In the Advent of the Contemporary Era
Will We Find Forms of Political Pluralism??

With the Deconstruction of the Left
Will there also be a Deconstruction of the Right?

	Open Forum: If the Contemporary era is, theoretically, an era of pluralism(s) where is the (Australian) world of politics heading? Are we moving into an era of oppositions? Whence the hegemony of the Right?

	In the following series of short monographs I will:

1.	Propose a theory of what Contemporary politics should theoretically look like,
2.	Note that this vision is not obviously evident at present and attempt to describe what is politically present,
3.	Tentatively answer why there is this dissonance between theory and observation,
4.	Define what is meant by pluralism(s) and contrast it with the vision of the multicultural,
5.	Discuss Huntington’s concept of incommensurable civilizations in the context of a theoretical shift from the multicultural to the pluralistic,
6.	Establish a possible consensus in our reconsideration of these matters? (1)

1.   A Contemporary Vision of the Political

	I have previously defined the Post-Postmodern era as the Contemporary. In my opinion we have just started to enter this new era. In this advent of the Contemporary I theoretically foresee a shift towards cultural forms of pluralism, or, rather pluralisms. In the final course of the Modern era, say the late 1960’s, there was a shift from mere functionalism in architecture (often in a brutal style) to a functionalism over (re-)interpreted from the perspective of style. Both of these extreme tendencies of mere functionalism and sheer style took on an international flavour and world hegemony. Witness the drab ordinariness of most post-Second World War architecture throughout the world in a so-called ‘international style’, and, recent decades of a relentless, ‘uniform’ Postmodern ‘Versatchi’ look of black clothing (with occasional forays into white, brown or shades of gray). In a reaction to this I have proposed the Contemporary era with its spontaneous emphasis upon locale and local colour; a more immediate sense of the present (along with a simulated sense of  ‘presence’); a breakdown of the dichotomy between actors and audiences both live and virtual (as seen, e.g., in so-called reality shows on television); a breakdown and re-organization of subjectivity and reflexivity, along with an emphasis on pluralisms, etc. In this I see a shift from multi-cultural forms of pluralism to forms of pluralisms whereby individuals, groups, communities eclectically, but non-superficially, re-define themselves through the utilization of a diverse vocabulary of influences both multi-cultural, local, historical and idiosyncratic. We had a foretaste of this in the Postmodern with a loss of hegemony in certain fields as a reaction to a loss of faith in grand narratives like Marxism, Freudianism, etc. Thus, as a result, we have had, e.g., varieties of feminism and hence ‘feminisms’. With people adopting a mix of such ideologies and re-constituting their sense of identity from such a multiple set of palettes hence the formation of ‘pluralisms’. In such a milieu political terms like Left and Right, Liberal and Conservative, etc., in my opinion should progressively loose their distinctiveness as people take up a more multi-dimensional outlook upon the perceived being of themselves and the being of the world they live in. But, so much for theory (as to the predicted nature of the Contemporary Era)! Let me now describe how I currently view the political landscapes of Australia and America from a general, relatively non-theoretical, more observational point of view…. (2)

2.   Are We Witnessing a Neo-Modernism (and Not a Contemporary Era?)?

	The last 30-40 years have witnessed a period of increasing prosperity for most of the population both in Australia and in America. As a consequence of this increased self-perception of wealth (along with an increased degree of indebtedness, unsettling sea-changes in the nature of work, etc.) the entire political spectrum has, for all that, moved from the Left towards the Right. This has been a gradual shift (and perhaps less pronounced in Europe which still appears to possess residual forms of Socialism?)? Recent elections in both Australia and the USA seem to have merely confirmed this trend? One should note, e.g., that President Bush II in his re-election registered a shift towards him across the country, that this trend even prevailed in Senator Kerry’s state of Massachusetts. Pushed or dragged to some degree by the Christian Right, a more pronounced phenomenon in The States, we might re-define this type of trend and its broad, retrospective yearning for the ideality of a certain vision of the past as a form of Neo-Modernism (in parallel with a tendency for a Neo-Conservatism often abbreviated to Neo-Con? [but, certainly not a Caring Compassionate Conservatism from the perspective of traditional ‘liberal’ standards!)? In this process we appear to find a deep fault-line ‘opening up’ between older and less virulent forms of Conservatism and Liberalism on one hand, and, the hegemony of a radical, energized Right. Up for grabs is an ideological battle for the heart and soul of the political establishment and this is reflected in the television styles of CNN, ABC, CBS (and the ABC in Australia), e.g., on one hand, and on the other the rather unrelenting, rabid style of presentation entertained by Fox Studios, rightwing radio talk-back shows, etc. That this contest for the ‘soul’ and the ideological control of the country (of the USA) is, for the new Right, it would seem, a very serious ‘life-and-death-struggle’? Am I being too extreme and too pessimistic here? Surely I am not alone in this perception in the light of recent documentaries made on this type of topic critical of this Rightwing rewriting of television style (and political practices)? (3)

3.   How Do Overcome This Dissonance Between Theory and Observation?

	There are various stratagems we could adopt: that this theoretical vision of the Contemporary is just wrong; that the Contemporary Era is not yet properly underway; that the Contemporary will only be a fringe development; that our observations about the current political scene are just wrong, etc? (4) 

	Although I do not want to pre-judge how we should resolve and rectify this ‘anomaly’, in my opinion, being in the advent of the Contemporary Era, we must first wait for the deconstruction of the Right? Is that likely? (5)

	Sets of terms like Right and Left, Conservative and Liberal, etc., no longer seem to parallel each other? So one could be both Liberal and Right, or Left and Conservative, in contrast to a more recent, less ‘traditional’ Conservative member of the New Right which is both Right and Conservative? Or is the latter a real return to the past? In my opinion this is only half-true being more a return to a new black-and-white re-vision of the past? So, there may be a continuous shifting to the Right, in the old sense, and a reaction towards the future by re-investing in the myths of the past such a strategy must surely be heading towards failure directly related to the extent this shift is allowed to operate well beyond the psychic centre of that country in question? To some extent the New Far Right have been able to co-opt a more traditional sense of the Right (through a series of deceptive, misleading forms of propaganda, historical accidents like 9/11?)? But extremes, forms of extremism, are eventually punished! Moreover, the liberal genie cannot be completely put back into the bottle whether we like that fact or not! Becoming extreme removes us from the reality of the centre. Rightwing ideology is just as anti-human and anti-diversity as Leftwing ideology was, and, consequently, the more extreme it becomes the more quickly it should deconstruct when the ‘mass of the people’ feel they have been misled, and, perceive the current political ‘elite’ as out of touch with real middle class values, the historical destiny of the country (in what ever manner that is discerned or denied), etc. Of course I am being both idealistic and optimistic here. Who knows what disasters await us through Neo-Con experiments getting out of control while these ‘elites’ still actually believe their own rhetoric and not the real reality and consequences as represented through the action-plans being put into play on a more practical level of Realpolitik. Thankfully, extreme views are always deconstructed even if only by the next generation! Alas, in the meantime, and for some while afterwards, ordinary folk have to suffer for such misguided forms of adventurism whether it be on the old sense of the Left or the new sense of the Right!? Ideals are wonderful things to have but should never be put absolutely into practice (because that is both impossible and disastrous); rather, they should be slowly and progressively moved towards (through democratic consensus) and never (mis-)treated as realizable ‘ends’! (6)

4.   What is this Vision of Pluralisms?

	With the relative breakdown of national boundaries before various tides of migration; through the ubiquity of the Internet; with an openness to new cultures, we have moved, whether we liked it or not, into a era of Multi-Culturalism. We have become overtly tolerant. This tolerance has extended to women, race or ethnicity, nationality, lifestyles, religious practices, etc., although not without the irruption, from time to time, of politically correct forms of covert hostility (as witnessed, e.g., in suburban councils not permitting new mosques to be built in suburban Sydney, etc., through the organized complaints of ‘concerned neighbours’). As a broad cultural trend, in parallel to a loss of a fashion directed and dictated conformity so too we should expect to perceive a loss of political conformity? We no longer all dress in the same bland way sporting a very similar haircut, etc. We now imitate a plethora of cultural heroes and semi-heroes whether they be in our ‘first’ culture or outside our ‘first’ culture; taking bits and pieces from a number of other cultures; participate in a variety of musics; as noted wear an assortment of clothes; enjoy and appreciate the artifacts of innumerable cultures; partake of something more than just the food of our ethnic brethren, etc? This is not a form of multi-culturalism but more a plural-culturalism. People, groups, communities are now taking on a re-appreciation of locale (e.g., looking at the Australian landscape through the eyes of aboriginal peoples; taking on ideas from Native American sources and shamanistic re-interpretations of the same; appreciating antiques, antiquities and artifacts from bygone eras and not so bygone eras and an assortment of cultures, etc., etc. In this re-searching for identity we come to identify ourselves with our heroes, their ideals, their locale and re-discover a new, complex sense of belonging in the where-we-are and where-we-find-ourselves, where we find ourselves in our ‘own’ localized re-interpretation of a lived-space with-and-before-others. The Internet is now a primary resource in this new sense of an overhauling of ‘our’ novel, eclectic, but systematized, integrated and non-superficial, sense(s) of self. This apparent vision of pastiche taking deeper roots than a mere superficial eclecticism (as witnessed, e.g., in the Modern and Postmodern absorption of icons and ornaments)! (7)

	As a consequence of this theory of the contemporaneous we should also expect the advent of oppositions rather than a traditional, formal opposition, along with the serious, relatively stable formation of coalitions (witness the coalition between the Liberal and National parties in Australia?)? (8)

5.   An Examination of Samuel Huntington’s Vision of a Clash of Civilizations?

	In Samuel Huntington’s book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order he discusses his ‘observation’ and concept of cultural fault-lines running between some countries and through the centre of other countries in a swapping of ideologies (like communism) for civilizations (like being Russian, Chinese, Indian, Western, Moslem, etc.) . He published this book in 1996 and opined there that because the Ukraine, e.g., is a culturally divided country it might be in for some form of political turmoil in the not too distant future. He was quite prescient here and we can only hope that how this rift is approached and resolved will not be too disturbing for the people of that country. Part of this same fault-line creates the borders for Russia dividing Russia from Europe proper. That much of the political history of Russia can be interpreted as an interminable oscillation over whether they were ‘apart of Europe’ or ‘a part from Europe’, and, that it was a country that possessed its own distinctive cultural heritage (something more akin to that of contemporary Greece and its rootedness in its Christian Orthodox faith?). (9)

	Just how incommensurable are these cultural fault-lines? Should we take a dialectical-like point of view here? I.e., see these ‘fault-lines’ as lines of cultural conflict, context, difference, but, at the same time, as also ‘constructions’ that cannot be absolutely drawn by differences formed by the historical past and forever lost in the forgotten sands of time? Is it not the case that cultures, and their worldviews, evolve through time too (a facet explored by numerous historians and philosophers)? That, essentially, this identity, like all forms of identity, can also be something quite fluid? (10)

	A similar type of clash seems to take place in the lives of migrants who are taking up a permanent residence in another ‘civilization’ as witnessed in the tensions between generations in those migrant families. Such shifts and re-alignments with the adopted civilization seem to hint at the fact that these cultural fault-lines may not be absolute and fixed features of the world landscape and could well be ‘past over’ to some extent? Should more be treated as dialectical artifacts that are both relatively incommensurable and relatively non-incommensurable and not exclusively one way or the other! It is my observation that the second generation, and thereafter, in a migrant family are often at odds with their parents and their wishes for their children to conform to certain aspects of their original homeland culture. That this dissonance increases with each generation, unless resolved, until a process of relative-assimilation has taken place but not necessarily in the sense of a complete loss of migrant identity but certainly no longer, e.g., merely as a New Australian, or, a second generation New Australian, etc! This sense of conflict increasing with the coming of each new generation, unless progressively resolved in favour of the host civilization, until, especially for males, they have effectively adopted the culture of their host country whether they are aware of this fact or not (given a number of factors that might accelerate this type of process like economic forces; a desire to fit in; an adoption of host ideals; patriotic considerations; etc.). Now, I am not arguing that this is always the case but that this appears to be the case. Even Moslem women wearing the veil in this country seem to be taking on certain Australian-like cultural features (such as using prams to convey their infants, wanting to vote, working hard to buy a house and get their children well educated, etc., etc?). No doubt some of these features and aspirations cross the boundaries of culture, but, in the appearances of how these Australian forms of social practice are adopted and adapted in this country it seems to suggest that a pervasive Australian influence is still at work, an influence that is both to some extent welcomed and/or ‘worked for’ wittingly or unwittingly? Of course I am not arguing that there can be no cultural tensions in this process of transition and\or adjustment or that New Australians, what ever their generation of being a resident in this country, have or should loose the cultural contributions they stand to make by maintaining their original culture. Indeed, I would insist that they stand to be better citizens of this country by maintaining their sense of cultural identity and not subjecting themselves, or being subjected, to processes of acculturation. They should be ‘who they are’ first and then from there discover a love for this country in their own way and, therein, enriching this country by the sharing of those relatively unique characteristics and talents!  On the other hand, I am not suggesting we should maintain a pure multi-culturalism since in my vision of the future it will be a plural-culturalism. Indeed, a positive tolerance of pluralisms without sacrificing an evolving sense of a re-integrated, enriched sense of both a nationalism and an internationalism too!  This is already witnessed in the growth of globalization and its consequences; various forms of super-political unions; a tendency especially in younger people to re-define themselves through a seriously chosen miscellany of labels (such as, e.g., Buddhist, Pagan, Green, of a certain ethnicity not directly related to parental upbringing, as belonging to a certain group of people who express similar objectives and ideals, have a plurality of different work related skills and a variety of personae [without ever needing to invoke a dis-associative disorder] etc.), etc! (11)

6.   Consensus

	In this open forum let us look more closely at these points and see if we can reach some form of a consensus? Are we entering a new era of the Neo-Modern and its emphasis upon the retrospective, or, realizing the advent of the Contemporary Era and its emphasis upon a vibrant re-interpretation of the present? Will the New Right deconstruct and in its place will there be a return to the centre and a plethora of pluralisms as predicted? Is this ‘clash of civilizations’ overrated what with greater means of interpretation and modes of interaction, its eventual ability of being able to be overcome on an intergenerational basis, through the very bifurcation of civilizations themselves as witnessed in the polarization between the New Right (and its black and white resurrection of a once white, Protestant oriented ethos) and a more traditional sense of the Liberal (often self-defined with a small ‘l’) (as perceived set in the milieu of a multi-cultural context) (a facet of current political life more over-looked by Huntington in his latest book Who Are We: The Challenges to National Identity)? No doubt we have much to debate…. (12)

							        Noël Tointon, Sydney, 21.1.05.

Post Scriptum

	I have just finished reading Samuel Huntington’s recent book Who Are We: The Challenges to National Identity. His descriptions, historical analysis and statistical information are excellent, however, I feel he lacks a deeper insight into what current trends are exactly taking place and why such trends can be argued for. Basically, he doesn’t seem to be able to account for the ugly nature of the divide centred on the Republican-Democrat faultline. On one hand, he fears a dilution of American identity especially on the more liberal side of the spectrum (as intellectuals find nationalism distasteful and internationalism attractive) and a possible bifurcation between a traditional ‘American’ Protestant and post-Protestant English speaking section of the country and a ‘non-American’ Spanish centred cultural ‘world’ (along the lines of that already established in Miami, e.g.). I believe his fears are misplaced for a number of reasons which I would like to list (using descriptive and statistical work outlined by Huntington himself although not cited, etc.):
1.	Most citizens of America, regardless of ethnic or cultural background, generally desire the best English based education for their families and are generally against bi-lingual forms of education (since, for many representatives of those communities, it is their aspiration to get themselves and their children into the best English speaking universities in USA as quickly and as successfully as possible).
2.	The potential psychic divide in America is not language based but a fight for the allegiance of the centre by the Far Right as witnessed in styles of media supporting and supported by that aspect of politics.
3.	The Right is a resurrection of what was once a central cultural core of the American psyche, namely a protestant America as founded by its first settlers but its general time consciousness is now heavily retrospective.
4.	However, despite the shift to the Right over the last thirty years or so the many genii released in the interim can never be returned to their various lamps; such genii being how women regard their role in the community, the constitution of ‘gay’ identity, the re-consideration of ethic and racial equality, the re-empowerment of the elderly, the empowerment of the young, the de-professionalization of religious specialists in a preferential trend for lay teachers, etc., and with less emphasis upon priests, etc., etc.
	5. 	The Far Right is attracting and attractive to many of the genii noted in the previous item of our list and, therefore, can never truly see out the full return to the vision of a Protestant-like past along so-called Biblical lines through the inclusion of such members. In other words any expansion of the Far Right can only dilute its agenda!
	6.	Intermarriage has now vastly accelerated between ethnic, religious and cultural lines, furthermore, such marriage is no longer perceived with disapproval by the younger generation contra that of their grandparents and parents. Furthermore, the concept of marriage itself has become pluralized despite protestations to the contrary.
	7.	An increased mass of the Middle Class should diffuse the extent and degree of forms of political extremism whether on the Left or the Right (whether in bipolar or multi-polar terms of reference).

	However, a process of bifurcation is possibly underway through the loss of a viable, dominant sense of centre. People are being made to take a position and chose ground that is not in the centre. That, in essence, for a number of reasons, there is a rift between a retrospective return to the ‘spirit’ of a mis-interpreted Protestant-like past (regardless of one’s religious allegiances) and a non-thematized sense of the future that is highly fluid and re-interpretive of a relatively ‘liberal’ past that is no longer merely pro-Eurocentric, pro-Christian and individualistic in a multi-dimensional, trans-cultural sense (as argued for in this paper). In this progressive ‘orientation’ incommensurable oppositions betweens English speaking culture(s) and Spanish speaking culture(s), European language based cultures versus non-European language based cultures, religious versus non-religious points of view are just not perceived as incommensurable! Indeed, are coming to be seen as part of a rich tapestry rather than as distinct, non-inter-weaver-able strands of culture upon the face of this increasingly interconnected planet regardless, but not without regard for local and regional politics, etc.

	Perceived as paralleling and commenting upon the Contemporary Australian political scene what points about the American ‘scene’ might mirror those cultural trends currently occurring here?
	1.	There is an increasing development of the Far Religious Right but it is not as so advanced as that in the USA. At the same time its retrospective return to a mythologized sense of a White Protestant-like past (as interpreted as being that as demonstrated by our Early Settlers) can only fail for the above reasons!
	2.	However, this retrospective vision of the past will polarize and partially evacuate the political Centre and therein producing a more fluid political scene.
	3.	That ultimately, and hopefully, such a program on the Right must fail for all the stated reasons above (namely, a deconstruction of the Right, the Contemporary multi-dimensional development of the political psyche, greater access to information through novel forms like the Internet, etc., upon which to base one’s political and cultural judgments and practices, etc, an inevitable  swing back to the centre…?). 

   Anyhow, for the moment, that is my story and I am sticking to it…, N (12.2.05).