I wanted to expand on a theme I have developed over a number of blogs and root a little deeper into the question of why anthropogenic climate change is so vigorously attacked by many on the right wing, and why Libertarians in particular are such staunch enemies of the 'green lobby,' as they call it. In doing so, I also want to touch on wider questions of political discourse, and specifically the absolute presuppositions that govern our political thinking.
Absolute presuppositions are the fundamental suppositions of any body of thinking. Take causation. If I were a doctor treating you for an ailment and I told you that your headache was caused by exposure to the sun and a lack of fluids, you might reply "well, how do you know that?" I could then explain the way in which heat and lack of fluids impacts on your body resulting in a particular reaction, in this instance a headache. If you continued to question me as to why this was the case, I might have to resort to saying that this is the way that that is the way in which you provide a diagnosis. You find a cause (sun and lack of fluids) and you match it to the symptom (headache) or vice versa. If you were to press me further on why this must be so, I would be liable to get testy and tell you in no uncertain terms that that is the way it is: a cause always produces an effect. What we have hit upon here is an absolute presupposition. It is a supposition which admits of no further questioning. No matter how much you pushed me, I would not be able to go beyond this presupposition in my thinking.
What is particularly important about absolute presuppositions is not their being true or false (after all plenty of theories of causation exist), but simply the fact that they are supposed. Nor does their non-verifiability impact upon the soundness of the thinking that emanates from them. The key is simply their logical primacy.
R. G. Collingwood, the British historian and philosopher, was the first to describe absolute presuppositions in these terms, arguing that the much-maligned discipline of metaphysics had been widely misunderstood by his contemporaries and was in fact an investigation into the absolute presuppositions held by certain people in particular historical contexts. Moreover, he maintained that as context alters over time so too do the absolute presuppositions that frame our thoughts. These revolutionary changes are usually accompanied by fierce resistance from those with vested interests in existing absolute presuppositions. One only needs to look at the history of any number of scientific disciplines to know this to be true.
Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, likewise, applies the idea of paradigm shifts to scientific discourse. Paradigms he describes as the arena in which 'normal science' can proceed. That is, a science rooted to a particular principle or theory. The shift occurs when a rival theory gains popularity and exposes the previously hidden difficulties of a prior paradigm. A paradigm shift, just like a change in absolute presuppositions, is often accompanied by violent rhetorical and physical struggle. Again, the importance with Kuhn's theory does not necessarily lie in the truth or falsehood of paradigms, but in their acceptance by a body of researchers. This is the way in which scientific revolutions occur.
Kuhn's theory, although ostensibly directed to the scientific community, has gained particular traction with modern intellectal historians. Particularly those who are keen to disavow the idea of eternal and unchanging truths like justice, or the ideal State. What we learn most obviously from Kuhn and Collingwood is that there is no such thing as eternal truths; we cannot compare Hobbes' Leviathan to Plato's Republic and decide which is the 'best' form of governance. Propositions or theories propounded in a particular historical circumstance must always be looked at as an attempt to address contemporary concerns, and it is only in their ability to address questions posed by a particular context that we can judge their success or failure.
Now this is the interesting bit. Discussions over anthropogenic climate change, whilst not particularly revolutionary in the scientific world (in terms of the paradigms under which the sciences operate), are causing seismic shifts in political discourse simply because of the very real threat posed to the various absolute presuppositions governing political theory. This is because acceptance of AGW involves a reappraisal of views on private property, individual liberty and the power of the state. This necessarily impinges upon the core beliefs of right-wingers, and might go some way towards explaining why some see AGW as a Socialist-led conspiracy.
Again, we can here draw out just why this problem remains such a pressing one for Libertarians. Take Nozick, for example. His idealised political system was not premised, as with Conservatives or other liberals, on the idea of the social contract emerging from a state of nature, but was rather founded on the principle of individual rights themselves. Here he inherits a position first presented by J. S. Mill, who claimed that the State's sole function should be to ensure that the liberty of individual citizens was protected. If it were to impinge upon that liberty, it had to have a very strong reason for doing so, such as protecting one individual from the violence of another. The problem confronted by Libertarians is that acceptance of climate change necessarily involves redrawing the limits of individual liberty, which necessarily involves empowering the State. Now, contrary to what I have said in the past, this does not necessarily have to be fatal to the whole Libertarian enterprise, but it does demand some serious thinking.
Kuhn suggested that there were two ways in which a paradigm shift could be brought about: through the popularity of a new theory, or through a discovery that challenges the basis of an existing paradigm. The discovery of climate change (if we can call a science with over 100 years of history a discovery) has dramatically forced a reappraisal of political priorities and principles, and this discovery has been greeted with the customary rhetorical violence that any fundamental shift entails. So whilst the numbers of those who doubt the reality of AGW is increasing, this should not detract from the majority who have accepted the fact. The angry minority is but the last throes of a dying paradigm.
No comments:
Post a Comment