Traditionalism and hostility to social innovation were central to Mannheim’s … sociological analysis of conservatism. Rossiter … too, defined situational conservatism in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences as ‘an attitude of opposition to disruptive change in the social, economic, legal, religious, political, or cultural order….’ He added, The distinguishing mark of this conservatism, as indeed it is of any brand of conservatism, is the fear of change [italics added], which becomes transformed in the political arena into the fear of radicalism….’ Consistent with this notion, Conover and Feldman … found that the primary basis for self-definitions of liberals and conservatives has to do with acceptance of, versus resistance to, change. [***] [citations and references in original quote]
By now, resistance to change seems by almost all indications to be one of the two core “distinguishing marks” of conservatism. As I’ve been careful to state, in and of itself this basic component of the conservative ideology cannot be judged as bad or wrong. Conservatives, as a rule, do not favor change, preferring instead the tried and true, while approaching any widespread political or cultural urge for change with caution.
In fact, Russell Kirk, long regarded as one of conservatism’s leading proponents, offered this:
Progress may be either good or bad, depending on what one is progressing toward. It is quite possible, and not infrequently occurs, that one progresses toward the brink of a precipice. The thinking conservative, young or old, believes that we must all obey the universal law of change; yet often it is in our power to choose what changes we will accept and what changes we will reject. The conservative is a person who endeavors to conserve the best in our traditions and our institutions, reconciling that best with necessary reform from time to time. ‘To conserve’ means ‘to save.’
There are many instances when that perspective is both appropriate and a solid check against the Left’s inclination to proceed much quicker when their ideology suggests changes are needed. As with most features of either the Left or the Right personality structure, how their guiding principles and ideology then play out in the real world is an altogether different matter.
Insisting that beliefs and principles must be followed no matter what is a convenient way to avoid the challenges and responsibilities of considering and then implementing change. But as with almost all knee-jerk reactions, that first instinct is rarely in anyone’s best interests long-term.
There’s a great deal of room in the middle between a philosophy and governing style of “No Change Ever” and “Let’s Change This Now.” Stating the problem is much easier than finding a pathway to resolution/agreement or whatever solution and compromise might be called for in a given situation. There are a lot of ways to find the middle, but resistance to any attempts at all simply for the sake of opposing on principle is not by any honorable definition an appropriate fulfillment of one’s responsibilities as an elected official or a public servant in any capacity. I include the media in that latter category.
That same research study cited above also noted the following:
Wilson (1973b) hypothesized a great many different sources of threat or uncertainty, including death, anarchy, foreigners, dissent, complexity, novelty, ambiguity, and social change. Conservative attitudinal responses to these sources of uncertainty include superstition, religious dogmatism, ethnocentrism, militarism, authoritarianism, punitiveness, conventionality, and rigid morality.
A quick examination of modern day conservative proposals and responses to cultural and legislative changes will find ample support for the above-stated conclusions.
So while much can be offered to support resistance to change based on a long history of this core component of the conservative ideology, in a world infinitely more complex by the day, automatic reliance on “tradition” may deserve an appropriate measure of consideration, but it’s not the beginning and end of discussion. Continued justification for opposition is weakened by the means and methods by which it is demonstrated.
An unwillingness to even consider that those on the opposite side of the cultural and political table might have sound, justifiable, and legitimate perspectives about the need for change in a variety of situations does not prevent the inevitable harm caused by a failure to adapt from landing atop conservatives as well. Distractions, irrelevancies, denials, and even wilder accusations employed as techniques of resistance [“climate change is a hoax” nonsense, for example] are not without their own set of consequences.
That they may not materialize today or tomorrow does not justify giving them no thought or examination. So now what?
Adapted from a recent blog post of mine
[***] Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition by John T. Jost Stanford University; Arie W. Kruglanski University of Maryland at College Park; Jack Glaser University of California, Berkeley; Frank J. Sulloway University of California, Berkeley. Psychological Bulletin Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375