Conservatism

The emergence of conservatism as a political ideology occurred in response to Enlightenment thought and the French Revolution. Philosophically, conservatism arose from discomfort with the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason, the individual, progress, freedom, equality, natural rights/laws, and popular sovereignty. Socially and politically, it grew out of critiques of the French Revolution. This convergence of philosophical discontent and political critique created the historical foundation for conservatism.

Human nature is fundamentally ‘limited,’ ‘flawed,’ and ‘inclined towards evil.’ Some conservatives explain this condition with reference to the doctrine of ‘original sin’ in the Old Testament while others express it through secular explanatory styles based on empirical examination of human nature without any reference to religion. Whether explained by creation or as a product of evolutionary processes, humans possess a morally deficient and flawed nature.

Conservatism opposes the Enlightenment’s approach that exalts reason and elevates it as the measure of all things, along with its assumption of the ‘rational autonomous subject.’ While reason is not entirely rejected, rationalist explanations that eliminate other elements of human nature (such as emotion, passion, prejudice, imagination, intuition, etc.) are rejected.

Prejudices are not, as advanced in the Enlightenment, evils that need to be eradicated before reason. On the contrary, the human mind cannot function without prejudice, and prejudices serve important functions in alleviating potential dangers that naked reason could create. Prejudices, imbued with virtues filtered and gained continuity from history and tradition, are essential for the human mind to choose the moral. Furthermore, they provide coherence by linking thoughts and actions, giving them meaning; they help internalize moral values by making human decisions and actions part of consistent behavioral patterns.

Conservatism, which opposes the methodological individualism of liberalism, emphasizes the primacy of the social. Society precedes the individual. In this framework, conservatives reject analyses based on the social contract theory, viewing them as elements of an ‘atomistic’ and ‘mechanical’ view of society.

In a society inherently hierarchical, there exists a ‘natural inequality’ among individuals. People are born with different talents and abilities, resulting in social inequality as a natural consequence. The ideal of social equality is neither natural nor achievable.

‘Authority’ cannot be explained as a result of individuals’ free will as liberals suggest. Authority which arises as a consequence of natural necessity is an integral part of social order. Authorities in the family, social institutions and the state are the inevitable results of the deficiencies and imperfections of human nature.

Possibly the most important element of the organic social order which inherently contains natural inequality is property. Property, in its broadest sense, lies at the foundation of social relations. This is because the unequal structure of historically acquired and intergenerationally transmitted property inevitably leads to inequalities in wealth, influence, power, rank, etc.

The critiques of conservatives towards the French Revolution and later the Soviet Revolution fundamentally stem from their opposition to radical transformative projects attempting to reconstruct society. According to this view, while the English and American revolutions aimed to preserve historical liberties, they did not seek to transform society comprehensively through authority, unlike the French Revolution.

There is a significant distinction between authoritarian-leaning Continental European conservatism and liberal-leaning Anglo-American conservatism. Continental conservatives reject both Enlightenment and the French Revolution and uphold the authority of the traditional elite, whereas Anglo-American conservatism emphasizes empiricism, evolution, and limited government.

This political tradition, also known as ‘authoritarian conservatism,’ shows no positive inclination towards liberal democratic principles. In fact, it not only opposes concepts such as individual freedom, rights, and participation but also advocates obedience even to a tyrannical ruler.

In liberal conservatism, the defense of traditional social order is integrated with the defense of the market economy and no contradiction is seen between them. Burke, who regards the laws of the market as natural laws, also opposes any kind of economic intervention.

Starting from Disraeli’s era, conservatives foresaw that increasing industrialization, urbanization and inequality would divide England into two separate nations: the ‘rich’ and the ‘poor’, and advocated reformist/interventionist policies against this threat.

Neo-conservatism, which integrated the market economy, economic efficiency and individualistic ideas of neoliberalism, advocated for a state structure that had shrunk economically but strengthened politically, with ideas such as authority, tradition, national identity, law and order.

Conservatives often oppose the notions of a ‘social contract’ and the accompanying ‘state of nature’ invoked to explain the origins and legitimacy of the state. They argue that a healthy functioning societal order must precede any freely entered social contract.

According to conservatives, the modern state, as a central bureaucratic apparatus, has undermined the foundations of family, kinship groups, churches, guilds and all local and regional associations to which individuals feel belonged, commonly known as intermediary institutions.

Politics does not lend itself to being constructed upon rationalist and a priori foundations; it must rely on experience, historical continuity and the societal boundaries of the existing order.

Throughout history, conservatives have often resisted the expansion of political rights to larger segments of the population; they have felt a sort of fear towards the masses or the majority and the possibility of ‘social disorder’ associated with it has always concerned them.

If we perceive democracy as a system where all individuals have political rights and power peacefully changes hands through free elections, then contemporary conservatives do not significantly oppose democracy in this sense.

The understanding of Burkean conservatism, which acknowledges different cultures and their legitimacy, has turned into a secular nationalism in neo-conservatism. There has been a growing skepticism towards anything different from the national culture (in terms of ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc.), and the existence and visibility of the “other” have been perceived as threatening and “disruptive.”