Transformative progress

In Patrick Deneen's latest work, Regime Change: Towards a Postliberal Future, he uses the concept of "transformative progress" to describe a common aim of those committed to the modern project. Deneen writes:

The first liberals - "classical liberals" - believed especially that economic progress through an ever-freer and more expansive market could fuel a transformative social and political order in which growing prosperity would always outstrip economic discontents. Far from seeking stability, balance, and order, the aim was the unceasing instability of an economy that has fittingly been described as a constant process of "creative destruction". (p.x)

Later liberals took aim at the conservativism of the working-classes:

Later liberals - "progressives" - decried the resulting economic inequality, but retained the belief that progress would eventually give rise to the reconciliation of the classes...they also demanded dynamism in the social order in order to displace...the instinctual conservatism of the commoners. This imperative has been especially pursued through transformations wrought in the social sphere, and has in recent years culminated in the sexual revolution and its attendant effort to displace "traditional" forms of marriage, family, and sexual identity based in nature, replaced instead by a social and technological project that would liberate humans from mere nature. (pp. x - xi)

This is a broad overview, of course, and it is possible to add all sorts of qualifications. There have been different approaches, for instance, by liberals toward the achievement of social harmony; and there have been conservative liberals who have wanted a somewhat slower transformation, though endorsing the general programme.

Nonetheless, I do think this is a fruitful approach to looking at modern politics. There are clearly people who do think in terms of transformative progress, in which the breaking of continuity or stability or connection is looked on positively, as a way to release innovation, particularly of newer technologies, which are thought of as the meaningful aspect of human activity. 

Deneen's argument helps us with a theory of mind problem. It is difficult for most of us to understand why politicians would deliberately destroy the good things inherited from the past. Their commitment to transformative progress is a way of understanding why they find this so acceptable. 

One example that springs to mind is the threat to the heritage suburbs of my own city, Melbourne. The state government has released a plan to replace these suburbs with high and medium density housing to accommodate large numbers of immigrants. These are some of the finest heritage suburbs anywhere, and the current population has a distinct and settled way of life - a culture - that is unlikely to survive the changes. An urban economist, Terry Rawnsley, justified all this with the telling comment that,

Local residents might be concerned about change, but we live in a city, not a museum.

The implication is that having a settled way of life in a beautiful heritage suburb is unjustifiable because it is a mere relic of the past.

Further examples are the comments I read this morning in response to a social media post by Drew Pavlou. He had quoted Singapore's former leader Lee Kuan Yew who wanted his own people to endure into the future in a recognisable and identifiable way. Here is how one "progressive" responded:

He sees nations as impediments to progress. And progress, for him, is the abolition of human nature in favour of newer forms of technological existence. 

Similarly there was this comment:

He sees a nation, an extended family of our own, as something that is confining or limiting, and he dismisses it as being something like a "zoo exhibition", i.e., something artificial that holds us statically in place. 

Clearly, we need to confront the politics of transformative progress head on. This might involve a number of different approaches. First, there is the issue of nature. There was a turn in the early modern period from seeing man as being embedded within a given natural order, to seeing nature as mere matter that humans were to seek mastery of. There was an earlier turn as well in the later Middle Ages towards a nominalism and a voluntarism which denied the existence of essences, and which therefore made it difficult to think in terms of the nature of things - of what was needed for a particular creature to flourish. 

It would help if we returned to a more traditional understanding of nature, including our own nature, so that issues of connectedness and identity and belonging and community might be taken more seriously as aspects of the good in life.

We could also take aim at the "reign of quantity" in which progress is associated with material growth, for instance, in GDP, rather than in the quality of things. If we are only concerned with quantity, then replacing beautiful heritage suburbs with 10 storey apartment blocks would no doubt qualify as progress, as "growth". But if we are concerned with elements of quality, such as the beauty of our living spaces, or appropriate scale, or living close to nature, or connectedness to a culture and tradition, then the demolition of heritage suburbs will most likely be seen as regress or loss.

We could emphasise, as well, the issue of entropy. There is in the created world an inbuilt tendency toward entropy, which means that we must expend energy to hold things together, so that they don't disintegrate. Without this our bodies decline as do our social bodies - our communities disintegrate. Much of the social capital built up over time was aimed at helping to hold things together. When progress is understood as "transformative" in the sense of overthrowing the past, then social capital will be lost, and the force of entropy will be unleashed. This, as Deneen himself points out, will often hit the most vulnerable classes in society hardest, rather than the more progressive upper classes. The poorest are the ones least able to cope with the disintegration of stable family life or to abandon the meaning and purpose derived from a shared sense of community.

We could perhaps also try to combat the Promethean element within Western culture. It is interesting to note that Mary Shelley titled her famous novel of 1818 Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. Mary Shelley had been involved with a Promethean circle of intellectuals, including her husband Percy Bysshe Shelley. Her novel is a warning about the dangers of unchecked scientific hubris or scientific overreach. We still have aspiring Frankensteins today, such as the man posted above who has no qualms about mind uploads and suchlike. 

In any event, there needs to be a questioning of the current understanding of progress. Many ordinary Westerners do not see what is happening to them and to their communities as a genuine betterment. The model of progress held by the elites needs to change.