Governments for the Quadras

[Expat]

Obviously, that is assuming that nothing "turns the clock back". A Delta "state of small-town prosperity" can easily revert to an "Alpha state of claiming for Beta government" under certain external circumstances.

A Gamma state of "making an existing government work" can easily be thrown off-balance by situations that invalidate the working of that system, and then Beta is needed to implement another system.

An Alpha pre-state situation can endure forever if there is already, due to some reason, a state of material satisfaction, which does not require the "demand for Beta".

In fact, each of those systems can endure "forever" depending on the circumstances, but I would argue that the "natural" and peaceful evolution is, obviously, Alpha ->Beta -> Gamma-> Delta.

[Expat]

A historical example is given by the Afrikaner nation in South Africa.

I would argue that the extremely loose society of the Afrikaners or Boers in the 19th century, in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, had reached a Delta state. Those two republics were characterized by very weak central government and based on independent-minded, self-sustaining farms - maybe similar to the Amish today.

The Boer War in the beginning of the 20th century - by which the British Empire annexed those two Boer republics and created the Union of South Africa, the predecessor to today's South Africa - totally destroyed that Delta society, by obliterating that economy (perhaps worse than the Old South in the US after the Civil War).

As far as the Boers - or Afrikaners - were concerned, they were thrown into an Alpha pre-state situation, since the new government was seen to serve the interests of the English-speaking economic elite.

That is what led - eventually - to the rise of power of the Beta National Party in 1948. Delta to Alpha to Beta.

[Logos]

I do not buy into such a teleological view of quadras and governments. It suffers from similar arguments as the the "idea production" assembly-line argumentation with quadras.

[Expat]

I do not buy into such a teleological view of quadras and governments. It suffers from similar arguments as the the "idea production" assembly-line argumentation with quadras.

Regard it as mental masturbation then .

[Logos]

Regard it as mental masturbation then .

That sounds like non-productive Alpha materials then, and we can't have any of that.

[Expat]

I do not buy into such a teleological view of quadras and governments. It suffers from similar arguments as the the "idea production" assembly-line argumentation with quadras.

That sounds like non-productive Alpha materials then, and we can't have any of that.

I think the problem is that you invalidate those views by applying them to specific individuals. Of course, regarding the "idea production assembly-line", you don't have to be an Alpha to be in the role of generating ideas. However, this is an argument pretty much in line with "any individual can use all functions" which means "anyone can do anything". That is totally true; yet it doesn't invalidate socionics generally.

Likewise, regardless of the types of the individuals involved, I think that the assembly-line thing is useful to understand the information elements involved. And if you look at societies, or governments, that are clearly of one quadra, I think it is clear how the quadra values go together. For instance, in Beta societies, a sense of collective organization for exercising power goes together with a sense of "higher spirituality" and "mission". And so on and so forth.

[Expat]

As far as US history is concerned, I can make a case for this.

As Diana suggested in a now-defunct predecessor of the workshop, Thomas Jefferson was EII rather than LII. His vision of the United States was of a loose union of Delta-ish societies and economies like his own Virginia. However, the vision of the Gammas George Washington (ESI) and Alexander Hamilton (LIE) prevailed. Rather than a loose Delta governmental structure, the US became a more Gamma structure, adapted from the still-Beta-ish British constitutional monarchy of the time (which was actually Beta/Gamma).

Ironically, however, it was left to the EII Abraham Lincoln to totally eliminate the idea of a Delta US, with the Civil War - which, I would argue, could be seen as a Gamma/Delta conflict.

That is not to say that Delta was typically pro-slavery. I think they saw slavery as part of the + - as a tool to keep the existing economic prosperity. Slaves were not included in the +. They "did not count". Pretty much like they did not count for the slave-owner, EII Thomas Jefferson when he wrote about the "self-evident truths".

[anndelise]

I really don't like political talks, but this just really got my goat (bolded emphasis mine):

That is not to say that Delta was typically pro-slavery. I think they saw slavery as part of the + - as a tool to keep the existing economic prosperity. Slaves were not included in the +. They "did not count". Pretty much like they did not count for the slave-owner, EII Thomas Jefferson when he wrote about the "self-evident truths".

Even if deltans adopted the cultural perspective that slaves were animals and not human, I sincerely doubt that that would have negated slaves from being included in Ne+Fi. How many Ne+Fi exclude Ne + Fi for animals? Do work horses not have rights and feelings as well? Are dogs just used as tools for hunting or guarding and not as companions nor friends? Cats are only good for catching mice or for fur coats I guess. And we certainly never find Ne+Fi fighting for the rights of endangered species, victims of animal abuse, etc. That Ne+Fi is reserved only for criminals and prisoners since they are 'human' and not 'animals' right?

a friend of mine who was listening to me rant and rave about the 'stupid' comment above said:

NF is going to be primarily concerned with affect regardless of whether it's human or animal ... I mean, it's the F-types that are most likely to be accused of anthropomorphizing (treating animals as if they were human)

I agree.

I sincerely doubt that Ne+Fi nor the delta quadra has changed so dramatically in such a short time (during civil war as it was happening) and all across the globe at the very same time as one country's war.

Unless of course delta wouldn't have been interested nor encouraging, nor even taking action in the underground railroad. After all, supposedly, Ne+Fi would have viewed these 'animals' as unworthy of Ne+Fi. Or maybe these people who care about animal rights, fighting animal cruelty, fighting animal enslavement, etc aren't really Ne+Fi .

[Expat]

anndelise's post is a classical example of straw man argument. She addresses a point I neither made nor implied - her point is all in her misinterpretation of what I said. My arguments obviously went way above her head, and she can only address her emotional and erroneous reading-between-the-lines of what I wrote, rather than what I did write.

And, if my record of past interactions with her is any indication, no clarification that I make now will make any difference; and her reaction will be to stick to her misinterpretations, no matter what I say now.

Still, for the sake of those who might be interested.

My propositions were that in its historical context, the pre-Civil War American South was Delta. I further suggested that Thomas Jefferson's own views of the Republic were Delta.

However, precisely because I know that the first thing that comes to the mind of many people whenever the Old South (although not, bizarrely, Jefferson's and Washington's Virginia) is mentioned is "slavery", I thought I might address the issue head-on when I said

That is not to say that Delta was typically pro-slavery

So, my point was precisely that the Old South's Delta-ness was so despite its slavery-based economy and society - not because of it.

(I have also said, here and elsewhere, that ancient Rome was mainly Gamma, and guess what, it was a slavery-based society. Neither did I mean then that it has slaves because it was Gamma. I also said that medieval Germany, who had slaves as well as serfs, was Delta. The same goes for that. And so on and so forth.)

I then said this:

Slaves were not included in the +. They "did not count". Pretty much like they did not count for the slave-owner, EII Thomas Jefferson when he wrote about the "self-evident truths".

Well, what a surprise. Do I have to teach American folks their own history?

Thomas Jefferson was a slave-owner. He did not even free all of his slaves when he died, unlike Washington (because he could not afford to). Yet he did write the stuff about "all men being created equal" and "life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness". That means that either he was a totally cynical hypocrite - as were, then, most of the other guys who signed their names under those words - or that, somehow, in their minds, slaves "did not count" when making that case for independence. That is painfully obvious.

How does it follow that pointing out the above means that I said or implied that they thought that "slaves were animals" or even that they should not be treated humanely? Simply: it doesn't.

But, if someone - or a whole society - talks, presumably sincerely, about "all men created equal" - while having slaves, then, to use Jefferson's phrase, it is "self-evident" that slaves did not count for that reasoning - and so having no effect on the Delta-ness either way. And that has nothing to do, necessarily, with how well they were treated on a daily basis.

That was all that there was about my point.

Having said that: Jefferson's views on slavery, and blacks (and Native Americans, etc etc) were complex and sometimes contradictory; but he wrote at length about them. He wrote at length about pretty much everything.

I can't make it clearer, so I won't bother clarifying it further to those who are too thick to get it.

[unefille]

Rather than a loose Delta governmental structure, the US became a more Gamma structure, adapted from the still-Beta-ish British constitutional monarchy of the time (which was actually Beta/Gamma).

This has all been very interesting to read, Expat. Thank you.

I just have another question for you - would you say the political structure of contemporary Britain is still Beta-esque, or has it moved on? I have seen suggested (I don't remember where) that the British Empire was Delta/LSE. Not doubt that there were Delta elements, particularly in the colonies, once they were established, but I don't think the Empire itself was Delta. What would your thoughts on this be?

[Expat]

This has all been very interesting to read, Expat. Thank you.

My pleasure

I just have another question for you - would you say the political structure of contemporary Britain is still Beta-esque, or has it moved on? I have seen suggested (I don't remember where) that the British Empire was Delta/LSE. Not doubt that there were Delta elements, particularly in the colonies, once they were established, but I don't think the Empire itself was Delta. What would your thoughts on this be?

No, I think that Britain is Gamma.

Monarchies, as institutions, are essentially Beta. But Britain, as a culture/economy/society, made a large step towards Gamma-ization in the reign of Elizabeth I. The monarchy remained more or less stubbornly Beta-ish, but it made large steps towards Gamma-adaption in 1688 and 1715. The political system consolidated the transition to Gamma in Victoria's reign.

Today, the British political system is essentially Gamma, with one or two Beta "relics" and some early signs of Delta-ization.

Regarding the British Empire: a very interesting book about it is Empire by the LIE Niall Ferguson. It describes the Gamma character of the British Empire as it was being "built". Essentially a period of economic expansion, and of creating the conditions for it.

However, in its latest stages - I would say up to WWII - the British Empire assumed largely Delta characteristics, as was the original concept of the Commonwealth (it may be just a coincidence, but interestingly enough, the two monarchs of the period were Deltas, George V (LSE) and George VI (EII)).

The later British Empire (so not the "early version" that included the US) was created out of business initiatives by individuals and individual companies. A large part of its expansion in Africa was due to one man, the LIE Cecil John Rhodes. Simply put, the British Empire was a consequence of British businesses' push for oppportunities for making money, not just through stereotypical "exploitation" but by investment. In order for it to work, they had to push for the Gamma-ization of the colonies - in terms of there existing conditions for working. That is the process described in Empire.

The Delta-ization took place in its later stages as, frankly, the opportunities for economic expansion sort of exhausted themselves, and the British Empire became a more consolidated empire (+ moving into +) with a self-image of a large community of nations, with total freedom of movement of people and goods (which is a very Delta theme), which was carried over to the Commonwealth period (which of course did not last long in its original form as that freedom of people and goods became restrained).

The way I see it, Britain (and its empire) remained Gamma with Delta "urges" up to WWII, which was a last Gamma "effort". The end of WWII led to a more intense "plunge" into Delta, which was reversed in the Thatcher period. Margaret Thatcher's government was the Gamma restoration in Britain. Which is where we are now - with the occasional "Delta urges".

[Nexus]

I agree, especially with regard to industrialization and the displacement of rural peasants from the fiefdoms, and then later also with regard to the policy of mercantilism that was the impulse for colonizing the Western Hemisphere. However, Gamma tendencies in Britain go back as far as the Magna Carta.

[Expat]

I agree, especially with regard to industrialization and the displacement of rural peasants from the fiefdoms, and then later also with regard to the policy of mercantilism that was the impulse for colonizing the Western Hemisphere.

I wouldn't call mercantilism as such necessarily a Gamma thing, but that's a longer discussion.

However, Gamma tendencies in Britain go back as far as the Magna Carta.

Yes. Maybe even earlier.