Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • America, England, Europe – Why do we Differ? Bennett and Lotus apply the America 3.0 analysis to Europe — and Special Thanks to John O’Sullivan

    Posted by Chicago Boyz Archive on April 14th, 2014 (All posts by )

    John O'Sullivan

    Jim Bennett and I recently had a chance to publish an essay in the Hungarian Review. It is titled America, England, Europe – Why do we Differ? In it we apply the same type of analysis we used in America 3.0.

    In our essay we discuss the anthropological underpinnings of modern societies, and reference the work of Alan Macfarlane and the family system analysis of Emmanuel Todd. We note the extremely long lasting character of culture, and describe thinkers who are aware of this, and build it into their analysis, as the “Continuity Model.” We suggest that European countries need to find a path toward liberal democracy that is consistent with their underlying cultures. We note the damage done by Marxist and Marxisant thinking. We condemn the European Union as a serious misstep for Europe, and suggest that it be dismantled or cut back massively.

    If any of our readers read the essay, we would be interested in your thoughts.

    In the next issue, George Schöpflin responded to our essay.

    We replied to his critiques, in A Rejoinder to George Schöpflin. Mr. Schöpflin’s response is useful, because it allowed us to respond to a criticism frequently leveled at America 3.0 and its authors. We are often accused of promoting a monocausal view of history, specifically that we are overly focused on family structure analysis, as developed by Emmanuel Todd.

    Is it a fair criticism, for instance, to say that the article “tends to accept monocausality, reducing everything to a single factor (family types in this instance)”? Consider our text. Yes, we refer to the persistence of culture, and its impact on politics and economics, as a “Continuity Model”, based on the “well-founded assumption of the persistence of human culture”. We discuss the contributions of Alan Macfarlane and James Campbell to the understanding of cultural continuity in England. We turn to Emmanuel Todd’s analysis of family types. And we state that “[f]amily systems analysis explains some of the complexity of Central and Eastern European politics”. Surely the phrase “some of” demonstrates we are not asserting mono causality.
     
    We therefore have no quarrel with Mr Schöpflin when he refers to the many factors beside family structure which influenced European – and Hungarian – culture, politics and economics. As Alan Macfarlane puts it, complex phenomena result from chains of causation with multiple links.
     
    If there is a particular emphasis on family systems in our short article, it is because educated readers are typically familiar with cultural and economic arguments concerning national and civilisational differences, but they have usually had little exposure to modern family systems research. In a welcome development, the European Union has recently been sponsoring some of the key research in this area, such as the work of Gilles Duranton et al. on family systems and employment in Europe.

    In America 3.0 we anticipate this criticism. We first list many factors which were influential on the West, England, and America. Then we say:

    In this book we focus on family structure, and don’t dwell on [these other factors], as important as each of them is, for at least two reasons. First, the nature and importance of the Anglo-American type of nuclear family is too little known. It is a rather arcane academic subject at the moment, but it should not remain that way. It merits wider awareness, understanding, and discussion. Second, we have tried to identify the factors that make Americans different from people in other countries.
     
    We are most certainly not claiming that there is any single cause for us being the way we are. Each of the foregoing elements is an irreplaceable part of what we are. What we are saying is that there is a distinctive, little known, and possibly unique cause of American exceptionalism that needs to be brought to light.

    Family structure analysis is important, but it is not the only factor to consider. Alan Macfarlane’s work shows an extraordinary range of influences on England especially and modernity in general. For example, he has written an amazing book about the importance of glass, and another one about the importance of tea drinking. In both cases these factors are immensely more important than you would imagine before reading the books.

    Nonetheless, family structure is a neglected element in national life. The risk is not that it will be given too much weight, but that it is almost unknown and will be ignored.

    Finally, we offer our warmest thanks to John O’Sullivan, pictured above, who made it possible for us to publish in the Hungarian Review.

    John’s most recent initiative is the Danube Institute:

    The Danube Institute exists to provide an independent center of intellectual debate for conservatives and classical liberals and their democratic opponents in Central Europe.
     
    Based in Budapest and Washington it seeks to engage with centre-right institutions, scholars, political parties and individuals of achievement across the region to discuss problems of mutual interest.
     
    The Institute also seeks to establish a two-way transmission belt for centre-right ideas, policies and people between Central Europe, Western Europe, and the English speaking world, and to provide an authoritative source of rational and commonsens reporting and commentary for those covering Central Europe for the world outside the region.

    One of the Danube Institute’s first events was to be a conversation between James C. Bennett and Josef Joffe entitled Declining America or Resurgent Superpower?. Sadly Mr. Joffe could not attend due to a strike by airline employees in Germany. Mr. Joffe’s book is entitled The Myth of America’s Decline: Politics, Economics, and a Half Century of False Prophecies, and the full title of our book is America 3.0: Rebooting American Prosperity in the 21st Century-Why America’s Greatest Days Are Yet to Come. Bennett, Lotus and Joffe are all placing their chips on “resurgent superpower.”

    If video becomes available of this event we will post it here and elsewhere.

    We wish John O’Sullivan very great success with this worthy new venture.

     

    11 Responses to “America, England, Europe – Why do we Differ? Bennett and Lotus apply the America 3.0 analysis to Europe — and Special Thanks to John O’Sullivan”

    1. Grurray Says:

      “We and Mr Schöpflin understand different things by the phrase ‘the natural community…'”

      Here is the natural commmunity of Germany (circa 1789)

      The apparent concurrence of unification and the growth of the industrial revolution has lead most to believe that the former was responsible for the latter. In actuality, unification was a reaction to it meant to control the prosperity and husband it for the benefit of the state.

      Speaking of family systems in Europe, I wonder if we can learn anything about the current Ukraine crisis from their system, succession from brother to brother.

    2. MikeK Says:

      The most powerful force in England was the black death which killed one third of the population and ended serfdom. It hit Russia three centuries later and the effect was less marked. England went from overpopulation to a labor shortage. Laborers could almost name their price. Serfdom never returned. France and Russia still had serfdom into the 19th century. A large share of French peasants did not speak French at the time of the Revolution.

    3. Anonymous Says:

      The European Union has fufilled the dream of recreating the Roman Empire. Today, except for the Middle East and Africa, the EU has nearly the same boundries as the Empire in 200ad. This dream was pursued in olmost every century after Karl der Grosse was crowned emperor by Pope Steven in 800. Romanitas still drives European dreams and will always shape Europe’s future.

    4. ErisGuy Says:

      Politics—debate, parties, academia—are epiphenomena. That’s why all those speeches and books and elections can’t be taken seriously.

      Academics once believed economics was the base, now they believe family structure the base. The only question is how the theory will be applied.

      To affect change the family must be crushed and reconstituted to create a new anthropolgie from which a new society can grow.

      Only the most powerful governments are capable of that. Like the USA’s government, which is currently remaking the family in America. What sort of society will result from this novel family structure, no one can say, except that it will not be like those of the past.

    5. PenGun Says:

      The only thing that differentiates Americans from the rest of us is that they were the last people to have an entire continent to expand into. The Europeans have had to get along with many neighbors and limited resources for a long time.

      Do not confuse virtue with rape.

    6. Sgt. Mom Says:

      So what was Australia to the Brits, Greenland to the Danes and Africa to practically every other European power? Chopped liver?

    7. MikeK Says:

      Mom, Don’t disturb PenGun’s delusions. Without them he/she would have no ideas at all. The Indians found an empty continent and managed to exterminate the horses and camels but did not manage to invent the wheel.

    8. Bill Brandt Says:

      Whenever Pengun is cornered with logic he is silent. Has he ever admitted to being wrong, or at least changing his mind based on the thoughts presented?

    9. ErisGuy Says:

      No one knows how populous the Americas were prior to 1492, but current estimates claims that the population of the Americas was reduced by 90% by 1700. Prior to 1776 the Americas had Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, Swedish, and English colonies; that is, 100% European colonies. There were no Americans until 1776, and therefore the genocide can be laid entirely at the feet of Europeans.

    10. David Foster Says:

      An interesting article on the roots of the European bias against Israel.

    11. Anonymous Says:

      If family type is the base and society and government the superstructure, what government and society will result from far-reaching changes in family structure?

      The government and intelligentsia have been committed to abolishing the absolute nuclear family (ANF), which is described as oppressive, for at least fifty years. This program is almost complete.

      This new family, which as best I can tell has no clever name or abbreviation, might be called the serial polyamorous family (SPF). It is characterized by homosexual “marriage” (and soon to be other alternative forms of “marriage”); unmarried or frequently-married woman with bastards sired by multiple and often unknown fathers; high taxes on ANF families both through the marriage penalty and inheritance taxes; easy and frequent divorce; and more.

      When explaining what society and government will be the epiphenomenal superstructure to this base, please cite three or four prior societies with similar structure to justify your conclusions.