Is this “stasist” and “dynamist” terminology serious? Is this from some sociology or pop poli sci? I guess this is not supposed to be class analysis, though.
As I say, the terms come from Virginia Postrel, who is indeed doing a sort of pop history of ideas and definitely not doing class analysis. They can be plugged into such analysis, potentially, though. I would associate dynamism with the promethean spirit of the bourgeoisie as described by Marx in the manifesto. If you read Lasch’s “The True and Only Heaven,” he associates stasism (although he doesn’t use that term) with the petty bourgeoisie. Technocracy is essentially understandable as the ethos of the professional managerial class. Etc. Possibly Postrel’s terminology is too mystifying to be particularly useful for this in the end, possibly not—a good topic for a future post, perhaps.
Is this “stasist” and “dynamist” terminology serious? Is this from some sociology or pop poli sci? I guess this is not supposed to be class analysis, though.
As I say, the terms come from Virginia Postrel, who is indeed doing a sort of pop history of ideas and definitely not doing class analysis. They can be plugged into such analysis, potentially, though. I would associate dynamism with the promethean spirit of the bourgeoisie as described by Marx in the manifesto. If you read Lasch’s “The True and Only Heaven,” he associates stasism (although he doesn’t use that term) with the petty bourgeoisie. Technocracy is essentially understandable as the ethos of the professional managerial class. Etc. Possibly Postrel’s terminology is too mystifying to be particularly useful for this in the end, possibly not—a good topic for a future post, perhaps.
George Sorel, cited favorably by Lasch, is another example of a leftism against Progress.
Too mystifying, absolutely. The semantic force required to twist these pegs into class holes would damage both the pegs and the holes.