Conservatism and the Strange Case of Revd. Chuauthuama!

"The world is so smart, 'til it ain't"

~Mac Miller

The current lockdown has not afforded me the luxury of relishing in the clichés of the local papers here in Aizawl. This, however, and unsurprisingly I might add, does not amount to anything that is even remotely akin to a loss!  'Such a harsh indictment' one might judge. But, I assure you, such a decree has more to do with the overall pervasiveness of dataism which haunts me day in and day out than with the low regards in which I seem to hold the local papers. So, the only thing I'm missing out on with regard to these papers, it seems, is the op-ed section. And, given the level of opinions that are discussed there, I have to say I'm not missing out on much! [Now I'm being rude! Judge me, condemn me, O ye self - righteous fiends!]

So, it was only via a friend's WhatsApp status that I came across an article [by the one called Revd. Chuauthuama - a rather militant polemicist I've been told] that purports to argue for the pertinence of upholding the sanctity of the Church[es] amid the lockdown crisis. One of the premises on which the article seems to rest its argument is the fact that the writer happens to be of a "narrow-minded" disposition - an attribute which he fallaciously labelled "conservatism". The writer also highlights his discomfiture towards a "post-colonial perspective", which, for anyone who sees through the misnomer, is quite puzzling, to say the least.

As a self-proclaimed iconoclast I have a few weighty opinions on the topic as well. But, I shan't put them forth here. Rather, I would like to address, at this time, the blatant ignorance on which the writer has rested his argument i.e. the “narrow-minded [conservatism]” bit.

To give the devil his due though, the writer's [mis]understanding of conservatism is in perfect synchrony with our collective [as a society] [mis]undetstanding of conservatism - which can easily be summed up as Conservatism = ignorance/narrow-mind[edness] while liberalism is simply understood as Liberalism = education[educated]/broad-mind[edness]. This fallacious understanding is actually pretty consistent across the board and is not symptomatic only within our small [said] collective. Aside from these errors, there is also the rather insidious tendency to equate fascism [Eg: nazi, BJP] with conservatism. This is nothing but a red herring that says more about the people who are engaging in such [mis]representation than about conservatism.

Historically and philosophically, it would not be an exaggeration to say that conservatism has suffered something of neglect. As such, it is more vulnerable to prejudice and scepticism than liberalism and socialism, which, to be fair, also suffer their fair share as well. Conservative ideas are hardly taught even in universities these days as academia, internationally, has drastically veered leftwards. The NYT’s bestseller "The Coddling of the American Mind" by Jonathan Haidt and George Lukianoff is an apt testament of this rather depressing truth. Even the well respected Heterodox Academy has its origin in this political milieu as it was set up [by the said Haidt] to make the universities less partisan towards a certain political dogma. The powerful Intellectual Dark Web movement is also in part a fight against this political partisanship in academia. So this bias against conservatism, at least in popular culture, is something that is almost akin to Jung's collective unconscious in its seeming universality.

Conservatism, in its broadest sense, is a human universal attitude that’s rooted in our nature as social animals; our tendency to habitual actions [familiarity] and the resultant attitude that is expressed in our fear of the unknown with the unknown, more often than not, realized in [sudden] change. So, to a great extent, conservatism is inherent in both human beings and society and is more an unconscious rather than a conscious social attitude. In this sense, Aristotle was a pioneering conservative when he advocated “human experience over generations” [tradition] as the main source of knowledge concerning morality and politics. The Chinese philosopher Confucius, too, could be regarded as a conservative as much of his ideas had to do with abating and reversing the changes that undermined the values of the family [and Patrimonialism - a political institution based on prioritizing family first that was declining during Confucius’s time] that were brought forth by the Legalism of Shang Yang and the Qin Dynasty.

In its narrow sense, conservatism could be summed up, albeit incomprehensively, as the preference of human experience [individual and collective – normativity] and Practicality [throughout history - tradition] over abstract rationality. It is sceptical of the capacity and ability of human reason [a priori] to achieve all the ends that it has promised. Conservatism, in this narrow sense, was conceived only in the 1790s partly as an opposition to the Enlightenment movement and in reaction to the French Revolution. In this narrow sense, conservatism is a [self] conscious attitude.

The 18^th century Enlightenment was a powerful movement aimed mostly at improving human conditions by liberating  human beings from their ignorance and the redundant traditions that entrenched them. In other words, it was a movement for political reforms. Enlightenment thinkers hoped and aimed to liberate ethics and morality from the state of historical contingency based on tradition to one of universality based on [pure] reason. Conservatism has often been projected as the “powerful” status quo that must be slain, but in reality, it is a reactionary movement and has always found itself on the back foot ever since its conception in the 18^th century. 

The French Revolution was considered to be one of the key moments in the conception of conservatism. For many thinkers, the Revolution was a physical manifestation of Enlightenment ideals. It was a physical outburst of the Movement resulting in the liberation of the people from the tyranny of traditional feudalism. With the direction that the Revolution took you can very well guess the reactions of the more conservative-minded people. However, conservatism’s attitude and relationship to the Enlightenment movement was more nuanced than their reactionary attitude towards the French Revolution. Edmund Burke, for instance, was an ardent student of the Enlightenment and actually regarded the French Revolution as a threat to “modern, rational, libertarian, enlightened Whig values”. The philosopher Roger Scruton argues that conservatism is itself modernism – ‘the desire to live fully in the present and understand it in all its complexities and imperfections’.

Liberalism and socialism are based on a priori values that resulted in the abstract conception of utopian modalities like communism or abstract values like the Natural Rights of the French Jacobins who, headed by Robespierre, dreamt of destroying and rebuilding society based on such abstractions. Revolutionary Jacobinism is a political dogma, a commitment that has no qualm in literally sacrificing the present for an “alleged future benefit” – a sentiment or rather a commitment most candidly echoed by Trotsky’s pronouncement;

We were revolutionaries in opposition, and have remained revolutionaries in power. To make the individual sacred we must destroy the social order which crucifies him. And this problem can only be solved by blood and iron.

 Burke rejected the idea that such values could be conceived from thin air without any grounding on traditions. He argued that tradition and culture are institutions that have practical wisdom that for the most part rejects theoretical articulations. Any abstract rationalism that attempts to rebuild society from scratch based solely on a priori principles without any reference to traditions and culture that have upheld society since antiquity is fallacious. Abstract political ideals lacking in experiential groundings can never be achieved in practice. Tradition gives cogency to existence by subjecting the present generation to duties and responsibilities whose ends have gone through many a homeostatic change that they are no longer clear. Tradition is the contract that holds the past, the present and the future together in perpetuity – it is the source of meaning. 

Conservatism, in so far as it insists on historically contingent traditions, is particularistic. Particularism here does not refer to the blind adherence to one’s own group, party or nation. Conservatism does not deny general principles; rather it is cautious, extremely cautious in applying such general principles.  In its adherence to particularism, conservatism is way more hesitant in ascribing agency to subjects than liberalism that promotes humanism. Compared to the humanistic creed of liberalism the agency ascribed to subjects by conservatism is such that a subject has no choice whatsoever when it comes to his or her identity. Rather, one’s identity is conferred to him or her by the histories and traditions into which one is born – as such the most important aspect of oneself is, in the words of John Gray “what is most accidental”. Gray further argues that “The conservative vision is that people will come to value the privileges of choice…when they see how much in their lives must always remain unchosen”. If humanism [liberalism] represents pride/ego in being a human being, conservatism represents humility in being a human being.

            In its insistence on particularism and tradition over reason, it can be argued, that conservatism is based, to a great extent, on prejudice or what Edmund Burke called “latent wisdom”. For Burke, prejudice is not “irrational but simply unreasoning”. It, however, should be emphasized that this is not a rejection of reason but rather a caution and scepticism towards the practical capacity of reason. Prejudice, according to conservatism, is what makes us act [makes us practical] towards duties and responsibilities rather than endlessly debating the end of our actions like Hamlet. This seems to sync well with the Systems Theory of people like Talcott Parsons which I shan’t pursue further here. Conservatism places more trust in social institutions like family, private property, religion etc. than on the state. It is an insistence on the priority of ethics and morality mediated by tradition and culture over judiciary and bureaucracy. Conservatism does not deny abstract values and principles; rather it argues that such abstract values and principles should be pursued in and through the concrete context of existing institutions. In this sense, one can argue that conservatism is adherence to homeostasis as put forth by people like Vilfredo Pareto.

According to conservatism, existence is not "the spontaneous overflow of powerful feeling" that arises from the depth of the self to assert the individual; rather, it is an escape from such emotionalism. For conservatives, existence "is not the turning loose of emotion, it is an escape from emotions. It is not the expression of personality [individuality], but an escape from personality [individuality]". While liberal humanism encourages you to assert the priority of the self over everything, conservativism appeals to humility by asking you to sacrifice that very self - your individuality for the sake of the whole - the [supposed] greater good. In this sense, conservatism is grounded in self-sacrifice by asking you to be "just another brick in the wall" but also promises you meaning and immortality [by persisting to posterity through your self-sacrifice]. Now imagine a single piece of brick in defiance of the wall, laying there on the floor by itself, asserting its brick-dividuality, doesn't amount to much, eh? Conservatism, in this sense, is most readily summed up by Dumas' dictum "All for one and one for all". [Note: we are speaking in terms of principles here]

Anyways, I have gone on long enough so I will wind up now. I have endeavoured here to give a comprehensive exposition of the general outlines of conservatism and to dispel the common notion that conservatism equals ignorance and is adhered to only by uneducated people. Such a fallacious understanding doesn’t do justice to conservatism and is not helpful to liberal causes worldwide as the majority of the populations in any society are for the most part slightly more disposed towards conservatism, so such misrepresentation of their disposition would only irk them more and actually make them more hostile to alternative views. Whether I have achieved what I have set out to do or not is up to you the readers.