The conservatives like the "children not learning mathematics" argument

[Antonio the Sixth]

Conservative-inclined posters are free to dismiss the idea, but I'm starting to believe that there is something inherently reactionary about the modern obsession with natural sciences and math as the only "useful" thing people should learn about.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Conservative-inclined posters are free to dismiss the idea, but I'm starting to believe that there is something inherently reactionary about the modern obsession with natural sciences and math as the only "useful" thing people should learn about.

Reactionary in what sense? "Right-wing" groups from numerous corners of the spectrum have historically denounced rationalism. That said, I would have to cede that the present is not the past; at the same time, however, the "21st century economy" drivel is horrifyingly bipartisan.

I'm just struck by the vision it evokes - that of human beings as mere cogs in a giant machine, with no inherent purpose beyond that of serving it. Whether that machine is called Tradition, the Nation, Soviet Communism, or, as today, Rational Utility, might not be that significant in the end. Either way, human beings are reduced into tools and it doesn't seem like there is any need for any kind of personal fulfillment.

I realize that it's not a conventional definition of what being "reactionary" means (especially since I have deliberately lumped in ostensibly "left-wing" regimes), but I do feel like there is a vague thread tying all these thoughts together with the most virulent anti-Enlightenment ideologies.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Conservative-inclined posters are free to dismiss the idea, but I'm starting to believe that there is something inherently reactionary about the modern obsession with natural sciences and math as the only "useful" thing people should learn about.

On the contrary, I'd suggest there is something neoliberal about it. The modern obsession with STEM coincides with the rise of utility being the measure of a thing's worth, which is an Enlightenment-era liberal view. The old reactionaries held, and still hold, that the value of a thing is more than its economic worth of utilitarian value, but is instead inherent. Many of the postmodern folks will agree with us reactionaries in so much as we disdain utilitarianism but instead opt for subjectivism altogether.

The loudest proponents of the SCIENCE only mantra are not the right so much as they are the radical "center", the sort of folks who consider themselves socially liberal and fiscally moderate, the consortium of people who actually like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kasich, and Michael Bloomberg. I'm generalizing of course, but I do think it transcends the partisan divide.

I'm not disagreeing with your second paragraph. My point was simply to say that this makes neoliberalism a fundamentally reactionary ideology, not so different from Maistrean traditionalism as both like to think they are. I realize that's an unorthodox way of looking at things, but I don't think it can be dismissed as schematically as you are dismissing it.

One of the core tenets of Enlightenment thought is the idea that individuals have intrinsic value, irrespective the social context in which they exist (this idea, of course, has its own limits, and I hope I've been clear on them in the past). A good part (though not all) the anti-Enlightenment reaction, by contrast, was built on the vision of a society in which individuals exist to fulfill a role that has been laid out for them. That, I would say, is also a common thread of totalitarian societies, and can be seen in modern renditions of the neoliberal doctrine.

I don't deny that the utilitarianism that neoliberals use to justify their views has its origins in the Enlightenment (and this speaks volumes about the blind spots in Enlightenment thought), but it's a bit simplistic to use this as proof that they are one and the same. For one thing, most Enlightement thinkers weren't utilitarian.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Once you Made Man Equal, there was one option for as to how to structure society: merit.

Uh, no, the meritocratic ideology is inherently irreconcilable with egalitarianism.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Once you Made Man Equal, there was one option for as to how to structure society: merit.

Uh, no, the meritocratic ideology is inherently irreconcilable with egalitarianism.

Once you dispensed with biased toward class, nation, race, or sex, those characteristics that differentiated one person from another became very simply what they either had done, or what they could do. Why should you receive a job, a raise, or anything else in the context of scarcity? Why should you be made a leader of men? Because I can do it better.

Of course, this too was an unstable system, as there can only be so much in demand at one time, and ceaseless dedication to official signifiers of merit detract from other aspects of life (including its very continuation).

Well, for starters, resources must be divided in such a way that anyone has the means to live a comfortable life regardless of anything they do or "deserve", simply by virtue of being a human being. Once this is achieved, we can discuss how to divide the leftovers, but that's not a question I find interesting or important. I guess a bit of meritocracy could do the deal.

The choice of leaders is a trickier question. Ideally, a truly democratic polity should have no need for leaders, and elected officials would be mere bureaucrats tasked with faithfully enacting the wishes of their constituents. Since this vision of democracy doesn't seem workable at least in the short run, in the meantime the main criterion for the selection of leaders should be their willingness to champion the interests and carry the voices of the groups in society that are most disadvantaged. Technical competence helps, but is not the key criterion.

Finally, of course, it is important to a healthy society that people look up to good role models, ie people who demonstrate excellence of some nature (moral excellence being of course the most important, though intellectual or technical excellence have their value). It's important for society to acknowledge these role model, so that less excelling people can be inspired by their examples, but this acknowledgment shouldn't translate into privileges. And of course many of the people that society usually glorifies as role model are wholly undeserving of such status.