The Virtue of Patience
One of Not News’ central tenets is that by providing a forum for discussion of current social problems, we can help build a truly democratic society. In that discussion, however, it’s sometimes easy to ignore the question of what a ‘truly democratic society’ is, or how we should go about building it. I’d like to use the next few Philosophy slots in the article rotation to discuss some of these issues, starting this time out with the question of how far into the future reformers can look in good conscience.
Even when a group of people agree that a system or society must change, the question of how fast it should change can be extremely divisive – as is the related but often overlooked question of how fast it can change. Some of this division can be traced to conflicting agendas, a lack of clearly articulated ideals, or a poor decision-making structure within a reform movement, but in and of itself the timing issue is contentious. Reformers often target those elements of the social order that pose an immediate threat to the physical and mental well-being of large segments of the population, many of which are rooted in longstanding traditions such that any delay in addressing them only compounds the injustice. However, while ‘When do we want it? Now!’ might be an effective rallying cry, and an expression of the optimal turn of events, a truly pragmatic reformer must inevitably accept compromise and look to the future, setting timeframes not in terms of months or even years, but in generations.
That the current nature of society demands such thinking may be easily accepted; that it be adopted, even embraced, as a guiding principle may appear to some to be wrongheaded, to be an acquiescing in the face of injustice. If one does not strive for the immediate end to an injustice, does not one bear some degree of moral responsibility for it? If one judges moral responsibility solely from motive, certainly not. But if one argues that a person bears some responsibility for those consequences that he or she can reasonably anticipate, there does appear to be a problem. I would argue that a thorough understanding of the nature of society and the realities of what is needed to effect social change would lead the reformer to conclude that only a generational approach would ultimately have the desired consequences.
The most critical factor in this conclusion is the ultimate goal of the democratic reformer: a society in which each member has the resources to develop and grow as an individual and plays an active role in setting the society’s course. Above all this demands a certain mindset among the population, a commitment to democracy and to open-minded, empirically-based decision-making processes. To develop this mindset and the skills it demands requires that the reformer eliminate or alter some of the society’s core beliefs and traditions, along with those non-democratic prejudices that may be held by significant minorities among the population. When one considers change in this way, there is no alternative to a generational approach – there is simply no other way to achieve such a change in attitudes than to change the way the current generation passes its traditions, its way of life, on to the next.
One should also consider the role of social inertia. The greater the desired change, the greater the force that will rise to oppose it. Even if this initial force can be overwhelmed, the resulting disruptions can sow the seeds for future oppositions. That some people will resist change is not a reason not to advocate change, of course, but it is a factor that must be considered in planning what types of change are feasible in the present. A reformer who does not do so risks disappointment, which leads to cynicism and a loss of momentum and energy within the reform movement. Ultimately, this slows down the pace of reform and delays the achievement of a real democracy. A reformer with an empirical grasp of the circumstances may have to accept injustice in the present in order to prevent injustice in the future. While this may seem to be an unacceptable choice, it is an unavoidable burden for the reformer; if there were no systemic injustice in the first place, there would hardly be a need for reform.
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.