Though many of the conclusions I have reached in this work are strongly at odds with views that are more closely associated with the ideological left (as well as the ideological right), my experience in writing all the works that makeup this series has certain parallels with Marx's experience. Like Marx, I would become deeply involved in a research project that would take up the better part of my adult life. Like Marx, the focus of my research would be human society. And also like Marx, my research would lead me to devise a plan that called for the fundamental reorganization of human society. But, unlike Marx, the conclusions I reached would not stack up neatly in favor of the ideological left. For that matter, they would not stack up neatly in favor of the ideological right either. Rather, the conclusions that I would reach would tend to be much more "ideologically eclectic and synthetic." And, perhaps more than anything else, it is this "synthetic" quality that brands the Xenophyte Perspective as such a "radical" outlook.

Although Marx claimed to conduct his analysis of society from "the standpoint of the whole," or essentially an ideologically neutral standpoint which attempted to account for all legitimate interests in society, because he had a very limited understanding of human nature to work with, and particularly because he had a very limited understanding (by today's standards) of the psycho-dynamics that are actually involved in motivating people to produce wealth and to contribute to the process of production, he ended up with an ideologically lop-sided view of man and human society. And even as Marx recognized the need to conduct his analysis of society from an "Archimedean" point, or from a standpoint that would be relatively free of any bias that might be related to his own position in society, and mainly because he did not have a more complete and accurate picture of human nature to work with, he failed to achieve this ideal. As a result, he ended up with a philosophy of man and human society that did not account for the totality of human interests and motivations; and one which was ideologically polarized, or which was more closely associated with only one one of the major poles of human abilities and temperaments. By contrast, having the benefit of a much more extensive knowledge of human nature, behavior and motivations to work with, led me to reach conclusions in this work (as well as in the other volumes of the Xenophyte Perspective) that would end up being "all over the map" ideologically speaking. As it turns out, this ideological eclecticism was not the result of any design on my part. Rather, it was more the result of a better understanding of nature's design. For, when understood in the context of their evolutionary origins and functions, elements of human nature suggest principles which are "all over the map," ideologically speaking.

For anyone who has a more accurate understanding of human nature to work with, it is a relatively simple matter to extrapolate certain fundamental principles to serve as the basis for organizing human societies. When it is understood in the context of its evolutionary origins and functions, human nature logically points to, and helps to legitimate, a belief system that is "synthetic" rather than one which is polarized. The reasons for having an ideology which is more integratively complex and synthetic than the conventional polar ideologies of liberalism and conservatism should be obvious. At various points, liberals simply have the better arguments on their side, or they come closer to having something in human nature to justify their claims. Conversely, at other points, conservatives have the better arguments on their side, and they come closer to having something in human nature to justify their claims. Accomplishing "ideological synthesis" involves bringing important elements of both of these polar ideologies together to form a stable ideological matrix. As it turns out, regardless of which side of the ideological spectrum that they have been drawn from, or have become more closely associated with, the facts and the truth about man and human society tend to be mutually supporting and reinforcing. Hence, combining these elements to form a stable ideological matrix is not as difficult as it might appear at first.

The best arguments (those which reason, knowledge and experience suggest would be most functional in absolute terms, or most conducive to human welfare over the longer term) tend to support and reinforce one another, simply due to the fact that truth at one point tends to agree with truth at other points. When taken alone and in isolation from one another, the elements of a synthetic ideology (which may have originally been more closely associated with either the ideological left or the right) only tend to oppose one another when they are confined within a larger polarizing ideological framework, such as liberalism and conservatism. In retrospect, and in light of a more complete understanding of human nature, this seems self evident. And yet, when seen through the conceptual lenses of the conventional wisdom, this is a "profoundly radical" conclusion.

When seen through the lenses of the conventional wisdom (think of one lens as being liberal, while the other is conservative), rejecting the world views of both liberals and conservatives seems like a radical idea. For, to some extent, liberalism and conservatism have come to define the boundaries of the conventional wisdom. Anything which falls outside the scope of their perspective, or anything which challenges these belief systems must be "radical" almost by definition. Yet, there are critical turning points in human history when the "conventional wisdom" begins to break down. There are critical turning points in human history when serious challenges to human survivability may arise that cannot be adequately resolved within the framework of the conventional wisdom. At such times, there is a need to adopt a "radical" new plan of action because such plans are the only ones that are able to transcend the limitations of prevailing world views. And, as I will reiterate throughout this work, we are now facing such a critical turning point in human history. We are entering an environment where the challenges we are facing as a species are of such a magnitude that they cannot be addressed within the conceptual framework of the conventional wisdom.

Specifically, a number of global forces are threatening to totally disrupt human society and to reduce the level of civilization that we have been able to achieve up to this point.  These forces include unregulated population growth, the resultant depletion of certain natural resources that are vital to the maintenance of our standard of living, as well as the related problems of environmental damage and climate change.  In a cascading effect, these forces will trigger other forces, such as chronic inflation, unemployment, as well as social and political unrest. Together, these forces will converge to create the "perfect storm," socially, economically and politically, probably in the first half of this century. Potentially, these forces can lead to the catastrophic collapse of human societies around the world, if not to a catastrophic collapse of human society more generally. The conventional ideologies of liberalism and conservatism have already demonstrated their inability to deal with these forces effectively.  Having been totally discredited by its inability to effectively deal with these problems, the conventional wisdom (which is bounded by the contemporary ideologies of liberalism and conservatism), will no longer be a cogent ideological or political force. In this new environment, only a "radical" ideology (one which can be easily distinguished from the conventional wisdom) will stand any chance.

In some ways, this new environment will be reminiscent of that which existed in the United States, Europe and Russia in the early 20th century, when these societies began to experience unprecedented stresses and dislocations due to rapid industrialization and the sweeping social, economic and political changes that it brought with it. In this environment, the established social order was placed under enormous stress. And, because it was not able to deal with these stresses within its own conceptual framework, the established social order began to buckle. When the established social order (such as the Czarist regime in Russia or the Weimar republic in Germany) began to break down, it gave rise to the "radical" movements of communism and fascism. These movements may have been radical, and, due to their inherent deficiencies (namely, their erroneous and incomplete understanding of human nature), they may have been destined to fail over the longer term. But, over the shorter term, they offered some "chance" of a better life for their followers. Although far from being optimal, within certain limits, both communism and fascism were workable. If they had been put into practice more wisely, and if they had a better understanding of human nature and motivations to work with, they could have evolved from a state of mere "transient viability" into systems that could have survived for a much longer period of time than they did. But, the fact that they continued to operate on the basis of fundamental misunderstandings about human nature and motivations doomed them both to a premature historical demise.

Having already been tried and failed, the "radical" alternatives to liberal democracy on the left and the right (communism and fascism) have been totally discredited. Not having a credible or viable "radical" alternative on either the left or the right to choose from, our revolutionary options in this century will be more limited. We will need something that is perceived to be "radical" (due to its ability to distance itself from the conventional wisdom), regardless of whether one's vantage point is closer to the left, to the right or the center. Ideological synthesis can accomplish this. That is to say, regardless of whether one stands closer to the right, the left or the center, as long as one continues to see the world though the lenses of the conventional wisdom, this alternative perspective will be seen as "radical."

Synthesis is radical in the sense that it defies attempts to classify it in terms of the left and the right. It is also radical in the sense that it falls outside the more conventional way of defining political interests and of conducting political dialogues. It reaches conclusions about the best ways to organize human societies which are radically different from the ones that liberals or conservatives are likely to recommend, or even to feel completely comfortable with. But, once again, there are critical turning points in human history when such a radical plan of action will be necessary and completely justified. And, as I have argued throughout this work and in other volumes of the Xenophyte Perspective, due to the convergence of global events, the human species is fast approaching such a critical turning point. Either it will adopt a more functional and synthetic belief system as the principal foundation for human society, to enable it to deal with these events, or it will be overcome by them. If human societies are overcome by these events, not only will it prevent humanity from reaching a higher stage of civilization, it could easily create the conditions that will send human civilization headlong in the opposite direction, or in a direction that will lead to a lower level of civilization than the one we have today. This scenario is not mere speculation. There are already many contemporary indications that we (principally, the United States and Western Europe) are in a state of decline as civilizations. And as well, there are many historical precedents for the decline and collapse of human civilizations to choose from. Yet, mainly due to the continuing operation and force of the ideologies of liberalism and conservatism, most people remain blind to such possibilities.

Since the ideologies of liberalism and conservatism first made their appearance and began to define the bounds of the conventional wisdom, as well as the set of acceptable social, economic and political alternatives, major advances in our understanding of human nature been made in the behavioral sciences. As a result of these advances, a picture of human nature has been emerging that has profound implications for how our societies are organized. This new picture of human nature lies in sharp contrast to the view of man that has been more traditionally understood by both liberals and conservatives. Specifically, the picture of human nature that is emerging from the behavioral sciences suggests that liberalism and conservatism are outmoded models for understanding and interpreting human behavior, and that they have both outlived their usefulness as ways of advancing human interests more generally.

Ideally, people would be able to recognize the limitations of their belief systems and rise above them. Ideally, they would be able to recognize the limitations of liberalism and conservatism in particular. Unfortunately, because people most often adopt their political belief systems more or less completely on the basis of how they believe they will serve their own short term interests, they often fail to develop a more accurate understanding of how their interests relate to the public interest over the longer term. As a result, people will often cling to outmoded and obsolete belief systems long after these belief systems have begun to exhibit extreme systemic dysfunctions.  Because people are generally so reluctant to relinquish belief systems that they have grown accustomed to, especially if they believe that these belief systems are the best way to advance their own interests over the shorter term, their irrational loyalties to these sub-optimal belief systems can  potentially imperil their interests over the longer term. And, once people have begun to recognize the limitations of their own polar ideologies, it is often too late to correct things without substantial costs. And, as I suggest in this work, this is the point we have reached as a civilization. We are at a point where the limitations of the prevailing ideologies will become increasingly apparent to more objective and rational observers (synthesists) even as partisans on the left and the right (defenders of the conventional wisdom) will continue to be blind to the limitations of their own ideologies. We have reached an important crossroads in human history.

As the contemporary social engineering project has become dominated by both theorists and practitioners who have a much closer association with the ideological left, or by those who euphemistically call themselves "liberal-progressives," and "humanists," it becomes necessary to propose an alternative social engineering project, or one which is advanced from a more ideologically neutral standpoint, or from the standpoint of values that have been extrapolated from a more accurate view of human nature. It also becomes necessary to critique the contemporary social engineering project from this more ideologically neutral standpoint, or from what Marx would call "the standpoint of the whole." Again, having a more accurate conception of human nature to work with, we can come much closer to realizing the ideal of ideological neutrality than Marx could. Marx's idea of "the standpoint of the whole" is in fact directly analogous to the idea of "synthesis." As an ideological standpoint of some kind, synthesis is designed to account for all legitimate interests in society. And it is designed to make use of all the facts that are known about man and his society, rather than just some subsets of fact that one might wish to rely on in order to advance one's own short term interests, or the interests of a particular class that one belongs to or identifies with (such as liberals or conservatives). The concept of ideological synthesis is ultimately derived from evolutionary theory. It is specifically based on the idea that because evolution has endowed man with two cognitive and temperamental poles (which define the essential bounds of human nature), that we should reference the major tendencies associated with "both" poles in our attempts to design optimal social, economic and political institutions.

Finally, it should be noted that, along with the other works that makeup the Xenophyte Perspective Series, there is a fair amount of redundancy and overlap in this work. As Albert Einstein once said in the preface to one of his own works: "In the interest of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable that I should repeat myself frequently, without paying the slightest attention to the elegance of the presentation."

Alex Van Allen, March, 2010
 

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY ALEX VAN ALLEN