The Modernist Hangover: How and Why We Systematically Problematize Normal Human Behaviors

Let's talk about unseen cultural artifacts of the Modernist Project, and how they still plague us today, largely not recognized as what they are and where they came from in the first place precisely because they exist and act primarily as _meta-narratives_, which are usually by definition unspoken, but which guide and constrain the way the think about things in ways we have yet to collectively appreciate.

I know what you're thinking. I can hear the groans. "Not this again! Why are you always on about this Modernist Project? What even is it?!" I'm ignoring the follow-up question about whether I'll finally shut up about it (the answer is "No, I will not").

I'm not going to do a deep dive into what this project was (there's plenty of info out there if you want to a deeper look; YouTube creator Then and Now has several excellent videos related to the topic). What I am going to do is paint some of the broad and most problematic strokes of it, and describe how the attitudes we inherited from it still plague us today (especially in the West, where this project began, but I fear its attitudes have insidiously spread essentially worldwide with the rest of Western influence).

The Modernist Project began in the Age of Enlightenment. There was a lot of hope about the promise of scientific advancement and its potential to solve our most nagging, perennial problems. The potency of scientific advancement in such application, of course, is not to be denied. It did, in fact, deliver so many of the modern conveniences, necessities, liberties, and freedoms we now enjoy.

The problem is delivering these things _equitably_ was never part of the equation. And consent of those who would be required to deliver the hard labor of actually _building_ these things was considered secondary to the goal of building them. They had to feed the engine of Capitalism to deliver this project. And that meant live bodies doing the work, whether or not those bodies really consented in a meaningful sense, and whether or not those bodies would ever see any actual benefit from this project.

Modernism was always about elitism, regardless of the high-minded ideals and rhetoric that defined it. When it was first taking shape, slavery had not actually been abolished in the US yet. Building on the backs of unwilling participants was considered a valid option, even if one that was seldom spoken of in honest terms. And the primary solution was to shift all blame away from the systems themselves that were causing major issues we still grapple with today, and push it all onto the very people whose consent was being systematically trampled to deliver this dream.

In other words, in an attitude that epitomizes the toxicity of the that old scoundrel Machiavelli's notion that the ends justify the means, the ends of delivering this modernization was seen as justifying trampling the natural and legal freedoms of these nations' _own citizenry_, as well as the gradual but inexorable privatization of commons. What I mean is selling lands to private individuals aor companies that were traditionally commons, available to *all* citizens and visitors, and served as some support for those whom the systems were failing to provide other realistic means to survive within.

The combination of these is *exactly* why employment has become in some way compulsory, even though there's nothing whatsoever _natural_ in this assertion, or about the act itself. It is *exactly* why we have rampant housing issues.

But beyond just economic issues, the deplorable socio-cultural habits this project instilled in us goes far beyond that.

Just today I saw a video about systemic issues in psychiatry, which ultimately derive from and are about _problematizing_ normal human behaviors in the face of egregiously *abnormal* human living conditions. Labeling these people as _problems_ allows the systems that are the _actual_ causes of these problems to escape without even blame, let alone meaningful correction and reconciliation.

The same is true for labeling the poor, or the 'lazy', who are 'not willing to work for a living'. The staggering, unfunny is irony that this also tends most strongly to come from people who consider themselves Christian. You know, who follow that guy that said repeatedly not to judge others, that you have no right to. And who counseled us to 'consider the lilies of the field'.

And speaking of Christians, I also saw an article just today written by an LGBTQIA+ individual. It was about the disingenuous act on the part of pastors/religious leaders of suggesting a cup of coffee to discuss whether or not such individuals are acceptable. The article rightly pointed out that this is a smoke screen, an attempt at equivocation to make the pastor/leader feel better about the horrible thing they are asserting to another human being, and another person who willingly shares their faith, and just wants to be accepted within its walls.

This is the same thing. Problematizing someone who doesn't fit the explicitly non-existent "average" or "normal" person. And it all comes from this same, toxic, unethical Modernist perspective.