Neoreactionary Problems¶
I’m under a sacred obligation to review Bryce Laliberte’s ebook What is Neoreaction? Ideology, Social-Historical Evolution, and the Phenomena of Civilization. Thankfully, this solemn duty was not specifically scheduled. Working towards its accomplishment is a thought-provoking process, which is a good thing.
As a trivial matter, I’m forced to ask: Is that supposed to be ‘phenomena’? ‘Phenomenon’ would be more stylistically persuasive, even if the plural is defensible on conceptual grounds. That kind of side-issue, however, is symptomatic self-distraction. There are serious questions at stake here, and elusive ones.
My prevarication is partly the result of colliding ideas, which have become entangled with the meaning of this book (for me), but are not really internal to its own concerns. Foremost among these is the connotation of the word ‘neoreaction’ itself, sparking an embryonic conversation (at Laliberte’s place, and mine). Terminological issues can easily seem pernickety, or fetishistic, but in this case at least they extend continuously into matters of indisputable substance, and relevance. Summarily: Is ‘neoreaction’ primarily a doctrine or a problem? (Perhaps the question mark unfairly skews the trial.)
In a future post I’ll get back to the specifics of Laliberte’s extended definition — which is arguably coextensive with the book. It’s of wide-ranging interest, and connects importantly with Nick B. Steves’ search for ‘reactionary consensus‘ (note: no ‘neo-‘). At this point, however, my place-holder remarks are themselves deliberately problematic, referring to the role of paradox and irony in the term, and in the ‘thing’ — elements which are for me essential, but which I suspect Laliberte sees as incidental, or even unfortunate. Neoreaction, from the problematic perspective, is the insistence of a question, rather than a solution struggling to be born into settled doctrine. It is a word contrived to preserve its own dynamic illegibility (or unstable paradox), at least as much as the name for a program on the path to acceptance (arriving at consensual significance).
Since neoreaction seems to be hurtling towards some kind of recognition, due in no small part to Laliberte’s contributions, these considerations are only arcane on one side of an undeveloped conversation. Most probably, the pace and context of this exchange will be set in unexpected places. Such impending unknowns inevitably guide my path into Laliberte’s book, as it opens, piece by piece, up ahead.