One of the logical fallacies is called the fallacy of the excluded middle or the fallacy of the false dichotomy. In his most recent column E. J. Dionne, in describing the “culture wars” contrasts
those whose deepest commitments were to God and the sacred
with
those who believed that human beings evolved their own value systems through a process of steady enlightenment
i.e. progressives vs. religious conservatives. He leaves out another possibility: that human nature has not changed and that we haven’t learned everything we know about it in the last ten minutes.
When asked if he were a socialist Elbert Hubbard responded that when more people want to give rather than get he’d be a socialist. In other words incentives must be aligned with the preferred outcomes. That’s the essential problem with progressivism.
For the last several hundred years there has been an influential school of thought in Anglo-Saxon societies known as the “Whig theory of history”. Under that theory history has a pattern or rhythm and it points inexorably in the direction of “progress”. The school of thought does not appear either to be provable or disprovable since its terms are so fluid, i.e. it is a metaphysical expression rather than an empirical one.
There are other schools of thought, for example that Whig history is neither universal nor inexorable and is rather is much more fragile and what might be thought of as a local optimum. When you think that way, progressivism doesn’t look nearly as appealing.
In the light of the foregoing rather than a stark dichotomy Mr. Dionne’s contrasting religious conservatism and contemporary progressivism look more to be brothers under the skin representing contending radical traditions.
Dave Schuler: For the last several hundred years there has been an influential school of thought in Anglo-Saxon societies known as the “Whig theory of historyâ€. Under that theory history has a pattern or rhythm and it points inexorably in the direction of “progressâ€. The school of thought does not appear either to be provable or disprovable since its terms are so fluid, i.e. it is a metaphysical expression rather than an empirical one.
It’s pretty clear there’s been a general trend since the Renaissance towards greater equality, first in terms of freedom of religious conscience, then political liberty, then economic equality, and now there are tentative steps towards national equality.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html
I think it was Mao who said it is too soon to tell, but I guess it depends upon what you value. If you look at liberty, freedom and equality, things seem to have trended better, but if you value cohesion, faith, obedience or whatever, then things are getting worse.
Steve
Whatever you want to call it, the ideas that produced feminism, civil rights, and gay rights look very appealing to some people. Feminism is so appealing, in fact, that few men would want to have a daughter grow up at any point in time before 1975 or so.
@Zachriel
About the best attempts I have seen to define political attributes ate two-dimensional (X/Y-axis) graphs, but I think the still need at least a third axis. Most people miss the time element also. Today’s liberal is not the same as 25, 50, or 100 years ago and progressives would not be considered liberals.
Among other things, the Renaissance was a revival of the Greek ideals from Greek philosophy. These ideals are individually applicable, but they are based upon metaphysical concepts of the individual. They are a-theistic concepts.
Christianity has its own metaphysical basis, and it is rather theistic. Somehow, these two philosophies formed the basis for Western culture – the “virgin and whore”. The Greek philosophy is not corrupt, and it is not hedonistic. It celebrates the individual as an individual. Christianity celebrates the individual as a member of the flock. There is a tension between Greek and Christian – individual and herd.
From the Greek individual flows “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. The Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, nor Eastern Orthodox cultures endorse or allow anything similar, but to varying degrees, it is tolerated by the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches.
Whether this was what the ancient Greeks actually believed or not makes no difference. The thinkers, intellectuals, philosophers, artists, etc. of the Renaissance thought they did, and they incorporated this into their works. A lot of religious art is pornographic by the orthodox churches.
Equality has never been an ideal of anybody. The ideal is that the people above you are dragged down to your level, or you are elevated up to theirs. Nobody wants the people below them elevated to their level. They may toss them a few scraps, but they are not living with them.
The calls for equality have always been about the individual bettering him or herself. When you find somebody like Mother Teresa living with the poor, you can believe the equality crap.
You also have several hundred years of wars to purge anybody who disagreed, and that has a way of promoting equality. When you kill off the unequal, you are left with the equal. Bloody but effective.
TastyBits: Today’s liberal is not the same as 25, 50, or 100 years ago and progressives would not be considered liberals.
The center has moved left, supporting the notion of a trend. Women’s suffrage is widely accepted today, while in the 19th century, people voiced arguments in support of black slavery.
TastyBits: Equality has never been an ideal of anybody.
Of course it has been, ideal being the operative word. Here’s a few expressions of that ideal, with at least some people holding these beliefs sincerely.
“Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité!”
“All men are created equal”
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
@Zachriel, your trend appears to be very Western(*), and in the context of the original post I think the questions being asked is whether other parts of the world or their migrating people necessarily follow the same trends. A few months ago, I saw a series of pictures of people in Kabul prior to 1979, and the “costume” of the people was quite Western and the intermingling of the genders was something that disappeared. Foud Ajami writes of the Middle East, between WWII and the Iranian Revolution, as the Dream Palace of the Arabs — it was moving in a direction towards greater freedom and then was completely subverted; yesterday’s heroes were now hunted men.
Westerners are the minority in the world. Their assumptions have possibly reached their apex. Which I think will create more inequality between states. Progressives carry the seeds of intolerance towards those with lower IQs or less well educated, that challenges notions of political equality.
I am fairly Whiggish, but I hope that I recognize certain conceits about my expectations, not being universal. Great advances in science and technology in the Western world can have very different results in other places.
(*) If you didn’t tune into Dave’s post questioning whether there is a West, and how one would define it. I think the West is largely Central and Western Europe, plus the Anglophone colonies of the U.S., Canada, and New Zealand.
@PD Shaw
I assume you did not include Australia as an oversight.
I would add as Westernish: India, Singapore, Hong Kong, S. Korea, and Japan. They may not be at today’s standards, but using the standards over the last 150 years, they are progressing. Mexico, Central and South America should have some mention also. I am not as familiar with them, but I know a certain anti-breeder who has more insight.
@Tastybits, definitely overlooking Australia was an oversight. I think the others you mention are border regions, and time will tell. I certainly could see Japan becoming less Western if China’s influence increases, so I won’t assume the past is determinative of the future. Also not sure what the future holds for Latin America.
I agree with PD’s comment. Also, I’ve lived outside of the US, visited a couple dozen countries (and not just Europe) and lived (so far) in six US States. What I’ve learned is that I shouldn’t be too righteous about how others organizes their own lives and societies, even when I personally disagree. From my perspective, progressives like EJ Dionne are just as righteous as the bible thumpers, no matter how enlightened they believe they are.
PD Shaw: your trend appears to be very Western(*), and in the context of the original post I think the questions being asked is whether other parts of the world or their migrating people necessarily follow the same trends.
While the West led the way, most of the world has followed suit. Most countries now have some semblance of democracy, for instance, while functional monarchies are the exception.