Guest Blog: Limits and Societal Progress

Foreword - by Joe Katzman

Every once in a while, we're sent Guest Blog submissions here at Winds of Change.NET. My policy is to publish submissions I find especially interesting, which doesn't always translate into agreement (welcome to political whiplash... just you wait until tomorrow's Guest Blog). "Limits and Societal Progress" is a philosophical, unvarnished and well-written essay from a rare species in America: the classical conservative.

It's long, but if you're serious about politics I'd invite you to read it and truly grapple with his points rather than sidestepping them. The process will be educational no matter what wavelength of the political spectrum you hail from. As always, we also have a Comments section for your thoughts and reactions.

Limits and Societal Progress
by William Breathitt Gray

Aldous Huxley, in "Brave New World, Revisited," examined in essay form some societal conditions manifest in 1958 that worried him: over-population, over-organization and the mass marketing of irrational propaganda. These were dangers, he said, not to civilization as such but to liberty, for they push the state toward greater influence, self-preservation and totalitarianism, away from civic engagement, constituent choice and independent thought. His arguments are clear and are supported by examples and the ponderings of his great intellect, articulately expressed without straining our patience and with occasional humor. I recommend the essay to students of history and political science, and to concerned citizens all.

It is unfair to criticize post-mortem an individual or his work, as he cannot respond to such commentary, rephrase his position, or refute an accusation. I do not intend to criticize Mr. Huxley, whose credentials are far beyond what I may imagine or hope my qualifications could ever be; rather, I will take his concern regarding over-organization as a starting point for my discourse. I too believe that there is cause for concern, but worry that other aspects of the issue have not been well examined.

A balance needs to be made between anarchy and roboticism. Both libertine independence and Spartan regimentation are unsustainable and transitory. Both are inefficient, wasteful and detrimental, in terms of societal progress and human benefit. They cannot last in governance, because for society to succeed it must be moving forward, and such extremes are detours perpendicular to that progression. Forward societal movement - that is, attention to the needs and goals of individual constituents without too burdening each of the next - requires coordinated group effort and investment. Endeavors not to that end weaken the foundation of, and justification for, society.

CONTINUED...

If focus is lost, the community becomes more tenuous, distant from the immediacy in which its members live, and less relevant. Pin pricks appear in the skin of communal relations... and as the pressure of change flows through these cuts they tear, rupturing the body of consensus and collapsing its support. The conciliator's bubble pops, the tyrant's walls fall. Both Chamberlain and Draco prove themselves inadequate at keeping the Barbarous Horde from Our City. Then the Invaders storm in, consuming or trampling all that we hold Good, to rape Our Heritage and sire yet more of their vulgar breed. This is the demon I fear: the evil unleashed when societal limits are broken.

One may ask, "Does keeping limits matter in today's permissive world?" The norms that linked constituents to community have come unhitched; 'values' still exist, but they are not values shared by everyone. New norms have been introduced. Of what worth is our individual conformity to limits if not matched by the majority? If our norms are not those of our neighbors, colleagues and associates, then we do not belong to their society nor gain much from it, whatever its nature. We and they are aliens. We are less able to agree with them because we have fewer points in common; in fact, it becomes increasingly easy to disagree because we find them so far removed from the values we have. We are uncomfortable in their presence and suspicious of their motives. We are in conflict. That which was 'society' pales and dissolves into melancholy. Insidiously, relentlessly, the New Order pushes us out, makes us foreign, makes us 'wrong' without our having changed at all. It is the disintegration and dysfunction of societal norms which mark the end of society.

Normal individual behavior stays within limits set first by parents, then community, then by the person himself. These three basic delineators of propriety can be likened to a chorus of criers vying for our interest: they shout, cajole, preach and praise, each louder than the next, in an effort to make us do what is 'right.' With time, we tire of the first messenger just as he tires of repeating the message, and his call fades; the second herald, society personified, is strong of voice and broad in scope, and to his song we give our attention most; yet the very breadth and richness of community make impossible our attempts to embrace it all, and so finally we withdraw into our private selves (some more than others), where there are fewer choices, less need for debate, and that little voice, our inner companion of many years, speaks clearer and apparently with better reason.

The transition from obedience to parental authority, through adherence to societal norms, to reliance on internal values and self-control occurs concomitantly with the individual's physical growth, acquisition of skills, intellectual development, and emotional maturity; it is a great shift of emphasis in the sources of an individual's guidance and occurs in the midst of the great changes and experiences associated with life and the human condition. But, despite all that, a person is never ignorant of right and wrong, never in doubt as to what is permitted. There are things he will not do, for whatever reasons, and those are his limits. To argue that an individual is ignorant of his limits, unknowing of his own 'right' and 'wrong,' is to argue against his sanity. Yes, we can say that a few mad souls wander among us, and these are, if not innocent then not culpable for their acts; but we cannot dismiss the competence and responsibility of the vast majority. It is the great press of humans who are sane and, rather than lost, intent upon their agendas, with which we must concern ourselves and contend. That our limits to our own behavior may not match theirs is irrelevant in practical consequence: they survive, therefore they must be doing something right. We must admit at least the minimal efficacy of their behavior.

The values which establish behavioral limits are of two tendencies: liberal and conservative. We can imagine the limits to acceptable behavior as two horizontal lines, the "Liberal Ceiling" and the "Conservative Floor." On rising to the Liberal Ceiling one finds greater tolerance, concern for others, passion, expression and immediacy, and less organization; on descending to the Conservative Floor there is greater scrutiny, evaluation, science, pragmatism and organization, and less tolerance. If we further imagine time on our graph as proceeding from left to right, and our individual comportment drawn between the Ceiling and the Floor, the path would no doubt curve up and down as it went - there are times in every life when values and behavior tend liberal or conservative, and no one can forever stay on "the straight and narrow."

Were a person to go beyond the limits set by a society for liberal acceptance or conservative conformity, such individual would no longer belong to that society; he would no longer share the same norms as the majority of others who constitute that group. He would be labeled a radical or a reactionist, respectively. He and others would now form another society, not radical or reactionary to them, but frightening in its differences to members of the original.

To people who share values and norms of behavior, both radicals and reactionists are unproductive, wasteful and destructive. They are unproductive in that their efforts do not contribute to furthering the existing society; they are wasteful in that the group expends resources trying to correct or contain them; they are destructive in that they invariably achieve at least some change in the status quo. Here our tolerant Liberal might say of the radical, "A little change is OK," while our strict Conservative might justify the reactionist with, "Acting on principle is virtuous." But remember, we have identified these deviants as those who go beyond societal limits, beyond the limits established by liberals and conservatives. A Liberal and a Conservative are tolerant and strict within the society they share. For a constituent to entertain more than fleeting agreement with radical or reactionary ideas portends poorly for his continued membership - he may soon and perhaps unwittingly find himself in another group.

There have been societies in which unwanted newborns were commonly left in the wild exposed to the elements and beasts, a form of post-natal abortion; the birth-mother suffered no odium, as that was a traditionally accepted practice. Someone might come along and take the baby in, but that would be a private kindness and not a communal act. In being abandoned, the child was expelled by society and placed outside its sphere of concern; no judgment, and no cost, attached to the matter. A liberal in such a society might plead that at least healthy children be spared and cared for by the state, while a conservative might agree that healthy children be spared routinely only if some private, charitable means of raising them were arranged. A radical in such a society would argue that no child should be left to die: "Save the Children!" he would demand, regardless of infirmity or cost. A reactionist would charge that unwanted children ruin families and burden everyone, and insist that a woman has the right to determine the fate of her off-spring (it came of her body, after all): "Pro-Choice!" he would shout, regardless of the child's condition, potential value or spirit. Note here that liberals and conservatives stay within societal limits, while radicals and reactionists do not; both the liberal and the conservative support existing tradition by permitting some infanticide, while the extremists break with tradition by either fighting to save every discarded newborn or clamoring for its death. The Radical and the Reactionist both change society by changing the norms that describe it. Were every abandoned child now saved or destroyed would evidence a new society. Individuals who preferred the old ways would find themselves alienated; indeed, by definition they would be "anti-social."

The distance separating the liberal and conservative limits of acceptable behavior is one predictor of societal progress. The more that the Liberal and the Conservative agree, the greater the sense of community; the less the concordance, the greater the dissatisfaction. As the gulf between 'option' and 'requirement' grows, there is a dissipation of the forward momentum necessary to maintain society. Returning to our diagram, we can imagine our Ceiling and Floor now farther apart; since our individual paths by nature tack crookedly up and down, greater energy and time is spent in vertical movement (making up our minds, so to speak) and less in constructive purpose. There is a generalized stagnation. There is much spinning of wheels, more talk, more 'understanding,' but less benefit. One may argue, "By stretching the limits we are more inclusive." No; it is impossible to "stretch" the limits. You can establish new limits that widen or narrow the distance between liberals and conservatives, but in so doing you define a new society, and adherents to the old ways will not accept a change in values. The effect is a split of the previous society, with disunity, waste, impatience, contempt, fear and anger erupting on the line dividing the two factions. Whatever the change in norms - in values, in culture, in vision, in purpose, in limits, in courtesies, in loyalty - be it large or small, that change will marginalize some individuals.

Societal progress depends in part on homogeneous constituent values; simply put, the more we agree, the more we achieve. Our wills and our minds are focused on the things we hold dear. Our customs and laws cultivate the well-being and betterment of all our partners in society. This success is not necessarily tied to technological development and comfort, nor does it correlate directly to duration. Many factors determine the complexity of our conditions and the time we spend living them. The dynasties of China and Egypt lasted generations, the communes of the Flower Children, not so long; but throughout history individuals have always been satisfied with their communities while they exist. Their needs and goals have always been met, must be met, right up to the end, for only at that point does society change: the point at which it fails. And that collapse may not be dramatic. The wider the span of opinion, the larger the range of purpose, the broader the ethnic base, the louder the foreign tongue, the kinder the bleeding heart, the greater the naivety... the less effective society is in addressing constituent needs and goals. It is less effective because it cannot meet everyone's expectations.

Imagine separating our Ceiling and Floor even further to encompass great extremes of thought and behavior. Our community becomes all-inclusive. Think of it, no conflicts. The Lion and the Lamb at Peace! But wait. Debate here is subdued, and analysis, a mere pastime. Anything goes. Rather than informed debate, senseless chatter is encouraged in these conditions. Radicals and reactionists are incorporated and given equal platform from which to broadcast their talking points, their selling points, their political points, their bonus points. There is virtually no forward societal movement due to the sheer number of options available at every step. There is no concentration of effort in furtherance of common values. Worse, in a grim and twisted way, there remain no common values, to wit: saving the baby now is as right as killing it. We have become patsies to our own benignity.

Lo! The Maelstrom gathers! 'Tis Chaos at Our Gate!

What will you do, dear Reader? What will you do, my fellow countryman? We know there is need for limits: acceptable behavior should be defined and enforced. We know there is need for tradition: a Common Heritage should be taught and promoted. We know there is need for vigilance: civic engagement should be open and encouraged. So, what can be done? How can we, members of the current Majority, ensure that we and our descendents remain in the Majority? How can we guarantee that the values we have lived by, values for which we have labored and for which many of us have fought and sacrificed - that Good Way we cherish and hope to bequeath Our Posterity - continue in ascendancy?

Subculture threatens society. Every foreign word spoken, every change in "how it's done," every ignorance of our history, every rudeness that we suffer, pollutes Our Nation. Nonconformists are the perpetrators of subculture, the Balkanizers, the Separatists. They are the lax parents, rich and poor, who raise the next parasitic and predatious generation, the corporate criminals, the con artists, the brutish thugs. They are those who revel in broken English, who slaughter our idiom and impoverish our dialog. They are the Immigrant-Who-Will-Not-Adapt. They are the illegal alien, whose mere presence, by definition, breaks our laws and insults us. They are those who do not 'buy into' our society, who do not contribute fully as citizens. They are those who do not accept us, Us!, who are the Righteous Majority!, who have done and continue to do so much for this Great Land! They whine, they poke, they waste, they bite. They maliciously disobey - yes, maliciously, because they try not to adhere to our norms. They want a Different Society. They are the Radical that goes too far and the Reactionist that hates too much. They are the Obsessed with Black History, they are the White Supremacist, they are the Militant Confused of Sex. They are the "Haiti-4-ever!" crowd and the promoters of bilingualism. They are the Renegade Militiamen and the Ethnic Sensitivity Trainers. They are the Devil Incarnate, and they would destroy Our World.

Cultural continuity is vital for societal integrity. Without cultural continuity, there is no support for society; more precisely, there is no support for the current society: it will change to reflect new norms in accordance with new values. It is essential that continuation be given to our history, our language, our traditions, our government, our commerce, our art, our play, our work. I asked, "What can be done?" It is this: assimilation. Our History, Our Language, Our Civic Institutions should be taught comprehensively, insistently, proudly. Their worth should be trumpeted throughout the land. In every classroom, in every office, in every government hall, from every corner, from every mountain, from every patriotic site, Let Our Heritage Ring! Let Its tones infuse our thoughts and inspire us in all we do, from the most menial tasks of employment to the majestic works of Community Service.

We have the best possible society; our membership validates its propriety. We should not be ashamed. We should not apologize for who we are or what we do. We should not deny our own being. We should not adapt our ways to others. Our values are the forerunners of our success and should be affirmed. We are Great because we are Great. If we, as the Righteous Majority, through established and agreed upon mechanisms, and after rational debate, decide to set new norms, so be it. We have that right. We have it: not the Outsider, not the Extremist, not the Dole-sucking Plebe, whose feeble brain obsesses not with what he can do for this country but what he can extract. It makes me sick to know I taste his exhaled breath. Where has statesmanship gone? Where has community gone? Where has the Eagle gone? Where? Why, didn't you see, man? They left on the same boat that brought the Mariel gang.

Take action. Echo this alarm. Stay informed. Contact your federal, state and local government officials; contact those that disagree with you. Go ahead, give them all a piece of your mind, chew on their ears, repeatedly (I ly derive great satisfaction in doing so). Contribute to and participate in those causes you support. Let this day be a new beginning for you. Let this be the day you stand up for what is Right. Go out confident and proud in the Truth. Be the one who speaks in public and says what should be said. The Enemy is both insidious and strident: he uses our freedom of speech, our social security, our patience and our kindness against us. He cries, he derides, he threatens, he suborns. Well, it is time to lose our patience and chill our kindness; it is time to tighten public aid and shout back at his propaganda; it is time to fill the Square of Consensus with righteous ire. Do it, and we may yet save Our World.

To close, I will leave you with a quote from President George W. Bush; he was speaking on hunting down and bringing terrorists to justice, but I dare say the term "terrorist" applies as well to those deviants identified in my humble discourse:

"We will not waver,
We will not tire,
We will not falter,
and We will not fail."

William Breathitt Gray is Editor of "Trumpet America", a public forum for civic engagement.

All rights reserved. This article can be found on the Internet at:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/guest_blog_limits_and_societal_progress.php

Persons wishing to contact the author of this article for reprints etc. should put a request in the Comments section, or send an email to "joe", over here @windsofchange.net.