| The Post-Materialist Wave
Unlike the other two, the third wave in our trilogy is not the result of cyclic processes that have repeated numerous times throughout history. But it is related to a repeated process--the transformations that come with fundamental shifts in the subsistance base, the material foundations of society--and this most recent transformation in some ways takes us back to a situation much closer to that under which humans first evolved, and lived for tens of thousands of years, before the dawn of written history.
Just as the transition from agricultural societies to industrial ones brought about the transition from traditional to modern societies, a further transition has taken place with the emergence of post-scarcity societies--both late industrial and post-industrial--that are increasingly centered on high quality goods and services. The premier theorist of this process is Ronald Inglehart. The wikipedia entry on post-materialism explains:
The theory of Post-materialism assumes an ongoing transformation of individuals and society which liberates them gradually from the stress of basic acquisitive or materialistic needs. In first place, the term "post-materialism" and the related concept of "the silent revolution" was made rather notorious in political and social sciences by Ronald Inglehart since the beginning of the seventies.
One of Inglehart's main assumptions is that individuals pursue various goals in hierarchical order. First, material needs like hunger or thirst have to be satisfied. If this is done, the focus will be gradually shifting to nonmaterial goods. Hence, according to Inglehart's interpretation of Maslow's hierarchy of human goals, cohorts which often experienced economic scarcities would ceteris paribus place strong priorities on economic needs or economic growth and safety needs as a strong national defense, and "law and order" (materialism). On the other hand, cohorts who have experienced high material affluence start to give high priority to values such as individual improvement, personal freedom, citizen input in government decisions, the ideal of a society based on humanism, and maintaining a clean and healthy environment.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
 |
This hypothesis would imply that a growing part of society becomes more post-materialist given long periods of material affluence. The post-material orientations acquired during socialisation should also be rather steadfast, because they are claimed to be a rather stable value-system value in contrast to more volatile political and social attitudes.
Growth of Post-Materialist Orientation
 |
The connection to the radical/progressive politics of the 1960s should obvious. So, too, the overtones in Barack Obama's politics and his calls for change. What once was a novel, emergent set of values (often flippantly dismissed as being "spoiled") has now had time to establish itself as stable alternative to earlier value systems. But the result of this stabilization process is highly ambiguous-as I will explain, shortly.
First, however, let's take a look at Inglehart's analysis of data from the World Values Survey [WVS], with which he has been deeply involved. The WVS has produced the most extensive body of cross-national attitudinal data, in a series of waves (most recently the 2005/2006 wave) that allow longtitudinal as well as cross-national comparisons. As explained on the WVS website, this survey has found that attitudes crossing a wide range of subjects areas are largely exlainable in terms of two fundamental values orientations:
The World Values Surveys were designed to provide a comprehensive measurement of all major areas of human concern, from religion to politics to economic and social life and two dimensions dominate the picture: (1) Traditional/ Secular-rational and (2) Survival/Self-expression values. These two dimensions explain more than 70 percent of the cross-national variance in a factor analysis of ten indicators-and each of these dimensions is strongly correlated with scores of other important orientations.
The Traditional/Secular-rational values dimension reflects the contrast between societies in which religion is very important and those in which it is not. A wide range of other orientations are closely linked with this dimension. Societies near the traditional pole emphasize the importance of parent-child ties and deference to authority, along with absolute standards and traditional family values, and reject divorce, abortion, euthanasia, and suicide. These societies have high levels of national pride, and a nationalistic outlook. Societies with secular-rational values have the opposite preferences on all of these topics.
The second major dimension of cross-cultural variation is linked with the transition from industrial society to post-industrial societies-which brings a polarization between Survival and Self-expression values. The unprecedented wealth that has accumulated in advanced societies during the past generation means that an increasing share of the population has grown up taking survival for granted. Thus, priorities have shifted from an overwhelming emphasis on economic and physical security toward an increasing emphasis on subjective well-being, self-expression and quality of life. Inglehart and Baker (2000) find evidence that orientations have shifted from Traditional toward Secular-rational values, in almost all industrial societies. But modernization, is not linear-when a society has completed industrialization and starts becoming a knowledge society, it moves in a new direction, from Survival values toward increasing emphasis on Self-expression values.
Using the average values for each country surveyed produces what's become known as the Inglehart Map:
This map shows that culture origins have a strong and lasting impact on the balance of values that people embrace, even while there is considerable variance within groups of countries-and, of course, among the citizens of different countries
Some Abiguous Consequences of Postmaterialism, So Far
While post-materialism brings about profound shifts in personal values, the impact on societies as a whole is often ambiguous for a variety of reasons. Indeed, it is quite clearly one of the factors involved in what's commonly called "the culture war" in the United States. Thinking about impacts more generally, on a worldwide level, several sources of ambiguity in impacts can be identified:
First, the number of people attaining the post-materialist state remains a minority-or at best a slight majority of even the most affluent societies. Their abilities to impact the political system are therefore significantly mediated by differences in pre-existing power structures.
Second, the relationship of post-materialists' cultural, social and political goals and desires to others around them is by no means a simple one, particularly since they are not all of one mind, having far more agreement in terms of procedural values than substantive goals.
Third, there is a significant world-wide backlash against both some of the driving forces and some of the consequences of post-materialism, most notably, the erosion of traditional structures of authority, and ideologies that support such authority. This backlash is far more focused than post-materialism itself, which is more a state of being than an intentional movement.
Fourth, while post-materialism signals a decline in materialism for some, it signals a form of hyper-materialism for others. Both vegans and omnivorous gourmands of California-style international cuisine are typical post-materialist manifestations. Bottled water, anyone?
Fifth, causally, there is a direct historical relationship between the power of labor and the emergence of post-materialism--without organized labor, a large, affluent middle class would never have emerged--that is in tension with post-materialist values that, held in isoation, under-appreciate the historical foundations of their own existence.
The combination of all these factors has contributed to a number of different hybrid responses, one of which is the rationalization of a centrist politics, seen clearly in the Clinton/Blair "Third Way" axis in the 1990s, which essentially accepted the political hegemony of the reactionary forces, and sought primarily to accessorize their bleak worldview with style, color and panache.
The weakness of this approach can be seen in how quickly the Clinton accomplishments were undone by the Bush regime, which itself came to power through a remarkably bald-faced subversions of democracy-with considerable support from the very sort of educated, post-materialist elites that ought to be most concerned about democratic participation, but who actually just couldn't be bothered.
Obama As A Post-Materialist Political Figure
While Obama shares more with the Clinton tradition than he would currently like to admit, I want to shift focus to the ways in which he clearly epitomizes a post-materilist orientation. I want to do so in three ways:
(1) Race and Gender Equity. Obama does not make a strong substantive appeal on either of these issues. Rather, he-or more properly, his supporters-argue that these things just don't matter to them. He talks about "turning the page" and his followers agree. Race and gender are all part of the "culture wars" that they wish to put behind them. The reality-testing of this desire will be "interesting" to say the least, should Obama get elected.
(2) Democratic participation. Obama combines an older tradition of "good government" politics (which has often been associated with elite exclusion of the unwashed masses) with a 60s-vintage emphasis on participatory democracy. Precisely how these two will interact and balance out is yet to be seen-particularly given the enormous amounts of cash he has raised. But the stress on both aspects of democratic participation is a clear embodiment of post-materialist values.
(3) The environment. Here is the area where Obama's post-materialist values most clearly and directly translate into substantive positions, and produce a clearly progressive agenda.
Kid Oakland recently linked to an post from last fall, from the environmental news blog, Gristmill, "Obama energy thoughts: Thoughts and reactions on Obama's bold new energy proposal" by David Roberts, which says, in part:
Overall, I'm pleasantly surprised -- even shocked -- at its quality. It's a deft mix of good politics and strong, substantive policy. Here are what I see as the three headlines:- 100% auction of cap-and-trade credits. This is a home run, a real act of standard-setting boldness (the kind that Obama always promises but rarely delivers). The green community should immediately use it to push Clinton and Edwards into making the same commitment, insuring that it's the new baseline for any cap-and-trade program.
- Smart investment. The revenue from auctions will be considerable, up to $50 billion a year, and Obama's smart about putting it to work, dividing it between energy R&D, protections for low-income workers, and market deployment of existing clean tech.
- A focus on efficiency. Clearly Obama gets that efficiency is the easiest route to emission reductions, and he's got a set of thoughtful, detailed initiatives to make it work.
....
Much has been said about Edwards' important role in this campaign: pushing the other candidates toward stronger, more ambitious policy. You can see it at work here -- in several respects Obama's energy proposal echoes Edwards'.
However, with his promise to auction 100% of cap-and-trade credits, Obama has put himself out ahead of all the other frontrunners. He deserves the praise he'll get for it.
Roberts doesn't say the plan is perfect, but it's very good. And I generally agree.
For example:
As for investing the auction revenue, Obama gets it absolutely right:
Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development and deployment of clean energy, invest in energy efficiency improvements and address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition and helping lower-income Americans afford their energy bills by expanding the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, expanding weatherization grants for low-income individuals to make their homes more energy efficient, and establishing a dedicated fund to assist low-income Americans afford higher electricity and energy bills |
Note that Obama is neatly transcending the faux-controversy between Shellenberger & Nordhaus and their critics: He's putting regulation and investment on equal footing.
He's smart on investment, too -- some of it is for basic R&D, some of it for green jobs programs, and some for pushing existing technologies to market. I particularly like this:
The Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund will be modeled on the highly-successful Central Intelligence Agency In-Q-Tel program. In-Q-Tel is a non-profit, independently-managed venture capital fund led by seasoned venture capital professionals to develop new intelligence technologies for the CIA. The first five years of In-Q-Tel funding led to 22 new technologies being used in 40 government programs. |
The CTDVCF (which needs a better acronym) would be specifically designed to get technologies across the "valley of death" that separates the lab and the market. This is a creative way to spur rather than replace market incentives.
My point here is not to get into a detailed discussion of Obama's plans-so I will forgo crticisms of how it could be better. Rather, I want to highlight the fact that when it comes to an issue that's perfectly pitched right down the center of the plate for him, Obama does know how to swing for the fences. Which makes it all the more telling when we look at other areas and see him do things like proposing to increase the size of the Army and Marines.
Summing Up: The Obama Post-Materialist Problematic
Here is perhaps the greatest irony I see in Obama's campaign. He is, in a sense, waging a culture war on the culture war. "We don't want to fight those battles anymore. We want to move on."
The first irony, of course, is that progressive boomers never wanted to fight those battles, either. We just wanted our democracy, personal freedom, and world that worked for everyone, instead of the few, thank you very much. Instead we got the New Right's war on the post-Middle Ages.
But the deeper irony is that he is needlessly repeating the mistake that made things so hard for us. And he has far less excuse for it than we did. That mistake, quite simply, is a failure to appreciate how where he stands depends on what came before. If boomer progressives were somewhat at odds with both the Old Left, and the liberal establishment of their elders, the continuing scars of McCarthyism were credibly to blame for a good deal of the problems involved. Yes, like any youthful movement, we were less appreciative of our elders than we should have been. But considering how timid they had become, and largely AWOL on the issue of civil rights, there was good reason for some of that lack of appreciation. This only got worse as George Meany actively used the power of organized labor against the growing anti-war movement, eventually allied himself with Richard Nixon, and withheld labor's endorsement of George McGovern, even though McGovern's labor record was better than previous Democratic nominees.
Now what we see in Obama is a double disconnect. He is as disconnected from the pre-boomer materialist progressives on issues like globalization and trade as he is from post-materialist boomers on matters like anti-militarism and fighting the religious right. These are certainly attitudes we can understand as coming from a post-materialist perspective, but they are not wise attitudes coming from a post-materialist perspective. They represent not only a failure to learn from history, but a compounding of past mistakes. |
STATE BLOGS
