“The Social Imaginary in the Context of Social Discontents: a Conceptual Model of the Social Imaginary, and Its Application To
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
“The Social Imaginary in the Context of Social Discontents: A Conceptual Model of the Social Imaginary, and its Application to the Amelioration of Civilizational Crises.” Samantha Earle SUBMISSION FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PPL, UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA MAY 2020 "This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that use of any information derived therefrom must be in accordance with current UK Copyright Law. In addition, any quotation or extract must include full attribution.” Abstract This thesis is premised on the idea that the manifold social discontents – including eco-climate collapse, the violent subjugation of non-human animals, and racial and gendered oppression – are all expressions of the current social imaginary. The concept of the social imaginary has the potential to help us understand the common pathology of these egregious social ills, and how the imaginary might be transformed. Although the field of social imaginaries has emerged in its own right over the last few years, there is as yet no conceptualisation of the social imaginary as a whole. I suggest that such an overarching model will be necessary if it is to be of ameliorative value to social ills. This thesis, therefore, seeks to present a model of social imaginaries that explains both their constitutive elements and their dynamics. It argues that each social imaginary possesses a unique character in virtue of which it coheres as a whole. The most important contributions of this thesis are: ● Positing the ‘keystone concept’, that is the ontological principle at the heart of each specific social imaginary in virtue of which that imaginary coheres and derives its unique character. ● Accounting for the twin dynamics of the social imaginary: the synthetic imagination that explains its reproduction; and the radical imagination that disrupts the synthetic imagination and creates opportunities for critical reflection and creative responses. ● Emphasising the responsibility of denizens in creating the imaginary world in which we live, and pointing to the ways in which this is most effectively done. ● Identifying the keystone concept of the current imaginary as entitlement; and suggesting that the most significant leverage point for the amelioration of social ills is veganism, because it directly rejects the most complete and salient expression of entitlement: taking the lives of others. 2 For my father, who I miss, and who I’m sorry is not here to see the completed work. 3 “It matters what worlds world worlds.” ~ Donna Haraway1 “The central social imaginary of our times...shapes our regime, its orientation, values, what is worth living and dying for, the thrust of society, even its affects, and the individuals who will make all that exist concretely.” ~ Cornelius Castoriadis2 1 (2016, 35) 2 (2007, 137) 4 Table of Contents Introduction: The Social Imaginary and its Discontents 7 The rationale behind choosing a Social Imaginaries framework 8 Thesis aims 12 Key themes 15 What is the “current social imaginary”? 19 Structure of the thesis 19 Chapter One: The Social Imaginary in Castoriadis and Ricoeur: Finding Common Ground 25 Non-congruence 27 Ricoeur 28 Castoriadis 35 The Function of Significations 37 Chapter Two: Applying Systems Thinking to Social Imaginaries 43 Imaginaries as systems 46 Coherence in systems and imaginaries 48 Responsibility in the system 57 Chapter Three: The Social Imaginary as a Complex of Articulations 62 What are the articulations? 63 Examples of articulations 65 Articulations as ‘carriers’ of meaning 69 Identity as identifiability 71 Understanding as salient knowledge and grasping 73 Responsibility and coherence in grasping 79 Chapter Four: A Systemic and Structural Analysis of the Keystone Structure 82 Haslanger’s account of structure 85 Systemic analysis 90 Schemas 93 Tenets 98 Keystone concept (core phenomenon) 100 Structural analysis 103 Coherence and responsibility 107 Chapter Five: The Synthetic and Radical Imagination as Positive and Negative Capability 108 The synthetic imagination 110 The dispositional schematic 115 The radical imagination 119 5 Critical faculty of the radical imagination 124 Creative imagination 127 Chapter Six: A Focal Analysis of Entitlement and Veganism as Leverage Point 133 Focal analysis 134 Reviewing entitlement 141 Leverage point 147 Schematic pathways 150 Veganism and the critical imagination 155 Veganism and the creative imagination 157 Chapter Seven: Concluding Reflections 160 Elements of the social imaginary system 161 Key areas of ameliorative application 165 Why this work matters 166 Future avenues of inquiry 167 Departing remarks 168 Appendix 1: Types of Articulations 170 Glossary of Key Terms 180 Acknowledgements 184 Bibliography of Works Cited and Consulted 185 6 INTRODUCTION: THE SOCIAL IMAGINARY AND ITS DISCONTENTS “We live in a time of capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.” ~Ursula K Le Guin3 “To imagine other forms of human existence is exactly the challenge that is posed by the climate crisis: for if there is any one thing that global warming has made perfectly clear it is that to think about the world only as it is amounts to a formula for suicide. We need, rather to envision what it might be.” ~ Amitav Ghosh4 We are living through a time of multiple crises: the collapse of ecosystems; the colonisation of humanity over the Earth; violent and structural oppression of women and non-whites; the holocaust of over 70 billion land animals each year; global malnutrition of the over and underfed; the health of humans held hostage by pharmaceutical and animal agriculture industries; the threat of immanent climate tipping points; the headlong dash to civilizational collapse; the pushing of the least culpable over the precipice first. Are these myriad discontents merely coincidental glitches of an otherwise functional system? Or rather, are they are all symptoms of an underlying pathology of contemporary society? This thesis takes seriously the idea that the overwhelming majority of social discontents are not glitches, but systemic features of the contemporary Western ‘social imaginary’ - the complex of meanings that supervene on the phenomena of everyday life of a given society, and provide denizens of a given social imaginary with the means to participate fully in the life of that imaginary with one another. Whether these discontents are malaises unto themselves or symptoms of a common malady matters, because the implications for remedial action are enormous. In my view the concept of the social imaginary can offer us invaluable insights into the task of redressing the manifold and urgent discontents that society faces. I do not seek to claim that the social imaginary is the only concept that can provide useful insights, or that the social imaginary is better than cognate concepts (such as social paradigm, culture, background, doxa, common sense, and lifeworld). Indeed, I take it that ‘social paradigm’ as used by Meadows (2008) and Pirages (1990), for example, and Geertz’s conception of culture (1973) are virtually 3 (2014) 4 (2016, 128) 7 synonymous with ‘social imaginary’. However, there are several reasons that commend the social imaginary as a worthy conceptual framework for the current project. In this introductory chapter, I turn first to explaining the three reasons that recommend the concept of the social imaginary for the present project. These are: that it is expressly ameliorative; that its links to the imagination help explain its dynamics; and that to date an overarching model of social imaginaries does not exist. I then discuss the two aims of the thesis: 1) the presentation of a model of social imaginaries as a whole that has 2) ameliorative application to actually existing discontents. I then introduce the two key themes of this work: responsibility and coherence. I then briefly consider what is meant by ‘the current social imaginary’ and the status quo, before moving on to an outline of the seven chapters that follow. THE RATIONALE BEHIND CHOOSING A SOCIAL IMAGINARIES FRAMEWORK Firstly, the concept of social imaginaries, since its earliest development by Cornelius Castoriadis, has been explicitly ameliorative in outlook. Castoriadis was above all motivated by the socialist, democratic “revolutionary project” (1987, 75) of creating autonomous societies. This is what he calls praxis: its object is “the organisation and orientation of society as they foster the autonomy of all its members and which recognises that this presupposes a radical transformation of society” (1987, 77). But it must be stressed that the autonomy that he has in mind is not the individualistic freedom of liberal capitalist democracies, most commonly expressed as (consumer) “choice”. Instead, autonomy can “only be conceived of as a social problem and a social relation” in which “others are always present as the otherness and as the self-ness of the subject” (1987, 108). Autonomy cannot be desired “without also wanting it for everyone and its realization cannot be conceived of in its full scope except as a collective enterprise” (1987, 107). The opposite of autonomy is alienation. The way I read Castoriadis’ intention here is as follows: autonomy is that which aims at meaningful participation in the co-creation of social meaning, and all the ensuing structures, institutions and trajectories. Alienation is not just alienation from the means of production, apparatus of justice, or distributional equity. Although these mechanisms of alienation are all present and ubiquitous in instituting and reproducing social oppression, there is yet another more fundamental level of alienation. This is alienation from the co-creation of social meaning. As such, the ultimate form of alienation for Castoriadis lies in heteronomous social systems: where the locus of power and therefore social control is removed from citizenry at large and concentrated elsewhere. Castoriadis believed that there have only been two genuinely autonomous societies in history. The ancient Greek polis, and modern liberal democracy.