The Whig Interpretation Of History

[marycatelli]

Being an expansion of  "Non-Feudal Political Systems in Fantasy"--something from the panel that I forgot at the time. . . .

Anyway, a panelist warned the audience about the Whig Interpretation of History -- so named because first diagnosed in the Whigs.  It is basically the theory that history is teleological, and the aim and summit of its purpose is the glorious wonderfulness that is one's self and one's society.

In ancien regime Europe, people knew of democracy.  It was a thing of the past.  And there's no guarantee that it will be a thing of the future.  Tocqueville warned, a while ago, about the danger that the populace will learn to vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, and lo and behold, you see the deficits of nowadays.

Always be wary of regarding history as occurring in stages.  Marxism is particularly blatant about it, but you find it pervading much of historical studies.

Tragically, you will also find it in readers, who, given the chance to broaden their minds by reading about a place and time different from theirs and people who think differently, will reject it as "backwards" or what have you.  Indeed, some seem anxious not to taint their tolerance and inclusivity by reading about people who are different.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I do think that there is a technological ratchet effect, such that each succeeding age tends to be more technologically-advanced than the previous one, but I agree with you that this doesn't apply to social systems. Social systems are governed by game matrix choices, and one can always choose differently the next time round.

[marycatelli]

Technology can be pretty interesting too. Japan developed pottery in the hunting-and-gathering stage (and produced a population explosion).

[jryson.livejournal.com]

Tocqueville warned, a while ago, about the danger that the populace will learn to vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, and lo and behold, you see the deficits of nowadays.

People with the power to do so will loot the public treasury of whatever form of government there might be. We got a deficit, but the population didn't get the money.

Tragically, you will also find it in readers, who, given the chance to broaden their minds by reading about a place and time different from theirs and people who think differently, will reject it as "backwards" or what have you. Indeed, some seem anxious not to taint their tolerance and inclusivity by reading about people who are different.

Part of it is that authors depict the place as "backward," etc., in the story. We have Brave New World, 1984, and now steampunk, dystopian by definition. The reader is expected to reject these. Where you have a setting with a decent government, the story is not about the government; the protagonists have some other problem to solve.

[marycatelli]

It matters how many people are in power. If one man pays himself a thousand dollars out of the public treasury, you are paying less than if ten thousand people vote themselves one dollar.

Also, the treasury gets its money by taxing people's labor. If they can vote themselves largesse as well, they will not work, and the treasury not only is paying out money, it's not replenishing it.

It's exactly in the works where the different setting is not treated as problematic that you get people frothing at the mouth at the notion that it's different. (As for steampunk being dystopian by definition -- where did you get that notion?)

[marycatelli]

Come to think of it, often enough when they are dystopian, you can see the writer's subscribed to the interpretation -- and a lot of the readers, too, by the way they react.

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

Wasn't Virgil sort of teleological?

[marycatelli]

Oh yeah. Everything in the Aeneid is aimed toward the founding of Rome.

Then, of course, you had Jupiter hanging about making sure of it. You can make your history teleological if it actually does have an aim.