The question of how ideas spread and why cultural currents develop and maintain themselves is a crucial question that is central to political theory.
Mainstream liberal theory (unsecure power theory) is clear on this issue – it just happens, and it is the result of an agglomeration of the desires and actions of individuals. Now, there are varients on this, but they all reduce to this, as such you can have a “political science.”
Progress reduces to this, spontaneous order reduces to this, political science reduces to this, marxist dialectics reduces to this (with a twist, in that this is premised on economic resources determining the parameters.)
The problem is that it is all gibberish. Worse than that, it is mentally crippling gibberish. It actively encourages the ignoring of blatent creation of ideas and culture by power.
According to liberal theory the explanation for the vast sea change in recorded attitudes to gay marriage is that it “just happened” or “progress.” Anouther example is provided by de-nazification. Totally spontaneous, as was the nazification. Or maybe nazification was the result of oppression and was insincere while the denazification was a natural flowering of liberalism. Hum…
Anouther great example is The Reformation. HBD Chick has been linking it to genetics, yet this makes no sense, and is just anouther iteration of liberal theory. Unless she wants to look for nazi genes and the corresponding de-nazification genes? Or how about the gay marriage support gene?
We can continue this process with every cultural development and get the same clear answer from all mainstream bodies of thought – it just happened/agglomeration of individuals etc.
There seems to be very few people who put foreward the alternative, and those that do fail to grasp the full implications. At the last count, De Jouvenal put it foreward and Moldbug understood the full implications (neoreaction works on the liberal conception, so completly inverts this.) There is also the case of William Cavanaugh who has put it forward regarding religion and The Thirty Year War, but he hasn’t followed through the implications. It appears Gramscians also have an understanding in a limited sense (they have done great research on foundations, as have conspiracy theorists.)
I am wondering if there is anyone else.