Tuesday, 16 July 2024
The Managed Identity
Here in the UK, Net Zero makes no sense technically, scientifically nor economically. It makes no sense anywhere else and because it makes no sense we may as well accept what we already know - there is another aspect of political narratives which is more important than making sense.
It is easy enough to see that the language of climate change may include “evidence” which not evidence in any rational, objective sense. It is merely orthodox to describe it as evidence within the narrative conventions – it doesn’t have to be evidence in any other sense. We could describe it as managed evidence.
It can be useful to move on from this and see the orthodox climate narrative as an issue of managed identity. Belief frequently is an identity issue. The need to maintain a consistent sense of self, a consistent sense of personal identity can be far stronger than even the most obvious real-world evidence. For many people, self seems to come first, rational evidence a distant tenth.
The orthodox climate narrative is an aspect of the managed identity in the developed world, managed primarily by a network of official and semi-official managing agencies. It has no more relevance to physical evidence than a taste for fashionable clothes, fine dining or expensive sunglasses. An officially managed identity with few personal consequences beyond bolstering an orthodox identity and avoiding an unorthodox one.
The climate narrative is evidence of something, it is evidence of a trend towards the officially manged identity. Not a scientific, environmental, economic nor engineering issue, but a managed identity issue. This is why Net Zero enthusiasts tend to be dull. Part of their identity is merely a managed narrative, an official formula which isn't going to work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Excellent post, providing another weapon in the armoury - thank you!
I've see the same thing with Trump, and Brexit. People who vociferously hate both have been unable to specify Trump's policies or the role of EU institutions. They just want to be seen as the sort of people who are anti-Trump and pro-European.
The Bureaucrat (or Politician) says:
"I know that what you did was entirely sensible and proportionate - but it was against the rules. Since 'the rules' are the most important thing to my way of life, therefore you are in error."
What remains to consider is how this narrative ends when reality finally starts to transcend their 'evidence'. I would guess, personally, that the 'elites' wont care as long as their needs are catered for, which they may be, but it will further impoverish the bottom half of society. This is the raw ingredient of violent revolution.
Sam - thanks and yes, anti-Trump and anti-Brexit comments are almost universally dire, shallow sniping at best. It isn't easy to see how people miss their own shallowness and don't notice the absence of specifics.
DJ - yes, rules seem to be seeping into the culture as the first step in many decisions - is this decision covered by rules? It's a way to evade personal responsibility of course, as well as standardising procedures.
Tammly - it isn't easy to see how the collision with reality will go, but there are no obvious moves to avoid civil disobedience as things go wrong. Rampant stupidity is in the driving seat at the moment.
Post a Comment