A 2022 Tablet piece asked if our institutions are reparable or if they are completely broken:
Which is why this is the debate that has, over the past few years, been given center stage at Tablet. On the one hand, we publish stories showcasing what is good about the status quo in American and in Jewish life: what institutions are working, what fears are overblown, which elites are doing good work, and what is decent and right about popular ideas. Half of our readers find these pieces at best silly and at worst naive, even dangerously so.
On the other hand, we also publish stories about institutions and ideologies that may appear to be functioning but are in fact failing in perilous ways, and how to think about developing new institutions, communities, and ideas to replace them. These articles are often marked by a desire to challenge, sometimes aggressively, what was previously considered settled wisdom, and even more so by a deep skepticism about the actions and motives of established institutions and public figures—the federal government, blue chip corporations, the admissions office at Harvard, and so on. The other half of our readership finds these stories crackpot or paranoid, or worse.
To those who wonder why such different kinds of stories are being published by the same magazine, let me explain: We aren’t confused; we are having a fight—and it’s one you might benefit from joining.
Depending on whether you are a “brokenist” or a “status quoist,” how does that impact your approach to established library associations? To information literacy? Something to ponder.
Top Image: Noun-boxing-gloves-2712.png/ Wikimedia Commons
The pervasive, perennial belief in "brokenism" is, to me, a consistently annoying thing about ideological conservativism. John Derbyshire even went so far as to write a book called "We Are Doomed," in which he happily/gloomily argues that being a conservative demands that one believe that everyone be held in suspicion ("flawed is the defining characteristic of humankind"), as should everything (social) those suspect people build. Russell Kirk said that people should give more respect to "prescription," meaning we should tread carefully on things that seem to be working, but be alert for corruption because as institutions weaken, corruption increases. That seems a more optimistic take.
Rather than think of institutions as "broken," I think it might be more helpful to think of them as increasingly corrupted and corruptible. But just as I heard someone say in a "Great Courses" program on the Roman Empire between 250ad and the end of the empire: things can remain corrupt and crisis-oriented AND functional longer than most people living in Western democracies nowadays can imagine.
As you can probably tell from my posts, I am a "brokenist," albeit extremely skeptical that it is possible to replace our current institutions whole cloth. And there are probably some "status quoists" who want, as an example, to start new library associations. So it is a little more complicated than presented in the Tablet piece, which I do think is an excellent analysis overall.
I also think it is worth pondering how information literacy would be approached from these perspectives.
I think "brokenist or status-quoist" is a false choice, much like "liberal or conservative," "dog person or cat person," etc. I see some serious problems with the status quo, and I also see some aspects of the status quo that work fine. I realize this makes me kind of politically homeless, but I came happily to terms with that long ago.
This stance shouldn't be confused with ameliorism, which I think also applies in some contexts and not in others -- there are broken things that need to be fixed through gradual processes, and some that should be destroyed and rebuilt or replaced.
I think it would be foolish (and dangerous) to assume that one diagnosis should be applied to all of our current systems (or even to all of our "elite" systems), or that one remedy is indicated for every instance of brokenness.
My feeling is that perhaps a few "coups" need to take place in some established entities. There is the University of Austin, and there is Substack, and there are communes here and there, but those do not make for a whole new system.
On a more down-to-earth level, when I moved last year (and also moved some family members), I found that a whole lot of bureaucracies (public and private) seem to be falling apart, or at least struggling, post-Covid. On the other hand, there were a few entities I had great experiences with-- Amica, Edward Jones, H&R Block, the public library system.
As far as my information literacy question, I'll take a stab at it. A "status quo" approach would be to use evaluation tools to determine bias of traditional sources and perhaps funding and some other metrics. A "brokenist" approach might be to incorporate twitter/Substack/YouTube/Rumble as information sources.
Absolute, unapologetic Status Quoist here.
The pervasive, perennial belief in "brokenism" is, to me, a consistently annoying thing about ideological conservativism. John Derbyshire even went so far as to write a book called "We Are Doomed," in which he happily/gloomily argues that being a conservative demands that one believe that everyone be held in suspicion ("flawed is the defining characteristic of humankind"), as should everything (social) those suspect people build. Russell Kirk said that people should give more respect to "prescription," meaning we should tread carefully on things that seem to be working, but be alert for corruption because as institutions weaken, corruption increases. That seems a more optimistic take.
Rather than think of institutions as "broken," I think it might be more helpful to think of them as increasingly corrupted and corruptible. But just as I heard someone say in a "Great Courses" program on the Roman Empire between 250ad and the end of the empire: things can remain corrupt and crisis-oriented AND functional longer than most people living in Western democracies nowadays can imagine.
As you can probably tell from my posts, I am a "brokenist," albeit extremely skeptical that it is possible to replace our current institutions whole cloth. And there are probably some "status quoists" who want, as an example, to start new library associations. So it is a little more complicated than presented in the Tablet piece, which I do think is an excellent analysis overall.
I also think it is worth pondering how information literacy would be approached from these perspectives.
I think "brokenist or status-quoist" is a false choice, much like "liberal or conservative," "dog person or cat person," etc. I see some serious problems with the status quo, and I also see some aspects of the status quo that work fine. I realize this makes me kind of politically homeless, but I came happily to terms with that long ago.
This stance shouldn't be confused with ameliorism, which I think also applies in some contexts and not in others -- there are broken things that need to be fixed through gradual processes, and some that should be destroyed and rebuilt or replaced.
I think it would be foolish (and dangerous) to assume that one diagnosis should be applied to all of our current systems (or even to all of our "elite" systems), or that one remedy is indicated for every instance of brokenness.
My feeling is that perhaps a few "coups" need to take place in some established entities. There is the University of Austin, and there is Substack, and there are communes here and there, but those do not make for a whole new system.
On a more down-to-earth level, when I moved last year (and also moved some family members), I found that a whole lot of bureaucracies (public and private) seem to be falling apart, or at least struggling, post-Covid. On the other hand, there were a few entities I had great experiences with-- Amica, Edward Jones, H&R Block, the public library system.
As far as my information literacy question, I'll take a stab at it. A "status quo" approach would be to use evaluation tools to determine bias of traditional sources and perhaps funding and some other metrics. A "brokenist" approach might be to incorporate twitter/Substack/YouTube/Rumble as information sources.
And on the topic of University of Austin, it seems that Heather Heying resigned because she found it too "status quo." https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/uatxresignation