We sometimes hear the self-styled progressives argue that we ought to withdraw our support from and let perish those things whose existence is a mere historical accident. Why they should argue against such existence, I cannot rightly say, but let us hope they have prepared and are yet to reveal a better argument for the historical necessity of ours.
19 comments:
I'm not sure what sort of thing you have in mind here - the monarchy, perhaps?
Then no. We don't allow historical accident as a defence for things we consider indefensible. But in itself historical accident isn't an argument against anything's existence either - it's an irrelevance.
"But in itself historical accident isn't an argument against anything's existence either - it's an irrelevance."
Indeed it is, but to those seduced by some doctrine of historical necessity, where everything must be "rational", irrelevances can be seen as irrational aberrations from the "true path" of history.
Ok. But
those seduced by some doctrine of historical necessity , where everything must be "rational"
does not equal
the self-styled progressives
It's not even close.
Self-styled progressives not seeing progress as an historical necessity? Hmm. Providentialists, Hegelians, neo-Hegelians, Marxists, neo-Marxists, and the many and diverse offspring thereof. A belief in historical necessity is, I would say, at the very root of modern progressivism in all its varieties.
But you have a point: many self-styled progressives have not the first clue about the intellectual history of their creed, nor much notion of historical necessity, even if some of the ideas which they now hold arose therefrom.
Then again, that's not to say that many of such persons, taking the tantrumist creed wholesale, may not assume an opposition to those "historical accidents" and "aberrations" for no other reason than that they appear under such a creed as "outmoded", "irrational" and "a bar to progress".
A belief in historical necessity is, I would say, at the very root of modern progressivism in all its varieties.
Well you go right ahead, and assume that people who disagree with you do so in large part because they're dogmatically fixated on some notion of "historical necessity", or alternatively because they've swallowed whole a creed they know nothing about. Don't for one minute allow for the possibility that they might have thought through the individual issues themselves and come to different conclusions to yours. Best not to discuss such details, when instead you can make blanket accusations of moral and intellectual bankruptcy, and back it up by haranguing people with neo-Hegelianism and Providentialism, and their shameful ignorance thereof.
No your Fewtril's probably right, it's the abolition of the monarchy today, and genocide tomorrow. After all it's a cornerstone of your creed that change is inherently undesirable, and that as time moves on we can't help but roll towards hell in our handcart. The best we can ever hope is to drag our heels a bit.
"Don't for one minute allow for the possibility that [people] might have thought through the individual issues themselves and come to different conclusions to yours."
That is exactly what I allow for - and for its opposite: that people do not think things through. That is a safe assumption for anyone to make. Now, if you wish to take the extremist "all-or-nothing" stance, and take such a general assumption personally, so be it. You determine with what you yourself identify.
But are you really suggesting that everyone examines the content of their ideas? I'm afraid to say that in my experience, most people do not.
Now, if you wish to take the extremist "all-or-nothing" stance...
What? I take the extremist "all-or-nothing" stance?
You're the one spouting off with ridiculous absolute generalisations: "A belief in historical necessity is, I would say, at the very root of modern progressivism in all its varieties."
See also your comment here:
"...the progressive cannot admit that things have become worse, because that would contradict the view that we are headed towards the Golden Age, upon which view his ideology is based"
Now you say,
You determine with what you yourself identify.
Well I can categorically assure that your generalisations above do not apply to me. In fact I don't even much like the word "progressive" and wouldn't use it about myself.
So why then should I choose to take your insults personally?
Because you're obviously trying to tar as many of your political opponents as possible with this nonsense: "...the many and diverse offspring thereof... modern progressivism in all its varieties."
So though I wouldn't call myself a "progressive", I strongly suspect you might. A great many people seem to fall under this banner, and you certainly haven't gone out of your way to limit the extent of its range.
For instance, I would call myself a "liberal", and your comment over at Labia's place implies that in your mind the two terms are closely linked: he says something nasty about "liberals", and you reply: "This drives me mad too", before saying something nasty about "progressives".
All in all, it's pretty clear that your straw man is intended to look a little bit like me, though in fact it resembles little on earth.
"Absolute generalisations"?
What on earth is that meant to mean? If I said "the people of Thailand are a happy lot", I do not mean to suggest that everyone in Thailand is happy. That is, the generalisation is not meant to apply to absolutely everyone! This is why I mention the "all-or-nothing" stance.
You say "Well I can categorically assure that your generalisations above do not apply to me."
Well, good for you! But why would you think that I would think that they do? I don't know anything about you.
I said: "A belief in historical necessity is, I would say, at the very root of modern progressivism in all its varieties."
Hardly a controversial point. I do not mean that every self-styled progressive believes in historical necessity, only that such a belief is at the historical root of progressivism. But, of course, there are self-styled modern progressives who do explicitly believe in historical necessity - Hegelians, neo-Hegelians, Marxists, etc.
You say: "So though I wouldn't call myself a "progressive", I strongly suspect you might. A great many people seem to fall under this banner, and you certainly haven't gone out of your way to limit the extent of its range.
I couldn't care less what you call yourself - nor do I call you anything, because I don't know you. But it is you, not I, who cannot resist extending the range of my generalisation, even to including yourself, even when I have not set such a range! The whole point of it is to describe those who hold progressive beliefs, whoever they are. If my generalisation fits no-one, then so much the worse for my generalisation and so much the better for the world!
You say: "All in all, it's pretty clear that your straw man is intended to look a little bit like me, though in fact it resembles little on earth."
Are you paranoid? I really am not out to get you. Indeed, I can honestly say I have not had you in mind when I have written about progressives. As I say, I don't know you. As for straw men, it is rather depressingly common to see many persons refuse to accept any description that they do not like;-and the sop to conscience? The characterisation of a straw man.
Are you paranoid? I really am not out to get you.
Well perhaps that's reasonable, and I phrased this badly: "your straw man is intended to look a little bit like me". I didn't mean to imply that it was inspired by me personally.
Rephrase as follows: "your straw man is intended to caricature a group of people, in which I strongly suspect you would wish to include me, if you were familiar with my political opinions, which you're not".
And I justify the latter part of that as in my previous comment regarding your post on Laban's blog about "liberals".
But it is you, not I, who cannot resist extending the range of my generalisation, even to including yourself, even when I have not set such a range! The whole point of it is to describe those who hold progressive beliefs, whoever they are. If my generalisation fits no-one, then so much the worse for my generalisation and so much the better for the world!
I'm sorry this simply doesn't ring true at all. What's the point of insulting a group of people who are entirely defined by whether or not your insult applies, and who may very possibly not exist at all?
There's a pretty clear subtext in your remarks that only do these people exist, but you consider them to be the source of social problems (and certainly personal irritation). After all you "sometimes hear" them, and indeed what they say "drives [you] mad". Perhaps it's you, and not me who's paranoid. ;-)
Incidentally don't try to backtrack: "I do not mean that every self-styled progressive believes in historical necessity, only that such a belief is at the historical root of progressivism."
I take this point, but, given your original Fewtril and first reply to me, we can restrict our discussion to those people who are seduced by some doctrine of historical necessity, where everything must be "rational". My complaint is that these people in actuality barely exist at all, but that you're massively exaggerating their significance, and using them as a straw man to attack an (implicitly) far larger group of people.
"There's a pretty clear subtext in your remarks that [not] only do these people exist, but you consider them to be the source of social problems."
Of course, on both points. I mean to say that my generalisation extends so far as it should extend. I find it curious that you might think this group no longer exists; for this group didn't half cause a lot of trouble last century. I suspect that the group (or rather the ideas that define it) have not disappeared. One can hardly deny that those ideological millenarians, believing in an objective historical progress and thus historical necessities, were not the cause of social problems, to say the least. In modern parlance, these groups were of both left and right, and found their roots to a large extent in the Prussian historical school, wherein Hegel and whence Marx and Engels. Nor can one deny that such ideas do not still exert a major influence on modern thought. As I have been at pains to point out, they lie at the root of many ideas. While a main idea may fall away, the assumptions that arose therefrom may remain. So, as I say, historical necessity and inevitability as an explicit doctrine may disappear, but the animus that first arose from that doctrine against certain things may remain. But it is also true that groups exist now which are explicit in their beliefs in historical necessity and inevitability.
"Incidentally don't try to backtrack: 'I do not mean that every self-styled progressive believes in historical necessity, only that such a belief is at the historical root of progressivism.'"
You seem to be losing sight of the original fewtril. Now, do you really think that I think, and that my fewtril expresses the view, that every self-styled progressive believes in historical necessity?
"'those people who are seduced by some doctrine of historical necessity, where everything must be "rational".' My complaint is that these people in actuality barely exist at all."
Well, admittedly Marxists and Hegelians are a lot thinner on the ground than they used to be, but they exist sure enough, and the ideas still have power, not least in that they lie behind many ideas that do not go explicitly by these names. This is not only in so-called "progressive" ideas, but also in neo-Conservativism, that has traces of Hegelian and Marxist ideas of historical necessity.
You do seem to express some incredulity at my fewtril, but you seem to be forgetting the sheer callous inhumanity of those who last century did treat vast numbers of persons (whether of certain races or classes) as being unnecessary or even contrary to historical progress, as being dispensible or reactionary, and that such persons were murdered on such a scale because of such ideas. That is why I expressed the sardonic hope that "they have prepared and are yet to reveal a better argument for the historical necessity of [our existence]".
I do, however, think we are getting our wires crossed a little, (don't worry; I'm not trying to be conciliatory!), and the guilt for some of that lies with my use of words such as "progressive"; for with any such category there is always a little looseness such that the context must determine to a great extent what is being meant by it, but one expects therefore that the reader be a little flexible. You are right to suspect that I have the Left largely in mind, however; for the Left is where these ideas find their natural home. Nor can you honestly deny that the bulk of utopian ideas has found their place on the Left.
I cannot understand your straw-man charge. The fewtril only expresses the hope that those who believe that history must necessarily go in a certain direction to fulfil some historical end might come to realise that people too ought to be treated as ends and not means.
I do, however, think we are getting our wires crossed a little, (don't worry; I'm not trying to be conciliatory!), and the guilt for some of that lies with my use of words such as "progressive"
This is the meat of it - and we're not getting our wires crossed. I'm accusing you of equivocating between two distinct meanings of "progressive": the first being its ordinary (particularly in the US media) meaning by which it's an approximate synonym for "liberal", and applies to a large number of left-of-centre thinkers. In this sense I am, non-controversially, a "progressive". Of course within this amorphous definition, lie a
million differing viewpoints. Let's call all these people "group A".
The second meaning is your own: a progressive is someone seduced by some doctrine of historical necessity, where everything must be "rational". These "progressives" (call them "group B") are rampant ideologues, believers in the "true path" of history, and include Providentialists, Neo-Hegelians, and the rest.
Your fewtril clearly uses Definition B, this much is obvious, and anyway you have just admitted it: it was concerned with "those who believe that history must necessarily go in a certain direction to fulfil some historical end", and what term does it use to describe these people? - "the self-styled progressives".
So you are using a non-standard (or too narrow, or out-of-date, whatever) definition of the word "progressive". What of it?
Well despite your protestations to the contrary, it seems to me that you have sought to imply that group B is largely identical to group A, and thereby tar the latter with the crimes of the former. The most obvious evidence for this is the very fact that you decided to refer to group B with the name commonly given to group A.
Also you say: "Self-styled progressives not seeing progress as an historical necessity? Hmm.", and "...the progressive cannot admit that things have become worse, because that would contradict the view that we are headed towards the Golden Age, upon which view his ideology is based". No warning here that the key word you're using is highly ambiguous, or that when you say "based" what you mean is "historically based" - you do not: your assertion does not make sense under that interpretation.
The gulf between groups A and B cannot be bridged by waving it away like so: for with any such category there is always a little looseness such that the context must determine to a great extent what is being meant by it, but one expects therefore that the reader be a little flexible.
I'm afraid a little looseness doesn't begin to cut it.
In your defence you've broadened group B, to a new group B': those whose ideas are historically based on a notion of historical necessity, even if they themselves do not believe in that doctrine. You have harsh words for these people too: they have not the first clue about the intellectual history of their creed. The implication is that if group B is not the same as group A, at least group B' is.
This seems to me to be seriously open to doubt - at least I don't "deny that such ideas do not still exert a major influence on modern thought". But so what? Hitler was a Catholic. You can't just say "this thing influenced that thing, and this is bad, therefore that is bad". One must ask in what way, and how heavily, the one influenced the other, and whether the capacity for evil of the one must necessarily passed to the other. Or preferably you could simply say what it is about (the very heterogenous) group A that you dislike, rather than damning it by (tenuous) association.
You say that I seem to be forgetting the sheer callous inhumanity of those who last century did treat vast numbers of persons (whether of certain races or classes) as being unnecessary or even contrary to historical progress, as being dispensible or reactionary, and that such persons were murdered on such a scale because of such ideas.
Not at all - I am simply objecting to these deaths being used as ammunition against a diverse group of largely innocent people. My feeling is that your aim here has been to malign as broad a spectrum of the left as you think you can get away with - no wonder then that you wish your readers to be flexible.
To end on a positive note, you say: people too ought to be treated as ends and not means. I couldn't agree more, and I assure you that all of my liberal-minded friends would too.
No. These people "progressives" "liberals" (your group A) stand in the tradition of progressivism that includes the explicit historical progressives (group B). You believe that this is some equivocating attempt by me to smear the first group, in which everything is all fluffy and light. But you are a fool if you think such murderous ideas have fallen away. (Which is why I expressed the sardonic hope that such persons developed a better argument for our existence.) I am not going to expunge the histroy of ideas just in order that you and your liberal friends feel happy about yourselves. Now, it should go without saying that I do not mean that every person calling himself a "liberal" or a "progressive" is a murderous ideologue, and I ask for the reader's flexibility in being able to understand that I am not imputing such. But I also ask my reader to understand the roots and traditions in which modern progressivism (in all its varieties) stands.
Now, it should come as no suprise that I think left-wing ideas are by and large wrong - but moreover, that they are dangerous to "life and liberty", as our American friends might put it, that they have the seed of totalitarianism. Now, no doubt you disagree with that strongly, and are perhaps hopping mad that I might even suggest it, but that is an argument for another time - what is pertinent is that this is my belief, and is not a cynical attempt to smear the left. I suspect that there is a great nihilistic element to the Left, and I am hardly alone - nor original - in suspecting this.
Perhaps I should have used "left-wingers" instead of "self-styled progressives", but then I suspect you might have been able to accuse me of trying to smear an even broader group. The use of "self-styled progressives" seems to me the best at expressing the explicit and implicit doctrine of historical necessity, as best exemplified by Marxists (which I presume you are not claiming do not exist), and the broad swathes of the Left that have been influenced by Marxism (whose profound influence I presume you do not deny). How I might be accused of a smear and a straw-man attack is difficult to understand.
"But you are a fool if you think such murderous ideas have fallen away."
Give me an example then of an idea currently held by broad swathes of the liberal-left, in which you believe the evils of the doctrine of historical necessity live on, and which might justify your fewtril's implication that whether or not large swathes of such people turn genocidal rests on the toss of a coin.
Never mind "fluffy and light", my experience is that liberals are generally amongst the most enthusiastic defenders of democracy, personal freedoms, and human rights. Call me a fool if you wish, but your insults miss their target by miles.
“Give me an example then of an idea currently held by broad swathes of the liberal-left, in which you believe the evils of the doctrine of historical necessity live on, and which might justify your fewtril's implication that whether or not large swathes of such people turn genocidal rests on the toss of a coin.”
You are utterly misrepresenting the fewtril – what does it say? First: “We sometimes hear the self-styled progressives argue that we ought to withdraw our support from and let perish those things whose existence is a mere historical accident.” Currently, there is explicit in Marxism a doctrine of historical necessity. It exists now. But as you may have noticed, there has been a recent loss of faith in Marxism, and thus, as the main current of the doctrine of historical necessity, such a doctrine has not been in the ascendancy in recent years, as I have been at pains to explain. My fewtril is quite clear on that: “We sometimes hear”. It claims no constancy in the ascendancy of this idea of historical necessity, that self-styled progressives are broadly enamoured with the idea of historical necessity at all times, only that such a doctrine has been ascendant sometimes, as witness the ascendancy of Marxism on the Left until recently. But this does not mean that it, or another doctrine with millenarian hopes, will become ascendant again. This is why I say you would have to be a fool to think that such ideas have fallen away, for it is easy to be complacent, despite the lessons of the past, and because such ideas are not in the ascendancy in the present. Perhaps “fool” is a little harsh – “incautious” would be better. Second, my fewtril does not imply that people will turn genocidal “on the toss of a coin”. You flippantly misrepresent the idea that ideas can have great power over people, that ideas can be the driving force of history, and that ideas have consequences. You also miss the sardonic tone of the fewtril.
I have claimed that the Left today is profoundly influenced by the doctrine of Marxism, with its idea of historical necessity, and that when a main idea fails, many ideas that were nurtured thereby can remain, retaining moreover the same animus. As such, the “evils of” historical necessity do indeed live on in broad swathes of the left, most notably in the way in which the doctrine of social “justice”, or equality as it is better known, is pursued with the animus of a millenarian doctrine. The doctrine of equality has long been part of a doctrine of historical necessity; from Christian sects through Hegelianism to Marxism. It is the fulfilment, or end, of history, where the supposed “contradictions” of hierarchical society are resolved, and where the universal desire to be recognised is realised.
The problem is that your view of all things left is distorted by the thick lens of antipathy through which you view them. You speak of the "doctrine of equality" - a piece of dogma to be swallowed whole or not at all. You don't allow for the possibility that people who despise any notion of historical necessity, may wish for greater equality on compassionate grounds, precisely *because* they consider people as ends and not means. No, it's got to be a millenarian doctrine or nothing - that makes it easier to reject out of hand, and spares you the trouble of engaging with your political opponents on detailed issues.
Of course you will be aware that your views on British heirarchical society are the products of a school of thought one might call "Christian Nationalism", which incorporates such delights as the Divine Right of Kings, an obligation on the common man to know his place, and a moral imperative to empire-building.
So with this in mind, if I were to write fewtrils of my own sardonically hinting that the entire right-wing (or maybe just "regressives" such as yourself) longs for the reinstatement of slavery, or perhaps mourns the mass illiteracy of the poor, these would be no doubt greeted with your customary sagacious nod of the head, and not dismissed as smear or straw-man attacks (as they should be).
But you are missing the point. I am saying that this doctrine, by which certain things in the progress towards an ideologically prescribed inevitable end are viewed as necessary and others not, has existed amongst "progressives" and still exists amongst some "progressives", though it is currently a less dominant force than it used to be, and I express the sardonic hope that those "progressives" will find an argument for human necessity if they become dominant again. And I base this on their past performance. I think we could both wish that the communists and the national-socialists had found a reason not to view the existence of millions as not only unnecessary but also as detrimental to the realisation of their ideologies.
You say: "So with [the Divine Right of Kings, an obligation on the common man to know his place, and a moral imperative to empire-building]
in mind, if I were to write fewtrils of my own sardonically hinting that the entire right-wing (or maybe just "regressives" such as yourself) longs for the reinstatement of slavery, or perhaps mourns the mass illiteracy of the poor, these would be no doubt greeted with your customary sagacious nod of the head, and not dismissed as smear or straw-man attacks (as they should be)."
If you suggested the entire right-wing (in its modern signification)wished for such things, then indeed your view would be false; for the modern right-wing is mostly made up of those who believe in ideas that were once considered of the Left (in the French National Assembly), ie, capitalism and democracy, ideas that instil little sympathy for anything that would overtly bind power to a few or restrict money-making). But if your fewtril were to attack just those "regressives" who believed in such things, and you said nothing that could not be fairly ascribed to them, then you would not be smearing or attacking a straw man, and I would greet it. Then again if you suggested the entire right-wing was in some de facto way against equality, then I would also accept that you were not making a smear or attacking a straw man; you would indeed be simply expressing the essence of the right - you would be pointing out the essence by which the right is seperated from the left.
That matter by which the left is best distinguished from the right (ie., the desire for equality), I have ascribed to the left, and I doubt you would accuse me of smearing the left with such a claim. That matter by which the left has been greatly influenced through Marxism (ie., the doctrine of historical inevitablity by which some things in history are deemed necessary), I have also ascribed to the "progressives", who, whether you like it or not are largely on the left. Now, it ought to go without saying that some "progressives" do not swallow such a doctrine, but rather seek only the "progress" without an explicit doctrine. I have only ascribed such views to those who espouse them - and the fewtril is quite plain that it is addressing those self-styled progressives who find some things necessary and some not towards the realisation of their ideology. Where is the straw man? Where is the smear? If you were to write a fewtril along the line that "we sometimes hear self-styled regressives talking about the divine right of kings", then I would not take this as a smear against the right, nor would I claim it to be a straw man, unless it ascribed to them views which they did not hold by which you might easily dismiss them. I would take it as talking about just such persons as defined by their holding of the view of the divine right of kings, just as my fewtril defines the persons I am talking about as precisely those progressives who view some things as historically necessary.
Suppose that my hypothetical fewtril were to attack self-styled "regressives", and to sardonically hint that they wished for the reinstatement of slavery.
Suppose further that in the subsequent discussion I
(a) clarified that by "regressive" I meant someone who believes in such things as the Divine Right of Kings
and
(b) repeatedly hammered home the point that "all social conservatives stand in the tradition of regressivism that include the expicit Divine Right of Kings-ists".
Would you really not consider that a smear-attack on social conservatives?
Factor in that before my clarification in (a), as far as anyone knew from my original fewtril, "regressive" may simply have meant "social conservative".
(Social conservatism seems to me to be where your characterisation of right-wingers as believers in capitalism and democracy breaks down. It's also worth repeating that in my experience modern liberals are among the most ferocious defenders of democracy.)
"Factor in that before my clarification in (a), as far as anyone knew from my original fewtril, "regressive" may simply have meant "social conservative"."
But it is you who factored in "left-liberal" for "progressive" in my fewtril, and I would not necessarily factor in "social conservative" for "regressive" in your hypothetical one, though it might depend on how it read. Here is mine again:
"We sometimes hear the self-styled progressives argue that we ought to withdraw our support from and let perish those things whose existence is a mere historical accident. Why they should argue against such existence, I cannot rightly say, but let us hope they have prepared and are yet to reveal a better argument for the historical necessity of ours."
I have not made "self-styled progressives" stand for liberals, and, as I have commented previously, I do not know another term that could be used in the place of "progressives" that might adequately express the view that I have put forward. (Imagine if I had used "liberal": you would have had the conniptions!) But for good reason I did not use the word "liberal", for I wanted to denote those persons who held to an idea of progress. Perhaps I should have used a neutral term such as "some persons", but what it would have saved in controversy, it would have lost in content.
I cannot see what is untrue in the fewtril. It is a fact that such persons have argued on the basis of historical inevitablity. That this is not a constant is indicated by "We sometimes hear". The fear that it might happen again is expressed as a sardonic hope that they have developed a view of humanity that does not see it as an expendable resource on the road to "progress".
I am sorry, however, if the fewtril is not to your liking.
You say: "Social conservatism seems to me to be where your characterisation of right-wingers as believers in capitalism and democracy breaks down."
I think you have misread. I said: "the modern right-wing is mostly made up of those who believe in ideas that were once considered of the Left (in the French National Assembly), ie, capitalism and democracy, ideas that instil little sympathy for anything that would overtly bind power to a few or restrict money-making)." Naturally, there are also on the right those who do not believe in democracy and capitalism, who may be termed "social conservatives" (obviously concerned with preserving something non-capitalist and non-democratic).
And it ought to go without saying that there are those on the Left who believe in democracy; for its revival stems from the Left.
Post a Comment