The End of Ideology

Politics, Panarchy, and Gregory Bateson

”Arguing with ignorance is a waste of intelligence.”

S.R. Chappell

---

I recently listened to an ancom (anarcho-communist) critique of how ancaps (anarcho-capitalists) use the word “authority.” The ancom argued that "authority" does not just mean "people telling others how to live and behave." For them, this view is incomplete and inaccurate. "Authority" is more complex. It is a web of social structures that inevitably corrupt, leading to state control of society. In the ancom mind, this argument justifies why landlordism is evil and property theft. It imbues them with the ideological scaffolding for their left-leaning critiques of state and capital.

In the past, I would have argued against this position like a stereotypical anarcho-capitalist. I would have invoked Rothbard and Friedman. I would have unleashed a monologue in defense of first principles, self-ownership, negative rights, etc. Then, I would have argued compellingly why renting homes and owning property are valid under the ancap framework.

Aside from being counterproductive, I no longer believe left-right arguments are relevant (due to recent technological and sociological shifts). I also know from experience that going down political rabbit holes in the form of a debate is hopelessly circuitous. It boils down to preferences and values about how things ought to be. It puts one in the unenviable position of continuing an infinite game of argument-counterargument, leading to no resolution while raising cortisol levels.

However, I have since upgraded my views. I learned about panarchy. I now realize that “panarchy” represents the most solutions-focused philosophy, reconciling political and ethical thought. It is this position that makes politicking irrelevant. This article will consider the panarchic solution to political argumentation and how to eventually escape addiction to ideology.

First, what is panarchy?

Panarchy: Escaping Addiction to Ideology and Normativity Traps

Panarchy is the meta-political, non-normative philosophy that states people can join whatever communities they want and agree to contractual relationships they deem worthwhile. Panarchy does not prescribe a normative view of the world or a moralistic design. Instead, it says that we are a cosmopolitan, value-heterogenous species. Everyone is unique, and we seek communities and groups that appeal to us individually.

Therefore, the panarchist views arguing ancap versus ancom, left versus right, or any political affiliation versus another, as a normativity trap. This trap is akin to a mental cage that constrains a person to a moral conviction. People get ensnared by these philosophical mirages and fail to live harmoniously with others. In this vein, the ancap versus ancom debate is an illusion. It is a consequence of statist indoctrination and addiction to ideology.

For instance — from the introductory debate — how either party views or defines "authority" is an inconsequential red herring. We define the term based on our ideology, personal histories, or preconceptions. However, if we can choose communities that adopt one set of principles, there is no need for an argument. If we can sign contracts that allow us to experiment with our own social designs, the desire to argue suffocates. Addiction to ideology fades.

Why argue if we have choices or can test our political or ethical hypotheses? Arguing presupposes that we must all universally accept one position as absolute truth and reject the other, whereas, in reality, a kernel of truth likely exists in each. Furthermore, we can prove which parts are most valid by running experiments on organizing society and its structures.

We only argue because we have lived under monopolies of thought and normativity traps for too long. Most of us grow up with predefined templates for politics and ideology. We believe that only a handful of accepted political positions exist, so we must choose one and win a political contest to see it implemented. This mindset is galvanized by the notion that we should defend our sacred cows to death. It represents what psychologist Charles Tart called the “consensus trance. ” The consensus trance is like a fugue state, where people politick and argue mindlessly because it is the “consensus” on resolving political disputes and conflict within society.

So, here is the question: can we escape the consensus trance and understand that our philosophies can coexist? The answer is yes. Instead of arguing, we engage with communities that share our values. We exit and build. We experiment with governance models and demonstrate their real-time efficacy. However, to fully appreciate the solution and the panarchic mindset, we must understand the origin of social conflict and political argumentation.

Schismogenesis: Bateson and Birth of Political Dramas

In his article “From Versailles to Cybernetics,” anthropologist Gregory Bateson says that human societies often fall into a pattern of escalating political opposition, action and reaction — a process he calls schismogenesis. The term describes the tendency of social groups to define themselves in opposition to one another, reinforcing differences rather than seeking common ground. In this way, the schismogenic process is a self-replicating social drama.

The concept applies directly to political divisions. The more each side argues for a worldview, the more entrenched they become, feeding into a cycle of ideological conflict that never reaches a resolution. Essentially, schismogenesis destroys relationships by causing generations-long arguing and fighting, even if newer generations do not know the original source of discontent and ire. This is known as a “feedback loop.” Here is how Bateson described it in his article:

I submit to you that what is wrong with the international field is that the rules need changing. The question is not that is the best thing to do within the rules as they are at the moment. The question is how can we get away from the rules within which we have been operating for the last ten or twenty years, or since the Treaty of Versailles.

~Gregory Bateson

In Bateson’s example above, the “rules” embedded in the Treaty of Versailles — and the international political system — catapulted Germany into a schismogenic feedback loop of escalating tensions that resulted in total war. Here is how history played out: the “war guilt” clause and crippling reparations of the treaty incited hatred and rage.

This insult to German pride created the necessary and sufficient conditions for the emergence of an attack-counterattack dynamic with the “axis” and the “allies." The end result is Hitler, World War II, the Holocaust, the invention and detonation of nuclear weapons on a civilization, and millions dead. The steps in this process before violence erupts are miscommunication, argumentation, escalation politics, and, finally, the inevitable shedding of blood.

Similar processes and patterns occur daily throughout modern political life. They are rooted deeply in the psychological and cultural. Continuous back-and-forth arguing without resolution ends in anger and resentment. This loop of frustrated attack and counterattack intensifies unless combatants resolve communication malfunctions. That is the astute insight Bateson brought to the world, which has largely been ignored or forgotten. It is time to reconsider it alongside panarchy to reach a solution.

Gregory Bateson, Institue For Intercultural Studies

Panarchy and the Death of Politics

Imagine if we found solutions to our political differences and escaped schismogenesis as a species. We would be able to solve and resolve our most vexing social dilemmas, addiction to ideology, and cultural ills.

Adopting panarchy is the starting point because it provides fertile ground for experimentation without judgement. It allows us to hone our collective intelligence, sensemaking tools, and coordination efforts. The more these goals are maximized, the more harmoniously we can live alongside neighbors and cultures that fundamentally disagree on some value or preference.

The world is not a zero-sum ideological battleground but a petri dish of experimental possibilities. We must agree that we do not need political dynamics because they poison the well of reasoned discourse. Communication only occurs when all parties are listening, and the only way to reach that state is to embrace something like panarchy. We need non-normative thinking to give us fresh eyes and new sight. Moralistic philosophies often pave the path to social and cultural blindness, due to their inherent radicalizing tendency.

In this sense, panarchy is the panacea. It unlocks new ways of seeing. Once I grasped the idea, I realized the hollow and vampiric nature of political debate. I wasted so much energy and glucose defending my cherished ideology. I finally stopped engaging outright. From this lens, the idea of politics died forever for me. I see this same epiphany emerging collectively, at scale, in the near future.