Back in July, 2014 I published a post about what I defined as the end of the golden age of orchestras and opera. I came to that conclusion, in part, because of the sharp increase in neoreactionary dominated culture.
Within that context, neoreactionaries were those who cast themselves as victims within a larger operating environment and believe they are somehow tasked with a principled responsibility to right the wrongs for a secure future or face certain collapse.
Generally, neoreactionaries tend to occupy a fringe element within each of the field’s traditional stakeholder groups that directly influence institutional policy (board, administration, and artists) but the perilous bit of historical transition at play here is how fear of the unknown can cripple an otherwise effective system of self-regulation that usually keeps counterproductive actions at bay.
We examined the characteristics of both executive and labor neoreactionaries; and keep in mind, this was a full year and half before the 2016 national election. At the time, those extreme voices were still emerging from being relegated as minorities and it was unknown how much influence they may wield in the years ahead.
I cautioned against allowing these voices from dominating conversations on governance lest the field risk the potential of entering an age of what the tech sector defines as dark enlightenment, or the overt rejection of advances made during a period of Golden Age advances.
Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, I can’t say we missed that bear trap.