Conservatism - society Flashcards
Debate 1
All conservatives agree that order and property rights, both of which are guaranteed by the state, are crucial to a stable and successful society. There is also an agreement in relation to the importance of traditional values.
Conservatives agree that a strong state is key to providing order in society. This idea can first be seen in Hobbesʼ ‘Leviathanʼ, which set out the belief that in the absence of a strong state, human life would inevitably fall into a state of constant conflict and competition for resources and power. It would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
This was due to his belief that humans are ruthless, calculating and inherently driven by their basic instincts for survival and self-interest, which would lead to them conflicting with each other.
This bleak outlook on human nature led Hobbes to argue for the establishment of a strong, central authority – a Leviathan – to impose order and security in society and prevent the descent into chaos and violence.
Traditional conservatives, one-nation conservatives and the New Right all agree that a strong state is necessary to maintain peace and order. They believe that this order is necessary so that individuals can live, work, and interact safely.
The New Right supported this key role of the state even though they were deeply opposed to a big state. This can be seen in the thought of Ayn Rand, who argued that the stateʼs only legitimate role was to provide security and order to prevent violence. In ‘The Virtue of Selfishnessʼ, she wrote “The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence.ˮ
Conservatives see property as a cornerstone of a stable society. Ownership encourages responsibility and discourages support for socialist ideology that upturn the social order.
The right to property is also intertwined with the conservative emphasis on an organic society, where individual ownership forms part of the societal fabric, contributing to the overall health and stability of the community.
This commitment can be seen in the governments of both one-nation conservatives and the New Right.
In the post-WWII period, one-nation conservatives supported a major effort to build social housing, with MacMillan building 300,000 new homes per year when he was Prime Minister.
Margaret Thatcher’s government introduced the “Right to Buy” scheme, a landmark housing policy that allowed millions of council house tenants to purchase their homes at a discount.
COUNTERPOINT The New Rightʼs support for property rights is driven more by the fact they see it as a fundamental right rather than by the promotion of order in society.
Conservatives also see traditional values and the promotion of Judaeo-Christian morality as important to a stable and successful society. This includes the promotion of Christianity and the nuclear family.
This is strongly supported by traditional and one-nation conservatives due to their strong support for tradition and established institutions and ways of life.
It can also be seen in the New Rightʼs support for anti-permissiveness.
Neoconservatives viewed the increasing liberalisation of social attitudes in the 1970s, especially those related to personal and sexual freedoms, as a threat to the moral and social order. They believed that individualism was best pursued in a stable society rooted in the principles of Judeao-Christian morality and presented themselves as the defenders of conservative values in the face of these changes.
Central to their concern was the preservation of the traditional family unit, which they regarded as the bedrock of society. They believed that permissive trends undermined this structure, weakening the societal fabric
Debate 2
Traditional and one-nation conservatives believe in an organic society; they see society as a living organism and a cohesive unit that is more important that any individual party. This is strongly rejected by the New Right, which instead believes in atomism.
Traditional and one-nation conservatives disagree with the liberal view that a state and society can be designed through rational thought like a machine. Instead, they view society as organic; a living organism that develops naturally and needs to be kept alive.
Every part is crucial to the whole and changes occur gradually and naturally, through an evolutionary process rather than through intentional planning, which creates significant risks. This perspective inherently values the stability and cohesion of the whole over the needs or desires of individual parts.
Traditional conservatismʼs support for an organic society leads them to value and protect long-standing institutions like the Church and monarchy, seeing them not merely as relics of the past but as vital organs of society that provide continuity, stability, and a sense of identity. They strongly oppose dismantling these institutions in the pursuit of ideological goals, believing that such actions can disrupt the natural balance and harmony of society.
This belief in an organic society can be seen in Burke’s advocacy for localism and what he called the “little platoons” of society. By “little platoons,” Burke meant the smaller communities and associations, such as families, local communities, and social groups, that provide individuals with security, status, and a sense of belonging. Traditional conservatives saw society as a collection of localised communities.
These “little platoons” are essential to nurturing a cohesive society and promoting the idea that the society as a whole is more important than any individual part. They foster a sense of belonging and identity among their members, contributing to the overall stability and well-being of the larger social organism.
One-nation conservatismʼs support for an organic society is also clear in their advocacy for a cohesive, patriotic national unit. They emphasise patriotism and the idea of a cohesive society where, despite differences in class, region, or background, citizens have more in common than what divides them.
This perspective champions a sense of national unity and shared purpose, where society is seen as a collective entity working towards common goals. The emphasis is on social harmony, with a focus on what unites rather than divides.
The New Right’s view on society differs majorly from that of traditional and One-Nation conservatism. For them, society is less of a cohesive unit and an organically evolving entity shaped by traditions and communal relationships, and more a collection of individuals pursuing their own interests. This is brought together in the principle of atomism.
Rather than emphasising the organic development of society and the importance of communal bonds and social cohesion, the New Right focus on promoting individualism and ensuring the stateʼs role is minimised to prevent it from infringing upon individual freedom.
This can be seen in Randʼs ‘The Virtue of Selfishnessʼ, where she argued “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities”. The New Right certainly doesnʼt support the belief of organic society that society as a whole is more important than its different parts. For the New Right, individuals are the most important part and the focus of their political beliefs.
Atomism is the belief that society is primarily made up of distinct, independent individuals. This is very different from traditional conservativesʼ emphasis on localism or one-nation conservativesʼ emphasis on a cohesive society and shapes the New Rightʼs approach to economic management, social policy, and the role of the state in society.
Thatcher was known for her strong support for an atomistic view of society that centred individuals, stating in 1987 “There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families”.
Debate 3
Paternalism and hierarchy are both key conservative principles that shape the views of traditional and one-nation conservatives on society. However, they are strongly rejected by the New Right.
Paternalism is the belief that the state should exert a benign influence from above, governing in the interests of the people. This concept reflects the conservative view that authority, when exercised responsibly, can be a force for good, guiding society towards stability and welfare.
Conservatives believe that paternalism enhances the social fabric and maintains stability in society by ensuring that those in positions of power use their authority for the greater good. It is also rooted in their belief in human imperfection. Unlike liberals, they believe that not all individuals are equally capable of self-governance and therefore might benefit from guidance and support.
Traditional conservatismʼs interpretation of paternalism is based on the view that the state, embodying tradition and pragmatism, knows what is best for the people, and all citizens should therefore follow what the state decides and tells them to do. This approach is authoritarian in nature, as it involves a top-down method of decision-making and governance by the ruling elite who are in power.
One-nation conservatismʼs paternalistic approach is rooted in a sense of moral duty, as articulated in the concept of ‘noblesse oblige’. This principle, literally ‘nobility obliges,’ embodies the belief that those in privileged positions have a duty to act with generosity and responsibility towards those less fortunate.
This leads to a governance approach where the state, like a benevolent guardian, takes proactive steps to improve the welfare of the less privileged members of society, through policies designed to alleviate poverty and provide social welfare.
Disraeli’s government enacted social reforms such as the Public Health Act of 1875 and the Artisans’ and Labourers’ Dwellings Improvement Act of 1875, which improved public health and sanitary conditions in towns and cities.
Closely linked to paternalism is conservativesʼ strong support for hierarchy. Conservatives regard hierarchical structures as natural and necessary for maintaining order and stability in society. They argue that people are inherently different in terms of abilities, talents, and capacities, and these variations necessitate different roles and statuses within society.
Traditional conservatives argue that hierarchy fosters stability and continuity in society. It provides clear roles and expectations for individuals, contributing to social harmony and preventing chaos, whilst promoting respect for authority and tradition.
In ‘Reflections on the Revolution in Franceʼ, Burke demonstrated his belief that hierarchy in society is natural by stating “We fear God; we look up with awe to kings; with affection to parliaments; with duty to magistrates; with reverence to priests, and with respect to nobility.”
Importantly, one-nation conservativesʼ support for parternalism is not just due to a belief in moral duty, but also a pragmatic strategy to uphold and maintain hierarchy and the position of the aristocracy atop the social hierarchy in positions of power and wealth.
They recognise that if those near the bottom of the social hierarchy arenʼt looked after somewhat, this increases the likelihood of societal upheaval and potentially revolution which would overturn the established hierarchy.
Disraeli made this clear when he is reported to have written “The palace is not safe when the cottage is not happy”.
The New Right fundamentally rejects the conservative principles of paternalism and hierarchy. Instead of emphasising hierarchy, they are driven by promoting the principles of individualism, autonomy and meritocracy in society, enabling individuals to work hard to determine their own position.
They champion minimising government involvement in both economic affairs and social welfare, advocating for an economic system where market forces dictate outcomes, believing this would lead to greater efficiency and prosperity.
In this context, hierarchy and paternalism are seen as relics of an outdated social order that hinder the potential of the free market and individual liberty.
The principle of atomism also demonstrated a focus on individuals in society rather than seeking to protect a broader social structure or hierarchy.
The New Rightʼs opposition to paternalism can be seen in Ayn Randʼs opposition to the concept of personal altruism, which she viewed as the moral obligation to place the needs of others above one’s own interests.
She argued that altruism, whether done by individuals or the state, diminishes individual freedom and success, by creating an unhealthy dependence in those who are the recipients of such altruistic actions.
In ‘The Virtue of Selfishnessʼ she stated, “The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves.ˮ
For Rand, the ideal moral pursuit was rational self-interest, not self-sacrifice for others.
COUNTERPOINT Despite their rejection of hierarchy it can be argued that neoliberalismʼs strong support for laissez-faire capitalism and rejection of a welfare state or redistribution led to some level of acceptance of inequality and hierarchy. This being said, they believed such an economic system would create a meritocracy where success was based on hard work, even if it didnʼt in reality.
Conclusion
Overall, conservatives disagree in their views on society to a large extent.
Traditional and one-nation conservatives agree to a large extent and their views are shaped by the key conservative principles of hierarchy, paternalism and and organic society. Even though they have different interpretations of paternalism, they clearly both strongly support it and one- nation conservatives apply it differently to a changed context.
However, these beliefs are fundamentally rejected by the New Right, which believes in an atomistic view of society, therefore rejecting the idea of an organic society based on hierarchy and paternalism.
The agreement in terms of order and property rights are outweighed by these disagreements, whilst even these agreements are driven by different intentions, as see in the fact that the New Right supports property rights due to individual liberty, rather than for societal stability.
