Technological change leads to
>>> Changes in ways people need to produce and distribute stuff lead to
>>> Changes in social power relationships lead to
>>> Changes in what is acceptable to believe is "natural" or "just" in social arrangements.
It's been happening since prehistory.
Here are a couple of relatively recent examples:
- The power of Rome and the priestly class was undercut by the invention of the printing press.
- "Women's liberation" occurred when new household technology and the invention of the pill freed them up from domestic work and allowed them more of an involvement in the public sphere.
Unfortunately, there is usually some kind of backlash from the rulers that are being displaced by the changes:
- The Inquisition
- Patriarchal backlash in the form of religious or demagogic pronouncements or regressive legislation.
After some horrific and largely unnecessary suffering - witch burnings, stonings, wars, civil wars, for example - things generally fall into place the for better (or worse).
But note that the upheaval is not caused individual leaders of change movements (e.g., Luther) but by social conditions that created the possibility of their messages becoming considered "acceptable" to believe, rather than heretical, offensive or nonsensical. I believe this happens when rigid insistence on outdated status quo explanations leads to toxic social state.
OK, so if that's clear, we begin to understand where we're at now. MASSIVE technological change: Factory automation, instant global communication, high speed transportation, increasingly viable green technologies. In other words, a global economy that threatens to thoroughly disenfranchise an even greater underclass of people who will be without work in what remains a wage-based economy. Erosion of social supports to reduce taxes - where the benefits accrue to the already very well off - continues to shrink the middle class and exacerbate income gaps.
So what are today's "heretics" shouting by way of a response to these changes and what has been the backlash to them? What is becoming acceptable to believe and how is it being resisted?
The heretics are shouting "environmental sustainability", "flatter organizations", "universal income / equity", "cultural diversity" while emphasizing the importance of developing responsiveness (rather than aggressiveness) for resilience.
The backlash is shouting "jobs before the environment", "hierarchy is natural", "no freeloaders", "your culture threatens rather than enhances my culture", while gunning for aggressive individualism.
So there we have the rise to prominence of people like Trump who hear and capitalize (very literally) on the backlash. The voices of the backlash come from the plutocracy, and from the lower-middle class who fear loss of social position if those they consider below them (women, minorities) are on the rise. (e.g., "Spencer and other alt-right leaders see Donald Trump’s rise as the first step towards a whites-only state. "Our lived experience is being a young, white person in 21st century America, [and] seeing your identity be demeaned,” Spencer said. “I’ve lived in this multicultural mess for years and I’m trying to get out of it." - The Atlantic, "Rebranding White Nationalism" italics added)
A backlash to the Trump backlash is not to be wished for or acted out. A Petersonian backlash to the backlash to the backlash will get interpreted as a backlash - and it certainly looks like one. A less polemical, less hyperbolic, more gentle and reasonable, dialogical approach is what we need to move forward.