I don't identify myself as a liberal because the word makes very little sense to me. It has been used in such a wide variety of contexts that its meaning has been diluted to the point where the term means everything and nothing. I also consider references to "left" and "right" in a discussion of political convictions to make very little sense. You go far enough to the left, you will arrive at the far right and vice versa.
This is why I'm neither a liberal nor a leftist. I define my political views as progressive. I prefer this term because it is the most obvious antonym to the opposing political position, which is conservative. As a progressive, I believe that change, transformation and innovation are inherent to human beings. Even as I'm writing this post, I am not the same person that I was when I started writing it. This is why I believe the conservative position to be untenable. You cannot "conserve" anything because everything changes. It just does. We cannot stop the flow of time just like we cannot hope to preserve any state of affairs indefinitely. Everything moves forward, and a political movement that disregards the nature of things to the extent that it believes in moving backwards or standing still is illogical and unreasonable.
10 comments:
Absolutely...conservatism is an anti-rational position. No arguments for it are really all that good. That said, I like to call myself "liberal" because it has become such a dirty word to conservatives, and even to moderates. It raises hackles.
"Progressive" bugs them, too. :-) Nobody really wants to admit that they are anti-progress.
I have asked many people who identify as conservative to explain the rational basis for their convictions but they tend to get too emotional and a lot of hand-waving ensues. :-)
Yet you are a historian. Do you not see some value in the past or is it something just to escape from, learning from the post so not to repeat it?
Actually, I am not a historian. :-) I'm a literary critic. The past is something to be studied. That's all. :-)
I've heard the comment about traditionalist/conservative before in relation to history as a discipline. I find this not a little confusin because, perhaps especially as a post-subaltern academic, I see the study of history not merely as a study of recorded texts, but analysing why who wrote those texts and where, and how did they surivive while others were destroyed or lost or forgotten.
Indeed, it is from critically analytical historians that contemporary social sciences draws a lot of anti-hegemonic/anti-establishment/alternative narrative ideas. And vice versa, of course.
Clarissa, I appreciate you point in itself, but I'm not sure about 'progressive' either. Relating them culturally, again, a progressive in India is (or was till very recently, when American terminology caught up with us) someone who wants free markets, structural developments, more westernisation of financial and social structures. A conservative is one who wants regulated markets, nationalised systems of health and subsidised schools/universities et al. True, American definitions are now almost universal, but there are still alternative meanings to these words.
It's not just that conservatives want to bring us back to the past, but it's an imagined past at that, or the worst of the real past (when social heirarchies were set in stone), or some unholy combination of both.
Your post seems to indicate that you view the political spectrum is a type of Moebius strip with the conservative and revolutionary ends forming a circular continuum. To parse your idea of a “progressive” believing in change versus a “conservative”, I would submit that “progressive” implies a gradual or incremental change while a “leftist” or revolutionary believes in sudden or catastrophic change. This doesn’t seem to fit the metaphor of circularity.
I think that we have to separate the substance of the political stance from the method used to achieve it. Since you’re channelling Heraclitus of Ephesus (535 – 475 BC) in your analysis of time and change, let’s use Aristotle’s three branches of rhetoric - deliberative, forensic, epideictic - as a corollary to Liberal, Progressive and Conservative. The Liberal uses societal and moral ethics to persuade his audience; a Progressive uses systemic analysis for his argument; a Conservative uses epideictic or “praise and blame” rhetoric. I find it amusing to observe Sarah Palin’s Alaska program on television as a form of progymnasmata in which to hone her skills for the future.
Ah, what's in a word? It all smells the same regardless of labels. Whether one finds the smells pleasing or disgusting is a matter of individual taste.
I've always liked the argument that as extremists become more extreme, those of the left and right tend to merge, at least in practical terms.
Words like left, right, moderate, conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc have value in describing broad political points of view. Progressive, in it's recent incarnation, is being used by liberals (in the American sense) as a euphemism because the term "liberal" has been demonized and devalued. I really don't think it's necessary. In any case, efforts to explain the difference between liberal and progressive end up as tortured exercises in making distinctions without a true difference.
I think of myself as a moderate with many liberal views, and I don't have any problem with those words.
I would also point out that discussions among liberals about what conservatives think and vice versa generally miss the mark rather broadly.
The word "liberal" was demonized by the American left in the 1960's as someone who was really a conservative but wanted teh leftists to like him/her. The conservatives were, of course, those who supported the war in Vietnam and the military-industrial complex.
Rimi:
"... a progressive in India is (or was till very recently, when American terminology caught up with us) someone who wants free markets, structural developments, more westernisation of financial and social structures. A conservative is one who wants regulated markets, nationalised systems of health and subsidised schools/universities et al."
There's a similar confusion over the word "liberal," when you're talking in economic terms. Apparently a "liberal" economic policy is one favoring free trade and deregulation --- exactly the things people of "liberal" political bent are skeptical of!
Pagan Topologist:
The word "liberal" was demonized by the American left in the 1960's as someone who was really a conservative but wanted teh leftists to like him/her."
Really? Wow, I didn't know that. That's funny. :)
(There is actually still some disdain directed at "liberals" in more radical circles --- liberals being people who only want to *reform* existing systems of inequity, exploitation etc. while more radical people want to do away with them entirely, and create something better in their place.)
Post a Comment