Conservatism: Tentative and General Definitions
The following is a general outline of my attempt to find a suitable definition of conservatism.
What is conservatism? What distinguishes it from other ideologies, if it be an ideology at all? Is it a set of ideas or attitudes, beliefs, and convictions- or some combination of the same?
It does not seem that conservatism could at the same time be characterized by a staunch opposition to change and remain a sound set of ideas, for all societies are in constant fluctuation especially in our own times. As an aside it is worth noting that conservatives in practice make policy recommendations that would change the status quo, for example, tax cuts and increases in military spending. So opposition to change does not seem like a good candidate.
Neither can the idealization of a previous era be an acceptable definition, for no conservative worth taking seriously would want to revert to a time of slavery or segregation or to any evil of the past. Conservatism works with society as it is now to bring it more in alignment with timeless universal goods such as justice, order, and concord.
This suggests that conservatism must be in favor of some form change, for if it is not connected with a return to an idealized past, and works with the present state of affairs, then it must be advocating changes of some kind. Learning from history, conservatives recognize the inherent value of society and civilization, in other words, that established institutions in this world are difficult to bring into existence and are even harder to maintain. Change, therefore, should be effected through those institutions and should be of a gradual character, for a radical character would run the risk of throwing society into chaos. A critical question here would be: when is radical change necessary? And also of significance: when are revolutions justified? Revolution and radical change must never be accepted hastily, but only when normative methods prove ineffectual in correcting the evil in question. Revolution and radical, sweeping change cannot be immediately discounted from the tools available to conservatives, because they would otherwise disarm themselves against any grave, systemic evils that would require them in order to be remedied.
Another piece that needs to be examined before setting down a definition: where do the above mentioned “timeless universal goods” come from? This is perhaps the central aspect of conservatism: the transcendent character of its vision. Conservatives believe that this world’s order is indicative of a higher one. There exists a metaphysical reality (classical realism) beyond what is immediately apparent to our senses. This ordering is further indicative of an external power that ordered it, this and other proofs lead to the conclusion that God exists. Through metaphysical inquiry we further establish the existence of a universal human nature, its dignity, and its “rights.” Furthermore, that there is a Creator and an order to the world, the human order must have an end to which it is working. Thus come into view the universal goods mentioned above.
Now the issue of power cannot be avoided. Power cannot be an evil thing, for without it mankind is helpless and a slave to forces outside of him. Yet it must be an ordered and restricted thing or it otherwise risks becoming all consuming, no matter at what level it is exercised in the political hierarchy. The principle of subsidiarity is here useful, and forms an integral part of justice, for it declares that problems ought to be solved at the lowest level possible. This principle guarantees not so much the sovereignty of groups lower on the hierarchical chain as it orders them towards their proper ends. In the practical sense, this hinges on some form of constitutionalism.
Next must be solved the problem of what sort of thing is conservatism. It seems to be a kind of world view and not a mere ideology, set of ideas, or set of beliefs. A praiseworthy world view is a combination of ideas and intuitions that relies upon reason to correctly test (e.g. seeing if they follow the principle of non-contradiction) then guide the beliefs one holds. Only a conservative world view that is rational can be trusted to avoid error and arrive at truth.
So I come to my definition: Conservatism is a transcendent world view informed by reason and the experience of history that holds that the institutions of society are best served through gradual, incremental change in accordance with universal truth and justice.
The following is a general outline of my attempt to find a suitable definition of conservatism.
What is conservatism? What distinguishes it from other ideologies, if it be an ideology at all? Is it a set of ideas or attitudes, beliefs, and convictions- or some combination of the same?
It does not seem that conservatism could at the same time be characterized by a staunch opposition to change and remain a sound set of ideas, for all societies are in constant fluctuation especially in our own times. As an aside it is worth noting that conservatives in practice make policy recommendations that would change the status quo, for example, tax cuts and increases in military spending. So opposition to change does not seem like a good candidate.
Neither can the idealization of a previous era be an acceptable definition, for no conservative worth taking seriously would want to revert to a time of slavery or segregation or to any evil of the past. Conservatism works with society as it is now to bring it more in alignment with timeless universal goods such as justice, order, and concord.
This suggests that conservatism must be in favor of some form change, for if it is not connected with a return to an idealized past, and works with the present state of affairs, then it must be advocating changes of some kind. Learning from history, conservatives recognize the inherent value of society and civilization, in other words, that established institutions in this world are difficult to bring into existence and are even harder to maintain. Change, therefore, should be effected through those institutions and should be of a gradual character, for a radical character would run the risk of throwing society into chaos. A critical question here would be: when is radical change necessary? And also of significance: when are revolutions justified? Revolution and radical change must never be accepted hastily, but only when normative methods prove ineffectual in correcting the evil in question. Revolution and radical, sweeping change cannot be immediately discounted from the tools available to conservatives, because they would otherwise disarm themselves against any grave, systemic evils that would require them in order to be remedied.
Another piece that needs to be examined before setting down a definition: where do the above mentioned “timeless universal goods” come from? This is perhaps the central aspect of conservatism: the transcendent character of its vision. Conservatives believe that this world’s order is indicative of a higher one. There exists a metaphysical reality (classical realism) beyond what is immediately apparent to our senses. This ordering is further indicative of an external power that ordered it, this and other proofs lead to the conclusion that God exists. Through metaphysical inquiry we further establish the existence of a universal human nature, its dignity, and its “rights.” Furthermore, that there is a Creator and an order to the world, the human order must have an end to which it is working. Thus come into view the universal goods mentioned above.
Now the issue of power cannot be avoided. Power cannot be an evil thing, for without it mankind is helpless and a slave to forces outside of him. Yet it must be an ordered and restricted thing or it otherwise risks becoming all consuming, no matter at what level it is exercised in the political hierarchy. The principle of subsidiarity is here useful, and forms an integral part of justice, for it declares that problems ought to be solved at the lowest level possible. This principle guarantees not so much the sovereignty of groups lower on the hierarchical chain as it orders them towards their proper ends. In the practical sense, this hinges on some form of constitutionalism.
Next must be solved the problem of what sort of thing is conservatism. It seems to be a kind of world view and not a mere ideology, set of ideas, or set of beliefs. A praiseworthy world view is a combination of ideas and intuitions that relies upon reason to correctly test (e.g. seeing if they follow the principle of non-contradiction) then guide the beliefs one holds. Only a conservative world view that is rational can be trusted to avoid error and arrive at truth.
So I come to my definition: Conservatism is a transcendent world view informed by reason and the experience of history that holds that the institutions of society are best served through gradual, incremental change in accordance with universal truth and justice.
