On being conservative is well written. I applaud its form and I think that Oakeshott is tapping into something very warm and sensible in his writing. I do agree with him that humans have a tendency towards conservatism and maybe people do want change when they're younger as some sort of thirst for adventure or a way to stake a claim in the world's future. But I don't think it need stop, in fact I think that while measured change must be considered, at a certain point there must be a smashing of tradition if that tradition is in the way of an emancipatory movement.
Also in a way, fast, energetic rebellion and hastened change can be a form of conservatism in itself, in a certain sort of context. It seems to me that shades of what seem people would call counter culture have their own values and traditions that seek to criticize or flout the norms of the larger society they abide in. To some punks and hippies and various others are conservative because they hold on to the flame of their sub cultures their identity. However, they can soon be seen as radical by the larger culture they're a part of.
Although I agree with your point that many groups that are considered radical may actually be in a sense conservative, I think that is going against Oakeshott's idea of conservatism. Oakeshott seems to be relying on tradition, in a way that points to the majority rather than to minorities in our society. For Oakeshott rebellion is not wrong in itself, neither is fighting for something you believe in if it is in the minority. However, I think he is advocating that legal and systematic changes be made only when the majority of people agree one way or another.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the smashing of tradition is sometimes the best thing that can happen. Leaving everything to the society, in a subjective way, I think is not correct. Some issues are objective, and especially in those cases change should be made, even before the right idea is a tradition.
I liked how you brought up that some people view themselves or can be viewed as conservative because they cling to the traditions of their subculture. I never really thought about it that way, but it definitely makes sense to me.
ReplyDeleteI also don't think Oakeshott would agree that at some point there needs to be a smashing of traditions for emancipatory movements. I think that Oakeshott sees that traditions can and do change over time, so perhaps smashing isn't quite the right word. Traditions I think need to adapt with movements that are seeking change, but not necessarily be dissolved or forgotten.
I find traditional conservatism that's rehashed by neoconservative authors like Oakeshott very interesting. I actually think my views are a mix of traditional conservatism and contemporary liberalism. I like the idea of changing slowly and incrementally and only when there is broad popular support. I also generally have a distaste towards change or progress or growth for the sake of change or progress or growth's sake. I'm also someone who has rather traditional views on many social issues. Additionally, I'm for fair trade and an opponent of neoliberal trade policies embraced by nearly all of today's conservatives. My philosophy does sprinkle in a little bit of contemporary liberalism in the form of government wealth redistribution through progressive taxation and a strong safety net as well. On foreign policy, I'm a combination of a realist and a liberal. I'm conservative in the sense that I'm opposed to international military endeavors for the sake of humanitarian efforts, yet I'm a liberal in the sense that I'm not much for large defense expenditures and also oppose military action in most cases of national security. What are all of your personal views?
ReplyDelete