Sociologist Ashley Frawley made an interesting point with
her commentary on social engineering. The earlier concept was called the ‘social
pathology approach’ leading in part to eugenics, which said society is a
functioning organism and any social problem is a pathological outgrowth on this
otherwise healthy body. It can be taken
literally, that some people are pathological in that there is something wrong
with the individual, that they’re inferior in some way, and derogatory language
was used in sociology textbooks such as ‘idiots’ or ‘inbreds’ causing social problems.
This moved beyond the pale in the 1940s, and the new Left
put forward a ‘pathological civilisation narrative’, that it’s society that’s
sick and it infects the individual. At least
with the social pathology approach they were optimistic; it could be cured with
individual moral education. With the
pathological civilisation approach there’s a lot of pessimism, as a kind of malaise
that is spreading with a poor prognosis requiring national moral education.
The change from social
problems caused by sick individuals to a sick society which needs
re-engineering seems to me to be an early symptom of civilisational deterioration. It’s difficult to maintain confidence in the
great society if it itself produces problem people. For New Zealand, Australia and North America,
a Rousseauian Noble Savage culture seems to have been chosen as a solution,
with a myth of society in balance with itself and with nature.
This is a Pollyanna-like ideological answer, as with the Marxist perception of the perfectibility of society. It is similar to the myth of Islam’s perfect system of religion, law, education, and social and civic management for the entire world. People want to be deceived, in order to overlook the failures of these societies. This is because, psychologically, they needed to believe in the existence of a perfect social system that not only exemplified their deepest ideals but also gave voice to their deepest misgivings about their own societies.
The recent efforts in the Maorification of New Zealand
society require a level of deceit that should set off alarm bells in every thinking
and educated person, and yet few complain.
Changing Maori culture from a patriarchal and hierarchical society of Mesolithic
hunter-gatherer tribes constantly at war, into one compatible with civilisational
institutions, is an impossible task without a big lie, repeated often. From Maoris as a race at one with nature,
natural environmentalists, respectful of life whether human, fauna or flora, instinctive
caretakers; a culture protective and nurturing of children, of deep
spirituality and connection with the land, of the preservation of treasures
tangible and intangible; through to the failures of Maoris in health, wealth and
civic virtue being due in toto to the devastation of colonialism, is a
fallacious and malicious manipulation of the moral outlook of ordinary people. It ranks with the adolescent narrative-peddling
of the Red Guards and the Hitler Youth.
It is a direct cause of the reaction of the far Right. Given the recent increase in Maoris’ assertiveness
encouraged by Maorification, the concomitant rise in far-Right reaction could
easily result in violence at a level not seen before.
‘Pathological civilisation’ feeds into the Marxist
oppressor/oppressed mythos, which finds ready acceptance in any identity group
unhappy with its status regardless of cause.
It adapts to the misanthropy of global warming, racial conflict,
patriarchy, and feminist misandry.
But ‘oppression’ is an ill-fitting epithet in the liberal social democracies of the Western world. Handily, ‘pathological civilisation’ leaves instinct and human nature untouched, so the real cause of so many social ills, exploitation in the cause of dominance, remains unexamined.