This image is by Shepard Fairey and it pointedly captures the visceral impression one gets when one thinks of the current presidential campaign of this candidate. The Obama campaign has been very effective at presenting him as the candidate of "change" and "progress", and it seems to have taken hold at a popular level.
This infatuation with progress reminds me a bit of the "progressivism", I previously mentioned here--a sort of liberation from the fading restraints of the past, the idea that things newer are better, and an uncritical devotion to the applied sciences.
In any event, this post is not about politics or the evils of scientism. It is a cautionary reminder that, while the idea of substantial change in any context may have its attractions, it is always a destabilizing force in society. In fact, "dismay at massive change," contends David Lowenthal in The Past is a Foreign Country, "stokes demand for heritage." History reminds us, it seems, that when change and national obsession with progress tend to disorient and dehumanize people, they seek shelter in history and memory. In times of disruption, according to Lowenthal, artifacts of the past appear like "remnants of stability" to those who seek reassurance.
When change in society is needed (and it sometimes is), it should be kept in mind that people need reassuring images of tradition and the past. That is why so many resources, public and private, are directed toward historic preservation and reconstruction of icons of our country's origins. The past offers us havens of order, tradition, and stability that counter the depersonalization brought about by change and obsession with progress.
Read Lowenthal and beware of vague appeals for change and any idea that progress, whether industrial, technological, or otherwise, is always a good thing. Perhaps each year, of the last twenty years of my life, I have become more efficient, while consequently becoming less free.



