Post-

Rome was all about the First Estate . . . the emporers and patricians.

The medieval period was about the First Estate (nobility) and Second Estate (clergy).

With the European Enlightenment Rousseau critiqued the First Estate and Voltaire critiqued the Second.

Following on, Franklin and Jefferson and Paine during the 18th century wanted to elevate the Third Estate (the commoners) toward equality. Following on, Marx et. al. during the 19th century said the ultimate destination should be socialism.

It’s not remembered how popular socialism became during the century after 1850. Even Hitler’s party had to call itself “socialist” in order to gain adherents.

So from 1750 to 1950 it’s all about secular modernism, industrialism, nationalism, socialism. There was enormous hope associated with those concepts.

They all failed.

And now here we are, but of interest is that (it seems as if) nothing has come forward to be viewed as the “next thing,” the “higher synthesis,” the “better idea.”

After empire, after religion, after nation, after secularism, after science, industry, capitalism, socialism . . . we have nothing to say but: “post-”.

It’s now all about post-modernism, post-industrialism, post-socialism.

There is no Rousseau, no Voltaire, no Franklin, no Marx.

It’s as if our thinking has hit a brick wall.

And, in a sense that is the case . . . because “forward” doesn’t lead anywhere anymore.

Edward Goldsmith, who wrote The Great U-Turn, could be our post-modern sage, but you won’t find ten people in a thousand who have ever heard of him. Most likely we’ll just flounder our way back.