Limits and Societal Progress
By William Breathitt Gray
Aldous Huxley, in "Brave New World, Revisited," examined in essay form
some societal conditions manifest in 1958 that worried him: over-population,
over-organization and the mass marketing of irrational propaganda. These were
dangers, he said, not to civilization as such but to liberty, for they push the
state toward greater influence, self-preservation and totalitarianism, away from
civic engagement, constituent choice and independent thought. His arguments are
clear and are supported by examples and the ponderings of his great intellect,
articulately expressed without straining our patience and with occasional humor.
I recommend the essay to students of history and political science, and to
concerned citizens all.
It is unfair to criticize post-mortem an individual or his work, as he cannot
respond to such commentary, rephrase his position, or refute an accusation. I do
not intend to criticize Mr. Huxley, whose credentials are far beyond what I may
imagine or hope my qualifications could ever be; rather, I will take his concern
regarding over-organization as a starting point for my discourse, for I too
believe that there is cause for concern, but worry that other aspects of the
issue have not been well examined. A balance needs to be made between anarchy
and roboticism. Both libertine independence and Spartan regimentation are
unsustainable and transitory. Both are inefficient, wasteful and detrimental, in
terms of societal progress and human benefit. They cannot last in governance,
because for society to succeed it must be moving forward, and such extremes are
detours perpendicular to that progression. Forward societal movement - that is,
attention to the needs and goals of individual constituents without too
burdening each of the next - requires coordinated group effort and investment.
Endeavors not to that end weaken the foundation of, and justification for,
society. If focus is lost, the community becomes more tenuous, distant from the
immediacy in which its members live, and less relevant. Pin pricks appear in the
skin of communal relations... and as the pressure of change flows through these
cuts they tear, rupturing the body of consensus and collapsing its support. The
conciliator's bubble pops, the tyrant's walls fall. Both Chamberlain and Draco
prove themselves inadequate at keeping the Barbarous Horde from Our City. Then
the Invaders storm in, consuming or trampling all that we hold Good, to rape Our
Heritage and sire yet more of their vulgar breed. This is the demon I fear: the
evil unleashed when societal limits are broken.
One may ask, "Does keeping limits matter in today's permissive
world?" The norms that linked constituents to community have come
unhitched; 'values' still exist, but they are not values shared by everyone. New
norms have been introduced. Of what worth is our individual conformity to limits
if not matched by the majority? If our norms are not those of our neighbors,
colleagues and associates, then we do not belong to their society nor gain much
from it, whatever its nature. We and they are aliens. We are less able to agree
with them because we have fewer points in common; in fact, it becomes
increasingly easy to disagree because we find them so far removed from the
values we have. We are uncomfortable in their presence and suspicious of their
motives. We are in conflict. That which was 'society' pales and dissolves into
melancholy. Insidiously, relentlessly, the New Order pushes us out, makes us
foreign, makes us 'wrong' without our having changed at all. It is the
disintegration and dysfunction of societal norms which mark the end of society.
Normal individual behavior stays within limits set first by parents, then
community, then by the person himself. These three basic delineators of
propriety can be likened to a chorus of criers vying for our interest: they
shout, cajole, preach and praise, each louder than the next, in an effort to
make us do what is 'right.' With time, we tire of the first messenger just as he
tires of repeating the message, and his call fades; the second herald, society
personified, is strong of voice and broad in scope, and to his song we give our
attention most; yet the very breadth and richness of community make impossible
our attempts to embrace it all, and so finally we withdraw into our private
selves (some more than others), where there are fewer choices, less need for
debate, and that little voice, our inner companion of many years, speaks clearer
and apparently with better reason.
The transition from obedience to parental authority, through adherence to
societal norms, to reliance on internal values and self-control occurs
concomitantly with the individual's physical growth, acquisition of skills,
intellectual development, and emotional maturity; it is a great shift of
emphasis in the sources of an individual's guidance and occurs in the midst of
the great changes and experiences associated with life and the human condition.
But, despite all that, a person is never ignorant of right and wrong, never in
doubt as to what is permitted. There are things he will not do, for whatever
reasons, and those are his limits. To argue that an individual is ignorant of
his limits, unknowing of his own 'right' and 'wrong,' is to argue against his
sanity. Yes, we can say that a few mad souls wander among us, and these are, if
not innocent then not culpable for their acts; but we cannot dismiss the
competence and responsibility of the vast majority. It is the great press of
humans who are sane and, rather than lost, intent upon their agendas, with which
we must concern ourselves and contend. That our limits to our own behavior may
not match theirs is irrelevant in practical consequence: they survive, therefore
they must be doing something right. We must admit at least the minimal efficacy
of their behavior.
The values which establish behavioral limits are of two tendencies: liberal and
conservative. We can imagine the limits to acceptable behavior as two horizontal
lines, the "Liberal Ceiling" and the "Conservative Floor."
On rising to the Liberal Ceiling one finds greater tolerance, concern for
others, passion, expression and immediacy, and less organization; on descending
to the Conservative Floor there is greater scrutiny, evaluation, science,
pragmatism and organization, and less tolerance. If we further imagine time on
our graph as proceeding from left to right, and our individual comportment drawn
between the Ceiling and the Floor, the path would no doubt curve up and down as
it went - there are times in every life when values and behavior tend liberal or
conservative, and no one can forever stay on "the straight and
narrow."
Were a person to go beyond the limits set by a society for liberal acceptance or
conservative conformity, such individual would no longer belong to that society;
he would no longer share the same norms as the majority of others who constitute
that group. He would be labeled a radical or a reactionist, respectively. He and
others would now form another society, not radical or reactionary to them, but
frightening in its differences to members of the original.
To people who share values and norms of behavior, both radicals and reactionists
are unproductive, wasteful and destructive. They are unproductive in that their
efforts do not contribute to furthering the existing society; they are wasteful
in that the group expends resources trying to correct or contain them; they are
destructive in that they invariably achieve at least some change in the status
quo. Here our tolerant Liberal might say of the radical, "A little change
is OK," while our strict Conservative might justify the reactionist with,
"Acting on principle is virtuous." But remember, we have identified
these deviants as those who go beyond societal limits, beyond the limits
established by liberals and conservatives. A Liberal and a Conservative are
tolerant and strict within the society they share. For a constituent to
entertain more than fleeting agreement with radical or reactionary ideas
portends poorly for his continued membership - he may soon and perhaps
unwittingly find himself in another group.
There have been societies in which unwanted newborns were commonly left in the
wild exposed to the elements and beasts, a form of post-natal abortion; the
birth-mother suffered no odium, as that was a traditionally accepted practice.
Someone might come along and take the baby in, but that would be a private
kindness and not a communal act. In being abandoned, the child was expelled by
society and placed outside its sphere of concern; no judgment, and no cost,
attached to the matter. A liberal in such a society might plead that at least
healthy children be spared and cared for by the state, while a conservative
might agree that healthy children be spared routinely only if some private,
charitable means of raising them were arranged. A radical in such a society
would argue that no child should be left to die: "Save the Children!"
he would demand, regardless of infirmity or cost. A reactionist would charge
that unwanted children ruin families and burden everyone, and insist that a
woman has the right to determine the fate of her off-spring (it came of her
body, after all): "Pro-Choice!" he would shout, regardless of the
child's condition, potential value or spirit. Note here that liberals and
conservatives stay within societal limits, while radicals and reactionists do
not; both the liberal and the conservative support existing tradition by
permitting some infanticide, while the extremists break with tradition by either
fighting to save every discarded newborn or clamoring for its death. The Radical
and the Reactionist both change society by changing the norms that describe it.
Were every abandoned child now saved or destroyed would evidence a new society.
Individuals who preferred the old ways would find themselves alienated; indeed,
by definition they would be "anti-social."
The distance separating the liberal and conservative limits of acceptable
behavior is one predictor of societal progress. The more that the Liberal and
the Conservative agree, the greater the sense of community; the less the
concordance, the greater the dissatisfaction. As the gulf between 'option' and
'requirement' grows, there is a dissipation of the forward momentum necessary to
maintain society. Returning to our diagram, we can imagine our Ceiling and Floor
now farther apart; since our individual paths by nature tack crookedly up and
down, greater energy and time is spent in vertical movement (making up our
minds, so to speak) and less in constructive purpose. There is a generalized
stagnation. There is much spinning of wheels, more talk, more 'understanding,'
but less benefit. One may argue, "By stretching the limits we are more
inclusive." No; it is impossible to "stretch" the limits. You can
establish new limits that widen or narrow the distance between liberals and
conservatives, but in so doing you define a new society, and adherents to the
old ways will not accept a change in values. The effect is a split of the
previous society, with disunity, waste, impatience, contempt, fear and anger
erupting on the line dividing the two factions. Whatever the change in norms -
in values, in culture, in vision, in
purpose, in limits, in courtesies, in loyalty - be it large or small, that
change will marginalize some individuals.
Societal progress depends in part on homogeneous constituent values; simply put,
the more we agree, the more we achieve. Our wills and our minds are focused on
the things we hold dear. Our customs and laws cultivate the well-being and
betterment of all our partners in society. This success is not necessarily tied
to technological development and comfort, nor does it correlate directly to
duration. Many factors determine the complexity of our conditions and the time
we spend living them. The dynasties of China and Egypt lasted generations, the
communes of the Flower Children, not so long; but throughout history individuals
have always been satisfied with their communities while they exist. Their needs
and goals have always been met, must be met, right up to the end, for only at
that point does society change: the point at which it fails. And that collapse
may not be dramatic. The wider the span of opinion, the larger the range of
purpose, the broader the ethnic base, the louder the foreign tongue, the kinder
the bleeding heart, the greater the naivety... the less effective society is in
addressing constituent needs and goals. It is less effective because it cannot
meet everyone's expectations. Imagine separating our Ceiling and Floor even
further to encompass great extremes of thought and behavior. Our community
becomes all-inclusive. Think of it, no conflicts. The Lion and the Lamb at
Peace! But wait. Debate here is subdued, and analysis, a mere pastime. Anything
goes. Rather than informed debate, senseless chatter is encouraged in these
conditions. Radicals and reactionists are incorporated and given equal platform
from which to broadcast their talking points, their selling points, their
political points, their bonus points. There is virtually no forward societal
movement due to the sheer number of options available at every step. There is no
concentration of effort in furtherance of common values. Worse, in a grim and
twisted way, there remain no common values, to wit: saving the baby now is as
right as killing it. We have become patsies to our own benignity.
Lo! The Maelstrom gathers! 'Tis Chaos at Our Gate!
What will you do, dear Reader? What will you do, my fellow countryman? We know
there is need for limits: acceptable behavior should be defined and enforced. We
know there is need for tradition: a Common Heritage should be taught and
promoted. We know there is need for vigilance: civic engagement should be open
and encouraged. So, what can be done? How can we, members of the current
Majority, ensure that we and our descendents remain in the Majority? How can we
guarantee that the values we have lived by, values for which we have labored and
for which many of us have fought and sacrificed - that Good Way we cherish and
hope to bequeath Our Posterity - continue in ascendancy? Subculture threatens
society. Every foreign word spoken, every change in "how it's done,"
every ignorance of our history, every rudeness that we suffer, pollutes Our
Nation. Nonconformists are the perpetrators of subculture, the Balkanizers,
the Separatists. They are the lax parents, rich and poor, who raise the next
parasitic and predatious generation, the corporate criminals, the con artists,
the brutish thugs. They are those who revel in broken English, who slaughter our
idiom and impoverish our dialog. They are the Immigrant-Who-Will-Not-Adapt. They
are the illegal alien, whose mere presence, by definition, breaks our laws and
insults us. They are those who do not 'buy into' our society, who do not
contribute fully as citizens. They are those who do not accept us, Us!, who are
the Righteous Majority!, who have done and continue to do so much for this Great
Land! They whine, they poke, they waste, they bite. They maliciously disobey -
yes, maliciously, because they try not to adhere to our norms. They want a
Different Society. They are the Radical that goes too far and the Reactionist
that hates too much. They are the Obsessed with Black History, they are the
White Supremacist, they are the Militant Confused of Sex. They are the
"Haiti-4-ever!" crowd and the promoters of bilingualism. They are the
Renegade Militiamen and the Ethnic Sensitivity Trainers. They are the Devil
Incarnate, and they would destroy Our World.
Cultural continuity is vital for societal integrity. Without cultural
continuity, there is no support for society; more precisely, there is no support
for the current society: it will change to reflect new norms in accordance with
new values. It is essential that continuation be given to our history, our
language, our traditions, our government, our commerce, our art, our play, our
work. I asked, "What can be done?" It is this: assimilation. Our
History, Our Language, Our Civic Institutions should be taught comprehensively,
insistently, proudly. Their worth should be trumpeted throughout the land. In
every classroom, in every office, in every government hall, from every corner,
from every mountain, from every patriotic site, Let Our Heritage Ring! Let Its
tones infuse our thoughts and inspire us in all we do, from the most menial
tasks of employment to
the majestic works of Community Service.
We have the best possible society; our membership validates its propriety. We
should not be ashamed. We should not apologize for who we are or what we do. We
should not deny our own being. We should not adapt our ways to others. Our
values are the forerunners of our success and should be affirmed. We are Great
because we are Great. If we, as the Righteous Majority, through established and
agreed upon mechanisms, and after rational debate, decide to set new norms, so
be it. We have that right. We have it: not the Outsider, not the Extremist, not
the Dole-sucking Plebe, whose feeble brain obsesses not with what he can do for
this country but what he can extract. It makes me sick to know I taste his
exhaled breath. Where has statesmanship gone? Where has community gone? Where
has the Eagle gone? Where? Why, didn't you see, man? They left on the same boat
that brought the Mariel gang.
Take action. Echo this alarm. Stay informed. Contact your federal, state and
local government officials; contact those that disagree with you. Go ahead, give
them all a piece of your mind, chew on their ears, repeatedly (I personally
derive great satisfaction in doing so). Contribute to and participate in those
causes you support. Let this day be a new beginning for you. Let this be the day
you stand up for what is Right. Go out confident and proud in the Truth. Be the
one who speaks in public and says what should be said. The Enemy is both
insidious and strident: he uses our freedom of speech, our social security, our
patience and our kindness against us. He cries, he derides, he threatens, he
suborns. Well, it is time to lose our patience and chill our kindness; it is
time to tighten public aid and shout back at his propaganda; it is time to fill
the Square of Consensus with righteous ire. Do it, and we may yet save Our
World.
To close, I will leave you with a quote from President George W. Bush; he was
speaking on hunting down and bringing terrorists to justice, but I dare say the
term "terrorist" applies as well to those deviants identified in my
humble discourse:
"We will not waver,
We will not tire,
We will not falter, and
We will not fail."
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
William Breathitt Gray is Editor of "Trumpet America" (www.trumpetamerica.org),
a public forum for civic engagement.