Social Paradoxes and Meta-Problems
The Hard Facts about Conflicting Truths
“From the Greek para, against or counter to, and doxa, opinion or belief, a paradox is an idea that contradicts a more generally accepted idea, on purpose.” — The Paradox of Knowledge and Power, Keenan (1987)
“Social paradox is a pervasive, continuing dilemma between incompatible yet interdependent activities (i.e. between regulators and the regulated). This goes beyond the usual ideas of conflict or game theory… social paradox forms a “wicked” class of challenges that cannot be finally solved — “at best they are resolved, over and over again.”” — Towards a Concept of Normative Incrementalism, Pava (1981)
I would like to introduce the concept of a “social paradox” to address the current intractability of political discourse and social progress. To many, this will be entirely new, although there is some precedent. I contend that many of the pressing social issues of our day seem irresolveable because of their paradoxical nature.
Social paradoxes are a meta- problem, requiring a meta-(modern) solution. The timing of the emergence of awareness of socio-paradoxical meta-problems, as defined by the Club of Rome’s distillation of the global problematique in the 70's, coincides with Zavarzadeh’s literary metamodernism developed in 1975, but metamodernism never really took off until our present century. This article outlines the concept of “social paradox” and reviews a resolution framework called “normative incrementalism,” from research based on the Club of Rome’s declarations and plans, then I offer up more commentary and a plea to reach a new consensus for collective action.
So you have some idea of the complexity we are dealing with here, behold, the Wheel of Humankind, in which everything is connected to everything:
Social Paradoxes
A social paradox is very different from traditional mathematical and philosophical paradoxes. Paradoxes in logic and physics tend to occupy most of our awareness of them, while the social variety are unseen altogether. They make for interesting thought experiments, but scarcely help us understand the social world any better. On the wikipedia list of paradoxes there are 256 paradoxes listed on the page, only 11 of which are for psychology and sociology combined. Moreover, few of those 11 apply in the unique sense which I mean.
To give the broadest concrete example possible, the United States is founded on a social paradox. It is not founded simply on Enlightenment principles, nor is it founded on the barbaric chattel slavery and the genocide of indigenous peoples, but rather both worldviews and practices are irrevocably linked to the identity and destiny of America. Naturally, the latter is repressed because it is evil, and the former is elevated because it is providential, but the contradictions are married in an unholy alliance. Thus, the United States embodies a macro- social paradox.
There is no way around it (only through it), yet most political division or academic debate falls victim to bias or myopia in one way or another. This polarization can be reduced with more abstraction, as I’ve written in Abstraction Will Make You More Politically Moderate. We become trapped in a discourse that has been whitewashed and sanitized (literally abstracted too) for consumption, because its easier than dealing with the complexity of the root paradox. This makes any kind of moral, civil, or even intellectual progress exceptionally slow.
Truth be told, you cannot do good research unless you at least confront the paradox first. For example, there is the mainstream history the US taught itself, and then there is Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. Zinn attempts to reconcile the paradox, by telling the other side of the story. After all, “you can’t be neutral on a moving train,” he says. Failure to acknowledge these social paradoxes in some way will result in reproducing errors and fictions that keep the political discourse gridlocked.
The way in which social paradox applies to mass politics even got its own book in The Paradox of Mass Politics: Knowledge and Opinion in the American Electorate. Democracy is by nature paradoxical, as it is the best form of government (non-democracies certainly don’t last), but also direct democracy results in a ‘tyranny of the majority.’ This is accentuated by the paradoxical presence of anti-intellectualism; the US is perhaps at once the smartest and dumbest country in the world. As the author puts it;
“Public ignorance and apathy seem to be the enduring legacy of twenty-five hundred years of political evolution. This is the paradox of mass politics.” —The Paradox of Mass Politics, Neuman (1986)
This paradox of mass politics is not just a problem of electorates. Neuman reveals that the problem is academic as well, as scholars argue over competing perspectives instead of reconciling them. Moreover, the lack of knowledge and interest in public affairs is as much a failure of ‘public sociology’ to educate the masses. Not even experts are exempt, who routinely fail to ascertain the meta-problem, and advocate policies that create more problems than they fix. The paradox of mass politics is akin to the concept of democratic deficit, coined in 1977 to refer to inefficient EU politics. Neuman’s book attempts several theories to resolve this paradox, defined as:
“The paradox of mass politics is the gap between the expectation of an informed citizenry put forward by democratic theory and the discomforting reality revealed by systematic survey interviewing.” — The Paradox of Mass Politics, Neuman (1986)
If there are any doubts as to the metamodernicity of social paradoxes, Neuman closes his introduction with the statement, “Not surprisingly, the answer lies in between.” It is in the rapid oscillation, like the flickering lines of a TV screen, between theories that helps to materialize an image of the problem, so that we may see it clearly and resolve it.
At an even more abstract level, capitalism itself is paradoxical. This is the foundation of Marxist analysis. The basic paradox is that capitalism creates enormous wealth, but it concentrates into oligopolies and monopolies, to the extent that it undermines that very wealth production it relied on. A corollate paradox is that capitalism produces social polarizations that tend to mask, distort, and obscure the first paradox. In other words, the second paradox is in how capitalism creates and normalizes a culture of lying to itself. Marx calls these the ‘contradictions of capitalism.’ This is its inherent instability, which leads to vicious cycles and revolutions. Free market fundamentalists are in total denial of the paradox. This is why I call for meta-Marxism.
In the way that Sigmund Freud looked at paradoxes in individual psychology, Thorstein Veblen considered paradoxes on the social level too. One of Veblen’s key observations is the concept of ‘conspicuous consumption,’ (where people show off their wealth in lavish purchases) to which this is related. According to Alan W. Dyer, Veblen’s ‘theory of habit’ explains another “existence of social paradox”:
“The fundamental paradox in capitalist economies, according to Veblen, is the coexistence of wasteful displays of monetary prowess and a highly developed concern for industrial efficiency.” — The Habit of Work: A Theoretical Exploration, Dyre (1984)
There are countless examples of how capitalism is paradoxical. r/LateStageCapitalism hosts the ever-growing collection of memes that document this fact. No doubt, the concept of social paradoxes is expansive enough to subsume conflicts around gender, race, religion, or nationalism as well. For now, we are mostly trying to theorize it abstractly — to reintroduce this concept to the world. But nothing is perhaps more divisive and misunderstood right now than identity politics, so it is worth a mention.
The fundamental paradox of identity politics is that there are generally only negative reasons to unite on the basis of exclusive group identity (especially when it comes to race), however in the case of resisting targeted oppression based on identity, such as in anti-semitism (see The Paradox of Anti-Semitism), or the discrimination and oppression of African Americans, the resilience of the group identity is paramount. The initial oppression is both overt and coded and hidden, and the response goes both ways too. Calls of hypocrisy go in both directions, and few can see the meta-context; hence the intrinsic antagonism in any kind of identity politics.
The root of the paradox of identity politics lies in the double-fact that ethnicity has genetic correlates but race is a social construct that becomes reified. To be clear, race may be considered a “social fact,” which is very different than a scientific fact. (Social fact comes from Durkheim, and refers to values, norms, or beliefs of a culture that affect the behavior of the individual.) Therefore we can make determinations for medical diagnoses and treatments based on ethnicity (racial appearance/ genetic features), but we can not make discriminations based on identity and appearance (such as profiling). Race has no physical basis, but the social paradox makes racism appeal to many people nonetheless.
Other social paradoxes could include how nation-states are made-up but we pretend they are real, until they inevitably change. How people buy guns to feel safer, but it actually increases the risk of death and crime. Many catholic priests may mostly lead noble lives, but also be pedophiles, which is inexcusable. Some anti-fascists resort to using fascist techniques, thereby undermining their own cause and emboldening the prevalence of invisible, paradoxical, “friendly fascism” (Wolin). These are contradictions that can’t be reconciled, though people may try by compromising or satisficing; properly defined paradoxes can only be transcended. These paradoxes are postmodern problems, often exacerbated by postmodern solutions.
The above list really covers a lot of relatable and obvious contradictions of society, somewhat hidden in plain sight. Even better, this list of government and political oxymorons really nail the essence of ‘social paradoxes.’ My favorite is “just war.” Another good one to add might be ‘well-regulated militia.’ Bit by bit, a concept that you probably have never heard of — social paradoxes — really starts to seem quite ubiquitous, doesn’t it?
I can’t stress enough on this blog how all these meta- problems are a function of both the lack of abstract education and critical thinking, and the negative role of abstraction as a socio-material process. It is intimately tied up with the problem/solution of abstraction, as discussed in articles on water, thinking, society and alienation, racism, anti-intellectualism, political polarization, globalization, AI, Benjamin Bratton’s geopolitical “Stack,” and Jordan Peterson’s Maps of Meaning. In a meta- frame, we can actually start to see the problematique crystallize, and the meta- solutions begin to emerge.
Resolving Social Paradoxes through Normative Incrementalism
How and why do these social paradoxes manifest? Perspectives will always be different between competing parties. Attempts to solve problems at one level create problems at another level. Analyses through one framework leave out vital insights from another. Being forced by a social paradox seems unavoidable, but we collectively just need the right conceptual tools to overcome it. In order to definitively solve social problems, it is not a matter of problem solving, but of paradox resolution. We must understand the meta-problem to develop the meta-solution.
There are actually scant and disparate sources on the ideal type of ‘social paradox’ explicitly — no real textbook or treatise on the subject — but rather it is just implicit in many other works. Googling it returns no exact matches except that in November 2017 London had an art exhibition titled “The Social Paradox” which highlighted the paradoxical and counterproductive dependency on social media and technology. Paradoxically, technology brings us together while also driving us apart. This, of course, reflects (or mirrors) the striking metamodern sci-fi show Black Mirror.
The primary source my digging eventually turned up was Calvin Pava’s unpublished 1979 dissertation proposal was titled “Towards a Concept of Social Paradox.” Pava’s later PhD dissertation was published as “Towards a Concept of Normative Incrementalism” (1981) which is his answer to the problem of social paradoxes. In his first chapter, he provides a comprehensive definition of “social paradox”:
“Simultaneous need for different orientations while participating in the same extended system raises unavoidable contradiction, or social paradox (Pava, 1978). Social paradox is pervasive, continuing dilemma between incompatible yet interdependent activities (i.e. between regulators and the regulated). This goes beyond the usual ideas of conflict or game theory; both of these are based upon a notion of “outcome,” an actual or potential termination point, when different payoffs acrue to each player. Social paradox cannot have a frozen outcome state in which one orientation comes to dominate finally. There must be continued interplay. Otherwise diversity (and hence redundancy) necessary for the entire extended systems decays. Thus, social paradox forms a “wicked” class of challenges that cannot be finally solved — “at best they are resolved, over and over again.” (Rittel and Weber, 1974, p. 224).” — Towards a Concept of Normative Incrementalism, Pava (1981)
Social paradox is thus a ‘pervasive, unavoidable contradiction, with indeterminate consequences, and continued interdependence (a perpetual impasse).’ Let us consider how this definition fits with my examples of the American empire or the nature of capitalism. I’d say it perfectly describes the precarious explosion of “progress” in the last two centuries. There seems to be an inevitable compulsion to committing mistakes on a mass scale. In retrospect, we should be appalled at the atrocities committed, but they all seemed rational at the time, didn’t they? The difference now is metamodernism; the prospect of actually being able to reverse the meta-problem. The paragraph immediately following is worth quoting in full too for its topical relevance;
“In an era of turbulence, the disparity of orientations and the interdependence encompassed by extended social systems both grow. Increasing specialization and the prevailing tradition of solitary organizations encourages greater differentiation and separation between each orientation in the social field. This makes participation in extended functional systems increasingly obscure to all involved parties; the illusion of “us against the world” becomes more and more compelling. At the same time, interdependencies actually increase amid societal turbulence. Extended functional systems therefore become increasingly important, even though they’re more easily forgotten than ever.
Heightened interdependency and greater fragmentation arising from turbulence make social paradox increasingly untenable. It becomes a growing source of pertubation, giving rise to more and more outbreaks of specific conflicts and resulting adversity.” — Towards a Concept of Normative Incrementalism, Pava (1981)
Pava’s insights are crucially predictive. As virtually everyone senses, we seem to be in peak “turbulence” and chaos now. The social paradox has deepened as we approach the event horizon of overcoming it. The corrupt are more empowered, and the news cycle is increasingly frustrating and compromised. #FakeNews is actually a bi-partisan issue. There’s the one thing we can all agree on: disagreement. And the overdependence on “specialization” has also led to a complete dearth of expertise on ‘generalization,’ which is why I brand The Abs-Tract Organization as practicing more nomothetic rather than ideographic theory.
According to Pava, the “increasingly obscure” options to participate in the system makes the ‘us vs. them’ mentality ever more salient. Finally, the deepening of the social paradox creates “more and more outbreaks” of conflicts and adversity, with no authoritative explanations. Mass shootings are a prime example, but that’s a topic for another article. I will now parse bits of Pava’s very long abstract, to discuss the framework to resolve social paradoxes;
“The growing emergence of problematiques — complex, ill-structured problems — requires active systems adaptation through normative change. This necessitates collaboration among heterogenous parties, who must come to jointly will a different future.” — Towards a Concept of Normative Incrementalism, Pava (1981)
Pava’s language here is incisive: conflictual parties must agree to solve their collective problem. And the word ‘problematique’ is used in the specific sense in which it was introduced by Hasan Ozbekhan, a social systems scientist and one of the original authors of the Club of Rome document “The Predicament of Mankind; Quest for Structured Responses to Growing World-wide Complexities and Uncertainties: A PROPOSAL” A “problematique” is like a complex set of interconnected problems. In that report, they outline 49 “Continuous Critical Problems” (essentially meta-problems) which they collectively call the problematique. Below is an updated version from another of the original authors, Alexander N. Christakis.
It is a matter beyond normal game theory, as they state explicitly. These are the sorts of social paradoxes Pava is referring to. He continues;
“But the ascendence of problematiques also makes such cooperation less likely. There are increasing rates of change with more complex and subtle interdependencies. Under these conditions groups that participate in extended social systems are likely to become divergent factions; parties amid intense social paradox that simultaneously demands both high differentiation and high integration.” — Towards a Concept of Normative Incrementalism, Pava (1981)
The problematique is getting more complex and thus harder to solve. The social paradox pushes and pulls group behavior in different directions. This is very similar to Gregory Bateson’s concept of a double bind, from Steps to an Ecology of Mind, but on a macro social scale. A double bind is a sort of a meta-dilemma; not only are there two conflicting demands, but the problem itself is mystified so as to be irresovable. With subtle coercion, the double-bind can be used as a social control, like a weaponized confusion.
“Divergent factions are most likely to need the integrative benefits of active systems adaptation through normative change. At the same time the social fabric between them is so deeply torn that they are least likely to attempt such change.” — Towards a Concept of Normative Incrementalism, Pava (1981)
The more polarized the disagreement, the more intransigent the parties are — and quite possibly not of their own accord, on account of being controlled by other groups. Now let’s talk some real world examples. The Israel-Palestine conflict is just such an intractable and irascible clusterfuck, where the better (more ambitious, more abstract) the solution offered, the less likely it is to be adopted. The paradox deepens, like trying to pull out a barbed arrow from one’s torso, or trying to pull up your legs in quicksand. Similarly, US politics has eschewed all meta-normative systems change in order to keep fighting in a power struggle, all the while powerful special interests play both sides and invest in political reality distortion fields.
“This thesis develops one concept of systems intervention that can work under these extreme conditions, called normative incrementalism… Normative incrementalism is a process by which divergent factions can undertake active systems adaptation via normative change. — Towards a Concept of Normative Incrementalism, Pava (1981)
On the face of it, this approach is similar to a proposed metamodern policy solution I reviewed called SIMPOL, in which governments and electorates around the world support the adoption of “simultaneous policy.” And in keeping with both concepts, they are designed to be open and mutually beneficial. All these movements of positive globalist conscientiousness dovetail with each other, such as H.G. Wells proposal for an “Open Conspiracy,” which I explore in the theory of systemic-conspiracy.
The process of normative incrementalism has three parts to it: 1) open change/vision, 2) joint decentralized action towards a theme, 3) a feedback mechanism to inform collective progress. Wait, but if the Club of Rome and others have been implementing these ideas since before and after the 70s, what do we have to show for it? This sounds a lot like the liberal globalist agenda, which is failing. It is failing because the social paradoxes have been winning. Globalization still plays out as competition over cooperation, and this is the fundamental mistake.
I contend that we can see the seeds of metamodernism planted in the 70s, but that the fruits of it are only just becoming available now. We are planning for that near future, for the harvest. It may take a fresh perspective and renewal of these old ideas for today’s challenges, which is what I’m attempting to do.
“Normative incrementalism appears to be disorderly. Action is taken before people know what they are doing. Components of the process do not strictly follow stepwise order. But the outcome of this non-synoptic process can be reasonable adaptive change.”
“General boundary conditions constraining the suitability of any particular planning method are proposed. This leads to a contingency view of planning, in which different types of planning are appropriate for different sorts of conditions. Normative incrementalism is found to be indicative of many new approaches involving non-synoptic system change. This is an emerging family of planning methods, heretofore overlooked. They stress disorderly, or non-synoptic, strategies of change that tend to yield reasonable change between divergent factions amid high social paradox. They complement other methods of planning systems change, which suit other boundary conditions.” — Towards a Concept of Normative Incrementalism, Pava (1981)
His entire dissertation is a goldmine of these articulate problem solving schemas, and still I have to wonder if we can do better. Now, to break up the monotony of this text, I will interject with some of what we might call #abstractionporn. Deep in the pages of Pava’s work, this “planning process” chart is borrowed from from Ozbekhan’s The Future of Paris: A Systems Study in Strategic Urban Planning, which I will spend absolutely no time discussing here, because it is just too complex. Point being, is we need more abstractions like this, and the resources to produce them. And they need to be real-time, living adaptive schemas.
“The findings from this inquiry demonstrate that no significant progress had been made in terms of resolving the root causes of the Problematique in the ensuing twenty-three years, i.e., 1970–1993” — Retrospective
As interesting as images like this are, there is something sterile about it. Society has become increasingly abstract, as has been predicted, but our own intellectual (and more importantly, public) abstraction has not risen to match it. Pava’s dissertation has more images like this, as does the work of the Club of Rome in general, but we need to do better to normalize the normative perspective. And as the above quote suggests, progress is not being made on the meta-problem.
These complex plans for global solutions actually invoke the fear of conspiracy in many people, negatively informing anti-globalization movements, thereby constituting yet another social paradox! The Abs-Tract Organization wants to fill that void.
The Abstraction of Paradoxes
We are scarcely closer to (re-)solving social paradoxes yet. For starters, knowledge about social paradoxes and meta-problems needs to be part of all curricula. Every human being on the planet should have some component of a ‘world-citizen’ education that would be based around this meta-knowledge. Simultaneously, think tanks and media should be coalescing around ‘normative incrementalism’ to resolve their own social paradoxes, and to engage in a disclosure of public sociology. Instead we see today in the media different sides (re-)producing exactly the same type of errors Pava described in his 1981 dissertation. And I’ve barely scratched the surface on ‘social paradox’ research.
“Veblen’s strategy for analyzing social paradox was to develop a theory of habit and then demonstrate how habits led to social paradox.” — The Habit of Work: A Theoretical Exploration, Dyre (1984)
That the US has bad habits is an understatement; the habits of fetishizing guns, of conspicuous consumption, of rent-seeking practices, of partisanship, etc… If we could interrupt our bad habits, we’d be a step closer to resolving social paradox. It has much to do with how people interpret signs, as Dyre’s work on Veblen shows;
“[This] article then shows that the organization of behavior through signs is inherently ambiguous and, therefore, a potential source of social paradox… Sign theory closes the theoretical lacuna in Veblen’s analysis because it explains the social paradox by the ambiguous nature of sign behavior.”— The Habit of Work: A Theoretical Exploration, Dyre (1984)
This is somewhat reminiscent of #TheDress controversy; The Science of Why No One Agrees on the Color of This Dress. Like everyone, I was befuddled at first. But I found that if I stared at it long enough, I was able to switch my brain back and forth to see either set of colors. Even though the answer had been provided, that the dress was indeed blue and black, I was able to see it as white and gold as well. In this way, I could understand how and why my perception was deceived but could alternate between frames if the truth was explained.
When it comes to signalling in politics, this ambiguity of signs is at the crux of public ignorance and the paradox of mass politics. It turns out that people don’t really know, or care, what liberal or conservative really means, but that they effectively align “in terms of narrow group self-interest, such as whether a particular candidate favors business or labor…” As the postmodern simulation of politics has come to replace the real, politicians and academics are increasingly trafficking in empty metaphors, at the expense of the public’s decision-making integrity. It is a problem of abstraction, as Neuman writes;
“Although there is general agreement on the cliches of democratic practice, the meaning of these abstractions is not entirely clear to large portions of the electorate… The generally held belief among elites that the public understands political abstractions is an optical illusion, generated by the fact that the elite stratum is consumed in political conversation with itself and only rarely has occassion to discuss politics with the apolitical mass citizenry.” — The Paradox of Mass Politics, Neuman (1986)
Individuals don’t just have biases or preferences, I think we are naturally ‘drawn’ away from a nuanced solution to a more polarized view. We are prone to take sides. Returning to the question of education, pedagogy itself has failed to incorporate its own awareness of social paradox. Again, we possess the truth about it, but can hardly apply it because the nature of social paradox keeps us locked in path dependence with counterproductive effects. As Epstein affirms, education has normatively had a ‘levelling’ purpose to ensure equality of opportunity, yet it manages to reproduce massive knowledge inequality.
“Americans are the most ‘schooled’ people in the world; yet scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test have generally declined over the last 20 years and American students do poorly in international scholastic comparison.” — Social Paradoxes of American Education, Epstein (1992)
This problem is nested in even more dangerous assumptions and blind spots in economic theory. On account of the free market not factoring in concerns of social welfare, there are no incentives to participate in a civil economy (as opposed to private).
“I believe it is time to re-examine that very foundation of economic theory according to which rational economic man is conceived as a calculating self-interested maximizer.” — Social Paradoxes of Growth and Civil Economy, Zamagni et al., 1999
Everyone has to admit that they are trapped in the social paradox. All “sides” are wrong, because geopolitical reality is multifaceted and we are all bound by social paradoxes. We are already achieving “piecemeal progress” globally but it is not keeping pace with technology (or educational development, or social theory), and that was the original concern of the Club of Rome.
For lack of space, I will list some honorable mentions that I did not include: The Paradoxes of Civil Society, Alexander (1997), The Paradoxes of Globalisation, Milliot and Tournois (2010), and Paradoxes of Modernization: Unintended Consequences of Public Policy Reform, Margetts and Hood (2010). In a review of the latter, Colin Knox reiterates their research question, asking;
“…why, after two centuries of modern social science can planned, rational, evidence based public policy interventions result in surprise and paradox?” — Knox (2011)
Why indeed. It is increasingly obvious as you look at the problem from multiple planes of abstraction. Out behaviour patterns and habits may look fine to us, but these are entangled in complex systems that are as ignorant as they are self-serving.
US history is ennobled because it has escaped conviction from its own dark past, and this paradox continues to unleash inexplicable fury on its own people and social systems. In my view, the United States would require at least two Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to resolve its own social paradoxes. One for slavery and the war-on-drugs combined, and one for the genocide of indigenous peoples.
Arguably a third commission on US neo-colonialism/neo-imperialism is in order as well. These three macro social paradoxes intersect in one hell of a meta-problem that hangs over the heads of US elites like the Sword of Damocles. It is not just a matter of past justice, but for posterity; for avoiding future paradoxes.
The most glaring grand social paradox of recent history was the historic 2016 election. A false dilemma was forced between two corrupt and decadent political parties, where the leading candidates couldn’t have been more polarized and divorced from each other and the actual deep issues. This is history repeating itself over and over again, and in keeping with the definition of social paradox, escalating, deepening the crisis. We need to be headed in the other direction in order to (re-)solve it. Everyone should be engaged in normative incrementalism.
The Abs-Tract Organization is a meta- think tank for solving the meta-problem, highlighting the utility of abstraction as a critical perspective and knowledge representation framework.
If you appreciate the work we do, please support us on Patreon for $1.
To learn more about us, read our blog, converse on twitter @tato_tweets, and read our Business Plan and White Paper at http://www.abs-tract.org
