The relentless rise of modern inequality is widely appreciated to have taken on crisis dimensions, and in moments of crisis, the public, politicians and academics alike look to historical analogies for guidance.
Trevor Jackson (2023). The new history of old inequality. Past & Present, 259(1): 262–289 (https://doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtac009)
I
I have bolded the preceding phrase because its insight is major: The search for analogies from the past for the present is especially acute in turbulent times.
The problem–which is also a matter of historical record–is when the analogy misleads. Jackson, by way of illustrating the point, provides ample evidence to question the commonplace that the US is presently in “the Second (New) Gilded Age,” with rising inequality, populism and corruption last seen in the final quarter of our 19th century.
II
Even were we to have a more apposite analogy from the past for present national trends, we are still stuck with the fallacy of composition: Just because a tree is shady does not mean each leaf is shady. Not all of the country was going through the Gilded Age, even when underway. And doubtless parts of the country are now going through a Second Gilded Age, even if not nationally.
The upshot is that we must press the advocates of this or that analogy to go further. The burden of proof is on the advocates to demonstrate their generalizations hold regardless of the more granular exceptions.
Why would they concede exceptions? Because we, their interlocutors, know empirically that micro and macro can be loosely-coupled, and most certainly not as tightly coupled as theory and ideology often have it. Broad analogies untethered from granular counter-cases float unhelpfully above policy and management.
III
A fairly uncontroversial upshot, I should have thought, but let’s make the matter harder for us.
The same day I read Jackson’s article, I can across the following analogy for current events. Asked if there were any parallels to the Roman Empire, Edward Luttwak, a scholar on international, military and grand strategy, offered this:
Well, here is one parallel: after 378 years of success, Rome, which was surrounded by barbarians, slowly started admitting them until it completely changed society and the whole thing collapsed. I am sure you know that the so-called barbarian invasions were, in fact, illegal migrations. These barbarians were pressing against the border. They wanted to come into the Empire because the Romans had facilities like roads and waterworks. They knew that life in the Roman Empire was great. Some of these barbarians were “asylum seekers,” like the Goths who crossed the Danube while fleeing the Huns.
https://im1776.com/2023/10/04/edward-luttwak-interview/?ref=thebrowser.com&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Of course, some read this as inflammatory and go no further. Others of course dismiss this outright as racist, adding the ad hominem “Just look who and where publishing this stuff!”
But, following on the earlier point, the method to adopt would be to press Luttwak for definitions and examples, including most importantly counter-cases. Right?
WHEN COMPLEX IS AS SIMPLE AS IT GETS 