Peter Emmerson

2.3 The emergence of formal arguments suggestive of uncertainty.

The processes of change I have tried to detail above occurred interdependently with one another, not as separate unrelated developments. They were part of a network of interrelated gradual transformations that were unplanned, with no necessary outcomes. However, that does not mean that they were unpredictable; they were just relatively unpredictable – a perception too far, in a world so heavily dominated by idealism.

As mentioned earlier natural philosophy was renamed science in the first half of the 19^th century, by which time its practitioners functioned interdependently with the traditional truth-finders, the theometaphysicians, as the suppliers of the more mathematicised ideals reinforcing the authority of the emergent commercial figurations. The growth in influence of the latter, committed to rational democratic systems, market economics and greater personal autonomy, was sufficiently established by the 1700s to allow the possibility of people entering into open, formal discussion of ideas that questioned the very existence of absolute truths. In Britain before this time people who proffered such arguments would have been liable to violent suppression from the agents of monarchical and ecclesiastical rule. During the 18^th century philosophers such as David Hume were publicly attacking the foundations of Christian religious belief, and by the 1800s atheist revolutionaries such as Karl Marx were even questioning the sanctity of philosophical knowledge, whilst residing as a refugee in Britain. The possibilities of uncertainty were openly debated.

Such examples of the greater tolerance of arguments from uncertainty may well be linked to the decline in the level of violence meted-out by authorities throughout much of Europe to those who challenged established figurations: thus incarceration has tended to replace capital punishment. Michel Foucault argued that this change was part of the extension of disciplinary technology, imposed on non-bourgeois groups through the military, schooling, hospitals etc., in order to produce a docile work force. I think Elias’ model of the civilising process that plots the gradual extension of the use of self-control, offers the possibility of a more valid explanation of the decreasing level of violence.

Whilst Elias gives focus to the monopolization of the means of violence by established figurations such as monarchies, I want to emphasise the significance of the process of doing business. To do business you become interdependent with a range of people, whether as customers, partners, investors, or employees. Doing business benefits from management rather than physical suppression. Thus, acting without careful consideration of the reactions of others is potentially counterproductive; violence is a last resort. Where Foucault relates the decline in overt violence to a bourgeois strategy to create order, Elias explains it as a correlate to movement in a more complex nexus of social interdependencies. Imposition from those with high influence is but one factor in a social nexus that involves the activities of figurations with less influence such as employees, who are more reliant on negotiation rather than force.

What is clear from Foucault is that the increased use of prisons, as opposed to torture and capital punishment, has accompanied the rise to positions of influence of business-oriented figurations. However, in doing so he gave insufficient weight to the way these commercially oriented networks of people function with a much higher level of social interdependence where the use of violence is, in other than legally prescribed situations, much more unacceptable: to be successful in such networks you must be skilled in exercising self-control. A good example of the importance of interdependence is the threat posed to the dominance of business-orientated groups by striking employees. Nowadays in Britain such acts of resistance will only be met with violence on very rare occasions: the last event of note in this respect was the suppression of the views and actions of militant figurations of miners headed by Arthur Scargill during the 1980s, who decided to confront a new bout of government authoritarianism inspired by a revival of the 18^th and 19^th century market economic idealism. This process of realignment was already moving ahead in the USA with the election of Ronald Reagan who headed groups committed to a strident reaffirmation of American dominance after the defeat in Vietnam. In Britain a similar campaign was waged by figurations which had as their speaker Margaret Thatcher. Whatever the reasons for the emergence of the new-found self confidence backed by a revitalised market economic model associated with the likes of Friedman, it is usually the case that resistance in contemporary Britain has to be managed, not put down violently. I think it is fair to say that these less authoritarian styles of governing are connected to the changes mentioned above that allowed Hume to publish his work.