At Cato Unbound,
Mark S. Weiner argues that, while the state does often destroy individual liberty, an even greater danger lies in the rule of the clan. Clan-based societies have been found throughout the world, in many different times and places. In general they have been highly resilient, successful at replicating themselves – and markedly illiberal. Individual freedom may need a strong central state after all, one that can provide the rule of law, enforce contracts, and suppress clan-based feuds and prejudices. Without the state, we may find ourselves regressing from an egalitarian society of contract to a hierarchical society of status….
Arnold Kling argues that human beings require institutions to interact on the basis of trust and cooperation. Kling argues that the resurgence of the clan is possible but unlikely in Anglo-American societies because the nuclear family rather than the clan is our distinctive form of non-state order. Kling concludes that the natural individualism fostered by the nuclear family makes prospects bright for shrinking the state without the risks of clannism. He calls on libertarians to advocate institutions that would accomplish this task.
Feel free to follow the link and read these essays, as well as others that will be posted on the topic.
Many years ago John W. Campbell ( of science fiction fame ) wrote an essay in which he argued that if the government was too weak, groups similar to the mafia would rise up and become a defacto government. He argued also that if the government became too strong, it would begin to appear very like the mafia.
So I think we need to seek out the sweet spot between these two extremes, where the government is just strong enough to prevent thugs ( or warlords, etc. ) from rising up to become pseudo governments. I think today the government is too strong, and acts too much like the mafia.
I have not read Wiener’s book, but his post at Cato, which I skimmed, strikes me as articulate, but typical for leftist thinking on these issues. To wit: for him all “clans” are more or less the same sort of thing — only with varying degrees of danger towards the freedoms the modern state must secure. So naturally he doesn’t address the rich civil society Tocqueville observed in America, and which in significant aspects predated the Revolution, and compare and contrast that with non-governmental centers of power in say Tsarist Russia or contemporary Mexico.
Other points:
–There are many places around the world where clannish and mafia-ish structures exist right alongside strong central states committed (in theory) to protecting the individual with the rule of law. One wonders if Wiener is generalizing too much from the contingencies of ~300 yrs of historical development in the Anglosphere and NW Europe.
This “fear of the clan” is instructive for understanding the Left. Competing sources of group authority are inevitably rendered as actual or potential oppressors to use Dr. Kling’s terminology. Hence the common left-wing impulse to break civil society to the saddle of the state — most clearly seen in the contemporary battle over the contraception mandate.
During the periods (presumably referred to) The societies of England and on the Continent (as far East as Poland and Lithuania) were organized as peasantries, form which around 1200 “individuality” began to emerge (No. Italy, Lowlands, & England) incubated by the nature of “feudal” relationships.
In the area of Russia, the southern fringes, which were dominated by clan (Tatar & Cossack, e.g.) organizations there was more of what we would regard as individual freedoms, than in the Boyar dominated regions of centralized controls, which developed into serfdoms.
Over at Cato Unbound in comments:
Mr. Weiner asserts:
• “In addition, the modern self is a creature of state development.”
That is a startling assertion. Hopefully, it will be examined in the essays to come.
Unfortunately, that did not get posted before Arnold Kling’s reply.
But the issues remain:
Does this assert that as states develop, or in consequence of their development, they create (or even shape) “the modern self?”
Does Mr. Weiner consider the organization of peasant societies to be “equivalent” to “clans?”
Finally, for Mr. Weiner and Arnold (especially as to formative effects within nuclear families):
*individuality* is a quality of humans as individuals; *individualism* is an expression of the individual human character in a social context.
“In addition, the modern self is a creature of state development. In historical terms, the modern self is a legal and governmental achievement as much as a cultural one.”
Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to say they evolved in tandem, like a humans and canines, or something?
It seems awfully convenient that it seems like the oppressor is always the one with a slightly thicker wallet.
Usually the reason to oppress is to obtain a thicker wallet. Or if the oppression has a religious basis the backing of a party with a thicker wallet is useful to support the oppression.