CivilizationStack Definitions
Contents
Anglosphere (“Five Eyes”)
United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Commonwealth
The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary association of 56 sovereign states. It was initially formed in 1949 to maintain ties between countries that were previously part of the British Empire; however, any country can now join the Commonwealth.
Gerstleian Political Order
A Political Order, as conceived by Gary Gerstle, is a dominant framework through which political phenomena are understood and navigated. It draws from the concept of a Kuhnian Scientific Paradigm by shaping perceptions of political reality, establishing norms of legitimacy, and guiding policy development. Gerstle’s innovation lies in his emphasis on the organizational architecture necessary to sustain this worldview, which includes funding mechanisms, policy networks, media influence, and political party engagement.
1. Organizational Components of a Political Order
Political Orders require an extensive infrastructure to transform ideological visions into governing realities. This infrastructure consists of:
Funding and Political Investment: Deep-pocketed donors, political action committees, and long-term financial support are necessary to sustain candidates and political movements over multiple election cycles.
Policy Development and Think Tanks: Think tanks and policy networks are essential to convert ideological concepts into actionable programs, influencing the legislative agenda and shaping public policy.
Media Influence and Opinion Shaping: Control over both elite (e.g., Supreme Court perspectives) and popular media is crucial for directing political discourse and public sentiment.
Political Parties and Electoral Constituencies: A successful Political Order requires a dominant political party capable of consistently winning elections and expanding its electoral base.
Hegemony Over Opposition: An essential characteristic is the ability of the dominant party to bend opposition parties to its ideological will, redefining the boundaries of political possibility. This ideological hegemony creates a new political consensus, reshaping the political landscape in its image.
2. Worldview Components: The Moral Perspective and Kuhnian Paradigms
The worldview component of a Political Order reflects Gerstle’s application of Kuhnian Paradigms to political analysis. It consists of:
Emergence from Key Problems: Political Orders arise in response to systemic crises that discredit the existing order, prompting the development of new Core Assumptions. For example, the New Deal order emerged from the Great Depression, while the neoliberal order responded to the stagflation of the OPEC Oil Crisis and perceived government overreach.
Core Assumptions and Standards of Legitimacy: Core assumptions are foundational beliefs that define what is politically legitimate and effective. In Kuhnian terms, they parallel the paradigm’s axioms that guide problem-solving. For instance, the New Deal order was founded on the necessity of state intervention in capitalism, while the neoliberal order emphasized market autonomy. Core assumptions frame the standards of Legitimacy used to judge a regime - these are the principles or criteria that a political order or regime must meet to be considered legitimate or acceptable by the people or society it governs. These standards serve as a framework for evaluating the rightfulness of political authority and governance.
Endorsed Methods and Policy Techniques: Based on its Core Assumptions, a Political Order develops specific tools and techniques for governance. These methods are considered the only legitimate approaches within the prevailing order. For example, Keynesian economic policies were standard during the New Deal era, whereas deregulation and privatization became dominant under neoliberalism.
Moral Perspective and Vision of the Good Life: Gerstle introduces a moral dimension that functions analogously to Kuhn’s paradigmatic worldview. It provides an overarching vision of the ideal society, inspiring voters and legitimizing the order’s political and economic practices. For instance, the New Deal order promoted social solidarity and economic security, while the neoliberal order emphasized individual freedom and entrepreneurial success.
3. Dynamics of Political Orders: Rise, Dominance, and Decline
Formation and Consolidation: Political Orders form during crises that discredit the previous order. They consolidate power by embedding their worldview within the political, economic, and cultural fabric of society.
Hegemony and Opposition Adaptation: The success of a Political Order is marked by its capacity to define the political mainstream, forcing opposition parties to adapt to its core principles to remain competitive (e.g., Eisenhower Republicans accepting the New Deal consensus, or Clinton Democrats embracing neoliberalism).
Decline and Paradigm Shifts: Political Orders decline when their Core Assumptions no longer adequately address emerging crises. As their ideological hegemony erodes, previously fringe ideas gain mainstream acceptance, paving the way for a new Political Order. For example, the neoliberal order’s decline in the wake of the Great Recession allowed for the rise of both right-wing populism (Trump) and left-wing democratic socialism (Sanders).
Summary
Gary Gerstle's concept of a Political Order bridges organizational strategy with paradigmatic worldview formation, making it a comprehensive framework for understanding political change. It defines not just how power is gained and maintained, but also how the dominant narrative of political legitimacy wedded to a moral vision is constructed and propagated. The organizational components ensure operational sustainability, while the worldview components maintain ideological coherence, guiding public perception and political possibility.
Globalization
Globalization is the process of integrating the world's economies, cultures, and populations through the unrestricted movement of capital, goods, labour, and information across borders. At its core, it involves businesses and organizations expanding their influence and operations on an international scale, leading to an interconnected and interdependent global system.
However, the underlying spirit of globalization is shaped by free market fundamentalism, which emerged as the dominant belief of the Neoliberal Political Order in contrast to both socialist and Keynesian economic systems. This worldview holds that markets are the most efficient means of allocating labour, resources, and capital, relegating states and national narratives to a secondary role. Under this paradigm, human flourishing is framed as consumerist individualism, where the good life is defined by access to consumer goods.
Global economic integration, therefore, becomes a net positive when human flourishing is equated with consumption and markets are upheld as the primary organizing principle. In this sense, globalization serves as the ideological vehicle for spreading the consumerist vision of the good life worldwide. To achieve this utopian ideal of a unified world of accessible commodities, free trade and financial deregulation are promoted as necessary means. Thus, globalization is not merely an economic or cultural phenomenon, but a political project rooted in the belief that unrestricted markets are the pathway to human flourishing.
Individualism
Individualism, in its modern context, is intricately woven into the fabric of globalist free-market ideology, where the individual is celebrated as the primary unit of social, economic, and political analysis. This conception is not merely about personal freedom or self-reliance but is deeply linked to consumerist values and identity politics, shaped by a worldview of market fundamentalism.
1. Consumerist Individualism and Market Fundamentalism
At its core, contemporary individualism is defined by consumerist individualism, where the good life is measured by access to consumer goods and services. This form of individualism is heavily informed by free market fundamentalism, the belief that free markets are the optimal means of organizing human activity. In this worldview, personal identity and success are inextricably linked to one's capacity to consume and express preferences through market choices. Consequently, the individual is framed as a sovereign consumer whose desires dictate the market's offerings, reinforcing the notion that freedom is best exercised through consumption.
2. Freedom of Action Over Collective Control
Drawing from its classical roots, individualism remains a social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. However, in the context of global capitalism, this freedom is primarily exercised through economic choices rather than political or civic engagement. The market becomes the arena where individuality is both expressed and constrained, as the individual's choices are shaped by the available products, services, and cultural narratives offered within a globalized marketplace.
3. Self-Realization and Resistance to Collective Interference
Individualists promote realizing one's goals and desires, valuing independence and self-reliance. In this paradigm, the individual's interests are paramount, taking precedence over collective or state objectives. This resistance to external interference is not just a philosophical stance but a functional requirement of global capitalism, where individuals must be free to pursue their consumer preferences. This emphasis on personal freedom, however, leads to the erosion of traditional collective identities (e.g., national, religious, or communal) in favour of more fluid, market-oriented identities.
4. Globalism, Individualism, and Multiculturalism
The unique synthesis of globalist free trade and individualist consumerism, underpinned by market fundamentalism, leads to multiculturalism as the preferred social program for identity formation. In a global marketplace, cultural diversity enhances consumer choice and expands markets. Multiculturalism thus becomes a tool for managing identity within a system where national and state narratives are deliberately minimized. This enables the formation of identity as a matter of personal choice, analogous to consumer choice. Individuals are encouraged to select and express their identities much like they would select products, fostering a pluralistic society where traditional assimilationist pressures are replaced by a celebration of diversity as market segmentation.
5. Identity as Consumer Choice and the Rise of Identity Politics
Through the unified acceptance of globalism and individualism, identity is ultimately framed as a consumer choice issue. Traditional factional identity conflicts, which once led to wars of assimilation or nationalist struggles, are now managed by promoting the principle of "to each his own" in matters of group identity. In this context, identity politics and diversity initiatives emerge as mechanisms for maintaining social harmony. These initiatives are not merely about justice or representation but are strategic tools for reducing identity-based tensions that could disrupt the market order. By ensuring that all identity groups feel represented, particularly within corporate and institutional power structures, the neoliberal polity seeks to mitigate factionalism without resorting to assimilationist policies.
The Ironic Connection to Identity Politics
Herein lies the ironic connection between individualism and identity politics. Individualism, in its contemporary consumerist form, leads to the proliferation of identity categories as market niches. It encourages individuals to define themselves through their consumption choices, including cultural and identity affiliations. Yet, this same process fragments collective identity and weakens traditional community bonds, leading to the rise of identity politics as individuals seek belonging and recognition in increasingly atomized societies. What is framed as a celebration of diversity is, in reality, the commodification of identity within a neoliberal framework, where the self is marketed and consumed like any other product.
Summary
Thus, modern individualism is less about autonomy or self-determination in the classical sense and more about participation in a global marketplace of identities and experiences. It is the ideological backbone of a system that suppresses national and state narratives, replacing them with agglomerations of individual narratives that are commodified and managed to maintain social harmony. This nuanced interplay between individualism, globalism, and identity politics reveals the underlying dynamics of contemporary neoliberal society.
Kuhnian Scientific Paradigm
A Kuhnian Scientific Paradigm is a conceptual framework that organizes scientific activity within a community by defining model problems, solutions, and methodologies. It is grounded in shared assumptions, values, and techniques that guide normal scientific research. Kuhn’s paradigm model is a cyclical process, encompassing the progression from normal science to paradigm shifts through scientific revolutions. The following is a walkthrough of his core concepts:
1. Paradigms
A paradigm is a coherent tradition of scientific research that provides a structured worldview for a community of practitioners. It has two essential characteristics:
Unprecedented Achievement: It attracts an enduring group of adherents by offering solutions that are superior to competing approaches.
Open-Endedness: It leaves open questions and puzzles, motivating ongoing research within the framework.
Paradigms establish the rules and standards for scientific inquiry, influencing what questions are worth pursuing and what methods are acceptable. They guide research not only by abstract principles but also through direct modeling of problem-solving approaches. Paradigms, thus, create a self-sustaining cycle of investigation where normal science progresses by solving puzzles within the existing framework.
2. Normal Science
Normal science is the period of stable, cumulative research conducted within the boundaries of a paradigm. It is tradition-bound and conservative by design, focusing on:
Articulating existing theories with greater precision.
Extending the range of applications to new phenomena.
Refining experimental techniques to solve puzzles the paradigm assumes to be solvable.
During normal science, major conceptual breakthroughs are not the goal. Instead, scientists work to fit data within the paradigm, refining theories and resolving discrepancies. Anomalies are typically seen as challenges to be solved rather than threats to the paradigm.
3. Anomalies and Data-Theory Fit
Anomalies are empirical observations that do not fit within the expectations of the current paradigm. According to Kuhn:
Anomalies are only recognizable against the backdrop of the existing paradigm.
No theory perfectly fits all data, but persistent anomalies can erode confidence in a paradigm over time.
The data-theory fit refers to how well observations align with theoretical expectations. It is the tension between this fit and the recognition of anomalies that drives scientific progress.
Anomalies initially trigger cycles of speculation and experimentation, attempting to reconcile the observed discrepancies. However, when anomalies resist resolution, they create a crisis, undermining the paradigm's perceived adequacy.
4. Scientific Revolutions and Paradigm Shifts
A scientific revolution occurs when the accumulation of unresolved anomalies breaks down the existing paradigm's explanatory power. This period of crisis is marked by:
A shift in professional commitments as scientists begin to question the paradigm’s validity.
A reconstruction of prior theory and a re-evaluation of prior facts, leading to a radical transformation in how the scientific community interprets data.
The emergence of a new paradigm that offers a different framework of interpretation, re-organizing the same data into a new conceptual system.
This process is characterized by a paradigm shift, where the scientific community undergoes a fundamental change in worldview. A new paradigm is incommensurable with the old one, meaning that the two paradigms are based on different premises and cannot be directly compared.
5. Cumulative vs. Revolutionary Change
In normal science, change is cumulative, building upon the existing paradigm without altering its foundational principles.
In a scientific revolution, change is non-cumulative and radical, replacing the old paradigm with an incompatible new one.
Scientific revolutions thus reshape the historical perspective of the scientific community, altering the questions asked, the methods used, and even the interpretation of prior data.
6. Overview of the Kuhnian Cycle
Normal Science: Puzzle-solving within the accepted paradigm.
Anomalies: Emergence of persistent discrepancies that challenge the paradigm's explanatory power.
Crisis: Recognition that anomalies are not resolvable within the current paradigm.
Scientific Revolution: Shift in professional commitments and worldview, leading to a new paradigm.
Paradigm Shift: Reorganization of the same data within a new theoretical framework.
New Normal Science: Establishment of the new paradigm as the foundation for further research.
7. The Role of Paradigms in Scientific Development
According to Kuhn, paradigms are the fundamental units of scientific development. They are not reducible to isolated facts or logical rules but constitute holistic worldviews that shape the scientific community's approach to problem-solving and inquiry. By providing the criteria for choosing research problems, paradigms inherently limit the scope of scientific investigation, focusing efforts on puzzles that the paradigm deems solvable.
Paradigms are both enabling and constraining. They enable scientific progress by offering a shared framework for investigation, but they also constrain innovation by discouraging lines of inquiry that fall outside the paradigm's assumptions. This tension between tradition-bound normal science and revolutionary paradigm shifts is at the heart of Kuhn's model of scientific progress.
Summary
A Kuhnian Scientific Paradigm is thus a dynamic and evolving framework that guides scientific inquiry through a cyclical process of normal science, crisis, revolution, and paradigm shift. It is inherently historical and sociological, emphasizing the role of scientific communities in shaping knowledge. Paradigms do not merely organize facts; they define the very nature of scientific reality, influencing how scientists perceive, interpret, and interact with the world.
Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism is more than a simple description of a multiethnic or multi-racial policy. Under the neoliberal framework, multiculturalism is a social and political policy framework designed to manage and integrate diverse cultural, ethnic, and identity groups within a given society. It emerged as a response to the challenges of globalized economies and increasingly mobile populations, aiming to facilitate coexistence without necessitating cultural assimilation under nationalist narratives. By promoting coexistence through the recognition and celebration of cultural differences, multiculturalism seeks to incorporate diverse groups into a market economy without relying on nationalist or collectivist narratives.
Under the paradigm of globalist free trade and individualist consumerism, multiculturalism serves as the preferred social program for identity formation. This framework emphasizes personal choice and identity construction, positioning the individual as the fundamental unit of society. Consequently, multiculturalism is grounded in an agglomeration of individual identities, which collectively form the basis for a pluralistic social order. This approach reframes identity conflicts as issues of consumer choice, allowing for a “to each his own” philosophy that seeks to minimize social tensions by accommodating diverse group identities.
However, in its implementation, multiculturalism has often been operationalized through mass immigration policies that foster cultural fragmentation. This approach has contributed to the development of ethnically homogeneous enclaves (ethnoburbs) surrounding major urban centres, leading to political and social consequences such as the dislocation of native residents, diaspora politics, and foreign interference. This fragmented cultural landscape has, in turn, contributed to populist uprisings as a reaction to perceived threats against national identity and political influence.
National Subsidiarity
Subsidiary is a principle in social and political philosophy that holds that matters should be handled by the smallest, most local level of authority that is capable of addressing them effectively. National Subsidiarity is a principle in social and political organization that applies this concept of subsidiarity at the national level, particularly within the context of multi-state identities that require differentiated expression according to national contextual factors. In essence, it navigates the tension between supranational identity and national sovereignty by allocating authority and responsibility to the most localized level capable of effectively addressing a given issue.
Core Components of National Subsidiarity
Decentralized Authority and Local Empowerment: Building on the principle that functions which can be performed effectively by subordinate or local organizations belong more properly to them than to a dominant central organization, national subsidiarity emphasizes the distribution of power away from centralized supranational entities to national and subnational entities. This ensures that decisions are made closer to the affected communities, respecting cultural, historical, and political contexts.
Subsidiary Function of Central Authority: A central authority should perform only those tasks which cannot be effectively managed at a more localized level. This means that supranational governance structures (e.g., Anglosphere cooperation mechanisms) should intervene only in areas where cross-national coordination is necessary, such as defense agreements, trade policies, or collective cultural initiatives, while deferring to national governments on domestic matters.
Differentiated Expression in Multi-State Identities: National subsidiarity is particularly relevant in contexts of multi-state identities, such as the Anglosphere, where shared cultural, historical, and linguistic bonds co-exist with unique national identities. It allows for a collective identity to be expressed in varied ways depending on national contexts. For example, Canada’s participation in Anglosphere initiatives would need to account for internal dynamics such as Quebec sovereignty, ensuring that federal policies respect provincial autonomy while engaging in broader supranational projects. Similarly, Australia and New Zealand might emphasize regional Pacific alliances differently than the UK or the US.
Balancing Supranational and National Identities: In the context of the Anglosphere, national subsidiarity facilitates a balance between a shared cultural identity and the sovereignty of individual nations. This prevents the erosion of national identities while fostering cooperation on common issues. It also helps mitigate potential conflicts, such as those between federalist structures and regionalist movements (e.g., Quebec in Canada or Scottish nationalism in the UK), by ensuring that cultural and political expressions are tailored to local sensibilities.
Historical and Theoretical Context
National subsidiarity draws from the broader tradition of subsidiarity in Catholic social teaching, which argues for the empowerment of local communities to govern themselves as much as possible. In the context of the Anglosphere, national subsidiarity would support differentiated political arrangements that respect each nation’s unique political culture, legal systems, and social contracts while maintaining collective identity and cooperation.
Applications and Implications
Policy Development and Governance: National subsidiarity provides a framework for designing policies that respect local autonomy while addressing transnational challenges, such as cybersecurity or migration.
Cultural and Identity Politics: It supports nuanced identity politics that allow for the coexistence of national and supranational identities, helping to navigate cultural integration and regional distinctiveness.
International Relations: It offers a model for international relations among Anglosphere countries that balances sovereignty with shared interests, enhancing diplomatic and strategic cooperation without imposing uniformity.
Summary
National subsidiarity is a strategic approach to governance and identity management that harmonizes local autonomy with supranational cooperation. It is particularly relevant in the context of multi-state identities like the Anglosphere, where shared cultural bonds coexist with diverse national contexts. By allocating authority to the most local level capable of effective action, it preserves national sovereignty while fostering collective identity and international cooperation.