Progressivism
When you first enter Walt Disney's Carousel of Progress, you might have a notion of what the show will be about—progress! In each scene, a father shows off the latest technology in his home—with some help from his wife and children—and talks about how technology has completely changed their lives.
At the end of each scene, as the theater seats move to the next era, a song plays:
There's a great, big, beautiful tomorrow
Shining at the end of every day
There's a great, big, beautiful tomorrow
And tomorrow's just a dream away
Man has a dream and that's the start
He follows his dream with mind and heart
And when it becomes a reality
It's a dream come true for you and me
Every day brings new technological wonders that are always "a dream come true."
The Carousel represents one view of human history: progressivism. The show is a soft, blurry view of progressivism without the warts—would you expect anything less from the Imagineers at Walt Disney?
It seems all the right-thinking people in the Western World are progressive. Every technological invention will improve our lives. Since the pace of technological invention is increasing, within just a few short years, we should all be living without worry or care in a world of plenty and eternal happiness. Progress should bring us to the very edge of utopia, if not into utopia itself.
Progressivism idolizes the future, as it will always be better than today—or any day in the past.
What other worldviews does modern culture offer us?
The modern world offers conservatism, which is perceived as living in—or even idolizing—the past. Conservatism is widely portrayed as regressive, ignorant, and without hope. "Things cannot change, so why bother trying," or "Things were better in the past, so we should go back to living the way we did then." Conservatives are depicted as:
Luddites—technological progress has more negative effects than positive, believing technological progress should be abandoned
Bitter Clingers—hanging on to a past to which we cannot, and do not want to, return
Stand-patters—in the words of Roosevelt, those who—inexplicably—just do not want to move into the bright new future being built for them
The modern world also offers what we can call doomsterism. There is technical progress, but it always leads to a horrible dystopia. Here, we can find books like Brave New World and We. When strongly progressive cultures fail (and they always do), people generally revert to doomsterism, from the Stoics of the late-stage Roman empire to the modern doomsters.
Given these three choices—progressivism, the modern caricature of conservatism, and doomsterism—why would anyone ever choose anything other than progressivism? Progressivism is open to change, especially social change, that increases justice and flourishing, painting a bright future of "dreams come true for me and you."
Subscribe to Dispatches from Ziklag to receive periodic entries in this series on progressivism and dispatches on the Scriptures, theology, and culture.
If these were our only choices, progressivism might be the best.
But—what if there is another choice? What if there is a distinctly Christian view of technology and progress that neither idolizes the future nor the past?
There is a distinctly Christian view of culture and technology. Unfortunately, however, the Christian church largely divides itself into a dour version of conservatism (via premillennialism) or the unbridled excitement of progressivism (via postmillennialism).
The point of this series here on Dispatches from Ziklag is to:
…outline the origins and beliefs of progressivism
…see where and how the progressive worldview is often entangled with Christian theology
…(attempt to) outline a truly Christian alternative, a premillennial view accepting of technological advancement within limits and respect for human dignity (we will eventually discover human dignity is at the heart of the problem with progressivism).
History's Cycle
One possible way to organize history is along a continuum of progressivism, as shown in the figure below.
If you are familiar with the Strauss–Howe generational theory, this is (essentially) another version of it—although tied to “generations of optimism” rather than “generations of people.” This pattern is repeated in almost every culture, from Babylon to the United States. We will see this pattern by looking at several historical progressive movements as we move through this series of posts.
Note: There are many other ways to organize history; this pattern does not claim to be absolute or "rule over" all the other views but instead gives us "yet another way to understand."
Consider just a a few areas where technology has markedly improved the human condition.
The steam engine and various forms of electric and internal combustion engines have revolutionized transportation. The world went from Rome being large, almost impossible for a single person to traverse in several months of travel, to a world where just about anyone can be just about anywhere in less than 24 hours.
Moving people was just the beginning of the revolution in transportation, which started with the steam engine. Packages can be delivered in hours across a city and days across the world. Farms have grown from "forty acres and a mule" to hundreds of acres. Manufacturing started as a tinker and blacksmith; now, factories encompass hundreds of thousands of square feet and employ thousands of people to create goods that previous generations could not have even dreamed of.
Steam engines also led to reliable electricity production, turning night into day, and ultimately drove the information collection, storage, and processing revolution. Information technology has changed just about every aspect of human life, including politics, learning, and medical care.
If technological progress is always so helpful to humanity, why would a culture move from progressivism to doomsterism?
Because progressivism always fails to deliver on its promises.
Progressivism Always Fails
History is replete with highly successful material societies rotting from their ethical roots, eventually succumbing to less advanced cultures.
Greek philosophers laid the foundations for thousands of years of Western thought, invented logic, and both epic poetry's tragic and comic versions. Greek thinkers even excelled in the small things, like creating the idea of trial by jury and the importance of a government of laws rather than of people.
Despite these accomplishments, however, Greece was defeated by Roman armies. The more technologically advanced civilization was conquered by, the less advanced through discipline and the application of technology rather than the invention.
Rome went on to copy much of Greek culture, adding a strong emphasis on continued technical and administrative achievement. The Western Roman Empire, however, fell to Vandals and other Germanic tribes, including the Visigoths. The Visigoths, who eventually dominated Italy and many areas of Europe, did not have a written code of law until the mid-600s, long after they sacked Rome in 410.
These kinds of reversals are not limited to Europe. When modern Western powers reached Egypt, the Pyramids and other great monuments were the only witness to a once-great civilization. In South America, great civilizations have also left behind massive buildings and complete cities. In their place are tribes surviving off hunting and primitive farming techniques.
If there were a direct connection between technological progress and flourishing, why do advanced civilizations fall to invaders—or even just the passage of time through moral failure?
There are two standard progressive answers to this problem, neither holding up to close scrutiny.
"These older technologies and cultures were not advanced enough." If this is the problem, why should anyone believe the current wave of technical innovation will be advanced enough to create a progressive utopia? Or will any future wave of technical innovation ever be advanced enough?
"These older technologies and cultures did not know enough about how to apply their advances to humans and culture." Once again, however, why should anyone believe the current wave of technical advancement will be applied to humans and culture to resolve every social ill? Ultimately, are humans good enough to use technology to correct the behavior and beliefs of other humans to create an ideal culture and society?
History's answer is no.
What about wealth and its equal distribution? If everyone had food, would they still steal? Would they still cheat? Would they still do bad things? Based on the behavior of at least some of the wealthiest people in the world, the answer is a resounding yes.
Instead of stealing bread, rich people steal bits. Instead of stealing land, powerful people steal ideas. Instead of hating one another for the color of their skin, well-educated people hate others because of the color of their ideas.
Germany, the most technically advanced nation in the world in the early 1900s, developed and executed plans to kill an entire ethno-religious group, the Jews.
Russia caused millions of peasants to starve in the name of creating a paradise grounded in technological advancement.
Charles Ponzi created the Security Exchange Company. Using new investors' funds to pay off older investors, he built a 7-million-dollar empire in the 1890s. The scheme eventually collapsed. The collapse was so damaging this entire class of financial fraud is now called a Ponzi Scheme.
In the late 1990s, after a long run of progress in computer technology, Kenneth Lay and Jeff Skilling created a new Ponzi scheme in the form of Enron. The collapse of Enron led to 20,000 people losing their jobs, many ruined lives, and suicides.
Where do we go from here? Back to the philosophical roots of progressivism. What are progressive beliefs, and why does it always fail?