#2: "Buck the System!" Leastwise I think that's what they said.

Part 2: A universal concept of good and ill. The age of Simulacrity. Dr James Lindsay tackles Critical Theory. The sun also rises and kitchen taps can drip.

Aug 23, 2025

If the scientific prognostications are correct, it’s likely that our lovely planet will eventually be swallowed up by the Sun. The entire planet, that is, and everything on it and in it. Curtains.

Now you may be thinking something along the lines of, “I’ve got enough problems with that faulty washer on the kitchen tap without some lunatic blathering on about futility and doom.” Okay, but there is a rationale for making this point, as follows …

Everything is capable of serving good or ill outcomes. Everything. Every creature. Every product. Every concept. All can be deployed towards positive or negative ends.

Our Sun is the ultimate exemplar of this principle. The great ball of fire that makes our continued existence possible will one day terminate with extreme prejudice anyone who happens to have been silly enough to hang around here.

To be fair, this outcome is quite a long way off … 7.59 billion years from now, according to an online search … long enough, one hopes, to find a younger and more accommodating star. Still, it puts that faulty washer problem into perspective, doesn’t it?

For a more current and accessible example of the principle, consider the motor car. This vital part of everyday modern life, deployed in a huge number of ways including getting the kids to and from school, lugging the shopping back home from the supermarket, visiting friends and family or attending meetings … can also be used to mow down innocent pedestrians who may actually be going about those very tasks on foot.

See what I mean? Every creature … every product … every concept … has the potential for good or ill. I’ll come back to this point a little later.

The sunrise image at the top is © Shutterstock

In Part 1 of this series, I suggested there are every-so-often transformations when a technology and a socio-moral spasm are accompanied by some form of censorship to create a turbulent period of transformation from one human-mindset era to the next.

I linked it to a question about human nature. We know that technology changes, as do so many of the things around us, but do we ourselves change? Can it be said that we actually mutate in some way?

Put it another way: for any particular period of time in a particular place, is there a primary form of how individual minds relate to the social milieu in which they find themselves? Numerous academics have suggested that this is indeed the case and that, consequently, there is such a thing as a ‘mind-society stance’.

In Part 1 I mentioned American literary critic, Lionel Trilling; he labelled the primary mind-society stance prior to the Renaissance spasm as Sincerity1, where sincerity meant well-made, honest, reliable. The idea, here, was that the individual was and remained true to their position, whatever position they had been born into.

But then, Trilling and others argue, around the end of the sixteenth century, the human mind-society stance actually changed, mutated. He labels the the mind-society stance for this next iteration, Authenticity. This brings in the idea of personal performance across several roles because positions were becoming less ‘fixed’.

Put another way, the pre-Renaissance version of Western society, based upon ‘stratified differentiation’, was replaced by a social structure based upon ‘functional differentiation’.2

When the established social strata started to dissolve and society lost its hierarchical stability, both the established social and religious order eroded. The “general” was no longer outside of the individual and inside society and religion, but was moved into the individual itself.3

As an aside, it seems to me that, not least, this highlights how amazingly attuned William Shakespeare was to the time in which he lived which was, as now, the transformation window or early years of a new mind-society stance. His plots include example after example of startling perspicacity. Consider just one. In Hamlet, Shakespeare puts the following words into the mouth of Polonius:

This above all: to thine own self be true
And it must follow, as the night the day
Thou canst not then be false to any man.4

Polonius is an elderly gent, father to Hamlet’s friend Laertes and sometime girlfriend Ophelia. But the point is that he is what we might unkindly term an old fart: pompous and a buffoon. And yet, these three lines are surely the manifesto of Authenticity, and have remained operational right up until the present day. Just think of all those “Bring your real self to work” injunctions meted out to people. But what is ‘your real self’? The poet Matthew Arnold beautifully articulated the point that it is difficult, if not impossible, to know your real self:

Below the surface-stream, shallow and light.
Of what we say we feel – below the stream,
As light, of what we think we feel – there flows
With noiseless current strong, obscure and deep,
The central stream of what we feel indeed.

Anyway, Authenticity ruled right up to a metaphorical yesterday. But, now, the primary mind-society stance is changing yet again. Now, in the new world of hyperreality and second-order assessment of people and their work and things, the mind-society connection is radically different from previously.

Think of all this in terms of a sequence of dominant societal differentiators:

First we had Stratified Differentiation assessed via Sincerity.
Then we had Functional Differentiation assessed via Authenticity.

So, what’s the new one?

It’s all about putting oneself out there, isn’t it? All about ‘show’ and assessing effectiveness in terms of second-order responses? Put crudely, it’s all about making an exhibition of oneself. And, frankly, it’s far from averse to ‘faking it’ quite a lot of the time. So, my working hypothesis to sum up the new order is:

Exhibition or Display Differentiation measured via Simulacrity.

(A simulacrum is an image or representation of someone or something. To make things more tricky, it may even be an image or representation of something that doesn’t even exist! I’ll write more on this in a future post.)

So, the human mind-society stance has mutated from Sincerity to Authenticity to Simulacrity. So what? Does it mean anything tangible in the real world? Does it matter in any meaningful way? I suggest it matters a great deal.

The mind-society stances affect the way we all think about, assess and respond to any and all situations. Not least, in a very practical sense, for anyone in business, the mind-society stances influence the optimum Sales and Marketing approaches of differing products and services to different people. And all three mind-society stances – Sincerity, Authenticity, Simulacrity – are in play. The emergence of Simulacrity does NOT mean that Sincerity and Authenticity have faded away. In fact, you and I and everyone in their role as a Customer hops in and out of any of the three stances depending upon what is being offered up and our objective and/or subjective assessment of it.

This all takes on even greater importance when you realize that we have become an astonishingly market-based and market-driven society. More so than at any other time in our history. If you are in business, you may be interested to know that I’m just compiling a new course, The Value Creation Time Machine. The different mindset stances are an important part of it all. Watch this space for more information in the near future.

I will come back to the topic of the mind-society stances in Part 3 of this series but, here and now, in Part 2, let’s go back to the topic with which I started this post … Everything we create is neutral and, to paraphrase the old song, “‘Taint what you do, it’s the purpose with which you do it.”5

If you have read Part 1 of this series you’ll recall that I discussed an apparent contradiction in the way that one of the big issues of the day is being conducted: to globalize or not to globalize, that is the question. The issue is freighted with unclear, confusing and contradictory goals - some of them intentionally so. I’ll expand on a few of these later in this series but, for now, I want to focus on just one, the use and abuse of Systems Thinking. Here’s a definition:

Systems thinking is a framework for understanding complexity by focusing on the interconnections and relationships between parts of a system, rather than isolated components. It is a holistic approach to problem-solving that views the world as interconnected systems, rather than separate entities. This involves identifying system structures, patterns, feedback loops, and "leverage points" to understand how the whole system behaves and to anticipate the long-term consequences of interventions.6

Why focus on Systems Thinking in the first place?

There is one reason in particular. German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998) identified and clarified the fact that, as the Authenticity-led period continued, a series of function-systems grew to ever greater power and prominence.

Function-systems? Yes. Examples include, Economy, Politics, Law, and Mass Media. These function-systems operate independently of one another. There is interaction between them but they evolve independently. That independence includes independence from human intervention - these closed systems evolve in an almost biological manner, so it is appropriate that Luhmann borrowed a biological term, autopoiesis (self-production), to describe the process.

This is why it is possible, for example, for international trade to operate as it does. The Economy system does not care what varying religious beliefs or legal systems or cultures may be in operation among different groups of people. All it cares about is the availability of economic resources.

There is more to it, inevitably, and I’ll try to put more flesh on the bones in future posts but, for now, one really basic question …

If any person, product, concept or system can be used for good or ill, how might a function-system be used to destroy rather than build interaction and growth?

Simple: throw a hand grenade into it!

What does that mean?

Systems thinking

As with everything else, systems thinking can be both jolly useful and bloody dangerous.

Earlier, I used the example of the car to illumine this point. Now let me use an example from the automobile sector to show how systems thinking can be used positively and helpfully. Here’s a quote from a book thrillingly titled Toyota Production System. The book was first published in Japan in 1978 and the English translation emerged ten years later. The author, Taiichi Ohno, starts one chapter thus:

When confronted with a problem, have you ever stopped and asked why five times? It is difficult to do even though it sounds easy. For example, suppose a machine stopped functioning:
Why did the machine stop? There was an overload and the fuse blew.
Why was there an overload? The bearing was not sufficiently lubricated.
Why was it not lubricated sufficiently? The lubrication pump was not pumping sufficiently.
Why was it not pumping sufficiently? The shaft of the pump was worn and rattling.
Why was the shaft worn out? There was no strainer attached and metal scrap got in.
Repeating why five times, like this, can help uncover the root problem and correct it.

This indicates how Systems Thinking gives the ability to look beyond the apparent immediate causes of any event to identify, or at least postulate, how a situation might have come about or been influenced by wider considerations.But, remember, all inventions and concepts can be used for good or ill. So, what might a wicked version of Systems Thinking look like?

Imagine a far larger and more complex example than the machine breakdown in the automobile factory. An entire human Society, for example. Now zoom out so you’re looking at, literally, the Big Picture. It’s huge. It’s complex. It involves every thing you can think of that a population does or is involved in.

Now, when you set out to trace the cause or extent of something in a system of this scale and complexity, you do have your work cut out. It’s going to be difficult - dependent, for a start, upon primary definitions and categorization of instances.

But, difficult as it may be, it is not acceptable to - putting it crudely - duck out. But that’s what the proponents of Critical Theory do. They do so by referring to a supposed fault in a complex system and then declaring, “It’s systemic!” This accusation is intended to - and often does - preclude any further analysis. It is simply assumed to mean two things. One: everyone of a particular category or type is to blame. Two: the entire system needs to be done away with.

We are perhaps most familiar with this methodology being deployed when exponents of Critical Race Theory assert that, if you are white, you cannot not be a racist. It’s an absurd claim but it has certainly served to sow the seeds of doubt and confusion in many white populations.

The academic and commentator Dr James Lindsay has done some brilliant work to show how this thinking operates and to show how fatuous it is. To help illuminate why the Critical Race Theory proponents’ claims that “It’s systemic!” is not valid, Lindsay developed the parallel concept of Critical Car Theory, thumbnailed below.

Let’s say there is a road accident: when attempting to cross the road a man gets run over by a car. Who is at fault?

Well, up until recently, we would almost certainly have made the point that it depended on the behavior of the two parties involved. Perhaps, if the car driver wasn’t concentrating, it was his fault? Or perhaps it was the pedestrian if he just walked into the road without looking? Either way, it would be a simple assessment in that it must be one or the other. The key would be to work out what happened and come to a rational conclusion about where any blame might lie.

Not so, now. According to Critical Theory this approach and analysis is unacceptable. Why? Because it does not consider or take account of all of the possible causes in the totality of the system that might in any way have influenced the incident.

To meet the demands of Critical Theory things don’t just happen in isolation - rather, they have to be put into the ‘global’ context.

James Lindsay clearly explains (or lampoons) this concept by addressing the broader context from the point of view of motor cars and car ownership. I attempt to summarize it below but here is a link to James Lindsay presenting his idea:

Here is his argument, paraphrased:

We live in a society that makes it necessary for people to drive cars. If there were no cars, or if cars were perfectly autonomous and never made mistakes, and if people were restricted in their movements, then nobody would be run over by them.
However, as things are, there is an entire culture, an entire industry, an entire economy, an entire mindset, an entire worldview, an entire ideology, built up on the idea that people drive cars to get from place to place. That’s why we have things called roads and streets, and all the paraphernalia that goes with traffic and traffic control. There’s an entire industry that designs, makes and sells cars, all of which involves profit-seeking, so all of these companies are complicit in it. All of them, including those who make parts to make the cars work, and the fossil fuel industry which supplies fuel for the cars, or, now, the renewables sector creating fuel from sunlight and wind. Consequently, every culture that supports the driving of cars is complicit.
And what if we discover that, when the accident occurred, the driver of the car in our instance was taking a sip from a coffee cup? That brings the entire coffee industry into the issue: the coffee industry becomes partly responsible for the fact that the man was run over – all the people who source coffee from anywhere in the world, and those who provide coffee, and all of those who encourage its consumption, they all become complicit in the accident.
And what about the person crossing the street? Perhaps he had an appointment at his doctor’s surgery? If so, that would implicate medics of all kinds and the entire medical system.

The inevitable conclusion, if you follow this logic, must be that blame cannot ever be apportioned to specific people but rather will apply systemically across an entire population (usually a cultural group) … the entire system is to blame! Which means that everyone who is a member of that system is to blame! They all must acknowledge that they are complicit and the system itself, which is so obviously faulty, must be eliminated.

Recognize the argument? We are more familiar with it, perhaps, when it is relentlessly used to accuse all white members of Western democracies of being racist. But Lindsay’s re-casting of the issue around the motor car surely shows the lunacy of the argument. (By the way, did you note that Dr Lindsay’s speech, referenced above, was at a conference titled Mere Simulacrity? The S word is beginning to appear more and more frequently.)

What, then, according to the followers of Critical Theory, is the answer to any claimed problem? Simple.

Critical Theory Adherents: The entire system is rotten and must be brought down and replaced.

Skeptics: Really? But there’s a lot of good in the system, isn’t there?

Critical Theory Adherents: No. It is systemically rotten. Your attempted defence of it shows that you are a foul, rancid deplorable and must educate yourself in the error of your ways.

Skeptics: Gosh. So what would you replace the system with?

Critical Theory Adherents: A new system which (in this instance) will not have cars and consequently will not be beset with car accidents.

Skeptics: Really? No cars, eh? I thought the whole point of systems theory was to help identify specific flaws, not just blanket-blame the entire thing!

Critical Theory Adherents: Some flaws are so egregious as to be systemic. It means that the entire system must be replaced.

Skeptics: But with what?

Critical Theory Adherents: Something different.

Skeptics: But what would that look like?

Critical Theory Adherents: I’ve told you, it won’t be like the present.

Skeptics: What will it be like, then?

Critical Theory Adherents: You really are stupid, aren’t you? I’ve already told you, it will be quite different from the current horror.

Skeptics: But what does that … oh, never mind.

Aargh! by David Pinder

Discussion about this post