The Problem Of Reductionism
A sizable amount of people on the Right just seem to treasure reductionism. The left does too, of course, but they are not my target for this article.
Many individuals on the Right get some form of sexual thrill out of boiling down complex subjects as “easy to understand” tidbits of watered down, factually inaccurate descriptors or phrases.
It is neither correct nor worthwhile to use a reductionist viewpoint. The Right (especially libertarians) love this when it comes to things like fascism and communism, because they can just reduce everything to an easy-to-label subject so that they do not have to challenge its complexity.
It’s fairly often you hear it from them recently. Everything they don’t like is fascism. Or it’s corporatism. Or it’s a fight of “totalitarians versus individual liberty”. Or some other stupid, watered down phrase between very complex ideologies with lots of grey area.
It is simply reductionism:
the practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation.
Everything is not “Marxist”. Some things are, but some things are different and still just as problematic.
When the government does something you don’t like, it is not “fascist” unless it involves real corporatism, guilds, and a rule by one (which it doesn’t).
When corporations do something you don’t like, it’s not corporatism (as that likely doesn’t even mean what you think it means).
Everything that you don’t like is not “the left”. Some things you probably do agree with are on the “left”. Many others would debate would you categorize as “Right”. The Right too has skeletons in history that any real proponent of the Right must come to terms with.
“Western Civilization” is not whatever you just invent in your head. The goal is not “saving Western civilization”, if you cannot first even describe what that civilization is and how its different eras are at competition with one another. This world has deep historical roots. The idea of “saving Western Civ” doesn’t even really make sense, without further discussion on what constitutes that phrase.
So on and so forth.
The inter-workings of things happening in the modern day is complex. It’s hard to conceptualize and to explain. But to use reductionism to explain them is a silly approach.
It gives the intellectually lazy an easy escape route to not have to deal with these complex subjects. It makes it so they do not have to actually explain them in larger detail. It makes it so people do not have to get better by learning and studying.
When dealing with others that ‘get it’, we should not be reducing anything. They need the full picture. Not a brain-dead “omg fascism” or “evil totalitarians” approach. We should encourage the left to do this, while rejecting it ourselves.
So, if anything, this is more an article targeted at others like me with a platform. If you’ve reached that point, it’s time to start tackling the complex subjects or getting out of the way for those who will.
There are enough people that take a reductionist standpoint that we do not need to give a microphone to more.
We need people willing to actually address the complex issues. Not boil them down to an old 20th century philosophy or make it seem as simple as a false dilemma fallacy.
The only way we do that is by calling out people that take this approach.
I’m not perfect, I’ve fallen for the trap in the past myself. We all have. And we all likely will in the future again (myself included). Because it’s easy.
But we have to be better. Reductionism will get us nowhere. We have to know the exact disease that is infecting us to find the appropriate cure. Not reduce it to some generic illness and shotgun every med. We do more harm than good taking that approach.
Read Next:
Winter Is Coming: Tips For Preparing For This Season’s Circus
Happily Residing In The Lower Economic Classes
If you enjoyed this article, give us a bookmark and check back often for new content. New articles every weekday.
You can also keep up with us on social media or by joining our monthly newsletter.
Help us fight the censorship – Share this article!
Finally, please consider supporting my work. Every donation is immensely helpful to keep us growing.
You can’t expect this degree of sophistication from the general public, nor can you tell them to shut up because they don’t know what they’re talking about.
It’s like U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said in 1964 that he could not use words to describe pornography but “I know it when I see it.”
The American people know what they like, what they will tolerate and what they hate. It’s going to take time for all this to gel, to reach a critical mass, and most importantly, when the right leader comes along who can organize and lead a resistance.
It may need to get to the point where masses of people lose their jobs and can’t find another, lose their car and home and can’t put food on the table. In other words, with their backs to the wall with nothing left to lose.
They won’t need to split no stinkin’ hairs, yours or anyone else’s.
This article is not directed at the general public. As I said in the article:
My website is and never will be geared toward the grey masses. This article, in particular, is directed at those future leaders you are referencing. They need to know the difference and those of us with a platform (such as myself and other bloggers/podcasters) should not steer them astray with reductionism. These differences are not minor and ignoring/reducing them won’t help us find a solution.
I apologize for the oversight.
However,I am an empiricist, and although reason is an important tool for solving problems and predicting outcomes, the direct experience of the masses and their visceral response is better suited for clarifying and focusing their minds in regard to their problem. My last paragraph above was meant as a speculative example. I don’t think nuanced discussions between intellectuals is going to play a role in people’s decisions about what they want to do about governmental injustices that have ruined their lives. What they do need is discussions about strategies, not definitions of various forms of governments. Basically, they’ll want the promises of the founding returned to them, with changes in the constitution that are informed by the history of its corruption.
No worries. I appreciate the insight. I likewise agree about the necessitation of strategy going forward. It is far more crucial than nearly anything else. Still, for those leaders to make the proper changes, they need to be knowledgeable about the reality of “the history of its corruption”, as you aptly put it. That’s largely my goal here and in trying to figure out a new system that would have those changes.