"Without the vertical ties of obligation that had once bound individuals to lord, guild and parish, each in their little circle of concern would find themselves less accustomed to acting with others, and more willing to surrender the burdens of common life to a central power." This beautifully dovetails with the interview by Mary Harrington (Socrates in the City) of theologian, etc. Carl Trueman. They discuss this very point with Mary bringing up the Enclosure Act, brought on by agriculture becoming industrialized in England, unmooring the people from the land that had been their identity. Will AI simply untether ourselves further from one another creating further small parcels like the Irish were given under British rule that led to famine when mold destroyed potatoes - a crop that grew well on small parcels? The first essay hits on this with these great sentences: While this package is sold with visions of giving every student their own on-demand Aristotle, it is also a power that the dystopias and dictators of the twentieth century could not have dreamed of. Even Huxley’s Brave New World, where all humans are effectively genetically engineered and conditioned from birth, uses broad caste systems and mass curricula instead of one-to-one monitoring to instill a citizen’s “ideal behavior” – thus enabling dissidents like Bernard Marx to exist. Popular media and culture in authoritarian regimes are attempts to discipline society into compliance, something that is no longer necessary when every citizen can be offered their own customized cult leader.
I'm a fan of René Girard's work on scapegoating, as it helps me navigate current events, limiting my rancor at being the scapegoated. René tethers scapegoating to technological advances. Now that AI is being used in labs to 'nudge' behavior, will it try to nudge us out of scapegoating? Or if AI is designed to progress society, will it encourage scapegoating to facilitate new technology? If it is the former, will we be rendered a noncommittal shade of beige?
Thanks - I do note that one thing Tocqueville is clear about is that going back to the aristocratic order was a nonstarter. He fears the impact of equality but also valorises its potential in contrast to the old world. Similarly I do not think that the answer can be a return or a valorisation of pre-industrial agricultural society. We have to build new ways of identity-forming that are not defined by productive labour (under threat by AI). So that’s why I come to the idea of ludic institutions and their potential
"We have to build new ways of identity-forming that are not defined by productive labour (under threat by AI)." I agree but what would that look like? I guess that is the question. If you were advising Silicon Valley techs the best way to use their resources to better society, what would you advise? Carnegie built libraries that one could enter and use at will. Is there a modern alternative?
I see a functioning society as driving an old manual car. You have to get everything right to change the speed and not stall.
Reading these together, there’s an interesting tension. AI seems capable of making formation more precise at exactly the moment institutions may have less practical need to form capable people.
But formation doesn’t disappear when institutions stop deliberately providing it. It moves into the environments people inhabit: tools, platforms, AI tutors, workplaces, communities, and the repeated conditions through which judgment gets exercised or surrendered.
That may make the political question less “who educates the citizen?” and more “which environments are actually forming the citizen, whether we intended them to or not?”
I like your recasting of the question. I think the answer to the question of which environment forms us is related to the question of how stakes are acquired for an individual when material loss is off the table - you will never starve and have access to material comforts no matter what. I think there are still stakes that will matter based on relationships to others. But we also might seek to construct environments with stakes - which is what I’m getting at with ludic institutions
I think this connects to something I’ve been thinking about around belonging. Even if material loss recedes, social stakes may remain powerful. People will change a great deal to remain part of a group, to be needed, or to avoid exclusion.
That makes the ludic institutions idea especially interesting to me. The question may be less how to construct stakes and more how to create environments where participation, obligation, and belonging make choices genuinely consequential without becoming coercive.
I think what you describe is what a stake is! It has cost you something for it to matter to you. But that cost can’t be too high because of coercion as you say. It can’t result in ruin or you are bound too strongly. But signing up to a voluntary org is too weak to do any forming
Yes, that distinction helps. I wonder if the key variable is less whether participation is voluntary and more how consequential participation becomes once you’re inside it. Belonging, responsibility, reputation, and commitment can create real costs without making exit impossible.
Maybe the formative zone sits somewhere between consequence-free participation and coercion: enough at stake that your choices change you, but not so much that you no longer meaningfully have a choice.
Very fine essays!
"Without the vertical ties of obligation that had once bound individuals to lord, guild and parish, each in their little circle of concern would find themselves less accustomed to acting with others, and more willing to surrender the burdens of common life to a central power." This beautifully dovetails with the interview by Mary Harrington (Socrates in the City) of theologian, etc. Carl Trueman. They discuss this very point with Mary bringing up the Enclosure Act, brought on by agriculture becoming industrialized in England, unmooring the people from the land that had been their identity. Will AI simply untether ourselves further from one another creating further small parcels like the Irish were given under British rule that led to famine when mold destroyed potatoes - a crop that grew well on small parcels? The first essay hits on this with these great sentences: While this package is sold with visions of giving every student their own on-demand Aristotle, it is also a power that the dystopias and dictators of the twentieth century could not have dreamed of. Even Huxley’s Brave New World, where all humans are effectively genetically engineered and conditioned from birth, uses broad caste systems and mass curricula instead of one-to-one monitoring to instill a citizen’s “ideal behavior” – thus enabling dissidents like Bernard Marx to exist. Popular media and culture in authoritarian regimes are attempts to discipline society into compliance, something that is no longer necessary when every citizen can be offered their own customized cult leader.
I'm a fan of René Girard's work on scapegoating, as it helps me navigate current events, limiting my rancor at being the scapegoated. René tethers scapegoating to technological advances. Now that AI is being used in labs to 'nudge' behavior, will it try to nudge us out of scapegoating? Or if AI is designed to progress society, will it encourage scapegoating to facilitate new technology? If it is the former, will we be rendered a noncommittal shade of beige?
Thanks - I do note that one thing Tocqueville is clear about is that going back to the aristocratic order was a nonstarter. He fears the impact of equality but also valorises its potential in contrast to the old world. Similarly I do not think that the answer can be a return or a valorisation of pre-industrial agricultural society. We have to build new ways of identity-forming that are not defined by productive labour (under threat by AI). So that’s why I come to the idea of ludic institutions and their potential
"We have to build new ways of identity-forming that are not defined by productive labour (under threat by AI)." I agree but what would that look like? I guess that is the question. If you were advising Silicon Valley techs the best way to use their resources to better society, what would you advise? Carnegie built libraries that one could enter and use at will. Is there a modern alternative?
I see a functioning society as driving an old manual car. You have to get everything right to change the speed and not stall.
Finally, what does ludic mean?
Reading these together, there’s an interesting tension. AI seems capable of making formation more precise at exactly the moment institutions may have less practical need to form capable people.
But formation doesn’t disappear when institutions stop deliberately providing it. It moves into the environments people inhabit: tools, platforms, AI tutors, workplaces, communities, and the repeated conditions through which judgment gets exercised or surrendered.
That may make the political question less “who educates the citizen?” and more “which environments are actually forming the citizen, whether we intended them to or not?”
I like your recasting of the question. I think the answer to the question of which environment forms us is related to the question of how stakes are acquired for an individual when material loss is off the table - you will never starve and have access to material comforts no matter what. I think there are still stakes that will matter based on relationships to others. But we also might seek to construct environments with stakes - which is what I’m getting at with ludic institutions
I think this connects to something I’ve been thinking about around belonging. Even if material loss recedes, social stakes may remain powerful. People will change a great deal to remain part of a group, to be needed, or to avoid exclusion.
That makes the ludic institutions idea especially interesting to me. The question may be less how to construct stakes and more how to create environments where participation, obligation, and belonging make choices genuinely consequential without becoming coercive.
I think what you describe is what a stake is! It has cost you something for it to matter to you. But that cost can’t be too high because of coercion as you say. It can’t result in ruin or you are bound too strongly. But signing up to a voluntary org is too weak to do any forming
Yes, that distinction helps. I wonder if the key variable is less whether participation is voluntary and more how consequential participation becomes once you’re inside it. Belonging, responsibility, reputation, and commitment can create real costs without making exit impossible.
Maybe the formative zone sits somewhere between consequence-free participation and coercion: enough at stake that your choices change you, but not so much that you no longer meaningfully have a choice.