Progressionism

In this paper, I will attempt to outline a new theory of progress; not a new understanding of the inherent nature of progress, but a theory of its effect upon the world. This perspective, which I will label progressionism, for lack of a more suitable term, views events happening at every level of humans’ lives as primarily motivated by consonant or dissonant concepts of progress. The extent to which we are living with worldview change brought about by the industrial revolution is extensive, and I will examine contemporary conflicts over “progress” and draw parallels between them and turn of the century models of progress. Further, this essay is itself, essentially, an attempt to build upon, extend, and amend former models. The primary empirical focus of this paper is the conflict over Globalization and its familiar concepts: Democracy, Free Trade, etc, and the tactics that have become commonly used to dissuade the proponents of Globalism, namely terrorism.

In order to outline what is an apparently new perspective, clarifications must be made of certain terms that may have become distorted, or distortions must be made of certain accepted terms. For the following pages, please read the following terms not as what you previously thought of them, but what they are defined as here.

Historically, progress has been a rather slippery term, which contributes to its seemingly broad, but actually rather specific definition within progressionism. Progressionism views progress as a concept of the past and present, and more importantly, the future. Furthermore, progress, while being an objective concept as an extant abstract, is a highly subjective perspective when applied to the real world. The best analogy that comes to mind is that of a vehicle; there is one thing a vehicle must do, and that is transport or allow for the transportation of something. However, were one to ask another for an example of a vehicle, responses would vary widely, from something as obvious as an automobile to something as subtle as a road. Within the framework of the above example, and continuing on throughout the paper, “progress” will take the place of vehicle, and “progress ideals” will take the place of the myriad individual responses, such as cars and roads.

Progressionism has a much broader concept of politics than is currently fashionable; it does not limit politics in a society to city councils, or dictators, or international trade agreements. Politics is the everyday interplay of multiple progress ideals, at all levels of human behavior. International trade agreements are certainly political, as are classroom discussions, as are religious gatherings; playground antics as well are political.

Progressionism does not take a positive or negative view of progress, but instead classifies it merely as change that is perceived negatively or positively by different people. Progressive ideals always advocate some level of change in the future. This is not to say that conflict cannot arise from a progressive ideal and traditionalist ideals: people disagree just as much over the benefits or consequences of change as they do what sort of change should happen.

Finally, ideologies are explained by Progressionism as a system of determining a progress ideal. Many factors can influence the formation of a progress ideal, but the one key factor is that of ideology. Basically, ideologies are the composite beliefs an individual or society holds as truth; these societies or individuals interpret current issues in context of these beliefs in order to form a progress ideal. For example, if I believed that the world was flat, God was all-powerful, benevolent, and wise, and that the bible should be taken literally, I might come to the conclusion that the best way for humanity to fulfill its duty would be to multiply and occupy to bursting both the top and bottom of the earth: a round earth concept does not fit my progress ideal, nor does reproductive restraint, and the hypothetical me would resist both those concepts. My future ideal is shaped by my existing beliefs. It should be noted that progress ideals are not static. As ideologies distort, so do idyllic visions of the future.

An argument can be made that those dissonant counter-concepts disagree more with my (hypothetical) basic beliefs than my progress ideal, but then one must answer the question of the reason for beliefs. The most basic beliefs were not formed for any reason at all, but to improve life in the future. Primitive cultures do not promote large families for fun; there are distinct advantages to having many children in a situation with high infant-mortality and difficulty in gathering food. Beliefs (however irrational they may be) almost always have some basis in reality, and are always focused on the avoidance of difficulty or the encouragement of ease in future life, and therefore are the building blocks of a progress idea. Furthermore, identical beliefs can be held my multiple individuals or societies but interpreted differently. A good example of this is the varying level of acceptance of homosexuals among Christians in America.

With all that said, I will now explore the historical basis for our current international situation, and explain why I think terrorism occurs, what it has to do with progress, and how societies’ concepts of progress have changed over the years to serve the needs of those societies.

The two hundred-some year span of the Industrial Revolution has had two main effects. Primarily, it vocalized progress as an objective concept. Individuals during the turn of the century most likely didn’t view it this way, but for an unclear reason: perhaps it was the amount of minds focusing on the future as an attainable goal; perhaps it was the anthropological comparison of “primitive” cultures to those of Europe and the United States, a sense of possible betterment was engendered. For the first time, people began to think about the future as a “better” place than the present. Perhaps individual progress ideals were technological; perhaps social, some were undoubtedly spiritual, but whatever path they took, they all saw the next day, month, year, or century as a potentially better “place” in time than their current state.

Secondly, Colonialism was, in effect, the grandfather of the current state of our world. The domination of resources outside of traditional borders allowed for more colonies, and hence more economic development. This evolved, around the time of the Industrial Revolution, into Imperialism, as influxes of resources graduated from a part of the great game of nation states to the game of nation states due to the polarizing, and admittedly invigorating, effect of industry on governments’ policies. Imperialism is currently manifested as Globalism, which is essentially a reincarnation of Colonialism.

In the period of time since the Industrial Revolution, the United States of America has emerged as the global superpower of the day, much as Britain was 100 years ago. American corporations such as WalMart, as a matter of course, purchase low-cost goods or services from countries with weaker economies-per-capita (WalMart has the dubious distinction of importing 10% of US imports from China in 2002 alone (Charles Phishman, December 2003)), and profit from them by re-selling them in the markets of stronger economies (primarily Europe, the United States, and Canada), with little benefit to China or other comparable countries. Further, Globalism has combined the Colonial ideal of massive influxes of raw or semi-complete material from less-developed nations with classical liberal free-market theory, which has the effect of expanding consumer markets to every locale possible. Companies like WalMart and McDonald’s are no longer “American” companies, in that they sell their product or service to citizens of many nations: McDonald’s website asks visitors to select their “country/market” from a list of 62 nations.

This globalization of trade has the effect of introducing (and in many minds, forcing) Western culture into societies that want little or no part of it. The introduction of American-provided jobs to a developing or third-world nation is often a double-edged sword to indigenous culture and traditions, as the companies do not pay “American” wages (which would almost always be higher) and promote Western free-market ideals, western eating habits, and, most importantly, western progress ideals.

Is this, then, progress? From the perspective of a stereotypical American, of course it is. Globalism means that, in the future, goods will be cheaper, standards of living will be higher, democracy (our championed political system) will engender peaceful resolution of disagreement between nations and ethnic groups previously at odds, and philosophical conclusions that have been accepted by our country such as racial, gender, and economic equality will be accepted by the whole world. After all, once a hungry person discovers a new, good, food source (a fruit, if you will, for dramatic symbolism) isn’t it natural to share that fruit with those they love or depend upon?

Progressionism does not judge these progress ideals. The cynical tone of the previous paragraph was to illustrate that, in keeping with the idea that progress has no absolute positive value, it is simply change. Gender equality in the Middle East would be seen as a welcome change to most Americans, but many, less “advanced” cultures would see it as unnatural. It is in these cultural clashes between American or Western philosophical progress ideals and those of the rest of the world that a new conflict has arisen. Those who disagree with any of these tenants of the American progress ideal will likely fight back in order to maintain their current state or to unseat the future that Globalism has set and replace it with their own, hence, the recent surge in Terrorist activity around the globe. Between 1991 and 2001, “74 terrorist incidents were recorded in the united states. During this same time frame, an additional 62 terrorist acts being plotted…were prevented…For every successful terrorist attack mounted in the United States, [19.83] anti-US attacks are carried out around the world.” (FBI Publication #0308) 254 of the terrorist attacks in 2000-2001 were directed towards business interests, dwarfing the next largest category (US government interests) which weighs in at 106 (FBI Publication #0308). Further evidence of an upswing of terrorist activity (or an upswing in extremist tactics) is evidenced by chart #1.

The US Department of State and USAID Strategic Plan describes the “problem” of Globalization thusly “Millions of the world’s poor, however, have not yet benefited from globalization, increasing their risk of alienation. Furthermore, transnational threats have emerged from globalization, enabling the creation of deadly global terror networks, spurring crime that reaches beyond borders, and spreading disease via the most mobile population in history.”(US Department of State and USAID Strategic Plan) Eight of the thirteen bullet points in this document are clearly expressed desires to foster American-style government and/or US-beneficial structure to foreign countries and/or regions. Mark Hertsgaard remarked in his 2002 book The Eagle’s Shadow that the most striking thing about America’s reputation overseas is that it is mixed. Foreigners both admire America’s democratic process, wealth, and freedoms while at the same time detesting its military, economic, and diplomatic policies, which are seen as forcibly pressed upon others. Freedom and the arrogance that is associated with it are the two most common characteristics attributed to Americans.

The American progress ideal is blatantly obvious: Globalization. It views Globalism as an idyllic future, with recognition of “the profound need for democracy and market economies to meet the aspirations of a new generation” (US Department of State and USAID Strategic Plan) in the Middle East. Objectively, one must wonder whose generation’s aspirations will be met, the Arabs or the Westerners? However, the very concepts that the United States claims to be defending and encouraging: stability and freedom, are also championed by the terrorists, who view themselves as the oppressed (by America and Israel’s military, and Western economic models) rather than the (religious, gender) oppressors that Americans commonly think of them as. It is not that the methods Western states use to influence other cultures, although those do stir up quite a lot of dissent on their own: it is their view of the future that is not compatible with the Islamic future. Muslim progress ideals typically stress a united Islam and the eradication of Israeli colonial brutality, whereas American progress ideals typically denounce (at least non-Christian) religion as a political rallying point and assert Israel’s right to exist, as well as its right to use ethically questionable means for national defense. These two scenarios cannot both simultaneously come to pass, and so are fundamentally at odds.

Progressionism attempts to explain the wherefore of these “transnational threats” in context of Globalization by seeking the root conflict. While there are many different terrorist groups acting against the United States, and as many espoused reasons for their existence, the underlying structure of the equations is that of discordant counterpoint. Much as in music, when two notes do not match on some scale, they sound poor together, and the audience winces: there is psychological stress at hearing two sounds that do not blend well. If people have a noticeable negative reaction to sound, they can hardly be expected to do nothing when they perceive their culture, way of life, and societal institutions assaulted. This is an odd analogy, but terrorism reminds me of a scene in the movie Red Dragon, about the serial killer Hannibal Lecter. Lecter is a fan of orchestral music, and when one violinist repeatedly falls below his expectations, he kills him.

Fictional evidence aside, there is strong evidence (and logic) in favor of violent means of political expression in this context and many others. The “millions of the world’s [alienated from the United States] poor” have very few avenues of political expression open to them. It is very difficult for the average American to perceive the jamb into which the impoverished of this world have been placed. Americans vote for what they want, and because we’re the current world superpower, it will happen. It is hard to for us to understand that in most other countries domestic issues are heavily affected by what other countries do, because Americans are so used to being the effecter, not the effected. Another problem with non-violent action against the established neo-colonial system is that little care is voiced by the people of powerful nations for those in impoverished ones. There is no neo-noblesse oblige to run counterpoint to neo-colonialism. In a situation where pacifistic efforts go unnoticed, the logical conclusion is to turn to violence.

So, two major world cultures are currently clashing, and one is not being heard in the debate over whether one should win, neither should win, or both cultures should be synthesized. To be heard, political actors think, they must first be noticed. And the only significant tool they have to illuminate their concerns is our fear. If Americans will not cave to chanted dissent or burned effigies, it is worth it to the actors to attempt violence, because their progress ideals are at risk of being lost to Western influence.

While this theory o’ mine is aimed at directly applying to contemporary international issues, it is applicable elsewhere in time. Throughout history, different manifestations of progress have been both accepted and rejected, many at the same time. Sometimes, the process of acceptance results in a synthesis of old and new values into a composite ideology that dominates a culture. A good example of this would be the arrival of Spanish Catholic missionaries in South and Central America who later went on to lead their congregations against oppressive power structures similar to those they had supported in the past or Christian culture itself, retaining pagan elements of Easter and Christmas, and integrating them into the new religion. However, violence surrounding a clash of progress ideals is not unique to the 20th- and 21st centuries by any means. Both Luddism and Manifest Destiny were two phenomenons that support the hypothesis that violent political action has historically been a direct function of progressive conflict

As early as the 1600s drastic improvements were being made on common household machines like looms, and prompting an increase in production and an easing of poverty. However, more and more workers were hired to work at someone else’s machine, instead of using their own. This exploitation was the newest form of capitalism, and drew increasing criticism from both the lower and, to a much lesser extent, upper classes. Lord Byron famously supported the Luddite movement, and argued against parliamentary resolutions against their actions.

The term “Luddism” grows from an urban myth of England; that in 1779 a man named Ned Lud broke into a house and destroyed two stocking frames. People who identified with the insane man, having presumably lost their jobs or seen their livelihoods threatened by the capitalization of low-scale industry, took on his moniker and began mimicking his actions. Industrial sabotage of this sort had been going on since 1710, but it erupted in 1811 with the formation of a radical militia of Luddites, parallel to today’s American Patriots movement in scale and purpose. Skirmishes between the British Army and the Luddite forces resulted in the death penalty being enacted for any acts of “machine breaking”, or industrial sabotage, in an effort to curb the violence and to appease the merchants whose capital was being vandalized.

The Luddite movement was “eyes wide open class warfare” (Pynchon). It is a perfect example of Marxist theory’s class warfare, the start of a socialist revolution, in a sense. The theory of relative deprivation fits the Luddite movement very well, when combined with Marx and Engel’s treatises. Relative deprivation, basically, states that when people expect X, and they receive Y, and Y is less than X, then there will be unrest of a sort. Lordy Byron’s rejection of the Frame Breaking Act of 1812 was based not on any anti-capitalism leanings, nor any fear of technology as humanity’s downfall, but because the drastic increase on the price of wheat was combining with high unemployment (perceived as an effect of the hiring of low-wage apprentices to work simple machines) to increase poverty to unbearable levels for the lower class. He wrote in 1812:

“Some folks for certain have thought it was shocking,
When Famine appeals, and when Poverty groans,
That life should be valued at less than a stocking,
And breaking of frames lead to breaking of bones.
If it should prove so, I trust, by this token,
(And who will refuse to partake in the hope?)
That the frames of the fools may be first to be broken,
Who, when asked for a remedy, sent down a rope.”
(Byron)

The Industrial Revolution, when devoid of its proud title of “Progress”, had the following effects: pollution, extreme class disparity, unemployment, and direct contribution to much larger, more directly lethal events (the World Wars spring to mind). All of these effects overwhelmingly negatively impacted the lower-classes far more than they did the upper. Luddism was merely a lower-class rejection of an upper-class value and the consequent clash over dominance, at which the upper-class eventually won out.

The concept of Manifest Destiny, later viewed as greedy and capitalistic, and closely tied with the gold rushes of the 1860s and 1870s, was first optimistically conceived in an 1845 piece by John L. O’Sullivan. He wrote:

".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth." (Brinkley, 1)

As in the above quote, it was first perceived as a philosophically and religiously reasoned right to further the growth (a good thing) of America (a good thing, so, a good thing ²). This feeling, when fueled by the discovery of gold in the Oregon Territory, brought about a direct conflict of interest between the American government and People and that of the Native Americans. The influx of settlers began to wear on the Native’s land and resources, and the formation of the Transcontinental Railroad, begun in 1863 (PBS, 1), prompted the US Government to displace thousands of Natives and enstated precedence that allowed for the slaughter of entire Native American communities with little or no provocation. From this dichotomy the title of my essay arises. Between Brinkley’s concept that envisions a free, inclusive, and benevolent nation and the nation that is evidenced from events such as the Trail of Tears or the Sand Creek Massacre there is a terrible schism. The public’s synthesis of Brinkley’s progress accepted the destiny to spread and possess, and rejected that of liberty, instead maintaining the old standbys of violence and oppression to further the new concept of progress.

This observation is interesting also, because it illustrates a key point: multiple progress ideals can impact each other at the same philosophical point, and the resulting vector will likely bear evidence of all their influences. In the example of Manifest Destiny, the American public contested Brinkley’s progress ideal, and quickly usurped it and added elements of it to their own. In addition, the Native American progress ideal and that of the American Government did not contest each other for long, with the indigenous future quickly and brutally being overrun by American dreams of greatness and wealth.

If one accepts that progress is subjective, and that political action is motivated by an individual’s concept of progress and an idyllic future, then progress becomes the common denominator of conflict of all sorts and levels. Violent, pacifistic, emotional…it is our normative vision of what the future should be shaped by inherited or derived beliefs about the true nature of the world we live in that determines any and all of our actions. If situations offer individuals only certain paths, and the vision of what should be does not fit those paths, there will be strife. Terrorism and other forms of political violence are not the result of madmen, or murderers, or those who “hate freedom”. They are the result of a world-state that cripples their ability to determine their own present and future. By refusing to concede that progress is subjective, and that individuals who do not share our basic beliefs cannot hope to share our utopian ideals, Western Society is damning itself to a world where it is the bully that does not know when to stop teasing, and to a population that increasingly find their only recourse is that which we find most abhorrent.