Thursday, April 26, 2007

antidisestablishmentarianism

I used to think I was a radical. Those of you who know me may already be laughing. I am aware that I tend to come across as one of the gentlest, softest people on the planet.

But inside there were always this dissatisfaction with the world. My Myers-Briggs type suggests that I have the tendency to analyze everything, and the flexibility to chuck just about anything when a better solution presents itself. This description feels about right. I have always prided myself on my intellectual and emotional flexibility: being able to see things from a different point of view is one of my favorite attributes. It helps me to solve problems that may seem insurmountable, it helps me sympathize with people who others find irredeemable, and it helps me find interesting things in texts that others might find boring or obvious (though it also leads to congenital problems, like indecisiveness, wishy-washytude, and distractibility).

This flexibility leads me in radical directions. I consider lots of options, and I am frequently tempted to want to change things. Or to change everything. Or at least to push at the edges of things.

But as I get older, I become more and more convinced of two things that moderate my radical inclinations:
1. Nobody knows anything.
2. Civilization is one generation away from utter barbarism.

Number One suggests that contrived solutions or proposed changes often carry hidden costs and consequences that can upset all sorts of things. Number Two suggests that what we do as a society matters very much, because I (as a wimpy guy who likes electricity and words) prefer civilization to barbarism. I want civility and public works and healthy institutions to grow stronger, and this takes careful effort to make the culture and the society healthy, and to pass healthy habits along to our children.

Thus, I find myself a conservative radical. I still am dissatisfied with almost every institution I see, and I want to change them all, but only in small amounts. My younger self wanted to upset the whole apple cart and tear apart every institution. Presently I want to change absolutely everything in the world by about half a degree each.

I am coming to see my calling here on earth as one of preserving and encouraging what is healthy. I want to be a cultural gardener. Pruning and weeding out what is unhealthy, encouraging what works. And what little influence I have over people I can use to make tiny little changes of emphasis, concern, and degree. That is probably all we can hope to accomplish without permanently damaging things. But that is the best way to tend an organic, living thing like a culture or a family or a society or a person.

Radical changes are sometimes necessary, but radical surgery should be the last option. Careful, attentive tweaking is what I intend to do. Unfortunately, I tend to be lousy at long-term, ongoing maintenance.

I haven’t had lunch yet today. Breakfast was a couple of slices of jelly toast with butter, and half a slice of jelly toast (no butter) that was left over by my son. And coffee: freshly ground quite stale Folger’s Vanilla Biscotti beans. I’m going to throw away the rest of the bag.

4 comments:

MoSup said...

You are a conservative radical. Interesting. Some say I'm a radical conservative. But maybe I'm just a conservative radical, too. I hadn't consider this option before.

For lunch, I was with fellow Hot Chicks in Ministry, and I had an olive burger and coconut cream pie alamode. Just to show off. ;)

sid said...

To my ears, there is a huge difference between a conservative radical and a radical conservative. To be a truly radical conservative, I would expect some unswerving loyalty to either a present system or to some (possibly fantastical) past system, with very little room for variance from that image for new stuff. Otherwise it's not that radical.

Whereas I've always thought of you as a thinking conservative, willing to consider moderate options for improving the status quo, albeit placing a high value on previously established codes and values.

Meanwhile, in my usage, a "conservative radical" wants to change lots of things, but to be careful and moderate about it.

Possibly folks want to apply the word "radical" on you because you are willing (unlike many moderates or casual conservatives) to fight and argue and be actively political for your beliefs.

To me, that makes you not a "radical conservative," but a "conservative activist." Or possibly just a "bad girl."

Lunch yesterday was a really old box of Rice-a-Roni, possibly as many as five years old. Still tasted fine, though. It was this creamy garlic pasta flavor with bread crumb topping. Oddly, it contained nary a hint of rice nor 'roni. Also, I finished off the real, unsweetened, unfiltered, not-from-concentrate cranberry juice (heavily diluted by me with tap water) that we bought from the health food section of the store a while back. That stuff is difficult to drink. And some Wavy Lays chips.

MoSup said...

Agreed. (Particularly about the badgirl definition.) But if the system itself is not conservative, would unswerving loyalty to it still be considered radically conservative?

I am unswervingly disloyal to certain current systems.

For breakfast I had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, coffe, and white grape juice (which, frankly, sounds much better than that yucky cranberry juice you described).

sid said...

I would call unswerving loyalty to any system "radical." (My unswerving devotion is to keeping the conversation going.) But if the system does not presently exist or did not exist in some (possibly fantasized) past, it is not "conservative." If it is a new system that has been invented (for instance, what some call "neoconservatism"), then I would simply call it "radical" full stop.

And yes, some systems demand unswerving disloyalty, even perpetual spoke-in-the-wheel sabotage.

Lunch today was a McDonald's double cheeseburger and medium fries, with leftover morning coffee, water, and a few bites of my sons' chicken nuggets. And a side order of guilt for eating out with fast food. The parking lot line was absurdly long, with the quite rude use of two lanes for the drive thru, so that ordinary parking customers could not leave the restaurant without extreme patience.