Conservatism Flashcards
Core conservative ideas
Pragmatism
Tradition
Human imperfection
Organic society or state
Paternalism
Libertarianism
What is Pragmatism and how does it like to the idea of human rationality?
Pragmatism rejects theory and ideology in favour of practical experience - the approach to society should be flexible, with decisions made on the basis of what works. Oakeshott summarised that ‘to be a Conservative is to prefer the tried to the untried’. Pragmatism also implies a flexible approach to politics that considers what is in the best interests of the people, what is acceptable to the public and what will maintain social stability and cohesion. Conservatives’ preference for pragmatism is strongly linked to their view of human rationality. They contend that humans lack the intellectual ability and powers of reasoning to fully comprehend the complex realities of the world. As a result, conservatives tend to dismiss abstract ideas, theories and ideologies that claim to ‘explain’ or ‘improve” human life and development. Principles and ideas such as human rights, a classless society and equality are dangerous because they can promote a radical reordering of society (often through revolution) that leads to worse rather than better conditions. Conservatives try to avoid a rigid ideological approach to issues, preferring to act in a pragmatic way that emphasises caution, moderation and a sense of historical continuity.
What do critics of pragmatism argue?
Critics argue that pragmatism reveals a lack of political principle and encourages politicians to follow rather than lead public opinion. In practice, political behaviour or action cannot be wholly separated from ideological or theoretical considerations.
Different branch views on pragmatism?
Traditional and one-nation conservatism are the two strands of conservative thinking usually linked to pragmatism. For traditional conservatives, such as Edmund Burke, pragmatism was an essential element in facilitating ‘natural’ or inevitable change within a state or society. This type of change, he argued, should not be opposed because a state ‘without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation’ - for the state to keep going, it would have to adapt to some extent. Burke’s conservatism maintained that cautious pragmatism would bring about necessary change peacefully, through evolution, whereas the unbending pursuit of revolution or reaction would lead to conflict and chaos. The key features of society - such as order, property, tradition and established institutions - can only be preserved through a pragmatic policy that takes into account shifting circumstances and recognises occasions when it is necessary to change to conserve.
One-nation conservatives hold similar attitudes to social reform. However, more recently they have also adopted a pragmatic ‘middle way’ approach to the economy that combines market competition with government regulation. These conservatives argue that this moderate economic course promotes growth and social harmony by encouraging wealth creation through private enterprise and generating the funding for state welfare programmes.
Case study linking to pragmatism
Conservative administrations 1951-64
Perhaps the clearest example of one-nation conservative pragmatism occurred in the years
1951-64 when a series of moderate Conservative administrations governed the UK. In opposition, the Conservative Party had opposed many aspects of the Labour government’s domestic reform programme between 1945 and 1951. However, once back in power the Conservatives made no concerted attempt to reverse Labour’s nationalisation of British industry or to dismantle the newly created welfare state. Aware that these initiatives were popular and, apparently, working well, successive Conservative governments took a pragmatic decision to retain Labour’s reforms.
What is the belief of tradition?
Another important core value of conservatism is its attachment to tradition - the institutions, customs and practices of a society that have developed over time.
Religious Justification for tradition
Originally, the conservative justification for tradition had religious roots. Conservatives who believed that the world was created by a divine being saw society’s institutions and practices of society as ‘God-given’. Humans who attempt to alter these longstanding social arrangements are challenging the will of God and consequently are likely to undermine society, rather than improve it.
How was the religious justification for tradition weakened
Although religious fundamentalists still put forward this argument for tradition, this divine justification has been severely weakened by the impact of Enlightenment thinking (with its emphasis on rationalism and anti-clericalism) from the 18th century and the incorporation of obviously man-made innovations over time, such as representative democracy.
Secular arguments justifying tradition
-First, drawing on the ideas of Edmund Burke and the writer G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936), conservatives maintain that tradition constitutes the accumulated wisdom of the past. According to this view, the institutions, customs and practices of the past (such as the monarchy, the constitution, the nuclear family and heterosexual marriage) have demonstrated their value to earlier societies as they have proved ‘fit for purpose’ over time and survived. For this reason, they should be preserved so that current and future generations can also benefit from them. For example, the monarchy has promoted a sense of national unity and pride over the centuries, seen most recently at the 2011 royal wedding. Thus, tradition establishes continuity and social stability This was Burke’s point when he famously stated that society was a ‘partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born. Each generation has a solemn duty to safeguard and pass on the accumulated wisdom tradition to the next generation. This view of tradition clearly influences the conservative attitude to change.
-Secondly, conservatives champion tradition because, in their view, it provides society and the individual with a strong sense of identity. Long-established institutions, customs and practices are familiar and provide individuals with a historically based sense of belonging to a particular society.
Tradition fosters social cohesion and security because it offers humans a reassuring collective sense of who they are, and establishes powerful ties between people and specific societies. Conservatives claim that any attempt to implement radical, wide-ranging changes will cut people off from the
‘traditional basis of society and inevitably lead to instability, anxiety and insecurity.
Such arguments were used by Conservative opponents of the New Labour government’s constitutional changes in the late 1990s. They asserted that innovations such as devolved assemblies and House of Lords reform would undermine the constitutional stability of the UK and create a mood of public uncertainty.
When do conservatives believe change should be permitted
According to conservatives, reform or change can only be justified if it evolves naturally in a peaceful, gradual way in order to strengthen existing institutions, customs and practices. Conservatives argue that, by seeking to destroy all traditional political and social institutions, the French in 1789 and the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917 were cutting themselves off from their past and paving the way for regimes that were more tyrannical (such as the Terror of 1793-94, the Napoleonic Empire and the Stalinist dictatorship) than the ones they had toppled.
Conservative concept of human imperfection
Conservatives have a pessimistic view of human nature, arguing that people are flawed and incapable of reaching a state of perfection. Conservatism also asserts that human nature is immutable (remains constant). Human imperfection has to be kept in check due to the human capacity for evil.
For conservatives, humans are flawed in three ways: psychologically, morally and intellectually.
These assumptions lead conservatives to endorse organicism - the idea of an organic society or state. This perspective views society as a living organism, with all its parts working together in harmony to ensure that the ‘body’ remains healthy.
Following from conservative view on human imperfection, they stress that:
•a tough stance on law and order is required, to deter criminal behaviour
• as human nature cannot be transformed, foreign policy has to be based on national security rather than ‘liberal’ notions of international co-operation and harmony
•human behaviour is competitive, so any successful political system will recognise that self-interest is a more powerful motivator than altruism.
•can’t comprehend complex realities of world, need tradition, pragmatism
Idea of organic society and state and freedom
Given that conservatives regard humans as dependent and security-seeking, it follows that people cannot exist separately from society as a whole or from social groups, such as the family or the local community. Society and social groups provide individuals with a sense of security and purpose, and prevent the development of anomie - a condition of instability affecting individuals and societies, produced by a breakdown in social standards and values or by a lack of purpose or ideals.
In turn, humans accept the duties, responsibilities and bonds that go with belonging to society or social groups, such as being a caring parent, a considerate neighbour, or a respectful son or daughter. For conservatives, this represents true freedom - the willing acceptance of the value of social obligations and ties. If people did not acknowledge and act on these responsibilities and bonds, human society would lack social cohesion and descend into atomism
What is Atomism?
the idea that society is made up of self-interested and self-sufficient
individuals (also known as egoistical individualism). It can also describe increasing social breakdown and isolation.
How is man flawed psychologically ?
Humans are limited and dependent.
People crave safety, familiarity and the security of knowing their designated place in society.
Such a view places a premium on social order rather than liberty because order provides humans with much-needed security, predictability and stability.
In contrast, liberty raises the unsettling prospect of choice, change and uncertainty.
For this reason, conservatives have frequently endorsed Thomas Hobbes’ argument that social order has to come before liberty.
How is man flawed morally?
Humans are morally imperfect because they are naturally selfish and greedy. Anti-social or criminal behaviour is due to basic human nature and cannot be attributed to economic or social disadvantage.
A robust law and order system that imposes severe sanctions on such conduct is the only effective deterrent to combat the moral imperfections of humans.
How is man flawed intellectually?
The intellect and reasoning of humans are limited. Humans do not possess the mental faculties to make sense of a complex modern world.
Consequently, conservatives reject overarching theories or ideologies that claim to explain or predict the development of human society.
Instead humans need to draw on tradition, history and practical experience to understand their place in the world.
Beliefs about foundation and building of an organic society
• The internal elements of an organic society or state cannot be randomly reconfigured. Like a living creature, an organic society is maintained by a delicate set of relationships between these elements. If this careful balance is disturbed, the society will be undermined and possibly destroyed. For this reason, an organic society represents more than a collection of individual elements.
• An organic society is based on natural needs and instincts such as affection, security and concern, rather than an ideological blueprint devised by political theorists. Such a view of society - where its component parts have been moulded by natural forces beyond human control - suggests that its members should sustain this careful balance of interacting elements In particular, long-standing institutions have played a key role in preserving the ‘health’ of society and should not be changed or removed.
Who is organic society belief underpinned by ideas about hierarchy and authority?
Underpinning the idea of an organic society is the conservative belief in hierarchy and authority
Traditionally, conservatism has argued that society is naturally hierarchical - it is based on fixed social ranks and inequalities. This is partly to do with the fact that individuals vary in terms of the talents, intellect, skills and work rate. However, conservatism maintains that an organic society n rest on inequality, not just because of individual differences but also because different classes and groups (like different limbs and organs) have to perform specific roles. For example, some have to provide political leadership or manage commercial enterprises, while others have to perform roll manual or non-manual work, or raise children at home. Consequently, an organic society produces natural inequalities in terms of financial rewards and social status.
Such an arrangement, according to conservatives, can be justified because the most advantaged also bear the heaviest social responsibilities. Managers and employers enjoy higher living standards than their workers, but they carry the burden of protecting the jobs and economic well-being of their workforces. In this sense, a hierarchical organic society encourages paternalism as a means to ensure social cohesion.
For conservatives, the hierarchical structure of organic society is reinforced by authority.
Conservatism contends that authority develops naturally or organically in much the same way as society. This form of authority operates in a top-down manner, shapes relations between the different social groups and permeates all social institutions. Authority therefore resides with political leaders, employers, managers, teachers, parents and so on.
Conservatives argue that authority performs a vital and positive function by providing humans with security, direction and support. Authority also promotes social cohesion by giving people a clear sense of how they ‘fit in’ and what they are expected to do. The leadership exercised by those in authority not only offers discipline, but also an example to be admired, respected and accepted.
Most conservatives assert that the actions of people holding such authority are limited by the natural responsibilities that accompany their privileged position. Employers, for example, have authority over their workers but this does not give them the right to abuse employees.
Heirachy def
the conservative belief that society is naturally organised in fixed and unequal tiers, where one’s social position of status is not based on individual ability.
Authority def
for conservatives, the idea that people in higher positions in society are best able to make decisions on behalf of other people or society as a whole;
authority comes naturally from above and rests on an accepted obligation from below to obey.
Paternalism belief and argument
In conservative thought, paternalism is the idea of government by people who are best equipped to lead by virtue of their birth, inheritance and upbringing. Conservatives’ belief in paternalism is inextricably linked to their views on hierarchy, order and the organic society. Traditional conservatives, such as Burke, argued that the ‘natural aristocracy’ presided over society much like a father did over his family; the social elite provides leadership because of its innate or hereditary abilities, just as a father exercises authority, ensures protection and provides guidance. Its skills and talents cannot be obtained by hard work or self-improvement. Those at the top of society have
a dutv to care for the lower social ranks In the 18th and early TOrn centuries. some conservative
aristocrats acted in a paternalistic fashion by improving material conditions for their tenants and employees, and by involving themselves in charitable and philanthropic works.
Examples of trad paternalism
The wisdom and experience of paternalistic leaders confer natural authority, because they ‘know what is best’ for the rest of society. Traditionally, these leaders were drawn from the aristocratic elite that had been educated in the values of social obligation and public service, and had provided the senior political decision-makers for generations. The Cecil family (Marquesses of Salisbury) and the Stanley family (Earls of Derby) are good examples of high-born paternalistic conservative political leaders. More recently, one-nation paternalistic conservatism has relied on government regulation of the economy and social welfare measures to improve conditions for the poorest in society. UK Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron (2010-16) also drew on paternalism when he called for compassionate conservatism’
What are the two forms paternalism can take?
Paternalism can take two forms.
• soft - when those who are the recipients give their consent
• hard - when paternalism is imposed, regardless of consent or opposition, in a more
authoritarian manner.
Examples and origins of one-nation paternalism
The origins of one-nation paternalistic conservatism are usually traced back to the works of Benjamin Disrael (4804-81), who served as Conservative prime minister from 1874 l0 1880. In his novels Coningsby (1844) and Sybil (1845), Disraeli warned that Britain was dividing into two nations - the rich and the poor - and that this increased the likelihood of social revolution. For Disraeli, such a situation could be averted only by the privileged in society recognising their social obligation and duty to look after the less fortunate. The well-off would preserve their advantages, but they would also alleviate the hardships faced by the lower orders and strengthen the social cohesion and stability of the nation. In this way, Disraeli’s one-nation paternalism blended self-interest with principle. As prime minister, Disraeli translated this idea of paternalism into practice to a certain extent by passing a series of limited social reforms.
By the mid-20th century, one-nation conservatism had added a ‘middle way’ economic approach to social reform in its pursuit of paternalistic policies. The moderate UK Conservative governments of the 1950s and 1960s steered a central course between free-market economics and state planning, on the grounds that the former led to social fragmentation and failed to protect the poorest, while the latter stifled individual initiative and entrepreneurial flair. Economic policy combined government regulation and market completion to produce, in the words of Harold Macmillan, Conservative prime minister in the UK between 1957 and 1963, ‘private enterprise without selfishness’. This effectively meant that one-nation conservatives fully accepted that the state had an obligation to intervene in the economy and maintain the welfare state to combat poverty and deprivation. Nevertheless, there were limits to paternalism, in the sense that improving conditions for poorer groups was principally motivated by a desire to strengthen the hierarchical nature of society by removing threats to the social order.
Which idea completely rejects paternalism?
In contrast, neo-liberalism completely rejects the idea of paternalism. Based partly on free-market economics, neo-liberalism aims to reduce the size of the state so that the unregulated market can generate a more dynamic and efficient economy leading to increased growth and prosperity. From this perspective, government intervention in the economy (a key element of the one-nation conservative paternalistic approach) or state control undermines human initiative and enterprise, resulting in economic stagnation. Similarly, the neo-liberal faith in individualism also challenges conservative notions of paternalism. By stressing the importance of self-help, individual responsibility and personal initiative, neo-liberals view welfare programmes and social reforms negatively. In their view, they promote a dependency culture among poorer people and undermine the free market.
What is Libertarianism?
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that emphasises the rights of individuals to liberty, advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens. The primary role of the state is to protect individual rights. Libertarianism, with its emphasis on maximum economic freedom and minimal government regulation in social affairs, provides a rival conservative core value to paternalism.
