A model is an informative representation of an object, person, or system. It does not work as empirical observations of the political games in rhetoric, where persons try foolishly to rationalise their own political prejudices. That foolish worldview is full of vague definitions and practices. The model untangles the confusion into a better structured understanding of the ethical mess (Bernard Williams; the amoralist does not care and the ethical appeal can only be to those who intelligently care; the amoralist does not).
The political games in rhetoric is either played as Conservative, Liberal, Radical narratives. The most confused uses all three to attempt legitimate their own madness (Wikipedia for definitions):
Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology that seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values. The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears. In other words the foolish Conservative is obsessed in appearance, the headspace that person cannot escape the bubble.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history. In other words the foolish Liberal is obsessed in ideology, the headspace that person cannot escape the bubble; and in this sense too buried in details to see the big picture of ideology.
Radicalism is a political movement representing the leftward flank of liberalism between the late 18th century, early 20th century, and early 21st century but has become a confused terminology with the current nonsense about current “radicalisation”. Certain aspects of the movement were precursors to modern-day movements such as social liberalism, social democracy, civil libertarianism, and modern progressivism. In other words the foolish Radical and their critics are obsessed in current affairs and cannot perceive the histories, the headspace that person cannot escape the bubble; and in this sense too buried in details to see the big picture of spiral historiography.
This is not a new understanding and comes from Henry Giroux and his text, Education Under Siege: The Conservative, Liberal, and Radical Debate Over Schooling (Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey Press; co-authored with Stanley Aronowitz), in 1985. In other words the political players have screwed up education for us all in the last 50 years and more.
The good news is that the solutions have been there in the last 50 years in various global examination of the problem:
Much of that has been expressed as the analysis of my public histories and sociology work. However, it is not that I can be ignored as a “piece of shit” as political players privately think. I stand on the shoulders of the intellectual giants of the last 50 years in what I am saying. To take one of them, Jürgen Habermas:
For conservative, liberal, and radical thinkers, none of this is pre-determined, and the solution is the model of communicative rationality (Jürgen Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of society, 1979). It is the way to escape the bubble. In its post-metaphysical model, the argument is:
- called into question the substantive conceptions of rationality (e.g., “a rational person thinks this”) and put forward procedural or formal conceptions instead (e.g., “a rational person thinks like this”);
- replaced foundationalism with fallibilism with regard to valid knowledge and how it may be achieved;
- cast doubt on the idea that reason should be conceived abstractly beyond history and the complexities of social life, and have contextualized or situated reason in actual historical practices;
- replaced a focus on individual structures of consciousness with a concern for pragmatic structures of language and action as part of the contextualization of reason; and
- given up philosophy’s traditional fixation on theoretical truth and the representational functions of language, to the extent that they also recognize the moral and expressive functions of language as part of the contextualization of reason.
The model comes out of post-1945 German radicalism, as the school of Critical Theory. No school of thought is perfect, and nuanced criticisms can be made of particular theorists in the school. However, in the Age of Trumpism, Critical Theory is needed; very, very, significantly, to be understood among the population.
Neville Buch
Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)
- Mathematical monism, Perceptive Pluralism, and Intent - March 21, 2025
- The Cognitive Barrier of Prejudice - March 20, 2025
- 2025 THE Most International University in the World - March 20, 2025