This little piece is a journey through bias laden theoretical landscapes. A means to understand ‘me’ – Mark Monteagle. For those practically minded who find little value in abstract theory or the grand parade of ideas through time, skipping ahead may be wise. This section will likely test your patience to its very limits.
However, for those, like me, drawn to understanding the historical context and evolution of perspectives, for those who take joy in tracing the literary and ideational footsteps of great minds as evidenced by their influence on work today – the following may prove worthwhile:
The time has come…
Drum roll please.
The time has come to address that most human of qualities: bias.
Yes, even I, the great Mark Monteagle, have bias.
But wait, lets take a step back;
Let’s acknowledge something fundamental: we all have bias. Yes… I’m not the only flawed human being here. Every single one of us. The critical task, in practical terms, isn’t eliminating this bias (which obviously is an ideal outcome, but for now, lets aim for less lofty ambitions), but simply recognizing it. Yes, we can, and should, abandon dreams of eliminating bias, when for a good many of us, it’s impossible to even identify in ourselves. Because it’s there, and it definitively shapes our worldview.
This self-awareness is crucial, nay fundamental, to building upon ourselves. If we aim to construct a meaningful framework of power, we must thoroughly understand our foundations. Without knowing ourselves, we cannot effectively direct our agency’s energy.
My bias mainly manifests as philosophical or academic outlooks. So I want to outline these outlooks. This serves dual purposes: firstly, to provide those who resonate with these ideas clear pathways for further exploration. Consider this an opportunity to engage with some of the ‘lies’ I present, and perhaps become advocates for these ideas. And secondly, to help those who disagree with my positions identify their points of contention (“Ah! Of course a Lockean would say that…”), and dismiss/write me off.
There’s an old saying: You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. The horse must exercise its own agency. While I can create the appropriate environment and even foster a culture that supports water drinking, provide some plush pillows, maybe even a jazzy sound track to ritz up the dessert oasis, I cannot force the horse to drink. That choice belongs solely to the horse, and it deserves full credit for making it.
This simple metaphor effectively illustrates the relationship between power, structure, and agency. The presentation of ideas merely creates opportunity; their adoption remains a matter of individual choice.
Now, back onto bias; allow me to indulge in my philosophical foundations:
First, as written elsewhere, my perspective builds substantially on the Jungian—or Buddhist—understanding that we cannot fully know ourselves. There exists an unknowable void at our core. Jung might call it a ‘shadow’; I prefer to think of it as a ‘black hole.’
Second, my view of human nature is predominantly Lockean, tempered with Hobbesian realism. I believe people naturally gravitate toward collective prosperity, but only when it serves their individual interests. Should the benefits of community disappear, rational self-interest—driven by our core anxiety —would prevail, and life would indeed become, as Hobbes noted, “nasty, brutish and short.”
Humans, in my view, are naturally imperfect, flawed creatures. Who are spoiled when spared a rod. If one is rather partial to Russeau, you may find the justification for my ideas strange or even hostile. But, in acknowledgement to epistemic enemies, I will say this: Marx was right (the only time I’ll say it) about people in positions of authority bending systems and structures to their own wills and desires. It is, as Russell would say, perfectly natural. But having said that, I am staunchly against Dialectic Materialism, and think it a blight on the world.
Third, I value Kant’s synthesis of Rationalism and Empiricism. His recognition that an objective world exists ‘out there,’ while our minds necessarily reshape it for understanding, resonates deeply. I identify primarily as a Rationalist (yes, ends do justify means—oh the horror), while appreciating Empiricism’s contributions. The marriage of these two schools of thought provides a robust framework for understanding both the objective world and our subjective experience of it. This synthesis becomes particularly relevant when considering how power structures interact with individual perception and collective understanding.
Fourth, while I find post-modernism repugnant (I find myself more on the Neo-Modernist timeline), Nietzsche’s Perspectivism offers compelling insights regarding Power. His understanding that culture, experience, and education shape our conception of ‘truth’ becomes essential when considering power structures. His observation that “My will to power walks with your feet of your will to the truth” remains particularly relevant. The implications of Perspectivism extend beyond mere philosophical consideration—they directly inform how we must approach the construction and maintenance of power structures in a world of competing truths and narratives. Understanding these multiple perspectives becomes not just an academic exercise but a practical necessity in the application of power.
FIfth. Hegemony. I am an avid believer in the Antonio Gramsci’s theory of Hegemony. That those who, through agency, take control over an existing power structure, are, essentially, doomed to reproduce the folly of which they so desperately strived to overcome. This may not have been the intent of Gramsci’s work, but a valid interpretation from the perspective power, structure and agency. Once again, as is the case with Marx, I believe Gramsci got a lot of things right – but that the application of his ideas was fundamentally, and unfortunately (from my perspective) misguided
Sixth, my understanding of legitimacy draws substantially from Weber and Habermas, which becomes increasingly relevant when discussing power.
And finally, but not leastly, I am an avid supporter, follower and fan of late great, Bertrand Russell. But that should come as no surprise. I feel Russell was probably more heavily influenced by Nietzsche than he likes to admit, but Russell’s ideas on power and their application to late studies of structure and agency, are critical to understanding our world today.
But it’s important to keep these perspectives in mind when consuming the ideas I put forward. They do colour my world view. They do give me ‘bias’ as the world, and Russell, would know it. In fact, Russell would probably say that there is nothing we could say that doesn’t involve bias. Facts are for the outside world. All we can do is observe… and apply our personal beliefs to. It’s how our world works. And on that basis, I believe this bias is justified. But, in Nietzsche’s perspectivism, naturally I would believe just that.
I hold these ideas seriously but not dogmatically. No philosophical position warrants the dissolution of relationships or friendships. I maintain a Lockean “negative rights” view of life and liberty (while remaining uncertain about property), believing that none should have their life or liberty (as culturally defined from a neo-modernist perspective) taken from them.
And so here stands the foundation of an intellectual edifice – warts n all. MY intellectual edifice. These perspectives and traditions shape not only my worldview but engagement with life’s endless complexities. They inform my approaches to power, structure, and agency—the fundamental elements that shape social and political reality.
If you reached this point of my little indulgence – thank you.
Photographer and cULTURE VULTure 
Leave a comment