I may approach these issues from a somewhat different angle, that
of ideological hegemony and value conflict, but a major part of the
definition "antisystemic" is sorely absent even in Wagar's analysis. I
would agree wholeheartedly with the critique Wagar raises of new social
movements and the liberal-nationalist uprisings of the nineteenth century,
but not merely because such movements have failed fundamentally to
challenge global capitalism (granted, a major dimension of the problem).
The part sorely lacking is a challenge to the underlying values of
modern liberal society, namely excessive attention to the individual at
the expense of moral community. The underlying discourse and mental map
remains one of liberating the individual from societal constraints,
whether the constraints of capitalist exploitation or, implicitly, those
of tradition. While challenging the _structural_ arrangements of
contemporary capitalism, Wagar's vision of an alternative society
evidently does not address the continuing hegemony of liberal capitalist
individualism, albeit with the rough exploitative edges somewhat softened.
On a _cultural_ and political-philosophical level, what is truly new about
a dryly secular, liberal, global welfare state with little moral content
beyond avoiding gross mistreatment of others? At the risk of sounding
like the Gang of Four, the bedrock of capitalist thought can function very
nicely even under public ownership and a welfare state. A partial
repudiation of capitalism's abuses--albeit a repudiation more complete
than the new social movements--may, in the very long run, amount to a
hegemony-affirming refinement of liberal-capitalist thought, the highest
form of unintended flattery.
I note this because it seems to me that any current or future
antisystemic effort must draw (selectively, granted) from the timeless
bedrock of precapitalist values, adapting those values to modern
conditions. Every major civilisation in world history presumably has some
insights to offer into how to structure a genuine alternative to the
present pathological aberration, built on an entirely different set of
philosophical foundations eg. more emphasis on duty, the obligations of
the intelligentsia to provide moral rather than merely technocratic
leadership, etc. I do not idealise traditional society, and all
civilisations have contained hegemonic and counter-hegemonic currents
about the relationship of the individual to society, but by accepting the
liberal definition of cultural "progress," current would-be
revolutionaries are denying themselves a wealth of material that could
guide their formulation of a compelling vision. On a practical level, I
would ask Wagar also whether it would not be advantageous to tap into the
concerns that movements of regional, "reactionary" resistance (Islamic
revivalism being the strongest) have. A true antisystemic challenge, it
would seem, must draw in such people who seem perpetually on the losing
side of history, and synthesise their regional and defensive efforts into
a coherent global alternative.
If we see genuine antisystemic challenges as requiring a
fundamental cultural-philosophical difference from the hegemonic
liberal-capitalist current, it is no coincidence that developed Northern
states--or even culturally converted Southern states such as Argentina and
strata such as the Chinese upper-middle class--no longer generate such
sentiments. In the long term, would-be revolutionaries who neglect the
"reactionary" and celebrate its inexorable retreat may be shooting
themselves in the foot, because they are opposing precisely the cultural
raw material that represents the last alternative to a capitalist mental
map.
(Unfortunately I lack time to elaborate further at present, but I
welcome comments to what I have said so far.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam K. Webb
Department of Politics
Princeton University
Princeton NJ 08544 USA
609-258-9028