Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:48:10 AM
It is an interesting phenomenon, the way that recent generations have completely inverted the patterns of the past. Until recently, say about 150 years ago, more or less, to prove something was valuable and worthwhile, it had to have a pedigree. You can see it in the patent medicines sold in the early 19th century, all claiming to come from ancient sources such as Galen, or from "ancient Indian lore". The assumption was, if something had withstood the test of time, then it was worthwhile.
Then came the Romantics, with their worship of youth and love of all novelty. Normally this would not have had much impact, as such movements had come and gone throughout history. However, they had the good fortune to come along at a time when the industrial revolution was moving out of the coal mines and grist mills and into the popular consciousness, when the fruits of technology were reaching the common man ion the form of railroads and steam ships. With new inventions arising and bringing unimagined progress, it was natural that some would begin to see the "new" as better than the old.
And, of course, as the pace of technology grew this love of the new only increased., We can see it in the obsession the 50's and 60's had with "space age" technology, or today in the obsession with "bleeding edge" technology. As a sometime software developer, I recall with horror the way that marketing constantly insisted on moving from proven programming languages (for example, C) to whatever was the language du jour (first Java, then Python then Ruby, then C sharp... I stopped developing at some point after that and moved into administration).
The problem is that the worship of novelty overlooks one important factor. Yes, many times the new is more safe, more efficient and better than the old. However, in saying that, we are looking only at the one successful new invention, and ignoring the hundreds of failed new inventions which were not more efficient than what we already had. While the new may eventually prove itself, often the new proves even worse than what we already have.
And that, in a nutshell is the problem with worship of novelty. By making novelty the sole measure, we often end up embracing things which are worse, not better. With "new" being proof of value, we have to abandon all other traditional measures and end up chasing after every ephemeral trend. If you want to see the result, look at the fields dominated by novelty, fashion, art, and so on. Try to find any principles, any guidance other than "newness". Would you want your life guided by the same people who decree this year's hemlines or decree which artists will be featured in galleries?
And that is what the conservative position argues. We do not say that the old is always better. What we argue is that the old has proven itself, that it has stood the test of time and been judged the best we have to date. We can accept new inventions, new ideas, but they have to prove themselves first, and prove themselves based on a criterion other than novelty. We can embrace change, but change must be shown to have something to offer other than novelty.
While it is a position which often results in conservatives being portrayed as stodgy old men unwilling to change and out of step with what is "hip", it is the only valid approach, the approach of actual science, the approach of all real disciplines, and far superior to the trend-chasing, fashion conscious worship of the new, which is the only alternative.
POSTSCRIPT
I wrote a bit about Romanticism and the worship of novelty and youth. While it is not exactly on point, the posts "
Frightened for our Future", "
The Adoration of Youth", "
I Blame the Romantics", "
Revisiting an Old Topic", "
Violence and Culture", "
Worried About Our Culture II", "
The Problem of the Counter-Culture", "
The Sky Is Falling! Again! Really! We Mean It This Time!", "
One of Those Days", "
Obama as Spoiled Teen" and "
Graphic Novels, Comic Books and Cultural Barometers" may be of interest to those reading this. I also argued previously for gradualist, incremental change in my post "
The Angry Right and Conservatives".