The Death and Resurrection of the Public

What is the public? It relates to the idea of the People as démos and the body politic. The basic notion is that shared experience and identity is in some sense real, that we aren’t merely a collection of individuals. But a public sensibility has been on the decline. We’ll avoid a thorough analysis here. Instead, let’s look at a couple of areas.

Common identity most obviously is expressed through common appearance, in what people wear, how they cut their hair, and bodily modifications such as tattoos and earrings. In tribal societies and other small communities, this naturally happens through a common culture. The rise of the modern nation-state undermined this organic expression of communal bond. To satisfy the same need, the popularity of uniforms took hold. This has been done formally as symbols of public service such as the military, although uniforms have also been used in the private sector. Even the business suits common among men have become a kind of uniform that disallows much personal expression. The uniform became popular during the world war era and remained popular through much of the Cold War.

A uniform expressed not only a sense of common identity but solidarity and pride. This was true outside of the military, from postal workers and park rangers to gas station attendants and hotel porters. To be in a uniform signified belonging and meant a basic level of respectability, even for the most lowly worker. Besides police and firefighters, uniforms have receded from the public sphere and remain primarily as a symbol of the military — it might be unsurprising, if depressing, that the military is the only part of the government in the United States that retains public trust.

This shift has accelerated over the past few decades. As late as the 1990s, uniforms were still seen more often, although having had become uncommon. For example, some parking ramp cashiers were still wearing uniforms until the early Aughts, but they had already lost their cultural cache as meaningful symbols. These days, postal workers aren’t always immediately recognizable when walking around, as there is barely any semblance of a uniform remaining, and the symbolic value of postal workers has accordingly declined as private delivery services have increasingly taken over this once public service.

We’ve now reached the point where one might go weeks without seeing anyone in a uniform. That isn’t to say that conformity of appearance has disappeared, but we’ve come to embrace the illusion of individual expression through the conformity of consumerist fashion and corporate branding. This is said without any clear judgment in favor of uniforms, simply a social observation and a rather interesting one at that. It represents a deeper and broader change in society.

We can see how fuzzy has become the category of ‘public’, even in ‘public’ debate. It’s extremely unusual to hear a politician invoke the rhetorical force of the People, much less directly refer to the démos and body politic, almost entirely alien concepts at this point. This muddled state of a non-society society was intentionally created as ideological realism — it was Margaret Thatcher who famously declared, “there is no such thing as society.” Until the rise of Donald Trump, that is possibly the single most bizarre statement by a modern leader of one of the global superpowers.

The sad fact is that President Donald Trump as the main public leader in the United States does bizarre on a daily basis, often while attacking public authority, public expertise, and public institutions. It has become nearly impossible to speak of the public good, as a hypocognition has taken hold. This is how Trump supporters are able to hold up signs that say “Keep government out of my Medicare” and to argue that it’s better that this pandemic happened under Trump than President Barack Obama because Trump is wealthy enough to write everyone a $1200 check, in both cases not grasping that these are government responses designed to promote the public good.

For most of human existence, the concept and experience of ‘private’ was rare to non-existent. From tribal bands to feudalism, people typically lived cheek-to-jowl. Look at the growing urbanization of the early empires such as in Rome where everything was a social event — going to the bathroom, gymnasium, doctor, work, etc. So, in speaking of the communal experience that dominated for so long, we aren’t only talking about tribes but even for most of the history of advanced civilization, into the modern era.

It was only in colonial times that the Quakers introduced the practice of maintaining privacy with nuclear families and by having separate rooms or at least separate beds for each family member (Barry Levy, Quakers and the American Family), sometimes with spare rooms for visitors (Arthur W. Calhoun, The American Family in the Colonial Period), but at the time they were far outside the norm (Stephanie Coontz, The Way We Never Were). In early America, to live in a village meant that your business was everyone’s business and there were no locks on the door.

The notion of privacy and the private sector was slow to take hold. Well into the 1800s, many feudal practices remained in place. There was a lingering belief in the commons and, in some cases, it was enforced by law for generations after the founding of the United States. This was seen in land use where ownership didn’t mean what it means today. A landowner couldn’t deny anyone else use of his land, if he wasn’t using it as defined by what land he specifically had fenced off. So, any open land, owned or not, was free to anyone for camping, hunting, trapping, fishing, and gathering. This only changed with the abolition of slaves when these laws were eliminated in order to force blacks back into labor.

On a related note, consider corporations. Likewise in early America, they had a very different meaning, as an organization with corporate charter is by definition a public institution. The founding generation made sure that corporate charter were only given in relation to an organized activity that served the public good such as building a bridge and so the charter ended when that public good was achieved. Now the relationship has reversed where corporations have so much power that governments serve them and their private interests. This is also seen in land use, such as how governments subsidize corporations by selling natural resources off public lands at below market prices which basically means giving public wealth away for private gain.

Corporations and governments have become so enmeshed that they are inseparable. The idea of what is public has become conflated with government, and government has increasingly become identified with big biz. When the government is controlled or influenced by private interests in declaring that a company or bank is too big to fail, it is essentially declaring that something private is to be treated as part of government, which further erodes the sense of the public. If the last bastion of the public is government, and if government serves the private sector of a plutocracy, then what meaning does public have left remaining?

Instead of the public as a people determining their own self-governance, we have a private ruling elite who by owning the government control the people, that is to say inverted totalitarianism. Whatever remains of pubic rhetoric becomes a mask to hide authoritarian power, as seen in how the U.S. has become a banana republic. One study has shown U.S. federal politicians rarely do what their supposed constituents want, instead doing the bidding of the wealthiest (Martin Gilens & Benjamin I. Page, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens), and it can’t be rationalized by a ludicrous claim that the poor want to be ruled over by a plutocracy (Nicholas Carnes & Noam Lupu, Do Voters Dislike Working-Class Candidates? Voter Biases and the Descriptive Underrepresentation of the Working Class).

Growing concentration and inequality of wealth inevitably coincides with growing concentration and inequality of not only political representation but of power and influence, resources and opportunities. Even the most basic necessities for survival like clean air and water are not evenly distributed, something that would be a human right if we lived in a functioning democracy. When clean air and water don’t fall under the guaranteed protection of the public good, the ideal of a society built on a public has lost all meaning.

It’s unsurprising, under these conditions, that the overt symbols of public good have been particularly under attack. With this comes talk of privatizing Social Security, eliminating welfare, and much else. At one point, the public good was understood to be integral to national security. This is why the U.S. federal government in the past invested so heavily to ensure cheap education, housing, travel, etc — even if we might question some of these investments such as the creation of car culture and suburbia through government funding. My parents’ generation essentially got free college and great jobs in an economy boosted by big gov simply for being born in the post-war period.

The point is that, in an earlier time, the understanding and support of the public good was strongly held across American society and within both of the main political parties. After all, it was President Richard Nixon who, as a Republican passed the Environmental Protection Agency and proposed universal healthcare and universal basic income, the latter policies being now considered as communist by conservatives and too far left-wing by mainstream liberals. How far we’ve fallen.

Right-wing Republicans complain about high taxes while corporatist Democrats seem to agree, but not that long ago both parties supported immensely higher tax rates than we have now, specifically for the upper brackets. When looking at public opinion, Americans do still support taxing the rich far more. The problem is the plutocracy owning our government don’t agree with the public on this issue. Hence, so-called public policy has become disconnected from the reality on the ground of public opinion.

Loss of taxes hasn’t stopped the government from going into permanent debt by pumping immense public wealth and resources into the highly profitable military-industrial complex. This is seen with how Amazon, by way of the Pentagon cronyism Jeff Bezos inherited from his grandfather, has made huge profits from its government contracts while operating its private sector business at a loss for decades (Plutocratic Mirage of Self-Made Billionaires). Then when corporatism crashed the economy in 2008, government bailed out failing banks and corporations because they were too big to fail, which is an argument that they were so essential that they no longer should be allowed to operate according to market forces in a free market. It was another step further into fascism. Now, in this COVID-19 pandemic, most of the relief money once again is going to big biz in conflating private interest with public good.

The role that government used to play was in promoting areas of society that genuinely were for the public good. This included fundamental things like massive investments into education, housing, and infrastructure; but it also went into equally necessary things like basic research. This created immense knowledge that helped with technological invention and innovation. It funded the kind of research that benefits the public but doesn’t directly benefit corporate profit, although it is highly useful for private research companies in using it to build upon in their own research. In the slashing of government funding for research, it’s forced companies to do more of it, even though never to the degree as ween before. For-profit businesses are too conservative to take the risks that lead to new scientific discoveries. It’s a public good that can’t be re-created on the private market. The loss of that funding was also a loss of a mentality of public service, as demonstrated by Jonas Salk’s refusal to patent the polio vaccine.

Strangely, even ‘public’ media no longer gets most of its funding from government. NPR, for example, is now primarily supported by corporations and other private organizations. When sponsors of public media are listed, it essentially comes down to another form of advertisement. And anyone with a lick of sense realizes this influences what gets reported and not, along with how it gets reported. Some analysis has shown that a disproportionate number of guests on NPR come from right-wing think tanks (NPR: Liberal Bias?) that often advocate corporatist ideology or else simply presume capitalist realism.

Also, consider how HBO as a private company has bought the rights to the PBS show Sesame Street, one of the greatest shows ever produced by any public media in the world. HBO has also gained exclusive rights in the United States to streaming BBC’s Doctor Who. Or look at how the BBC has partnered with for-profit media: Netflix, AMC, FX Networks, etc; one example is the Hulu-BBC show Normal People. This is a growing trend.

So, despite accusations to the contrary, not only is public media not always clearly public but not even particularly liberal in a meaningful sense, except maybe in the historical sense. I’m thinking of how American liberals were some of the strongest Cold Warriors during the McCarthy oppression with red-baiting and blacklisting, not to mention the liberal fear of the likes of Martin Luther King jr. It’s similar to how German liberals supported the Nazis in their opposition to left-wingers. Liberalism, in practice, too often becomes yet another variety of reactionary.

The casualty in this has been the public — the public as the people and as the common good; the public as a guiding concept, principle and vision. This allowed public rhetoric to be usurped by authoritarians who use it to great effect, maybe for the simple reason that the public is so hungry for someone, anyone to powerfully invoke a public message, however distorted. That could be taken as a positive sign. This moment of national and global crisis is ripe for a re-awakening of the public sensibility as a genuine force of inspiration and political will toward reform. This might be a new age of rebuilding public institutions and shoring up public authority. The public might begin to remember they are a public, that they are the majority (US Demographics & Increasing Progressivism). Government as self-governance is an important part of what defines the public, but the two should never be conflated. It is we the people who are the public.

 

10 thoughts on “The Death and Resurrection of the Public

  1. 1 Let people rate companies 2 ratings are included in searches 3 companies with good ratings survive. You can rate on your Citizens Island (https://citizensisland.com/), companies can have a Companys Island with their catalogue. Your rating is stored on your Island. When a company contributes 5% of the turn-over to UBI-Vault ( an automatic basic income distribution system) you can give the company a plus vote. Power to the people. https://www.thinsia.com/Transition-to-Postcapitalism.pdf
    You are all individuals: Life of Brian https://youtu.be/QereR0CViMY

    • I forgot that scene from Life of Brian. It’s awesome!

      We do need transformative innovation. I was putting together a post on how the pandemic has proven David Graeber’s claim about bullshit jobs. We’ve been forced to confront what is actually essential work, what contributes to society and the public good.

      It turns out that our society continues to function just fine even when a large part of the population stops going to work. This once was a radically left-wing thought experiment that has now become an obvious reality that can’t be denied. Yet those in power want to get things back to ‘normal’.

  2. these laws were eliminated in order to force blacks back into labor.

    While I realize the importance of history in our considerations along with the problem of “institutionalized racism,” etc.; we — as a People — very simply must move beyond the “black/white” (or “white/brown,” as it happens) dichotomy as a nation.

    What do those terms even mean anymore? Skin color?

    Skin color, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do either with ancestry or culture!

    The vast majority of us all been “forced” into “labor” we never would have dreamed we might have elected for ourselves had our dreams ever been taken into consideration by anyone other than ourselves. So, where does that leave us?

    With “African-Americans” actually thinking that corporate Democrats have their best interests at heart. With “white nationalists” actually thinking the entire population of the NATION has our best interests at hearts.

    Jesus Christ! (It would seem we have no “concepts” other than interjections to express ourselves these days.)

    • I was simply noting the historical cause. They were people who were enslaved based on their skin color. And even after they were freed, social control based on skin color was instituted to limit that freedom. But there is a more important point that is strongly implied. This post is about how these historical changes came to affect everyone, not only the original population targeted for prejudice and oppression.

      It’s similar to how the counterinsurgency techniques our government uses on foreign populations, after being shown effective, are eventually turned back on us. The same thing happened when propaganda techniques was highly developed during WWII and after the war it was brought home in being used both by the intelligence agencies and private companies. This is a pattern that has repeated going back centuries, such as how many American colonists in oppressing the natives later found themselves oppressed by imperial governments.

      None of this would be possible without the internalized, systemic, and institutionalized prejudices of our society. We accept that harm is done to poor people and brown people because the social norms and media portrayals have indoctrinated us into a worldview that largely operates outside of consciousness, as massive amount of research shows. Yes, racism is based on a false belief about skin color, but that doesn’t make it any less powerful.

      The fact that such racism is used as a means of social control in also oppressing poor whites doesn’t negate that. It’s largely the racism that makes this possible. Many whites tolerate what they otherwise wouldn’t because racial ideology is offered as a benefit. It might not seem like a major benefit, but a poor white is less likely than a poor black to be stopped, frisked, beat up, or arrested by a cop. And someone with a white-sounding name and a high school degree is more likely to get an interview than someone with a black-sounding name and a college degree.

      It’s the racism that hides the classism. On the other hand, it’s classism that hides the racism. It works both ways and is mutually reinforcing, the muddying of how power operates in dividing populations. That is how oppression remains hidden and yet highly effective. Everyone has the opportunity to create the narrative that makes them feel good and scapegoats the other — brown people, the poor, religious minorities, foreign populations, etc. To get past such divisiveness, we have to understand how it operates. That racial differences, class differences, and such are social constructs is not to say they don’t have real world consequences.

      • You seem to be under the impression that my criticisms are, in some way, directed at you or something you’ve written. If so, that is not the case. I’ve merely plucked out something I felt it necessary to comment on in regards to the sickness that plagues our so-called Democracy, which is the very same sickness that has plagued human societies all along, as far as I’m concerned.

        As I said, I realize not only the importance of history in our considerations, but the problem of institutionalized racism, which I do not personally believe extends into the general public nearly as far as incessant media coverage of the worst among us would have us believe. Institutionalized racism should, of course, be confronted and, if possible, eliminated. I don’t see that happening anytime soon, however, as it is obviously in the interests of the “elite” to play the Divide and Conquer game rather than actually engage in an attempt to assist in the transformation of society so obviously necessary to our well-being. As for the general public, the remnants of racism and other ills in society at large will likely take several more generations to eradicate, if it can be completely eradicated at all.

        How do we do it? It starts at home, as far as I’m concerned. Religion was supposed to help us overcome our base natures, but religious leaders (needless to say) have often to sought to empower and enrich themselves at the expense of their own peoples instead. It is nonetheless the duty of a parent to raise his or her child in such a way that hatreds of this kind are stopped in their tracks. Some, however, just pass their own hatreds on to their children, some of whom may never outgrow it without some kind of societal discipline to assist in that effort that doesn’t require laws against it, which obviously don’t work.

        I’d like to think that religion, itself an institution, is undergoing a transformation of its own, and there are hopeful signs to indicate that it may be. But, of course, such transformations are all very much a long, involved process that may never be fully complete.

        • I honestly can say that I was under no such impression. I was simply responding to what interpreted in what you wrote. My curiosity about socially constructed identities is genuine. That was my only motivation.

          But I get that I might see them as having greater influence than you do, in extending into the general public and every aspect of society. To my mind, it isn’t only racism that is profoundly systemic and institutionalized but many other social constructions as well. It is the foundation of all social orders, so it seems to me.

          So, we might be talking about very different things and that is fine. I wasn’t arguing with you, much less defending against perceived criticisms. I was only seeking dialogue about something that has long interested me.

          • I wasn’t familiar with the contrast of religare and interligere. I did a Google search and didn’t get many useful results, but the following were interesting.

            Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena
            by Herman Bavinck, John Bolt, John Vriend

            “The word religion is not very illuminating. Cicero derived the word from relegere, to reread, to do over, to observe with care, and thus described religion as the ongoing, diligent observance of all that pertains to the veneration of the gods. Lactantius explained it in terms of the verb religare and therefore meant by religion the bond that unites human beings to God. A third derivation, based on the verb relinquere, occurs in Gellius and indicates that everything that belongs to religion is set apart, on account of its sanctity, from the secular. Augustine on one occasion relates it to the verb re-eligere; in religion we re-elect God, whom we had lost as a result of sin, as the source of our salvation. J. C. Leidenroth, basing himself on the fact that the three verbs diligere, negligere, and intelligere have a perfect stem form that differs from lego and its compounds, assumed a lost stem ligere, meaning to see. Diligere would then mean to look at with love; negligere, to not see; intelligere, to have insight into; and from this stem the words religere, to look back, and religio, to look about with fear (cf. respectus) are said to derive. The derivation from religare, relinquere, re-eligere is burdened by grammatical difficulties and also fails to explain the unique meanings that religio has in Latin. While the difference between Cicero’s derivation and that of Leidenroth has not yet been resolved, the two agree materially in that religio refers to a disposition of timid fear vis-a-vis the deity and the resulting anxiously scrupulous observance of what the worship of the gods requires. This view is supported by a line of verse taken over by Nigidius Figulus, a contemporary of Cicero, from an ancient poem and preserved in Gellius: “It is right to be devout but wrong to be superstitious” (religentem esse oportet, religiosum nefas). The word, accordingly, is absolutely unsuited to convey the full content of the Christian faith. But Lactantius’s use and derivation, which found general acceptance, have Christianized the word. The Vulgate introduced it in Acts 26:5 and James 1:27. The word has passed into all European languages and, alongside of piety and godliness, has found and retained acceptance in English as well. Holy Scripture offers no definition, nor does it possess a general term to denote the phenomenon of religion.”

            “In Memory of Spinoza”
            by T. Land
            from Spinoza, Four Essays

            “Whether a theoretical conviction makes men blessed or miser able depends not so much on its contents as on the spirit in which it is entertained. If it is forced upon us by authority or by tradition, or if our examination of existing things leads us to regard it as an object external to ourselves, then it will easily come in conflict with, our personal aspirations which have grown up apart from it. If, on the other hand, the one and the other have grown up in us together, if we have always regarded the subject, our own ego, as an element in the great whole which we conceive, then we feel ourselves at home in that whole, and the life of our mind is a life of harmony. Such a harmony may be cultivated by art, carrying on a special training to cause the claims of the mind to accommodate themselves from the earliest years to some particular dogma. How poorly this system answers in the long run we see, e.g., in the results of orthodox instruction in France, Spain, Italy, Russia, precisely in the most cultivated classes. It is a more excellent way when the thinking part of a society has its attention steadily directed to the intimate connection which subsists between our true interests and the constitution of the whole of which nature has made us a part. This can be done in very various ways, according to the idea that is given of the whole. In any case, however, a change in the explanation of the nature of the connection will not endanger the thought, which alone is essential for our peace of mind, of its existence. What issues from this thought, and gives us moral support, is the religious life (not from religare, but from religere, ” to respect,” take account of; comp. intelligere, “inspect;” religentem esse oportet, the old poet says, religiosum nefas, i.e., man must not be superstitious but must bear constantly in mind his relation to a higher being. The Buddhist also is religious, though not God-serving.”

    • I should clarify myself. I basically agree with you, at least in terms of intent and purpose. We do need to get past such divisions. But the question remains of how do we get to from here to there. In order to stop digging a hole, we have to recognize that we’re in a hole and that we have a shovel in our hands. That is where we find ourselves as a society, in a very deep hole. The hole is real, even if our ideological rationalizations to explain our hole-digging have been total bullshit.

    • I’ve long been fascinated by socially constructed identities. This includes the more familiar group identities like race, class, ethno-religious, ethno-nationalist, etc. But even more interesting are those like egoic theory of mind in its broad form as Jaynesian consciousness or more specific form as American hyper-individualism, in contrast to the opposite variety of bundle theory of mind seen with bicameralism and animism.

      None of these identities are any more real or false than any others. They are as real as we take them to be in our shared social reality and as implemented, enculturated, and enforced into the social order and social institutions. That is a radical insight that has the potential to shake our society to its core, as it not only challenges our identities but our ideologies such as capitalist realism.

      What if most of what we take for reality is instead socially constructed? What if we are so lost in our social constructions as reality tunnels that we don’t have the capacity to discern what isn’t socially constructed? Can we ever deconstruct what we constructed? Or is it simply that old social constructions lose their power over our minds as new social constructions replace them, in that no problem can be solved on the same level that created it?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s