[EM] An artist's view on voting methods

[Michael Allan]

Kristofer Munsterhjelm said:
> > Could such a "cultural election" [of a narrative world view]
> > happen in modern times, do you think?  Or what might prevent it?
> 
> In the most strict sense, I don't think so. Modernity has too many
> aspects to be made into a narrative world view. You might see it in
> groups within some given society, though: those who hold a certain
> identity might agree upon the direction of some aspects of modern
> life - enough to provide such a narrative - but only for the parts
> that are relevant to them.

I agree, fragmentation is essential to modernity.  We'd have to expand
the question (in the strong sense) to "contemporary times".  Modernity
might then hang in the balance; it might change, or give way to
something else.

> In the weaker sense, it is everywhere. Sets of values are often
> woven into a narrative, and politicians refer to the narratives to
> compactly state their values. A conservative may talk about
> "preserving the American dream", for example, while a liberal may
> tell the voters he can be part of a continuing change for the
> better.

These seem to be two aspects of the Christian theme of salvation.
Their competition as self-reliance vs. charity (or conservative
vs. liberal) might be a consequence of Christianity's failure as a
myth in the Reformation (strong sense), or America's failure as a myth
in contemporary times (weaker sense).  Adam Curtis says, "When a
nation is powerful it tells the world confident stories about the
future.  The stories can be frightening or enchanting, but they make
sense of the world.  But when that power begins to ebb, the stories
fall apart.  All that is left are fragments, which haunt you like
half-forgotten dreams."  http://thoughtmaybe.com/it-felt-like-a-kiss/

> The world-views and associated stories compete. Thus there's no
> single thread (because the views of the people, or those said to
> represent them, may shift from one side to another), but each
> "alternative" is pretty well delineated. In the sense there are many
> stories, each story is pretty clear, but because there are many, and
> each period of governance may have a quite drastic shift from one to
> another, there's no single narrative to frame the whole culture.

The Americans call this "polarization".  They look back to a time when
(for whatever reason) they rode above it.

> (Maybe "we permit many stories" could itself be a story?)

That seems a promising approach.  So the story is not only diverse in
form (like a compilation) but it also takes diversity as a theme.
It's a story about our own diversity.

There's a negative aspect to that story.  We're at an all time low in
terms of independent civilizations or traditions.  All the fragments
of the modern world are dissolved in a global singularity:

   \ | /   past, spread out among continents
    \|/
     |     present, a single global civilization
    /|\
   / | \   future, spread out again (among stars?)

> Perhaps the common property is that a group has to have members that
> feel that they're "of that group" to a sufficient degree before
> narrative election works. ...

The singularity might do the job here.  We feel it as a series of
global crises that touch us locally, if only because we learn of them.
Or we feel it as a common, existential threat.

Rewatching that Curtis video, it now seems to me that he's grappling
with many of the elements of such a story.  His latest effort (if you
haven't seen it) is "All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace":
http://thoughtmaybe.com/all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace/

Mike


Kristofer Munsterhjelm said:
> On 12/04/2012 07:31 AM, Michael Allan wrote:
> > Kristofer Munsterhjelm said:
> >> One should be careful with election by story, though. The worst kind
> >> of modern-day dictatorial regimes have often been backed by stories
> >> or myths to lend the regime legitimacy. ...
> >
> > Yes, I agree.  The events of the 20th century effectively innoculated
> > a generation against this particular disease, but younger generations
> > aren't necessarily immune.  Under the right circumstances, propaganda
> > can masquerade as a legitimate world view.  It can fool people into
> > making terrible mistakes.
> >
> >> ... For instance, left-wing authoritarian rulers have claimed power
> >> to have been given to them by the workers or the people, and that
> >> the centralization of power through authoritarian measures is needed
> >> in order to protect the system from vast external enemies that would
> >> otherwise destroy it, and so that the rulers can direct the nation
> >> towards a glorious future. Similar mythology exists on the right:
> >> see, for instance, Gentile's description of the structure of Italian
> >> Fascism: http://www.oslo2000.uio.no/program/papers/s12/s12-gentile.pdf
> >> Among other things, he notes that totalitarianism provides a
> >> single narrative, then seeks to "politicize" all of life so as to
> >> pull it into that narrative.
> >
> > This trick depends on an un-elected narrative, of course.  There are
> > moments in history when people make the wrong choices and are trapped
> > by them, and come to regret them.  Examples are post-Periclean Athens
> > and Weimar Germany.  But the basis of legitimacy for these mistakes is
> > narrow (often a single vote) compared to the lengthy and elaborate
> > election of a narrative world view.  Examples again are compilations
> > such as The Iliad, The Mahabharata, Ramayana, Old and New Testaments.
> > These are traditionally the work of centuries, and they stand for a
> > long time, if not forever.
> >
> > Could such a "cultural election" happen in modern times, do you think?
> > Or what might prevent it?
> 
> In the most strict sense, I don't think so. Modernity has too many 
> aspects to be made into a narrative world view. You might see it in 
> groups within some given society, though: those who hold a certain 
> identity might agree upon the direction of some aspects of modern life - 
> enough to provide such a narrative - but only for the parts that are 
> relevant to them.
> 
> In the weaker sense, it is everywhere. Sets of values are often woven 
> into a narrative, and politicians refer to the narratives to compactly 
> state their values. A conservative may talk about "preserving the 
> American dream", for example, while a liberal may tell the voters he can 
> be part of a continuing change for the better.
> 
> The world-views and associated stories compete. Thus there's no single 
> thread (because the views of the people, or those said to represent 
> them, may shift from one side to another), but each "alternative" is 
> pretty well delineated. In the sense there are many stories, each story 
> is pretty clear, but because there are many, and each period of 
> governance may have a quite drastic shift from one to another, there's 
> no single narrative to frame the whole culture.
> 
> I think that more gradual systems would be more likely to produce a 
> cohesive narrative of the form you mention. If each shift is more 
> gradual, then the story can hold up as a whole. On the other hand, more 
> gradual changes might also lead to a perception that politics is always 
> "business as usual", and thus not something that could be put into a 
> narrative form. Say, if a particularly responsive governmental system 
> would anticipate challenges and act before they become problems, 
> government would appear to "just work" and be nothing special.
> 
> Perhaps the common property is that a group has to have members that 
> feel that they're "of that group" to a sufficient degree before 
> narrative election works. If they don't feel there's much in common, 
> then it doesn't - which would explain the variety of modernity leading 
> to fewer such narratives on a larger scale but more on a smaller scale. 
> But if they feel they're part of something greater, then that greater 
> group may seek a story to represent themselves and their history, and 
> that a narrative also makes that feeling stronger - which would also 
> match that authoritarian states make use of narratives, because they 
> need the people to consider themselves a unified thing working in 
> concert with the authorities against external enemies.
> 
> If that is true, then one could adjust systems of government to either 
> support multiple groups going in their own direction, or fewer but 
> stronger groups finding a common decision. Representative systems would 
> on the one hand support multiple groups (multiple stories), but on the 
> other be less abrupt in the shift between frames. Majoritarian ones are 
> the other way around. Consensus government... feels a bit like the "just 
> works" example above, at least unless it has vast powers.
> 
> I'm mostly just thinking here, nothing rigorous. I could be wrong! :-)
> 
> (Maybe "we permit many stories" could itself be a story?)