Progress Revisited

Progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer.
If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.

― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Our nation is currently beset by a lot of “progressives” in our political institutions. But as C.S. Lewis noted more than half a century ago, progress involves getting closer to a fixed goal. For some people today that goal is one of perpetual change before us. But for many of us, the goal is stepping back to where a wrong turn was made so we can begin again on the right path. Since both have a “progressive” vision, and it isn’t the same, conflict ensues. In fact, to be even more exact, there are multitudes of visions, most mutually exclusive, or with very little overlap.

Why am I thinking about this now? Because for my communications class I have to do a group presentation on something called “critical theory.” This theory grew out of Marxism in 1920s Germany, but soon broke from it. Its main tenet is criticism of other theories for not taking action on social problems. Its specific focus is:

… the substantive problematic of domination, a complex notion based on a concern with the ways social relations also mediate power relations to create various forms of alienation and inhibit the realization of human possibilities. In this respect, critical theory is a kind of conflict theory in that it is recognized that relations of domination manifest themselves in social struggles. What is distinctive about critical theory, however, is its understanding of the complexity of domination itself (which cannot be reduced to overt oppression), as well as the methodological problems involved in studying it (Harvey, 1990, p 32).

During its early phases it expected the working class to mobilize to overthrow Hitler’s Nazi dictatorship. When that didn’t happen, they blamed the welfare state and the mass media (which they called the “culture industries”) by distracting working class audiences from their real interests. They moved from that into further criticisms of “advanced capitalism” for its use of domination in social structures (see above) to inhibit human possibilities.

This led to:

The intellectual paradox of the 1990s… Marx was fully rehabilitated in Anglo-American scholarship as a fully credible empirical social scientist in the very decade — the 1980s — that  culminated in the practical repudiation of Marxism as a universal, world-historical ideology of revolutionary progress.

Now, I have a full agreement with the alleged humanism of the critical theorists, who want to remove inhibitions to human possibilities, yet I disagree with their methods and conclusions.

I think it the sign of highest arrogance to assume that people are being misled about their true needs, just because they don’t happen to agree with you — though I do think that the mass media in general is misleading people, just not in the way the critical theorists think they are being misled.

I also have a disagreement with their demonization of domination, and their solution for it.

First, domination is not a bad thing. It is merely a hierarchical term. There is nothing wrong with hierarchy, and power relationships. In Genesis God gives man dominion, or domination, of the earth to man, and then places him in the garden to tend it. Proper dominion is a function of complementary but not equal relationships. There are rights and obligations on both ends. When upheld, both ends are able to experience their purpose and potential to the fullest.

Second, their solution to domination is “democracy.” This works into the suppression of minority views and diversity, by the majority. But since a majority cannot effectively yield power, this ends up in oligarchy of the learned telling everyone what is progressive and the best for all. This can only be achieved by more and more government in people’s lives.

The problem is someone giving directions from a county seat, state capital, or national government somewhere, can hardly know what sort of human possibilities I am capable of, what inhibitions are in my way, and what would best remove them. They can only give a one-size-fits all solution. This ends up being good for a few, and bad for most.

No, the best solution to empower people is for government to get out of their way as much as possible, only preventing interference as necessary and in limited circumstances. This is a republican, not democratic, ideal — rule of law, not rule of people (note this is small “r” and small “d” republican and democratic). This is also a true humanism.

It is also the view that encompasses the most freedom for the most people, and allows the largest number of views of “progress”, as mentioned in the opening of this blog, to exist at the same time. It is the most diverse and the most inclusive. Everyone is free to their view of progress, as long as they don’t limit or curtail someone else’s.

And if you think something needs to be done for someone, do it yourself, or convince others to work with you, with your resources — put your own money where your mouth is. Show true charity. Don’t take the miser’s way out, and get government to foot the bill by taking more money from everyone.

References

All quotes on Critical Theory come from Critical Theory and Methodology in Contemporary Social Theory, Thousand, Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1994.