Ideology in Modernity and its future

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

The political scientist Sheri Berman has defined the post world war II order as something historically unusual. He observed “capitalism remained, but it was capitalism of a very different type from that which had existed before the war - one limited by the power of democratic state and often made subservient to the goals of social stability and solidarity rather than the other way around and it was social democracy”

It is general consensus that the rise of capitalism in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries caused erosion to traditional political and economic order in the western societies. The dominance of market relationships produced economic and social dynamism. The former was driven by the notion of material benefits and the latter got its boost from the idea of personal freedoms and a decrease in communal feeling. Liberalism, then, stressed the importance of the rule of law, limited government, and free commercial transactions. (Foreign Affairs volume 91, the basic question of modernity)

Up to the great depression and the world war II, liberalism was considered as a perfect ideology for basing political and economic systems upon it.

However the catastrophes following the two world wars and the great depression questioned the reliability of liberalism as a perfect ideology to guarantee social stability and economic growth.

Jan Muller, Francis Fukuyama and John Ruggie (Alexandre Kojeve, Hegel scholar) believe that ideology reaches its end in its enough perfect shape. This perfect shape includes mixed economics and democracy. Only systems which are organized around this ideology would be altered and modified in order to adapt with conditions and attitudes change.  In other words, policies and institutions go through an evolutionary process as contexts change.

True. Evidence supports what the scholars saw. Human beings put faith in policies and institutions for building better lives (if not saying creating better idea of life). However the international environment has been radically changed since the early 90s. World free trade, markets deregulation, easy money mobility, economy restructure, information revolution, the fast moving forward world, climate change and global competition are few realities which have changed the individual lifestyle, desires and the protocol of international relationships. The events caused changes in the concept of capitalism and democracy. 

Suppose we concede what Berman observed and the position scholars take in respect to ideology maturity, thus in order to deal with today’s problems,

“One should expect competence policymakers at jobs, who subscribe to realism and are able to come up with policies which promise stability and security in societies through economic equality and life quality”

Is it realistic to expect shaping strong global institutions? Can we expect Neo-Capitalism without contemporary bankers and their attitudes?

Scholars do not deny possibilities         

Where policy matters - Today’s troubles root in policy not principles

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

In political and social science journals, a general consensus is advertised that human beings have reached to best fitted and an effective ideology and need not any longer to develop new ones to model a better life. They also provide further explanations that this matured ideology, however, is dynamics and in progress while its framework remains intact.

They conclude that today’s troubles relate more to policies than principles. It holds true for energy, environment and development policies.

Despite the disagreement between scholars in science and economics in HOWs, the necessity of preservation of environment and economic growth are generally conceded by both. Yet there are no common principles to agree upon for policies development. It leads, as evidence shown up to this date, to confusion and therefore introduces ineffective policies in the realm of energy, environment and development.      

Scientists often view resource depletion and pollution as irreversible and inevitable results of growth in economic output as measured by gross domestic product (GDP). In contrast economists, based on some evidence which indicate economic growth might be necessary before a modern society, generally hold optimism about human’s ability to protect environmental quality and to keep the preservation of natural. They put their faith in ingenuity and adaptability of homo economicus and its ability to extend that ingenuity to the protection of its environment.

With a sole scientist’s perspective, environmental policies should be devised with regulating tools which could implicitly fine tune the economic growth policies. Economies should pay off externalities and clean up their mess by expending at environmental friendly programs. Also the natural resources should moderately be exploited.

Economists believe incentives in markets are the key focus. Technology policy and price instruments in policies can be designed in ways to protect the natural resources, and environments in minimum costs and at least distortion in the market decisions. They view the economic growth along with optimum paths. In this sense one may tag economists, “idealist” rather than “realist”.

Neither scientists could bring global collective actions, nor has the economist’s practice shown any improvement in the environment protection in the global scale      

The fact is, as long as a society is free from the threat of starvation and war, resources can be devoted to protecting and improving environmental quality and preserving remaining wilderness. In a volatile and vulnerable context, when nations compete each others to secure their resources and assure the availability of their supply in future, even with the means of trade-investment policy or aggression to extend beyond their states’ boundary, an economic incentive and scientific consensus and morality seems working less effective.

We should posit SECURITY and STABILITY as the most chief elements that influence the behaviour of human beings in today’s context. The existing international environmental policy has failed to live up the requirements of security and stability through a genuine collective action in the global scale.

Perhaps policies with focus on security, stability, and an effective distribution of wealth doctrine (downgrade from the global level to regional level) would be promising and push our growth toward the quality of life within an environmental friendly atmosphere.

On origin of value emergence and transition

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

The psychological and moral development of humanity occurred in the first millennium of Before Common Era (BCE). It is called the Axial Age (K. Jaspers) .Over this period inspirations and anxieties were yielded from natural disasters and social pressures, among societies in four distinct regions in the world. This kicked off the evolutionary process of human minds. It shaped the world traditions whose principles are still alive among our today’s societies.

The Axle Age viewed intense creativity in human thoughts and philosophies. The seed of intellectual change was spread and human beings looked profoundly in themselves to find purposes for a steady existence. YES it, self curiosity as an individual among a society, was the beginning of the dream of progress.

In the date of globalization, modernity, financial crisis, yet unsettled territorial disputes and ethnical clashes; to get the course of life change: Do we need to create more innovative value systems that reflect the realities of our world now? Do the traditions from the old days speak to our current condition?            

The east still, in part, tries to be faithful to the doctrines “immeasurable outlook” (Buddhists) or “concern for everybody” (Mozi: Jian ai). Societies, at large, still subscribe into these doctrines, however elites interpret and practice them in different ways. Inevitably these doctrines are still cohesive agents for Asian societies.

The story may differently shape in the rest of the world. Alexandre Kojeve describes a notion which could be attributed to democracy in the WEST. He suggests that the principles of liberty and equality in society had been established by the time of the battle of Jena, the task thereafter was not to find new principles but rather to implement them through larger parts of the world. They are certainly the chief principles which have been never implemented fully even in the west.

Both traditional value systems, the EAST’s and the WEST’s, are gradually faded away from societies’ core Their substitute is greedy notion (BANK like) of VALUE that favors few with large positive time preference instead of society as a whole.  In the vacuum of a meaningful value system, there is a potential for other traditions reversion in the form of fundamentalism.      

Rotten Spirit of Individualism

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development - Policy Analysis Research Group

In 1865, a theory with its origin in Europe put in practice in North America. A radical, profound and calculated change took place in America. The change was to affect nearly every aspect of individuality for generations to come. It was a lesson-learned from the past, and ready to shape the future and the destiny of millions. The ideology was embraced since its birth. Both it targeted individual’s natural incentive while it could create collective incentive within the concept of progress by the means of joining the common liberal man together, for strengthening and moving forward toward collective progress. The force with such overwhelming strength would condition the minds of the people to accept and withstand the cry of torture, hunger, death, while tilting the scales of justice in favor of social injustice. This was a true force which would cause to alter the common man’s value system so as to conform to its purpose of a new ideology. It would create a new value and faith, undermined radicalism, fueled by greed, and chosen as an alternative to prevent revolution of the masses. It was a two-edged sword, one for powerful elite, and one for common man; one for the rich and one for the poor.

But now, it is a stranger to its founders and lost touch to its original principle. Bankers have taken over not only the wealth of nations also their minds’ assets.

Please, the spirit of Norseman and the great arctic breath, please, please puff fresh air again

Thailand's regional energy cooperation - Time for influence

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development - Policy Analysis Research Group

The pressures from economic growth, social structure changes in Thailand besides a shift in regional geopolitical and climate change, force the country to think over innovative solutions for its future energy supply challenges. 

Thailand has a significant contribution and consequently global-scale influence in the food supply chain and also blesses its strategic geographical location. Despite the mentioned strategic potions, Thailand has moderate (if not least) influence in its regional governances and does not fully realize its potential capabilities. It causes that Thailand could not benefit effectively from its potentials, possessions and intrinsic values. 

Perhaps BIMSTEC, a regional cooperation between the South East Asian states   would be a gate of opportunities for Thailand’s influences in the regional governace and consequently benefit the nation as a whole.

BIMSTEC, however, could offer opportunities and also carries threats and it would be Thailand’s choices to pick out the best opportunities and mitigate all threats. Energy and technology cooperation are among important bullets of BIMSTEC’s agenda. To identify, analyse and understand the energy related opportunities and threats and their associated impacts on Thailand’s national security and economy, we launched a study which focuses on BIMSTEC’s energy supply potentials and its interfaces with other regions and regional cooperation. It brings out evidence, arguments and analysis in extended details, based on the available data, and eventually suggests based upon its analysis a set of the long term fittest strategies for Thailand’s engagement in the BIMSTEC energy and technology cooperation. The study suggestions strongly support the idea of “Thailand future as the South – South East Asia energy gate”

One may ask “how would it come when Thailand is not accounted as a major energy resource holder?” Holding vast energy resources does not guarantee a dominance role in energy market (think of Singapore)

The study’s proposed fittest strategies were screened through SWOT analysis. To evaluate and compare the strategies in order to find optimum ones, the study deployed GAME theory and Dynamic optimization.

The analysis assumes, within BIMSTEC, there is ONLY a pure cooperation WITHOUT energy market competition. The BIMSTEC member states cooperate on total regional required quantities when they maximize their aggregated national profits  

The source of Trust and Obligation

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

Game theory suggests that individuals who interact with one another repeatedly tend to gravitate toward cooperation with those who have shown themselves to be honest and reliable and shun those who have behaved opportunistically. But to do this effectively they have to be able to remember each other’s past behaviours and anticipate likely future behaviours based on an interpretation of other people’s motives. This is not so easy to accomplish since it is the appearance of honesty, trust and not honesty itself that is the marker of a potential collaborator. That is, I will agree to work with you if you seem to be honest based on experience. But if you have deliberately built up a fund of trust in the past, you can put yourself in a position to take even greater advantage of me in the future. So while self-interest propels individuals to cooperate in social groups, it also creates incentives for cheating, deceiving, and other forms of bahaviour that undermine social solidarity.

For one, cheating may cause an exit from society and its potential benefits. The EAST adopted the losing face (disgrace) measure which holds the end point for social life of who stands against its OBLIGATIONS. In contrast, the WEST took another value measures such as legal institutions to treat disgraced person who breaches its obligations.

Of course in complicated, cultural-mixed global-scaled systems, the latter measure is favored the most. Yet building a far-reaching global administrative and authoritative body who can effectively impose and police the measure remains a key challenge.   

I am investigating below, the source of trust and social obligations with use of biological evolution framework and game theory. It may be a critical question for someone

Where did human beings’ sociability (cooperation, cheating)) come from?

  

Indeed biologists have identified two natural sources of cooperative behaviour; kin selection and reciprocal altruism. The most basic forms of cooperation predate the emergence of human beings societies. 

William Hamilton formulated the principle of inclusive fitness or kin selection which holds that individuals of any sexually reproducing species will behave altruistically toward kin in proportion to the number of genes they share. (W.D. Hamilton Journal of Theoretical Biology 7 – 1964 and R. Dawkins Oxford Press 1989) So nepotism is not only a socially but also a biologically grounded reality which explains the desire to pass resources on to kin.

Reciprocal altruism is a term referred to cooperation with genetic strangers. It is regarded as the second major biological source of social behaviour of humans after kin selection. Social cooperation depends on an individual ability to solve its life games. (Game theory) In these games individuals benefit potentially by being able to work with their fellow humans. But they can often benefit more if they let other individuals do the cooperating and free ride off of their efforts (R. Axelrod 1980)

Thus human sociability is not a historical or cultural acquisition, but something hardwired into human nature. Some may say other species such as vampires chimpanzees and wolves have shown sociability though their social evolutionary process has not ended into the level of human-like civilizations and advances. This contrasts the cognitive ability of humans which has not advanced into upper level in other species as it has occurred for humans. What is the source of this cognitive ability? At first glance it may appear that cognitive abilities were required for human beings to adapt their physical environments. Greater intelligence offers advantages with regard to hunting and making tools. But it is not the whole story. One may argues other species even do hunting, gathering, surviving harsh climates and the like without having developed anything like a human being’s cognitive abilities.

So what makes all differences between human beings and other intelligent species?

From evolutionary biology perspective, the source of human’s brain advancement must be different from those species such counted above. It is suggested that human being in effect enter into a cooperation and competition with other human beings through which the winners are those groups that could create more complex forms of social organization based on new cognitive abilities to interpret each other’s behaviour. (N. Humphrey, Cambridge university press 1976; R. Alexander, University of Michigan press 1990) It is wise to say that the source of human beings’ brains development is their social interactions, races and the means by which these interactions undertaken such as language.