Our commenter mharko has given us a link to a brief video making an argument, from a Christian perspective, against accelerationism. The presenter, Jonathan Pageau, calls it “dancing with death”. Here it is:
There is an interesting “as above, so below” theme running through the argument. The idea is twofold: first, that there is an isomorphism between the individual and society, and second, that there is a similar parallel between the arc of history and the life of Christ.
Regarding the first, Mr. Pageau says that, for most people at least, it will be impossible to foster accelerating decadence in the larger society (above), without allowing the rot to seep into our individual selves (below). He describes this as a dangerous flirtation with nihilism, and I can’t say he’s wrong.
As for the second, the argument is that, under a Christian understanding at least, this period of crisis and passion is inevitable, but it is precisely during such a moment in history when we are required to be Christlike; to remain faithful to what we know in our hearts to be good and right and true, even if the whole world seems to be mocking it all and throwing it back in our faces.
If I were to push back against Mr. Pageau’s argument, it would be to say that, as regards the analogy with the individual, there is often a threshold effect in which a disease has to progress to a certain point before triggering a full-body immune response; the accelerationist, on the other hand, would say that keeping things on a slow boil, as our feeble resistance does, might delay that response, allowing more damage in the long run. (I would point out also that even in the story of Christ, Judas had a vitally important role to play.)
That said, though, I’m not sure I don’t find this anti-accelerationist argument persuasive. It is the same argument made very well by Vito Caiati over at Bill Vallicella’s place, and it is easy to see that it is a morally consistent position – as against the cynical, instrumentalist position of the accelerationist.
So: what’s my position here? As Jack Benny famously said: I’m thinking it over.
3 Comments
As to isomorphism, yes, the Pageau brothers are big into fractals, and rightly so. It’s a fundamental part of their approach to understanding the whole enchilada, and it bears a lot of fruit.
What I most liked in the talk was the recognition that the demise of the Christian story is part of the Christian story (the Judas angle?). Very fractal. No need for a holy crusade to smite the infidels, or to strategize our way to the new world. It’s coming, just get ready (whatever that may mean) and watch, and don’t neglect whatever needs doing in the meantime. The actors are playing out their parts, they provide the pedal. There’s a new testament passage about the Katechon that is part of this. “That which withholds, or restrains” in 2 Thessalonians. The Katechon will be removed in the last times, so that things can devolve according to their own devices. That’s really all the acceleration needed.
There’s a corollary to that notion (of Christianity being necessarily the seed and sower of its own destruction, desacralizing ritualized violence) in the writing of Rene Girard, who developed his theory of mimesis as a driver of human behavior. Escalation of conflict to a climax of scapegoating an innocent victim is a principle theme in his exegesis of history and modernity. He posits that woke culture has hijacked victimhood from Christianity while jettisoning the unwelcome parts about morality, with an progressive immanentizing of the eschaton and its own inquisitions, crusades, anathemas, etc. Just no redemption or forgiveness.
Obviously Girard and Pageau come from a Christian perspective, but nonetheless grounded in a very comprehensive and cosmic vison.
Pageau mentions that these things manifest first on the fringes, which corresponds to the notion of threshold.
So a traditionalist-leaning person, or otherwise normal, doesn’t need to contribute to the acceleration of chaos. We just need to keep paying attention, talking to one another, aspiring to be peacemakers, strengthening the things that remain, and be ready.
“and be ready”. This article summarizes the current moment better than anything I’ve seen:
https://jeffgoldstein.substack.com/p/rape-of-the-locke?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1050295&post_id=120508377&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Violence will follow.
Better minds than mine have talked you out of accelerationism, but I will still say some things in its favor. This is implicit in what you write, but those who refuse to accelerate decadence very often enable decadence. A functional drunk depends on enablers, and so does a functional decadent system. For instance, “normal” teachers, librarians, professors, and the like, enable the crazies to go on spreading their craziness. Or to take another example, decent, normal people enable a decadent sexual morality when they respond to its casualties with decent, normal compassion. I would add that the “as above, so below” principle applies to enablers as well as accelerationists, since enablers are, whatever they may think of themselves, complicit with the system. No philosophy is free of moral hazards, but I profess cynical detachment. I think it is better than performative opposition, accelerationism, and enabling.