Social conservatism and the individual | OC Comment

The individual is at the centre of almost all political ideologies. Unsurprisingly, as all constituents have concern for their own well-being and safety, political ideologies must (at least in theory) comport benefits for individual human beings. Yet as has been amply demonstrated throughout history, many times it is the individual that must bear the price of political failings. Whether it be workers forced to work without weekends to meet impossible quotas in the Soviet Union, dissidents jailed in authoritarian regimes, and the poor starving in kleptocratic oligarchies, the failings at the top of any political structure must ultimately be paid at the bottom. 

This, therefore, makes the treatment and regard in which the individual is held by the dominant political ideology a key indicator of how these will perform in practice. If one ignores, subsumes, or explains away the power and unique nature of individual human beings when discussing abstract politics, it is not unreasonable to assume that in practice that same ideology will also ignore, subsume, and explain away the plight of individual constituents. 

Fortunately, social conservatism has the success and prosperity of the individual as key tenet that undergirds the ideological superstructure. However, instead of being at odds with each other, social conservatives believe that society and the individual are mutually reinforcing concepts. In many cases these two tenets are indistinguishable; a society is made up of individuals and individuals find meaning, happiness, and prosperity in society. It is this high regard for the individual in social conservatism that sets it apart from other ideologies. It is the only political structure that keeps the individual and their relation to society as the permanent focus of all political activity.

Let us examine the opposite (according to the traditional political compass) of social conservatism. This is conventionally described as anarcho-communism, exponents of which can be found in modern-day activist groups like Black Lives Matter. These activists have as their end goal a society where individuals are completely isolated from social relationships. This is clearly demonstrated in their militant objection to any societal standards, norms or customs. Their ideal society is a society with no social responsibility, civil duties, or even common courtesy.

Economic needs are (theoretically) met with the provisions of a state-controlled system, which takes it upon itself to rectify historical injustices based on immutable characteristics. With most economic needs provided for, but with no society in which to find meaning or durable joy, the individual is free to indulge in hedonistic vice, a degenerative epicurean vortex by which each person has swept away in an indistinguishable tide of sensory overload and stupor. It is clear that this philosophy has no place for the individual to be an individual; he is simply an entity locked away in an obscene parody of a monastic cell, one that lives and dies with no purpose other than to grasp at the ephemeral wisps of temporary ecstasy.

The individual is similarly erased in conventional Marxism or Communism. At this extreme of the political axis, the individual is simply no more; the only things of note in a person are their belonging to an economic class, racial group, or biological category. An individual is not an individual but either an oppressor to be shot or someone oppressed to be “freed”. Even after the institution of the Utopian ideas of “true communism” where the state is abolished and resources are shared in common, the individual is once again left out of the picture. Here, according to the ever-popular slogan of “to each according to his ability, from each according to his deed”, man is reduced to an economic unit and not a person. The ultimate aim of communism, which is to “replace the government of people with the administration of things” is realised. Man is no longer man, but a “thing” that produces some things and consumes others. He is simply another product to manage and monitor, reduced to a commodity that resembles a factory machine far more than a living being.

The anarchist right, which proposes a free-for-all economic system combined with a similar recision of social ties to what occurs on the anarchist left, is simply the logical end-point of classical liberalism. A world where each man is free, or rather forced, to work and make a profit whether he wants to or not, back-stabbing and throat-cutting just to stay afloat. A world where charity, familial duty, and old-fashioned ideas like mercy or obligation are simply not considered. In this political paradigm, the individual has no inherent value. His value is only a function of what he owns and how much profit he can produce. Once his ability fades away in old age, or if he happens upon some obstacle that prevents his eternal sacrifice at the altar of production and profit, he is discarded as one would an exhausted battery.

  Social conservatives, on the other hand, aim to strike the balance between individual and society that in the end benefits both more than any other ideology. An individual must be given the proper freedom to grow, to develop, and become a unique facet of the image of God we are all made in, yet he must also be nurtured, taught, and provided with examples of what constitutes a good life and what duties he must fulfil towards the family, society, and world that has birthed him. 

Social conservatism neither wants nor needs robots of the species homo economicus, and has no wish to reduce man to the level of a commodity to use and discard. Similarly, it impels men to achieve more than just temporary sensory pleasure in a benighted solitude. We believe that individuals who achieve their full potential will inevitably better their society, as the betterment of constitutive parts will always benefit the whole. Yet this “betterment” is not simply limited to monetary value but incorporates the many facets which form a human being. Thus physical, mental, mental, and moral health are all included; so are personal achievements, the benefit conferred to current society, along with the fruits of labour and sacrifice given in trust to future generations. The love, trust, and support found in social and family connections are inherently part of an individual, and so are another prime focus for social conservative policy. It wishes to improve society by bettering the individual, and better the individual by improving society.

It is for these reasons that social conservatism is truly an individualist philosophy; it is the only political philosophy that earnestly and uncompromisingly can state that individual development and success is of no threat to it’s conception of an ideal society. In all the other philosophies enunciated above, and in direct opposition to the liberty conferred by social conservatism, the individual must be artificially moulded into what the architects of such ideologies need him to be. In this sense, it requires men to be made into something less than men, something that has the same form but lacks the crucial element of agency that is constitutive of what free men are. 

If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating.