Letting the World Grow Old: An Ethos of Countermodernity

1
Letting the World Grow Old An Ethos of
Countermodernity

• Freya Mathews

2
Nature and Artifice

• Nature is a process what happens when creatures
  with capacity for abstract thought dont
  interfere. Living within the given is letting
  nature happen.
• Artifice is what happens when we try to change
  thins for out own ends. Modern civilization
  relies on artifice, but a return to nature is
  assured if we let it be (by definition).

3
Against Restoration

• Rather than restore lost swamps and forests and
  return to nature we need to let things be. The
  natural process can recommence as soon as we stop
  interfering. We shouldnt tear down cities but
  let them grow old. We can maintain them but
  this is compatible with the fundamental attitude
  of letting be. (223).

4
More on Restoration

• If exotic species have been introduced into an
  environment they should be left to sort it out on
  their own. This may be distasteful but it is
  natural and speciation will in time begin again.
• Trying to restore things is perpetuating the
  process of control, which implies a sort of
  self-rejection. When we accept our unnaturalness,
  our uptightness, we begin to relax.

5
Inhabiting Place

• Letting things unfold in their own way is
  learning to inhabit place. Places become part of
  our (individuals, Families, communities)
  histories. We become their natives. The physical
  features of things become intertwined with our
  identity, and from a panpsychist view nature
  can come to know us. (223)

6
About Change

•  She says that change is inevitable but that
  change should not disrupt the general unfolding
  of things (224).
• What does this mean?

7
The Problem with Artifice

• The problem with artifice is it does not pay
  attention to history or context. It doesnt pay
  attention to what came before old factories are
  more natural than designed parks, which are
  subject to intentional control and redevelopment.
  

8
An Objection and Response

• Objection is that this is too passive.
• Response this worldview has the power to destroy
  capitalism (and its desire for constant growth)
  because it is contrary to the values of
  capitalism in many ways.

9
She Says Her Ethic is Not

• Consumerist we would be pleased with what we
  have and not desire new things. Most pleased
  with our oldest not newest things.
• Commodificationist when we value things for the
  relationship we have with them (not the potential
  for a relationship) this removes them from the
  market. They are not replaceable they are like
  members of a family

10

• Focused on productivity when we are satisfied
  with how things are we dont crave bigger and
  better things or want to make things different.
• Focused on progress if people dont think they
  can remake the world as they want it the desire
  to improve peoples standard of living
  indefinitely collapses (225).

11

• Focused on efficiency Tools will not be valued
  for efficiency but for meaning. Old tools have
  meaning even if they arent perfect efficiency
  is only one factor in choosing tools.
• Focused on industry/business letting things be
  is very different from industriousness or
  business

12

• Focused on development rather development is
  understood in terms of transformation and
  regeneration not in the capitalist sense.
• Focused on profit there is no surplus in
  natural systems and no accumulation of wealth.
  Profit in one part of the system is loss in
  another part.

13

• Focused on automation human labor can be a way
  of investing meaning into things, handmade things
  can be valuable
• Focused on property people should seek to
  belong not to own things, they shouldnt
  disregard matter by buying it and discarding it,
  we should treat our bodies better and appreciate
  the way they are reclaimed by age.

14
A New Ethic

• All of this amounts to a new sort of economics
  or method of making sure our material desires are
  fulfilled, and Mathews says a panpsychist
  world-view.

15
Objections?

• Some might object that resistance rather than
  letting things be is the best attitude toward
  destruction.
• She agrees that our commitment to things may
  require us to resist their destruction,
  specifically people may re-inhabit places marked
  for development.
• People have to know their land, titles, tera
  nullius would not work as a justification for
  development and people would refuse to be
  compensated for land

16
Modernity

• Modernity is a dissatisfaction with the given, a
  search for the new.
• She thinks this is the cause of the environmental
  crisis.
• The ethos she suggests is not an attempt to save
  the world or change it, it requires living with
  nature rather than against nature.

17
Politics

• This is an ethos of conservatism not radicalism.
  It is most opposed to economism the idea of
  the free market radical change to achieve
  privilege and wealth.
• It shares conservativism of places/things with
  right wing politics (not of oppressive
  institutions) and with the left a desire to avoid
  privileging the powerful over the few (but not
  the revolution that is antagonistic to letting
  things be).

18
Metaphysics

• It is counter-modern with a pansychist
  metaphysics rather than a materialist metaphysics
  (which assumes matter is lifeless).
• Nor is it an attempt to deconstruct metaphysics
  as post-modernism does therefore leaving the
  world devoid of meaning.

19
Taoism and Aboriginal Philosophy

• Basically this is a Taoist philosophy there is
  an intelligent guiding inner principle in
  everything that can be trusted.
• Also similar to Australian aboriginal culture
  which values acceptance and accommodation rather
  than craving as a way of transforming and
  changing the significance of things. Land is all
  that is real and spirit is everywhere. We
  connect with spirit by engaging with the given.

20
Summary

• Matthews ethic is based on Taoist philosophy and
  Aboriginal thought. Spirit is in everything and
  nature is a process that cant be forced or
  restored, we have to let it be. We can defend
  our land best by knowing it and investing meaning
  in it. By appreciating old things made sacred by
  tradition and time. This is a conservative,
  egalitarian, counter-modern philosophy it is
  opposed to economism, modernity, post-modernity,
  and artifice.

21
Questions

• What is panpsychism? Economism?
  Counter/modernity? Postmodernity?
• Do you like Mathews ethic? Why/not?
  Reconstruct what you think she is arguing and
  after showing me offer an argument against it.
  Critique that argument.
• What are three objections to her view? Do they
  work? Why or why not? Come up with one of your
  own and discuss.
• Do you agree with her prescriptions for
  protecting nature? Why? How would she respond
  to a critic (or you)?