What is reaction and what does it mean to be a reactionary? In the past five years or so that I’ve considered myself a reactionary, I’ve described myself that way a bunch of times to a bunch of different people, and the responses I’ve got have never been what I expected. Oddly, the progressives and radicals among them didn’t recoil in disgust. Because “reactionary” to them is just a slur, like “fascist,” “capitalist” or “imperialist,” they took my self-definition as a sarcastic way for me to call myself “right-wing,” which actually I don’t consider myself to be, sort of like how my grandmother says her politics are “slightly to the right of Attila the Hun’s.”
Foseti, Mangan, Aretae and probably others are discussing this now, so I think it’s a good idea to share my opinion that’s based on what I’ve learned from my few attempts to come out of the reactionary closet.
Reactionary is a relative term that only has meaning in contrast and comparison to other relative political terms like conservative, progressive and radical; a definition of any one of those terms begs definitions of all the others, which I offer now:
- Progressives want change and they prefer for it to happen gradually, so as to maintain institutional continuity. A progressive view or program in one generation might not be considered progressive in the next. For example, liberalism was once progressive, but it is now conservative, at least in America; the progressive program in our generation is universalism, Gaiaism, whatever. Progressives feel inferior to radicals and superior to conservatives, but they are not aware of the differences between conservatives and reactionaries.
- Conservatives resist change, but they generally accept it after it becomes a reality. Occasionally they’ll try to overturn something that has changed recently, such as by attempting to defund Obamacare. American conservatives mostly believe in liberalism. Conservatives feel inferior to progressives and superior to reactionaries, but they are not aware of the differences between progressives and radicals.
- Radicals want change and they prefer for it to happen immediately, because they believe that maintaining the existent power structures that nurture injustice will allow injustice to grow again in the future. It’s wrong to think that radicals and progressives basically want the same things – but often it’s unclear whether someone is a radical or a progressive. Radicals feel superior to progressives and their feelings toward conservatives are either repulsion or curiosity. They are not aware that reactionaries actually exist.
- Reactionaries are opposed to change and prefer to undo what’s been done in favor of restoring an earlier order or regime. In our generation, reactionaries are anti-democracy, whether it’s the way democracy has been practiced since 1945, since 1933, since 1861, since 1789 or whether they’re against it in principle. Formalism, paleo-conservatism, Austrian School libertarianism, throne and altar conservatism and strict construction Constitutionalism are some of the many forms of reaction that are active in our generation, largely on the internet. It’s wrong to think that reactionaries and conservatives basically want the same things – but often it’s unclear whether someone is a reactionary or a conservative. American reactionaries mostly oppose liberalism, though they are commonly former liberals/libertarians, so the opposition may be incomplete. Reactionaries feel superior to conservatives, progressives and radicals, but, like conservatives, they tend not to be aware of the differences between progressives and radicals.
I can’t stress enough that these four groups’ beliefs change over time, which is why an American in 1860 who supported immediate emancipation of the slaves with no compensation to their owners, and strict racial segregation, was a radical, but someone who similarly opposes slavery and supports segregation in 2010 is a reactionary.
I agree with Aretae that there is something different about people like me, who are political reactionaries, and people like “The Amish, the Orthodox Jews, and many Christian Fundamentalists [who] are reactionary” in what perhaps might be a more thorough and deeper sense – even though I have curious and reactionary religious views, too. After all, I like technology and I make my living from the internet. So I think I’ll start describing myself first as a Formalist, and then clarify that Formalism is a type of reaction.
You might like these related posts:
- A Political Army And suddenly the newspapers and airwaves are abuzz with threats...
- Wikileaks I don’t have any strong feelings for or against Wikileaks...
- Libertarians and Jews I was thinking about Half Sigma’s question Why are all...
- America’s Racial Orthodoxy America is a ridiculously weird place because Americans, as most...
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
In Israel, the West Bank security barrier and the story behind it is a good example of typical conservative thought.
At first, it was opposed as an unwelcome change to the status quo (and perhaps it still is opposed by the West Bank reactionaries).
Then, it was, very quickly, whole-heartedly embraced, and vociferously defended against the leftists who opposed it (and who still rage at it periodically).
I should have written “radicals” instead of “leftists”.
People who support the security barrier system:
I agree with your definitions here; I don’t really understand what “formalism”, as referred to in your links above, means; what do you understand that term to mean?
I describe myself as a reactionary, with certain exceptions; i.e. not a complete reactionary, idealizing all aspects of the past and wishing to simply “go back” (I do have some beefs with certain past practices and understandings, and likewise, do wish to preserve some elements of certain practices and understandings of today), but nevertheless, the term describes me, broadly speaking. I can’t imagine anyone being completely reactionary; we are products of the times we live in, after all, and I’m sure that even if we find ourselves eventually rejecting much of what we’ve been taught, we can’t fully extricate ourselves from all of it.
Mangan apparently thinks that modern-day reactionaries are disinclined to religious faith; I beg to differ – that may be the case with some, but certainly not all, and probably not even most; there are many religious reactionaries out there, among which I number myself. In fact, I’m sure there’s more of them than HBD-oriented political reactionary types, but this is just my gut feeling.
I agree with your definitions here; I don’t really understand what “formalism”, as referred to in your links above, means; what do you understand that term to mean?
Formalism is Mencius Moldbug’s ideology – http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted.html – though actually I think formalism is just a part of it.
I describe myself as a reactionary, with certain exceptions; i.e. not a complete reactionary, idealizing all aspects of the past and wishing to simply “go back” (I do have some beefs with certain past practices and understandings, and likewise, do wish to preserve some elements of certain practices and understandings of today), but nevertheless, the term describes me, broadly speaking. I can’t imagine anyone being completely reactionary; we are products of the times we live in, after all, and I’m sure that even if we find ourselves eventually rejecting much of what we’ve been taught, we can’t fully extricate ourselves from all of it.
That’s true. All the reactionaries with whom I’ve interacted have had no problem using computers, for example. There must be something good about a civilization that has produced the internet.
Mangan apparently thinks that modern-day reactionaries are disinclined to religious faith; I beg to differ – that may be the case with some, but certainly not all, and probably not even most; there are many religious reactionaries out there, among which I number myself. In fact, I’m sure there’s more of them than HBD-oriented political reactionary types, but this is just my gut feeling.
I think there are two factors at work here. The first is that the major western religious communities, having made their peace with democracy and modernity, have thereby made some of their faithful followers unwelcome. Some of those people join less mainstream offshoot or schismatic churches, but many lose interest and eventually lose faith, even if they were actually inclined to it and even if they’d ordinarily be very active members of their communities. The second is that some people are getting turned onto reactionary ideas through Objectivism, which is aggressively atheist (though I’ve known at least six Orthodox Jews who were very into Ayn Rand). They don’t stay involved in Objectivism, but they cycle through the libertarian movement and end up as reactionaries or conservatives.
“The first is that the major western religious communities, having made their peace with democracy and modernity, have thereby made some of their faithful followers unwelcome. Some of those people join less mainstream offshoot or schismatic churches,”
Which is indeed my story.
“some people are getting turned onto reactionary ideas through Objectivism, which is aggressively atheist”
Interesting; I wouldn’t have guessed that would happen, because Objectivism is not only atheist, but is by definition anti-traditionalist, I’d say. I’m not sure how this brings people into reactionary political views.
Interesting; I wouldn’t have guessed that would happen, because Objectivism is not only atheist, but is by definition anti-traditionalist, I’d say. I’m not sure how this brings people into reactionary political views.
Objectivism teaches adolescent boys to think that most people are wrong about most things, that philosophy is good, that human achievement is the highest value, that individualism is a virtue, that there are criteria by which aesthetics and ethics can be judged, that men and women are different in some fundamental ways, that heroism is to be admired, that free markets work and that governments don’t, etc.
It’s really not a big leap from there to all-out reaction.
I suppose not; I guess I find that counter-intuitive, insofar as the sort of political program endorsed by objectivists and HBD libertarians does not seem to be a return to something that once existed, in contrast to, say, an old-school British Tory, or an American paleoconservative, both of which seem more self-consciouslessly aiming at returning to former political status quos, of yesteryear, as well as older understandings.
Perhaps reactionary is more a state of mind, a way of understanding, than it is a conscious, comprehensive political stance.
Bismarck once said that in England progressive governments are elected to carry out reactionary measures while reactionary governments are put in to promote progressive measures. The problem with all political positions is that they are political. Irrespective of a philosophy a leader must remain in power, thus we have Obama who probably thought himself a progressive but found he needed to make reactionary decisions such as dismantling Bush’s foreign aid programmes and building his own. Meanwhile he maintains a conservative position on Guantanamo Bay. Because ideals, in politics as opposed to conversation, must always make practical concessions, it is probably best to adopt a policy of ‘masterly inactivity,’ as the only means of maintaining your principals.
{ 2 trackbacks }