اندیشهفلسفهخردگفتگوحکمتمعناپرسشفرهنگ
Political Science
Webinar “On the Conservative Temper” by Aref Ebadi
Conservatism is not an ideology but a pragmatic and flexible disposition. Skeptical of abstract reason, conservatives consider practical knowledge more important in politics than theory, and regard ideology as a distorted caricature.
Conservatism is often mentioned—alongside liberalism and socialism—as one of the three major ideologies of the twentieth century. In describing conservatism, many enumerate characteristics such as preserving the existing order, an aversion to change, and passivity in the face of circumstances. John Stuart Mill called the Conservative Party the “stupid party,” and John Hearnshaw, the renowned English historian, said, “To be a conservative, it is enough for one to sit and think, or even just to sit.” Despite this treatment of conservatism as an ideology, conservatives believe that their views are not an “ideology.”
If by ideology we mean a comprehensive, abstract conceptual system whose aim is not merely to explain the world but to change it, then conservatism cannot be considered an ideology. Conservatives oppose ideology because they believe that, due to their abstract nature, ideologies are incapable of showing the complexities and subtleties of the real world. In other words, from the conservative perspective, an ideology is incapable of presenting a picture of the world; rather, what is expressed in an ideology is a kind of caricature that portrays reality in a distorted form. In the view of conservatives, ideology reduces all the complexities, beauties, and richness of human life to cold, colorless formulas. Conservatives hold that no abstraction or generalization is real; only particulars are real. The understanding of the plural and complex reality of the world, according to conservatives, stands in opposition to the lifeless materials of system-builders and ideologues. For conservatives, the importance of ideology lies in the fact that sometimes ideologies highlight matters that perhaps had not received much attention before. However, one must never mistake a caricature for the real picture, which is full of complexity and obscurity. Therefore, instead of focusing on abstract and general formulas, conservatives focus on pragmatism, flexibility, adaptability, and spontaneity. It is for this reason that conservatism should be considered a kind of disposition and conduct, not an ideology.
Core Teachings of the Conservative Temper:
The fact that conservatives are more pragmatic and concerned with concrete, real issues has made understanding their fundamental ideas difficult. In examining this thought, commentators on conservatism have pointed to various matters and enumerated numerous principles. Nevertheless, I believe that in explaining conservatism, one can name a few core teachings that have been common to almost all conservatives.
a) Skepticism: Skepticism lies at the heart of conservative thought. What is meant by skepticism in conservative thought is that they doubt the capacity of the autonomous and abstract reason of the individual to understand and change the political and social world.
1- Many thinkers in the Age of Enlightenment (though certainly not all of them) believed that humanity and the world could be understood, and that based on this understanding, the world and society could be changed and improved. The zenith of this thought can be found in the theories that led to the Great French Revolution of 1789. The Great French Revolution was, in fact, the translation of this belief that a precise and efficient political system could be built upon reason and argument. However, some thinkers reacted against this mode of thought. For example, Edmund Burke (who is often referred to as the father of conservatism) was skeptical of the individual's abstract reason's ability to create and establish an ideal society. The root of this skepticism toward human reason is often sought in Christian theology and the concept of "original sin" or "inherent sin." But it seems such skepticism existed before the emergence of Christianity, and its most detailed form can be found in the theories of Aristotle. Aristotle distinguished between two forms of knowledge: theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge. Theoretical knowledge is universal, general, eternal, and everlasting knowledge that can be expressed in clear and transparent propositions or formulas. In contrast, practical knowledge is knowledge based on experience, particular, and context-dependent, which cannot be expressed as a formula. (Such a distinction exists among other conservative thinkers; for instance, David Hume speaks of reason and habit, Edmund Burke of abstract reason and prudence, Michael Oakeshott of technical knowledge and practical knowledge, Michael Polanyi of tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge, and Friedrich Hayek of knowing that and knowing how).
The purpose of distinguishing these two types of knowledge is to show that understanding certain matters is not based on theory; rather, the individual must acquire the desired knowledge in a practical manner. For example, for someone to learn to ride a bicycle, they must get on a bicycle and, by falling down and practicing several times, ultimately be able to maintain their balance and learn it. Such knowledge cannot be expressed theoretically in books about cycling. If someone spends all their time studying books about cycling without ever having ridden a bicycle, they will not be able to ride a bicycle. To learn cycling, one must accumulate its knowledge practically. In everyday life, these two knowledges are intertwined, and we need both to carry out tasks. However, in some activities, theoretical knowledge is more important, and in others, practical knowledge. From the perspective of conservatives, politics is one of those fields of knowledge where the practical aspect is far more significant than the theoretical aspect. Someone who is a professor of political science and knows all sorts of political theories is not necessarily a good politician. Because being a politician requires knowledge that cannot be learned solely from political books; one must be practically active in politics.
Conservatives believe that some philosophers do not recognize such a distinction and imagine that theoretical knowledge is the only kind of knowledge, and that mastery of the theoretical aspect of a subject is equivalent to encompassing all its aspects. Kant is an example of this type of philosopher. In one of his last writings, entitled “On the Common Saying: That May Be Correct in Theory, but It Is of No Use in Practice” (1793), he argues that it is impossible for something to be correct in theory but not work in practice. In Kant’s view, the existence of such an opposition between theory and practice stems from either a weakness in the theory’s precision or the theory not having thoroughly examined all aspects of a phenomenon. In such circumstances, what we need are more theories to remedy the deficiencies. Ultimately, however, we need nothing other than theoretical knowledge because everything can be expressed in theoretical form. But as stated, for conservatives such a thing is impossible, and there is always something that cannot be expressed and formulated in theory, and the only way to access it is to acquire knowledge in a practical form. The impossibility of expressing practical knowledge in theoretical knowledge gives it a context-dependent and particular quality. For this reason, practical knowledge obtained about a specific situation or the politics of a particular country cannot be presented for other countries and situations. To transform and make practical knowledge presentable as theoretical knowledge (assuming it can be expressed), one must set aside its subtleties and details so that it takes the form of abstract concepts. Such concepts, as stated, in the view of conservatives, present a fabricated picture of the world, and therefore it is better to avoid them.
2- Conservatives are also skeptical regarding political ends. In the sense that they do not believe in the dominance of one end over other ends of political life. In the view of conservatives, political values and ends are often in conflict with one another, and it is the task of the politician, considering the circumstances, to make the best decision to reduce the conflicts among ends and values. Hence, conservatives do not seek the pursuit of a particular value (freedom, equality, etc.) but rather consider the totality of values and the relationships among them.
3- Conservatives are also skeptical about progress and criticize the idea of progress from two angles. First, in order to understand the concept of “progress,” we first need to specify a goal and an end. For example, if a society’s goal is to reach a higher level of freedom, then attaining freedom can be considered the end and one can move toward it. But as previously stated, conservatives do not define a specific end for politics; rather, they see the goal of politics as reducing the tensions among society’s values. Second, conservatives believe that no “progress” is absolute and unconditional. Meaning that “progress” in one area entails “regress” in other areas. For example, if in a liberal country the goal is economic growth and increasing the gross domestic product, such a matter will lead to increased inequality in society. Also, pursuing such a policy will lead to the growth of psychological complications such as stress, depression, and anxiety among economic actors. Therefore, in the view of conservatives, absolute and unconditional “progress” is not possible.
Conservatives believe that politics should have the least possible intervention in people’s affairs. In the sense that it should merely provide a general framework for the activities of citizens. The end of politics, in the view of conservatives, is not to guide society and people toward a specific direction, but its only task is to maintain security and resolve disputes that arise among individuals in society. As Michael Oakeshott, the great English conservative philosopher, said: “In political activity, men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place nor appointed destination. The enterprise is to keep afloat on an even keel; the sea is both friend and enemy; and the seamanship consists in using the resources of a traditional manner of behaviour in order to make a friend of every hostile occasion.”
b) Traditionalism: Traditionalism in conservative thought often carries two meanings. One is an attachment to the established institutions and traditions of one’s own society, and the other is opposition and hostility to sudden changes (and not to change as a whole). Conservatives are not opposed to change in general, to the extent that Edmund Burke explicitly states that a state unwilling to change is also unwilling to preserve itself. Hence, they are only pessimistic about sudden and fundamental change. For conservatives, society’s institutions and traditions have evolved and been refined over time. Such institutions have been able, throughout time, to meet the numerous and diverse needs of various strata of society and to adapt themselves to changes. Society’s institutions and traditions are the product of the accumulated knowledge and reforms of thousands of years, preserved and handed down to us by individuals. Such institutions constitute the collective capital of a society, and a single individual will not be able to judge and fundamentally alter them relying solely on their personal capital, that is, their own reason. Edmund Burke says in this regard, “We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages.” In the view of conservatives, changes in society’s traditions must be carried out based on practical knowledge and with regard to the specific conditions of each society, and not based on the generalities and abstractions of theoretical knowledge. Burke writes, “I must see with my own eyes, I must touch with my own hands the conditions, before I can venture to outline a political plan. I must see the means of correcting abuses; I must see the things; I must see the men involved.” The importance of tradition arises from the fact that, for conservatives, tradition is what shapes each and every individual in society. Tradition is a collection of a society’s language, literature, customs, and culture. A human being without attachment to tradition (that is, without language, customs, and culture) has no external existence. It is for this reason that Joseph de Maistre says, “In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I even know, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But as for man, I declare I have never met him in my life.” In addition to the above, for conservatives, tradition is a force that restrains the destructive and ruinous instincts of humankind. In the absence of culture and tradition, man is not the “noble savage” Rousseau fantasized about, but rather a being that has descended to the level of predatory animals. It is thanks to tradition and culture that man has been able to take the path to civilization. Therefore, conservatives believe that tradition should not be ignored or that one should attempt to discard it entirely, because, as José Ortega y Gasset says, “Be careful: if you destroy everything, what will take its place?”
ج) نگاه انداموارگی به جامعه: محافظهکاران در تقابل با نگاه «ماشینوارگی» نسبت به جامعه، دیدگاهی «انداموارگی» را مطرح میکنند. در نگاه مکانیکی نسبت به جامعه، در صورت بروز مشکل در هرکدام از بخشهای جامعه میتوان بدون در نظر داشتن دیگر بخشها، دست به تغییر بخش معیوب زد. اما در نگاه انداموارگی، جامعه همچون موجودی زنده تصور میشود که نمیتوان تغییر در یک بخش را به صورت مجزا و بدون درنظر گرفتن تاثیر آن بر بخشهای دیگر اعمال کرد. هرجامعهای، مثل هر موجود زنده، دارای عناصر و ویژگیهایی است که مختص به آن است. بنابراین، تغییر در یک جامعه مستلزم سنجیدن و ارزیابی خصوصیات منحصر به فرد آن جامعه بخصوص است. به عنوان مثال، اگر کالایی همچون اتومبیل در یک کشور کارآمد باشد میتوان به راحتی آن را به کشور دیگر ارسال کرد و در کشور مقصد همچنان از آن بهره برد. اما در حوزه سیاست، چنین باوری به فاجعه میانجامد. برای نمونه کارآمد بودن شیوه حکومت دموکراتیک در یک جامعه (مثل فرانسه) به معنای کارآمد بودن آن شیوه حکومت در جوامع دیگر (مثل افغانستان) نیست. حکومت دموکراتیک کارآمد در یک جامعه، میباید بر اساس سنتها و فرهنگ بخصوص همان جامعه شکل گرفته باشد در غیراینصورت، کارآیی خود را از دست میدهد و تنها نامی از آن باقی میماند. ارتباط عناصر جامعه همچون موجودی زنده تا حدی هست که از نظر محافظهکاران نمیتوان یک شیوه حکومت کارآمد در کشوری دموکراتیک را در کشور دموکراتیک دیگر پیاده کرد. مثلا، شیوه حکومتداری فرانسه را نمیتوان در انگلستان یا استرالیا (که همگی کشورهایی دموکراتیک هستند) پیاده کرد. زیرا نهادها، ساختار اجتماعی، تاریخ و فرهنگ سیاسی این کشورها با هم متفاوت است و شیوه حکومت هریک دارای جزئیات و پیچیدگیهایی است که غیرقابل انتقال به کشور دیگر است.
در نهایت باید اضافه کرد مواردی که به عنوان تعالیم منش محافظهکاری ارائه شد تنها مقدمهای است بر این شیوه تفکر. برای درک بهتر منش محافظهکاری میباید تاریخ و شرایط اجتماعی کشور مورد نظر را عمیقا به مطالعه گرفت تا شیوه برخورد محافظهکاران با مسائل انضمامی را بهتر شناخت.
.
.
منابع برای مطالعه بیشتر:
Arnhart L. (2005) Darwinian Conservatism, Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Ebadi A (2017) Law, Liberty and State: Oakeshott, Hayek and Schmitt on the Rule of Law. Political Studies Review. 15(1):87-95 .
Ebadi A (2017) The Legendary Past: Michael Oakeshott on Imagination and Political Identity. Political Studies, 14(2): 248-258 .
Ebadi A (2020) ‘The Quiet American: A Conservative Reading’ in The Politics of Culture: An Interdisciplinary Interrogation of Popular Culture. Cambridge Scholars.
Eccleshall R. (1984/2003) Conservatism. In: Eccleshall R, Geoghegan V, Jay R, et al. (eds) Political Ideologies: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
Graham J, Haidt J and Nosek BA. (2009) Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96: 1029-1046 .
Haidt J and Graham J. (2007) When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize. Social Justice Research 20: 98-116 .
Heywood A. (2012) Political Ideologies: An Introduction, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Huntington SP. (1956) Conservatism as an Ideology. American Political Science Review 51: 454-473 .
Kekes J. (1998/2001) A Case for Conservatism, New York: Cornell University Press. D.C.: Regnery Publishing Inc.
Kirk R. (1953/1995) The Conservative Mind: from Burke to Eliot, Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing Inc.
Lakoff G. (2002) Moral Politics: How Liberals And Conservatives Think, Chicago University of Chicago Press.
Mannheim K. (1936/1979) Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to Sociology of Knowledge, London: Routledge.
Muller J (1997) Conservatism: An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Nisbet R. (1986) Conservatism: Dream and Reality, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
O'Sullivan N. (1993) Conservatism. In: Wright A and Eatwell R (eds) Contemporary Political Ideologies. London: Printer Publishers Ltd.
Quinton A. (1993/2007) Conservatism. In: Goodin RE, Pettit P and Pogge TW (eds) A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Schwarzmantel J. (1998) The Age of Ideology: Political Ideologies from the American Revolution to Postmodern Times, London: MacMillan Press Ltd.
Scruton R. (2015) How To Be A Conservative, London: Bloomsbury Continuum.
Vincent A. (1992/2010) Modern Political Ideologies, London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wilson FG. (1964/1971) The Anatomy of Conservatives. In: Stankiewicz WJ (ed) Political Thought Since Word War II. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
.
.
Webinar video on YouTube
Webinar video on Aparat
Download webinar audio
.
.
Discussion0 comments
No comments yet; let yours be the first voice.