This post will not be much of a revelation to many, but it’s something that I think about a lot and have been of late considering a great deal. I think a lot about how and why folks resist change. Though I am myself an outspoken radical and someone whose personality is given to always seeking a better and different tomorrow, I try to engage often and seriously with conservative (note the small c there) ideas. From my conservative friends (there I said it) to writings of conservatives and discussions and debates, I have thought a lot about the ways in which conservatives resist change. Below I present a few cornerstones of the conservative movement- positions against progress which proliferate across the conservative spectrum and across the decades.
1. Deny the problem exists. This is comfortable and natural for most who defend the status quo as they benefit from the system and can see few problems with it. You can do this by massaging data to suggest that the problem does not really exist or is overstated by orders of magnitude by “alarmists”. Make numerous references to Thomas Malthus, ect.
2. Blame the victim. This is a time honored favorite in which it is suggested that the source of injustice is not those who benefit from it, but in fact those who are its victims. Arguments of this kind used to be biological (see number 3) but are now mostly cultural- i.e.- those who suffer injustice have a pathological/ antisocial culture that causes injustice. Big love if you use the word “agency” more than 5 times.
3. Suggest that the phenomenon in question is “natural”. Men are naturally superior to women- white people to people of color- war is a natural human condition- inequality is a unavoidable feature of society- etc. By doing this, you can suggest that the problem can never be overcome and must simply be accepted. The most important of these beliefs is the foundational belief of capitalism: human beings are born selfish and cannot be motivated by anything greater than self interest. Extra points for using the phrase “As much as we might not like it, in the REAL world, you will always have _____ “. A healthy dose of condescension is always a big plus here as those who REALLY understand the way the world is MUST it is suggested be for the status quo.
4. Impune the motives or integrity of those calling for justice or change. It is much easier to suggest that the person making the argument is a hypocrite or cynically calling for change to benefit her/himself (see the argument about human nature implied in #3), than to engage the problems of the present. Individual failings of change agents are taken to be failures of the position they advocate rather than of they themselves. Ad Hominem ad infinitum.
5a. Suggest- this is one of my favorites- that efforts to solve the problem will create more problems than it solves. The catch-phrase here (shouts to Emile Durkheim) is “unintended consequences”. It is handy with this argument to create a false dichotomy in which the status quo is compared to a worst-possible future scenario in which interests of different groups are pitted against one another (jobs vs. environment, anyone?)
5b. Suggest that the status quo, while imperfect, is the best possible arrangement “at this time”. Emphasize that change may be appropriate later, but that now (read: forever) it is best to trust the wisdom and traditions of the way it has always been done. Those who suggest that progress or improvement are possible are described as “dangerous” and “idealists”. Extra points for saying (with maximum condescension) “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
6. Create an alternative epistemology of your own. When the scientific institutions of the enlightenment (that set of Western traditions you keep telling me you love so much) continuously brings forth evidence of the hazards of the status quo and the possible benefits of change, insist that the data are skewed and the scholars are biased. This conservative co-opt of the Post-Modern movement has brought us think-tanks and armies of pundits who blame “intellectual elites” for their “misrepresentation of the facts” or “junk science”. If the consensus of the collected knowledge of humanity suggests a reality that is dissonant to your world view, cry foul and create your own institutions of knowledge-building. Insist that there must be “balance” on every issue that is politically inconvenient to your position. Describe any criticism of your position as politically motivated or an attempt to shut out “marginalized voices” form the debate. And by marginalized, we mean billionaires and those who defend entrenched laws, norms, and conventions from which they benefit greatly.
Global Warming? A silly tree-hugging alarmist plot! Tobacco Smoke is deadly? Nothing more than a bunch of greedy trial lawyers! Human beings are the product of the process of evolutionary selection? A secular assault on God’s natural order! Inequality is increasing? A hippy socialist boondoggle propagated by disconnected, ivory tower types!
That last one is the one I have been most interested in the last several months, and one I will be blogging about more in the future, I suppose. So now you know how to resist change. Enjoy.