prosperity”.

Center for American Progress: Intellectual platform.

Ruslan, unless we agree on what we both believe, discussion will be circular and fruitless. All of the above are core values I have taken from progressive liberal intellectuals and organizations that state clearly what they believe and advocate. So we must come to some agreement as to basic philosophical foundations of our respective beliefs.

Lastly, at some point we have to agree that each other means exactly what we say and not attempt a reductionist argument that seeks to either redefine the position differently than stated and held or to insinuate nefarious, disengenous motives masked by stated rhetoric.

I take the progressive stance as genuinely and honestly held and that they mean exactly what they say they do.

On the topic of “Modernism”, I know of no such ideology. Modern liberalism is an ideology which claims to be without ideology.

“1. Universal Values: Applies to all people at all times”

I don’t think anyone is actually making this claim. Sure, there is this concept of “human rights”, but human rights were chosen rather arbitrarily and if you read the UN Declaration you see not only that they are routinely violated all over the world by literally every country, but some rights are actually mutually exclusive.

This does not mean that universal values cannot exist, but the problem is that mankind is divided into classes, and the dominant class get to decide the values and which values reign supreme.

The New Right trots this out so they can sound like they respect and appreciate other cultures. However, these people tend to see “culture” as something static and produced by the people themselves(biological determinism). The fact is that many people in the developing world, and in fact all over the world would happily give up those “cultural traditions” which are in fact quite negative, because these aren’t so much cultural expressions as they are related to the development of their society. That’s why we can see many of the same “cultural” traditions over a wide spectrum of ethnicity and geography.

“2. Equality/egalitarianism:”

What is wrong with this? Can you explain why people should be treated differently and on what basis?

“3. Materialism/Empiricism: Quantity versus quality”

This has nothing to do with quantity versus quality. This has to do with science. I would prefer people prove their claims rather than make metaphysical claims based on idealistic notions. Furthermore, liberal ideology is not materialist, and often not empirical. The idea of human rights, for example, is idealist and metaphysical. The “individual” is as well. Ideas like “race” or “nation” are also idealistic.

If you believe that, then why are you using this medium? Wouldn’t smoke signals be more appropriate?

“Deep Ecology’s suggestion (as I interpret it) that we must organize our world along ethnic or nationalistic lines or have no organization at all is deeply troubling. What about ideas – that we might unite in our dedication to democracy or equality or creativity? What about organizing our thinking about the world in terms of the maximizing of health, of wealth, of happiness, of freedom?”

Modernism assumes three broad themes:
1. Universal Values: Applies to all people at all times
2. Equality/egalitarianism:
3. Materialism/Empiricism: Quantity versus quality

I will address these differences not from the Deep Ecology perspective, but from the Euro New Right and its post modernist elements.

First, the adoption of universal values assumes two things, Enlightenment progressive values are right not just for us but for all humans, and we have an obligation to use moral, economic, political/military force to impose those on societies that don’t recognize them as such. Please articulate the argument you would make to a Mayan Indian in Chiapas or a Pashtun tribal elder who practices a very austere form of Islam as to the right or wrong of their worldview.

The ENR believes in the inherent inequality and profound differences that exist amongst peoples, their cultures, and worldviews. These differences create social stress and require a highly centralized bureacratic nanny state to arbitrate disputes, distribute resources and attempt to equalize outcomes.

The reign of quantity and the pursuit of material well being at the expense of the finite resources available to sustain mankind has created an enviromental catastrophe of global dimensions, and carries within it the seeds of its own demise. Materialism has proven a poor substitute for a transcendent spiritual worldview that is in harmony with a sustainable way of life, and left many bereft of any sense of higher purpose and with a profound sense of despair and alienation.

The Age of Ideology ended in 1991, and around the world many are returning to the old values of ethnicity/Spirituality/Soil as a response to globalization, neo-liberalism and transnationalism. The Balkans and the recent breakup of Sudan into north and south plus numerous identarian movements in Europe are a testament to the growing strength of this opposition.

“The prevailing economic and development paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the drive to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological or biological sustainability on a finite Earth.”

Deep Ecology rejects modernity, is highly suspicious of the benefits of science and technology, and believes small, organic communities living in bio-regions is the answer to the problems wrought by the contemporary values man has adopted.

The rejection of cultural homogenization and the readoption of local community is the New Rights position. I do not believe they are being disengenous in this position, and since you have read much of their literature, you know they are not unsympathetic to traditional societies, the third world or Islam, a much different stance than conventional right movements and worlds apart from American conservatism or neo-conservatism.

Deep Ecology shares most of these goals, but there is much diversity in our community and not all agree, especially the social ecology.

We both decry globalization, materialism, the despirtualization of values, equality, and individualism.

Basically I think these rightists trying to reinvent themselves look at the whole of the left wing and try to find something they can appropriate which does not offend their personal prejudices. The environmental cause(which really isn’t a left or right issue) is the one thing they can appropriate without feeling like they have betrayed their values. So they appropriate it. But in the end they are being intellectually dishonest and using it as a shield. “Stand with us to save the Earth,” they say, but if you balk at their racism, xenophobia, or metaphysical BS, well then you’re on the side of the neo-liberals, the capitalists, and so on. As if it’s impossible to take into account the state of ecology without also accepting ideas like “race” or “nation.”

You’ve actually hit on the main reason that “black pride” or “gay pride” exist as a concept, and why supporters of those celebrations and the use of these terms tend to shake their heads at those calling for “white pride” or “straight pride”.

When LGBT organizations celebrate pride, they are celebrating the accomplishment of surviving and thriving in a world that is hostile to their existence, where anti-gay attitudes, violence, rhetoric and policies remain common and where the contribution of LGBT people to history is silenced and denied.

Things have gotten (somewhat) better, and pride, whether at being gay, black or any other minority is sometimes less about defiance and more about celebrating past achievements and accomplishments. Either way, to express pride is such circumstances is certainly about the accomplishments of individuals, not for being born the way they were born, but for overcoming the challenges imposed on them for being born that way.

The other issue, of course, is that the term “white pride” has often been used as a slogan by violent and hostile groups and understandably leaves minorities who have been the targets of that group edgy.