Are we moving too fast in the opposite direction?

Tradition wise, nothing much really changed for a good 1000 years, but since the Enlightenment Period in the 1700s and the emergence of liberalism, many conservatives are starting to believe that liberals are beginning to take everything we have spent centuries building, and running as fast as they can in the opposite direction. This has been proved even more so over the last few years, with a further rejection of Trump’s presidency in the USA, the monarchy in the UK, and religion in the West in general; seemingly more so now than ever before. But is this true? Or is it just a case of culture breeding a counter-culture?

First of all let’s establish the facts. The Enlightenment Period began in 1715 and was a time when thinkers began forming ideas such as progress, tolerance, and most notably, liberalism. This eventually led to the French Revolution in 1789, which saw King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette executed in 1793. The revolution also encouraged the idea of rejecting elitist monarchies and a separation of church and state, which are ideas still promoted to this day by some leftists. But even though these ideas are promoted, many are still loyal to the idea of a monarchy and other traditional institutions and values - including but not limited to marriage, modesty, and gender roles. However it has become noticeably harder for right-wing views to be heard nowadays, but I have already discussed this in more detail in a previous piece*. A great number of socially right-wing individuals argue that society is moving too fast, and that there is a reason things are the way they are and haven’t changed for thousands of years.

Another thing worth considering is that with every culture, a counter-culture is also born. For example, from around the 1960s onwards, liberalism became the counter-culture due to the popularity and heavy reliance on conservative values. This has changed in recent years where liberalism has become the norm, and conservatism is becoming arguably less common nowadays. These revolutions that take place, usually amongst the young, mean that social views end up shifting often quite quickly, which is also in part due to the popularity of social media, where word can spread fast and it can make it seem as if the whole world believes a certain thing, when the reality is actually far more different; especially after the emergence of the ever-so toxic ‘cancel culture’, which sees usually celebrities getting ‘cancelled’ for a tweet tweeted a decade ago, and anyone else still seen supporting said celebrity is also attacked and bullied.

Now onto the main arguments: what has changed that has needed to change. I’m sure many people would argue that it’s for the best that racism, sexism, homophobia, abuse, and extreme poverty are no longer normalised in society - of course these things unfortunately still exist, but they are now heavily frowned upon, unlike in the past where they were seen as the norm. The second question is: what has changed that didn’t need to change? There are of course many answers to this question, but one thing that I suppose would tie most of those answers together is the fact that many conservatives feel like their views are no longer accepted, and if they act on those views, people see them as ‘intolerant’ and may take offence to them. For example, if someone claims to not support the Black Lives Matter organisation, they are instantly labelled a racist, rather than being given the opportunity to explain why. If someone claims to be pro-life, they are instantly labelled as anti womens’ rights, rather than being given the chance the explain why. But although those people do not represent every single person, the fact that conservatives find it difficult to discuss their views on the same platform as liberals represents a clear problem in society.

This leads on to the fact that a lot of liberals simply seem to ignore scientific arguments behind many traditions, as they find holes in the science or don’t care to learn. In order to keep all my readers on the same page, I will only include secular arguments in this chapter. I’ll start off with marriage: research has shown a clear correlation between divorce rates and cohabitation, showing that those who lived with their future spouse are twice as likely to divorce than those who didn’t, and those who lived with a different romantic partner (rather than their future spouse) and four times as likely to divorce than those who only cohabited after marriage. Traditionally couples would only cohabit after marriage, and it’s been proven to work. Another issue is children: studies have shown that parents are happier than non-parents later in life, so is it really for the better more people are choosing (emphasis on the word ‘choosing’) to be child-free if having children is more fulfilling in the long run? Party culture is the final issue I will be mentioning today. Studies have also shown that regular alcohol consumption can further accentuate feelings of depression and anxiety, such as regular partying. So is the ever-so popular university party culture actually even that good? This is of course not to offend, and it’s also not to say that if you do those things then you are instantly a bad person and going to be unhappy; but why are so many people trying to move so fast when traditional values are proven to be successful?

What is concluded here is that change should not be as quick as possible, but also not completely non-existent, we as a society should aim to ‘change to conserve’ meaning we should adapt to changing circumstances rather than allowing revolution to take place, which then risks society moving too quickly. The values of all political quadrants should be accepted (as long as violence isn’t promoted) and change should be gradual in order to not lead to violence and/or outrage, because when has sudden change NOT led to violence and revolution in history?

*for those interested, the piece is called ’Is the right under attack on university campuses?’ and can be found on TheLectures website.