>But when we start conveniently attributing such to
individuals who neither claim it nor provide substantive evidence
of such a philosophical position (e.g., a lack of contradictory
views), then we tread dangerous ground.
But they in fact DID hold such a position, that society held primacy over
the individual. See Charles Cooley, Edward Ross, et al.
As to Sanger, the suffering she was determined to end was the suffering of
the "society," not the individual. It is precisely predicated on a notion
of society as above the individual. She states:
"The philosophy of Birth Control points out that as long as civilized
COMMUNITIES [my caps] encourage unrestrained fecundity in the 'normal' members
of the population ... and penalize every attempt to introduce the principle
of discrimination and responsibility in parenthood, they will be faced with
the ever-increasing problem of feeble-mindedness, that fertile parent of
degeneracy, crime, and pauperism" (Pivot, p.81).
Birth control seen as ethically necessary for "humanity" is a notion, as
you rightly point, at the core of Progressivism, but this notion is grounded
on the belief that society has an end, a need, and a purpose which trumps
the rights of the individual.
Note Edward Ross:
"The only thing that can enable society to dispense with control is some
sort of favorable selection. The way to create a short-clawed feline is
not to trim the claws of successive generations of kittens, but to pick out
the shortest-clawed cats and to breed from them. Similarly it is only
certain happy siftings that can shorten the claws of man. Even in a primitive
Boisé or Ballaret the too aggressive [sic] man dies “with his boots on” in
some barroom fracas or street row. Later the wiping out of the rampant by
private enterprise makes way for the social reaction that converts the
bully into the criminal and kills or jails him by constituted agents. It is
processes like these, affecting the relative birth-rates or death-rates of
the social and the anti-social classes, which solve the problem of order in
such a manner that it stays solved. Mere control, on the other hand, is,
like sustenation or defence, something that must go on in order that society
may live at all. Men and women are socialized once for all, but in time
the socialized units die while new, undisciplined persons keep swarming up
on to the stage of action. The equilibrium achieved is perpetually
disturbed by changes in the personnel of the group, and hence perpetually in need
of being restored by the conscious, intelligent efforts of society" (Social
Control 1901, pp.60-61).
As Charles Cooley maintained,
"Thus all innovation is based on conformity, all heterodoxy on orthodoxy,
all individuality on solidarity" (Social Organization, p.321).
"Whenever the question is raised between choice and mechanism, the
advocates of the latter may justly claim that it saves energy, and may demand
whether, in a given case, the results of choice justify its cost" (p.323). And
in the footnote, "I mean by mechanism anything in the way of habit,
authority or formula that tends to dispense with choice."
Secondly, indeed, the conservatives to whom I referred are those for whom
the name classical liberal would apply today, but the choice of term was
meant to avoid any confusion with the modern (and inappropriate) usage of the
label "liberal." But I will contend that "conservative" is a label
without sufficient meaning -- it can be applied to Edmund Burke as readily as to
James Fitzjames Stephen. It generally implies that one accepts the
existence of moral absolutes -- see John Kekes, "A Case for Conservatism." Thus
Ely and the Social Gospelers could be classed as conservatives, while being
within the camp of the Progressives! And it is used by some as a
pejorative. As to Hayek, his use of "liberal" was indeed in the classical sense,
and most assuredly did not apply to Progressives, who only appropriated the
name after "Progressive" became understood for what it was -- a philosophy
of individual restraint in the name of social order and social control. One
cannot without resorting to unstoppable laughter suggest that the
Progressives rejected coercion, as it was part and parcel of that philosophy. And
note that Hayek is said to have referred to himself as a Burkean Whig, and
thus his own understanding of conservatism changed. (See my "F. A. Hayek:
The Liberal as Communitarian").
Finally, one can indeed identify as Progressive even if not accepting what
you take as "core goals." (Notably missing from your list is improvement
of society through population control.) That such goals exist is
sufficient to identify one as Progressive, but not necessary, as other attributes
may allow one entry.
CM
As a post script, I find nothing to be gained from continuing this
argument. No opinions will be changed, nor does it seem anything will be
resolved. And my apologies to the Moderator for having taken such of his valuable
time in extending it.
|