Steve Randy Waldman — Tangles of pathology

Trilemmas are always fun. Let’s do one. You may pick two, but no more than two, of the following:

• Liberalism
• Inequality
• Nonpathology

By “liberalism”, I mean a social order in which people are free to do as they please and live as they wish, in which everyone is formally enfranchised by a political process justified in terms of consent of the governed and equality of opportunity.

By “inequality”, I mean high dispersion of economic outcomes between individuals over full lifetimes. [1]

By “nonpathology”, I mean the absence of a sizable underclass within which institutions of social cohesion — families (nuclear and extended), civic and religious organizations — function poorly or at best patchily, in which conflict and violence are frequent and economic outcomes are poor. From the inside, a pathologized underclass perceives itself as simultaneously dysfunctional and victimized. From the outside, it is viewed culturally and/or morally deficient, and perhaps inferior genetically. Whatever its causes and whomever is to blame, pathology itself is a real phenomenon, not just a matter of false perception by dominant groups.

This trilemma is not a logical necessity. It is possible to imagine a liberal society that is very unequal, in which rich and poor alike make the best of their circumstances without clumping into culturally distinct groupings, in which shared procedural norms render the society politically stable despite profound quality of life differences between winners and losers. But I think empirically, no such thing has existed in the world, and that no such thing ever will given how humans actually behave.

I would call it "tangles of asymmetry." The problem is reconciling social liberalism given asymmetry of status, political liberalism given asymmetry of power, and economic liberalism given asymmetry of wealth in a liberal society where individual freedom is a foundational principle. That foundational freedom leads to asymmetries that undermine liberalism is a paradox of liberalism. Or is it an inherent contradiction that cannot be overcome?

What SRW calls "pathology" is actually narrow self-interest and group-interest. The foundational freedom of liberalism is freedom to pursue self-interest as one sees fit within the law. But the law is determined by social, political and economic asymmetries that favor some over others. Are these others actually free, or is this just a justification of a human version of the law of the jungle manifesting as social Darwinism? Is governance just a euphemism for "civilizing" the law of the jungle by justifying institutionally the "law" of the stronger?

Interfluidity
Tangles of pathology
Steve Randy Waldman