Progress, Conservation, and Teleology
Today’s political climate is the culture war between the conservatives and progressives, broadly speaking. While there is much nuance to the political issues and the varying positions, the idea of conservative versus progressive is a fine heuristic to use for the purposes of considering a few things about progressivism.
“The way things are and have worked” (conservative) versus “How things could be” (progressive) is not a uniquely American debate. In a certain sense, it is the debate all generations have and have had. Will we keep with the traditions of the Elders, or will we move on to something new? In order to answer this question, we must ask two additional questions. First, what are the ‘traditions of the Elders’? Second, what is the ‘something new’ you have in mind? Put another way the questions are: 1) What are we trying to conserve? and 2) To what are we wanting to progress?
C.S. Lewis, the Christian apologist and literary critic, has this to say about progress in his famous book, Mere Christianity: “We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”
Mr. Lewis is point out the obvious truth that if you want to progress towards the North but are currently headed South, you must stop moving South and turn around.
So, conservation and progression must be teleological to be meaningful. Teleology is simply the idea that things have end goals. If the goal is to get to the North Pole, it doesn’t matter if going South is the progressive or the conservative position; it is simply the wrong position.
The means towards the goals must not be confused with the goals themselves. As a child, while playing soccer, many would-be encouraging parents would scream to their kids something like, “Give it a big kick!” or “Boot it!” This, of course, betrays the American ignorance of perhaps one of the best sports in the world (whenever the players are not faking an injury). Kicking the ball as hard as you can is not the telos of a soccer player. The player’s goal is to well… score goals while also preventing the opponents from scoring. Additionally, a soccer play does not win the game simply by ‘getting the ball.’ He can possess the ball the majority of the game and still lose the game. From these soccer scenarios, it is shown that there are multiple ways to get the telos of something wrong. Both the soccer players who are expert keep-away-players or who have cannons for legs are not guaranteed to actually be good and useful players.
When coming to any particular issue, before saying something like “I am a conservative on this or that,” you must think about what is the goal of this and that particular issue. For example, do you support the Second Amendment simply because you enjoy guns? A great many people also enjoy hard drugs. Enjoyment is not a good basis for political theory. Or, perhaps you support the Second Amendment because you see a fundamental right to self-defense as necessary to a free people. A right to keep and bear arms is a means. It is a means to the classical American idea of freedom. I personally very much enjoy the smell of gun smoke and the sound of my bullet hitting the target. I also deeply believe in principles of the right to life, liberty, and property with the right to defend oneself against fellowman or the state as being crucial to the former rights. However, I only base my support of the Second Amendment on my principles not on my tastes. Indeed, there are a great many 2A supporters who do not very much enjoy guns. Because of this, now I am ready to say that I am a conservative on firearm related issues. I do not want to conserve things simply for the stake of conservatism.
Without getting too heady, most would agree that the purpose of a well-functioning state is to promote human flourishing. Of course, that is a not a sufficient understanding of the state or of human flourishing (which must deal with man’s relationship to God in a Christian view), but it will work for now. According to my principles, human flourishing is better served by right to own and use weapons than by stringent restrictions on firearms.
When it comes to a historical issue, say that of slavery, those who did not support slavery were the progressives. In this case, the progressives seemed to have the right principles that man ought not to be enslaved. While some advocated immediate emancipation and abolition, others advocated a slow process of limiting the slave trade (including many Civil War era Confederates).
In conclusion, with any given issue the questions should be asked:
What is the purpose or telos of this issue (i.e., how does this or that policy or issue support human flourishing?)
Is the so-called conservative or progressive position a better expression of my principles?
How quickly should I seek change or how adamantly should I oppose change? (i.e., is there room to compromise?)
One final note: Change is inherently chaotic and dangerous. This does not make it bad, but all other things being equal, conservation ought to be chosen over progression. They key phrase is “all other things being equal.” A conservative position always has a slight edge over a progressive position not because the goal is conservatism. Rather, the goal is human flourishing and unneeded changes present unnecessary risks. However, when risk must be taken, they ought to be taken boldly.
Mitchell D. Cochran is a biblical counselor and family life educator who also spends his free time being an amateur philosopher and theologian. He is pursuing his Th.D. through Kairos University.
