Of Chaos, Conservatives and Cracks in the Cosmic Egg
Dave Muskera, M.A.
January 15, 2008
I’ve been thinking of late about the conservative v. progressive ideology split that so very much permeates our political and cultural atmosphere. Of course, it’s nothing really new. It’s been going on since before the founding of our country. In more recent years however, these terms have taken on so much added connotation that I wonder if definitions typically found in dictionaries apply any longer.
For example, one on-line dictionary defines conservative as being “opposed to change or innovation” and “disposed to maintain existing institutions”. Other definitions include ideas like: “resistant to change, conforming to standards and conventions of the middle class, unimaginatively conventional and avoiding excess while opposed to liberal reforms”. On the “progressive” side, we get definitions like: “moving forward, advancing” and “a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties” or an attitude of “gradual advancement”. Obviously, anyone who self-identifies as being in either one of these categories is likely to jump up and down at the errors and incompleteness of these descriptions. And that’s to be expected.
Still, underneath all the discussions, debates and connotations there runs a deep current of un-assailed fundamental meaning for each of these words. Conservatives are, well – conservative. It makes sense that such folk would tend to be cautious about change and probably prefer the status quo (or even champion a return to some earlier idyllic era like the “1950s Happy Days of the Ozzie and Harriet”). Some evidence suggests that conservatives are more likely to feel a reduced sense of obligation and responsibility for those beyond their own immediate family and friends circle. Conservatives tend to be uncomfortable with the biblical notion of being their “brother’s keeper” and banter has it that they reflexively reach for their wallets when that subject come up. Conservatives fear progressives will tax them “out the wasu” (with some historical justification) and “redistribute” their carefully accumulated property or wealth. Progressives, on the other hand (sometimes called “liberals”) tend to be, well “progressive and liberal”. Dah. They lean towards toleration of short term confusion (chaos?) while working towards longer term change. Progressives are said to be in favor of promoting incremental steady change towards improved social policies or governmental structures. Progressives supposedly focus on individual liberties, inherent rights, freedom of thought and speech and the “rule of law”. Liberals place less emphasis on tradition - believing rather that social practices need to be adjusted to the current time and situation. Liberals tend to support the notion of progressive taxation.
Granted, no written words will ever adequately define to everyone’s satisfaction such complicated concepts. We can surely debate the fine points. But I’m still left wondering - in regard to the general history of our species on this planet (as far as we know it) - just how these two apparently opposing mind-sets have impacted the evolution of human enterprise. To fully explore this idea would take a book - maybe a whole shelf full of books - and a graduate course to boot. But, for the sake of keeping this article at readable length, I’ll make just a few added observations for thought and consideration.
Looking closely at the current living conditions in many countries, it’s not difficult to see some truth in the statement that “The Dark Ages are here again, just unevenly distributed around the world.” In addition to any meanings this quote might provoke in you, most of us readily recall our history lessons about that time in the distant past when much of “civilized” western culture supposedly declined into the Dark Ages. The time period is generally bracketed by historians as having occurred between the Fifth to the Eleventh Centuries (400s to 1000s AD or thereabouts). There is controversy about just how “dark” it actually was and whether our modern day perception of those years is more colored by the paucity of recorded information or an actual reality of regressive times. That’s an argument I’ll not peruse here. So, despite disagreements, most still endorse the idea that symptoms of the big “Dark Ages” and any that might have struck since then would include at least some of the following: Collapse of centralized forms of government, the abandonment of rule of law, reduced literacy rates and loss of knowledge (a shunning of science), increases in intra-group violence and rise in mortality rates with falling fertility. Other symptoms are noted - but I think you get the gist of the idea by this point.
It’s not difficult to see some of these components at play in today’s world - whether in whole or in part. Even here in the US, our current anti-science stance fits into the regressive concepts of the Dark Ages. We have a public that still largely rejects the overwhelming scientific evidence of evolution and large and growing groups who actually believe the earth is no more than 10,000 years old. One recent survey places at over 60% those in the United States who reject the idea of human evolution. Museums are built showing the co-existence of modern humans and dinosaurs and teachers clamor to schedule their classes for visits. Science Education and literacy is dropping back as local boards of education dumb down curriculum for the sake of advancing religious doctrine. Good teachers - in a throwback to the Scopes Trials of 1925 (over 80 years ago!) fear the loss of jobs if they even mention evolution to their students and, with heads turned, allow that chapter in the book to be skipped (if it’s even included). Certainly, it seems appropriate to caution that we may be moving in reverse and certainly not forward. Instead of becoming suspect of the dogmas of religion and the many public spectacles of hypocrisy perpetuated by religious figures, the public now shuns science and twice has elected as President a man who is barely literate in the English language. A man who appears proud of his own ignorance. Academicians are discounted as “liberal elitists” and suspicion is cast on scientific endeavors that attempt to illuminate the human condition. Is all of this - or any of this - a crack in the cosmic egg - that if not closed - will propel us into another dark period in history?
One final line of thought – at least for now. I wonder how and where (or even if) the idea of chaos fits into the conservative v. progressive discussion. If chaos is simply defined, it is a state of disorder and confusion. While that sounds not so good on the surface, as a therapist, I discovered the value of chaos therapy. I use to consciously aim to dislodge my clients from the surety of their dysfunctional beliefs systems (once they identified them) moving them on, at least temporarily, into a phase of “chaos” where they were no longer sure of all things. Yes to many, this was psychologically uncomfortable - even scary. The conservative mind-set finds such “uncertainty” particularly distasteful. But with close application and consistent support, out of chaos can often come emotional and personal growth that before might have seemed impossible. Out of disorder and confusion in mind and heart, a person can often reach for a higher more functional stage. A stage that would not have been attained had they simply “hunkered down” and stayed where they were.
I’m convinced that at the individual level, limited chaos is essential - a fertile soil for personal growth. It not uncertainly that’s terrifying in a person, its certainty - at least about some things. Out of the swirl of chaotic events and feelings, new directions can arise. I also believe that what is true for individuals may very well be true for the growth and evolution of cultures, governments and even spiritual belief systems. I wonder: Would the dark ages have ever past had some people not been willing to push beyond the safety of the known and conservative world? Had they not taken chances and reached forward instead of backwards? While caution should never be totally set aside in human affairs, by itself, it has never provided much of a guiding light for the exploration of what else may be “out there”.
At the beginning of every episode of the long running TV series Star Trek, the voice of Captain James T. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise intoned the words “To boldly go where no man has gone before.” It seems doubtful that Kirk’s crew would number very many cautious and conventional folks. After all, going “boldly” into the unknown has just got to be at least equivalent to jumping blind-folded into chaos. Kirk’s challenging words are an unlikely candidate for a motto on a GOP banner.
If conservative means being utterly sure of yourself yet intolerant of chaos, then conservatism may well contain the seeds from which another dark age may descend. If conservative religion knows the “word of God” absolutely and unshakably and turns deaf ears to the voices of others - then, in the long run, I don’t have much hope that our species will survive. The more powerful our technologies become, the more we possess the where-with-all to pull the plug on human life - possibly all life - on this planet. If that should happen, then just maybe, and in its own good time, a few million years more or less, planet earth may yet again attempt the human experiment. Just possibly, in that time, there will be more hope that humans can learned to tolerate chaos and move consistently towards growth and maturity.
I believe a very strong argument can be advanced that without a progressive mind set, human civilization would have remained stuck in the Dark Ages of old. So, in a very real sense, the “battle” between conservatives and liberals may very well determine if the lights stay on in human cultural evolution, or will someone, years from now, turn off the last light as they cautiously close the door on this century.
For example, one on-line dictionary defines conservative as being “opposed to change or innovation” and “disposed to maintain existing institutions”. Other definitions include ideas like: “resistant to change, conforming to standards and conventions of the middle class, unimaginatively conventional and avoiding excess while opposed to liberal reforms”. On the “progressive” side, we get definitions like: “moving forward, advancing” and “a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties” or an attitude of “gradual advancement”. Obviously, anyone who self-identifies as being in either one of these categories is likely to jump up and down at the errors and incompleteness of these descriptions. And that’s to be expected.
Still, underneath all the discussions, debates and connotations there runs a deep current of un-assailed fundamental meaning for each of these words. Conservatives are, well – conservative. It makes sense that such folk would tend to be cautious about change and probably prefer the status quo (or even champion a return to some earlier idyllic era like the “1950s Happy Days of the Ozzie and Harriet”). Some evidence suggests that conservatives are more likely to feel a reduced sense of obligation and responsibility for those beyond their own immediate family and friends circle. Conservatives tend to be uncomfortable with the biblical notion of being their “brother’s keeper” and banter has it that they reflexively reach for their wallets when that subject come up. Conservatives fear progressives will tax them “out the wasu” (with some historical justification) and “redistribute” their carefully accumulated property or wealth. Progressives, on the other hand (sometimes called “liberals”) tend to be, well “progressive and liberal”. Dah. They lean towards toleration of short term confusion (chaos?) while working towards longer term change. Progressives are said to be in favor of promoting incremental steady change towards improved social policies or governmental structures. Progressives supposedly focus on individual liberties, inherent rights, freedom of thought and speech and the “rule of law”. Liberals place less emphasis on tradition - believing rather that social practices need to be adjusted to the current time and situation. Liberals tend to support the notion of progressive taxation.
Granted, no written words will ever adequately define to everyone’s satisfaction such complicated concepts. We can surely debate the fine points. But I’m still left wondering - in regard to the general history of our species on this planet (as far as we know it) - just how these two apparently opposing mind-sets have impacted the evolution of human enterprise. To fully explore this idea would take a book - maybe a whole shelf full of books - and a graduate course to boot. But, for the sake of keeping this article at readable length, I’ll make just a few added observations for thought and consideration.
Looking closely at the current living conditions in many countries, it’s not difficult to see some truth in the statement that “The Dark Ages are here again, just unevenly distributed around the world.” In addition to any meanings this quote might provoke in you, most of us readily recall our history lessons about that time in the distant past when much of “civilized” western culture supposedly declined into the Dark Ages. The time period is generally bracketed by historians as having occurred between the Fifth to the Eleventh Centuries (400s to 1000s AD or thereabouts). There is controversy about just how “dark” it actually was and whether our modern day perception of those years is more colored by the paucity of recorded information or an actual reality of regressive times. That’s an argument I’ll not peruse here. So, despite disagreements, most still endorse the idea that symptoms of the big “Dark Ages” and any that might have struck since then would include at least some of the following: Collapse of centralized forms of government, the abandonment of rule of law, reduced literacy rates and loss of knowledge (a shunning of science), increases in intra-group violence and rise in mortality rates with falling fertility. Other symptoms are noted - but I think you get the gist of the idea by this point.
It’s not difficult to see some of these components at play in today’s world - whether in whole or in part. Even here in the US, our current anti-science stance fits into the regressive concepts of the Dark Ages. We have a public that still largely rejects the overwhelming scientific evidence of evolution and large and growing groups who actually believe the earth is no more than 10,000 years old. One recent survey places at over 60% those in the United States who reject the idea of human evolution. Museums are built showing the co-existence of modern humans and dinosaurs and teachers clamor to schedule their classes for visits. Science Education and literacy is dropping back as local boards of education dumb down curriculum for the sake of advancing religious doctrine. Good teachers - in a throwback to the Scopes Trials of 1925 (over 80 years ago!) fear the loss of jobs if they even mention evolution to their students and, with heads turned, allow that chapter in the book to be skipped (if it’s even included). Certainly, it seems appropriate to caution that we may be moving in reverse and certainly not forward. Instead of becoming suspect of the dogmas of religion and the many public spectacles of hypocrisy perpetuated by religious figures, the public now shuns science and twice has elected as President a man who is barely literate in the English language. A man who appears proud of his own ignorance. Academicians are discounted as “liberal elitists” and suspicion is cast on scientific endeavors that attempt to illuminate the human condition. Is all of this - or any of this - a crack in the cosmic egg - that if not closed - will propel us into another dark period in history?
One final line of thought – at least for now. I wonder how and where (or even if) the idea of chaos fits into the conservative v. progressive discussion. If chaos is simply defined, it is a state of disorder and confusion. While that sounds not so good on the surface, as a therapist, I discovered the value of chaos therapy. I use to consciously aim to dislodge my clients from the surety of their dysfunctional beliefs systems (once they identified them) moving them on, at least temporarily, into a phase of “chaos” where they were no longer sure of all things. Yes to many, this was psychologically uncomfortable - even scary. The conservative mind-set finds such “uncertainty” particularly distasteful. But with close application and consistent support, out of chaos can often come emotional and personal growth that before might have seemed impossible. Out of disorder and confusion in mind and heart, a person can often reach for a higher more functional stage. A stage that would not have been attained had they simply “hunkered down” and stayed where they were.
I’m convinced that at the individual level, limited chaos is essential - a fertile soil for personal growth. It not uncertainly that’s terrifying in a person, its certainty - at least about some things. Out of the swirl of chaotic events and feelings, new directions can arise. I also believe that what is true for individuals may very well be true for the growth and evolution of cultures, governments and even spiritual belief systems. I wonder: Would the dark ages have ever past had some people not been willing to push beyond the safety of the known and conservative world? Had they not taken chances and reached forward instead of backwards? While caution should never be totally set aside in human affairs, by itself, it has never provided much of a guiding light for the exploration of what else may be “out there”.
At the beginning of every episode of the long running TV series Star Trek, the voice of Captain James T. Kirk of the Starship Enterprise intoned the words “To boldly go where no man has gone before.” It seems doubtful that Kirk’s crew would number very many cautious and conventional folks. After all, going “boldly” into the unknown has just got to be at least equivalent to jumping blind-folded into chaos. Kirk’s challenging words are an unlikely candidate for a motto on a GOP banner.
If conservative means being utterly sure of yourself yet intolerant of chaos, then conservatism may well contain the seeds from which another dark age may descend. If conservative religion knows the “word of God” absolutely and unshakably and turns deaf ears to the voices of others - then, in the long run, I don’t have much hope that our species will survive. The more powerful our technologies become, the more we possess the where-with-all to pull the plug on human life - possibly all life - on this planet. If that should happen, then just maybe, and in its own good time, a few million years more or less, planet earth may yet again attempt the human experiment. Just possibly, in that time, there will be more hope that humans can learned to tolerate chaos and move consistently towards growth and maturity.
I believe a very strong argument can be advanced that without a progressive mind set, human civilization would have remained stuck in the Dark Ages of old. So, in a very real sense, the “battle” between conservatives and liberals may very well determine if the lights stay on in human cultural evolution, or will someone, years from now, turn off the last light as they cautiously close the door on this century.
Print
Email
