Comments on: In Modernity, Definitions of Conservatism…

By: millinerd

millinerd — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:16:15 +0000

This post is profoundly helpful.

By: Ralph Hancock

Ralph Hancock — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:40:07 +0000

Mormonism has a “meta-narrative” because somebody said Joseph Smith declared himself a king?! However that may be, Latter-day Saint religion is, in one sense, rich in meta-narratives (notably, a “plan of salvation” or “great plan of happiness”), but, compared with Roman Catholicism, much less framed by systematic theology. Their “mysteries” have final, official, professionally-certified form. Thus, although there are of course teachings and articles of faith, some have referred in the Mormon case to “orthopraxy” as opposed to “orthodoxy.” Temple rites are the core of this orthopraxy.

By: Bob Cheeks

Bob Cheeks — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:20:56 +0000

JJ.
I think you’re correct about Catholicism (I’m a Free Methodist/Olde Latin Catholic hung up on the Co-Redemptrix thing) not being a metanarrative, rather Christianity is a MN.
For me (I can’t blame EV) a MN is a number of things on a number of levels. But, primarily the MN contains the means, in terms of the community/individual, to begin the process of the engendering event that leads to the revelation of the Unknown God. But, this means is hidden/seen because it only exists in the metaxy in the tension between existent and non-existent reality.
We are just now emerging from an era that participated in the ‘imaginative destruction of reason and reality’ (one thinks of those French dudes who rejected the ‘metanarrative), an era that failed to capture/restore the tension of reality that has been lost and consequently I think the only way to recover the reality of existence is to reconstitute the MN, which of course the Christian/Jewish churches, schools, and synagogues have been doing all along.
There’s always a remnant!
Great post!

By: D.W. Sabin

D.W. Sabin — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:52:56 +0000

Scruton’s “disturbed equanimity” seems to sum it up nicely but Waugh and Kirk appear to hit it out of the park

By: Jonathan Jones

Jonathan Jones — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:44:36 +0000

Thanks for the comments.

Bob, you have cut to the center of it: what is a meta-narrative, and is religion one?

I might suggest that my (our?) Catholicism is not, while others, such as Islam and Mormonism (where the prophet ran for president and likely had himself declared a king in a secret ceremony shortly before his murder) are better fits for that difficult term.

If a meta-narrative is an overarching, explanatory, systematic system of thought, then an approach to God that capitalizes “Mystery” does not deny an overarching reality but instead the placement of the grand and the systematic as a political/social/economic system rather than a local interpretive framework (family, say) in reference to an unseen Good.

By: Bob Cheeks

Bob Cheeks — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:21:46 +0000

J.J. thanks for this. Because I’m fighting electrical problems I can, at this time, only comment briefly and I want to critique your definition of ‘conservatism.’ I will read the rest of your blog when I’ve fixed the problem…the exigencies of life! Re:
“…no framework of action, no tenet, no theory, and no article of faith, a distrust of the systems and processes of the idol of self and of the lust for power and status, scorn to all approaches of ideology and meta-narrative.”
I’m closely aligned with you except for the scorning of the meta-narrative where your definition of ‘conservative’ derails given that man’s existential consciousness experiences both an existent and non-existent reality that is grounded in part on the meta-narrative and begins the process of making man’s experience of the tension toward God the objective truth of reality.

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:24:22 +0000

Good post. In any discussion of definitions of conservatism, I think that Peter Viereck’s work is germane:

“With these two questions in mind, let me begin by asking: What do I mean by ‘conservative’? Conservatism must include what Thomas Mann calls humanism: the conservation of our cultural, spiritual, and individualist heritage. Common sense is notoriously the oracle of conservatism. But, at its best, common sense means no mere unimaginative shrewdness. It means the common and universal sense of mankind, the common values basic to every civilized society and creed. ..

The conservative’s principle of principles is the necessity and supremacy of Law and of absolute standards of conduct. I capitalize ‘Law,’ and I mean it. Suppose it were proved that the eternal absolutes do not really exist. Instinctively we should say: So much the worse for them. But now we must learn to say: So much the worse for existence! We have learned that from sad experience of centuries. Paradoxically, we have learned that man can only maintain his material existence by guiding it by the materially nonexistent: by the absolute moral laws of the spirit.”

By: Greg R. Lawson

Greg R. Lawson — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:19:12 +0000

Wise words indeed from Russell Kirk. However, I must ask:

What happens if and when man, through his own selfishness and idolatry of materialism, gives up his ability to be free and chooses the soft despotism of parental governmental lagresse?

What happens if “We, the People” choose to abdicate the responsibility that comes with true freedom and willingly line up for the yoke?

What happens if too many no longer understand the inherent flaw of human nature and want nothing more than palliative care?

It seems to me freedom is the most difficult thing of all, it requires education, will power, virtue, and love lest it become a cacophany of parochialism, weakness, and, eventually nihilistic hedonism that hides and dulls the pain but does not conquer it.

Can one be a conservative and fight “that” state of affairs? I think this is a question that all types of conservatives must ask themselves.