On Modern Ideals: Weekly Essay One
Recently I have been watching the largely forgotten but timelessly brilliant documentary series, Civilisation, by the late, Lord Sir Kenneth Baron Clark, the longtime director of Britain’s National Gallery. I will hopefully write an article on the series at a later date but for now, suffice it to say that his descriptions of the ebb and flow of Western Civilisation, and the reflective role that art plays within this story, holds much truth for our modern world.
In the fifth episode, Man: The Measure Of All Things, Lord Clark reflects on the 15th-century Florentine belief that all individuals were active participants in history. That all people could help to create a better world, even a better version of humanity. The Florentine’s believed, for the first time since the Romans, that people could rationally work together to achieve great things and make great discoveries. In everything, whether it be art — where they used mathematical principles to determine perspective — or politics — where they had an active senate — this pursuit of rationality and order was their central organising principle. This gave a vibrancy and sense of purpose to their society which couldn’t have been achieved without such an ideal.
Indeed, all the great epochs of history had some central ideal which, the educated at least, strove to live up to. In the Renaissance, it was mathematical perfection, the Enlightenment, liberty and justice, the Victorian age, a sense of propriety and efficiency. The existence of these ideals revealed a self-belief and creative instinct within their respective societies. The pursuit of a grand ideal beyond oneself gave meaning to all aspects of life.
The great paradox of the modern world is that, despite our ever-increasing prosperity, we are becoming more depressed every year, more discontented with the way things are, more self-loathing. On every material level, now is the best time to be alive for almost everybody in the world. Yet, the polarisation and anger which spectacularly boiled over last year in numerous ways is evidence that something is amiss with modern society.
Perhaps the answer is that we lack something to collectively strive for. In fact, not only do we lack a common goal, we lack a common foundation. The Christian, Western worldview that modern society was based upon is no longer shared by most in our society. The victory of capitalism has been so complete that materialistic success is the sole concern of most people. For the most part, there is no belief in a higher standard we all should strive towards. In short, there is no galvanising ideal we are following.
Indeed, perhaps even worse than not believing in an ideal, modern society is overflowing with the shells or trappings of stale or incomplete ideals.
Liberalism, once a powerful set of ideas based upon a belief in the potential of all individuals to prosper, has now become a chameleon, adapting its principles whenever politically necessary. As far as it is possible to decipher, now it seems to demand equality and freedom for most people; but not for the Uighurs because China is important economically, and not from Islam because that would be politically ugly. Any set of principles with so many exceptions has long lost any significance.
Environmental activism is another prospective vision. A set of unquestionable beliefs designed to combat that very modern of enemies, Climate Change. A problem unseen by most with a solution which requires nothing of oneself and everything of others. There is no heroism in the climate fight, no intellectual or moral forbearance. For many leaders of the movement, it is nothing more than a pretence for reeking destructive and reductionist societal change. Why else are we constantly told that Nuclear Power can never be the solution, despite its obvious advantages? If this was only about saving the world from destruction, building nuclear power plants would already have solved it. Climate politics seeks an endpoint which at heart, ordinary people do not want to share in, thus it is not an effective vision.
Yet what of that other ideal, intersectional equity? The dream that all people, no matter their race, heritage, sexuality — or even, dare we say, their talent and strength of character — be given not only equal opportunities but equal outcomes. Perhaps this dream is more potent and virile. It assuredly has a tangible, local aim. It certainly requires great sacrifice. In many ways, it is a continuation of the great western pursuit of a better world. But is it actually a noble goal?
I believe, at its root, the negatory focus on dispelling disadvantage in all forms is fundamentally unjust and against our broader sense of rightness.
The central question posed by intersectional theory is, how do we define disadvantage? Sure, some forms are self-evident. Homelessness, illness, subjection to violence to name a few. Nevertheless, couldn’t it be said that all of us are disadvantaged in some way? Jordan Peterson writes that almost every person he knows has faced some great tragedy throughout their life, normally several. Is a girl living in a poor but stable family really more disadvantaged than a rich boy born to absent parents? Intersectional ideology would say she is.
The biggest problem with equity is that it presumes all humans respond in the same way to situations in their lives. It reduces individuals to their position within or without an intersectional group. This disregards the Christian philosophical tradition of hundreds of years which holds that we are all forced to suffer in some way. This was the truth Evelyn Waugh reflected on in his Sword of Honour trilogy when he explained that “quantitative judgements don’t apply.”
Before we engage in revolutionary societal change, we must ensure that the intended result is truly desirable, and not in reality a dangerous development masquerading as a panacea.
Specifically, we must ask if it is really just to pick and choose who deserves more support? Whether it is really good to induce people to prove how disadvantaged they are and look for a government-sponsored leg-up, rather than helping them develop the self-respect to take responsibility for their lives and improve from within.
A Lennon-esque world where all are equal would assuredly be a wonderful thing, but it is both unachievable — some people are simply more successful than others no matter what — and its pursuit is potentially very misguided.
So, all of the modern candidates for visions are found unsatisfactory on closer inspection. The world is still in dire need of something to unite us and direct our energies. Finding such a thing is the greatest challenge confronting us in the next few years.
