Thread by @shrikanth_krish

One of the riddles in political discourse is to define the "C" word

What exactly is Conservatism?

For Liberalism it is possible to chart out a messy history, starting with Magna Carta and ending with Me-Too movement,

Conservatism doesn't lend itself to narratives

It doesn't even lend itself to a straightforward definition

A very simplistic way of defining a political conservative is to suggest that Conservatives are the ones who "resist" change. That's the definition that "liberals" like to foist upon conservatives

But that is a very problematic definition.

Going by that Stalinists in post-Khruschev Russia and Maoists in Deng Xiaoping's China would be the "conservatives" making the word practically meaningless.

I personally prefer the framework suggested by the great Economist @ThomasSowell in his great book - "A Conflict of Visions"

Sowell talks about the two different ways of looking at the world -

The Constrained Vision
The Unconstrained Vision

As per Sowell, people who subscribe to the "Constrained Vision" are skeptical about human nature, and start off with a dim view of individual discretion and the capacity of reason

In this view it is unwise to overstate the power of "reason" in solving the world's problems.

Man is flawed. Power is dangerous. And human discretion can often reap disastrous consequences unless there are checks and balances placed on it by the "wisdom" of the collective and the distilled guidance of tradition and history

In contrast we have the "Unconstrained vision" which is typically subscribed to by progressives and liberals.

People who subscribe to this vision place a great deal of faith in deductive reasoning, and are less enthusiastic about inductive wisdom

In the "unconstrained" vision, human capacity for intelligence and deduction is viewed as a marvel.

And a great deal of faith is placed in the great potentiality of human reason which is unjustly chained by the forces of "tradition" and "custom"

To me Sowell's framework is elegant and fits the description of a wide range of conservatives - be it the Burkean defenders of tradition, the Dharmic defenders of the Indian way of life, or the Straussian defenders of "Great books" in the western canon.

What unites all these conservatives of different hues is a common skepticism towards the human capacity to do good with the power of unalloyed reason, and a deference towards what has come down to us through the ages

Some conservatives (like Edmund Burke) tend to focus more on the immediate past and traditions that have stood the test of time.

Eg: The British monarchy, English common law

Conservatives in other cultures (that have suffered greater discontinuity) may prefer to hark back and take inspiration from "ancient books" or "ancient institutions" as opposed to "surviving" institutions from the more immediate past

Eg: Hindu conservatives in the Dharmic tradition may not take as much interest in 18th century Hindu society but prefer to go back in time and get their inspiration from Advaita Vedanta or the Upanishads or maybe the Bhagavad Gita

A similar comment can be made about the American conservative tradition which focuses less on immediate traditions, but instead engages deeply in "Great books" - most notable of which is the American Constitution and the Federalist Papers (which serve as commentaries on it)

But what united these conservatives of different hues is the skepticism of "unalloyed reason" and a certain aversion towards an uncritical adoption of the practices dictated by the "zeitgeist" (the "spirit of one's times" so to speak)

So Sowell's framework is very handy.

But nevertheless even among people who do subscribe to the "Constrained vision" I can see a fault line (which I have already briefly alluded to).

And that is -

- Should we derive our "wisdom" and "guidance" from our grandmothers? (immediate tradition)

- Should we derive our "wisdom" from "Great books" of the past, and seek an originalist interpretation of them?

To me this is an interesting fault line.

In the US, the "conservative" tradition is mostly of the second type.

In a country like England, it is largely of the first category

In India it is a curious mixture of the two

So when one talks of British Conservatism, the focus is mostly on "not rocking the boat".

There are cultural facets to it - like fish & chips, watching test matches at Lord's.

There are also moral facets like self reliance, the famed british "persistence" (the bulldog spirit)

In the US, there is no such thing as a "persistent" American culture so to speak.

Partly because it is the "new world". A world of immigrants where accents, food, and general popular culture changes beyond recognition every few decades.

So there is no room really for the "british" style conservatism

Instead what we have is a strong textual orientation - focused on certain sacred cows like "individual liberty" .

There is a focus on "originalism" - are we interpreting the Constitution exactly as our founders intended?

This is a persistent pre-occupation among American conservatives.

So this gives American conservatism a quasi-religious fundamentalist character

In India it is a bit different

Day to day rootedness of the Indian people largely stems from a certain "cultural" deference for the immediate past. Respect for one's elders and grandmothers so to speak. We defer to their wisdom and ways, instead of glorifying our own "wisdom"

But the political conservatism of say the Hindutva movement is not the "grandmother" variety cultural conservatism.

It is rather radical and in fact critical of the immediate past.

Instead it chooses to hark back to very ancient times to find a model that India should emulate.

We see this strain of "radical conservatism" even in the 19th century.

"Let's go back to the Vedas" cry of the Arya Samajis

There are sections of the Hindu Right that are in fact quite critical of the Hinduism of the last few centuries -

That includes a proclivity to non violence, a strong Bhakti orientation, strong caste endogamy

So yes, these guys are also "conservatives" but of a different kind

They are not "traditionalists".

Sure they are critical of "Enlightenment" ideas, but their inspiration stems from ancient models, and often very ancient texts -

Advaita Vedanta is a great source of inspiration and confidence for the modern Hindu psyche.

So it's fascinating to see these different strains of conservatism operating within India.

Both the "What would my granny say" variety

AND

the "What would Yajnavalkya say" variety.

It would be interesting to see how both these strains play out in Indian politics and how they will interact with the forces of Liberalism and "Enlightenment" rationalism - which is of course an altogether different rival ideology.