You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson examines the core ideas of conservatism — the second of the three core ideologies in the Edexcel specification. Conservatism is distinctive in its preference for pragmatism, tradition and cautious, incremental change over radical reform, and in its sober, even pessimistic, view of human nature. For the 24-mark essay you must be able to explain its core ideas — pragmatism, tradition, human imperfection, the organic society and state, paternalism, and (within the New Right) libertarianism — and show how its traditional/one-nation and New Right strands interpret them. This lesson establishes the shared core and introduces the named thinkers, whose ideas are developed more fully in later lessons.
Conservatism arose as a reaction against the radicalism of the Enlightenment and, above all, the French Revolution of 1789. Where liberals and, later, socialists embraced reason, progress and equality, and were willing to remake society according to abstract principle, conservatives warned that sudden, root-and-branch change would tear apart a social fabric that had taken centuries to weave.
The founding text is Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). Burke argued that attempting to rebuild society from first principles was reckless and likely to end in tyranny — a prediction the Revolution's descent into terror appeared to vindicate. Yet conservatism is not simply opposition to all change. Burke himself insisted that a state without the means of some change lacks the means of its own preservation, capturing the conservative idea of cautious reform precisely in order to conserve.
The deeper quarrel between conservatism and its rivals is therefore not about whether to have a society, but about how much confidence to place in human reason and how much weight to give to the inherited order. The Enlightenment, and the revolutionaries who acted in its name, believed that reason could redesign society for the better, sweeping away the irrational accumulations of the past. Conservatives doubted every part of this. They doubted that reason was strong enough to grasp something as complex as a whole society; they doubted that human beings were good enough to be trusted with such power; and they doubted that the inherited institutions being so confidently demolished were really the worthless rubbish the revolutionaries supposed. Out of these doubts grew the core ideas examined below — pragmatism, tradition, human imperfection, the organic society, paternalism and a cautious approach to change — each of which is, at bottom, a reason for treating the existing order with respect and radical schemes with suspicion. Conservatism is best understood not as a fixed programme but as this distinctive disposition: cautious, sceptical of abstraction, attached to the tried and tested, and acutely conscious of the fragility of social order and the limits of human wisdom.
Pragmatism — basing political action on practical experience and circumstance rather than on abstract theory or fixed doctrine — is a defining conservative disposition. Conservatives are deeply sceptical of grand ideologies that promise a blueprint for the perfect society, regarding such schemes as the dangerous products of human over-confidence. They prefer the test of "what works" to the lure of "what ought, in theory, to work", and they value the flexibility to adapt policy to events.
Michael Oakeshott captured the disposition by saying that to be conservative is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, the tried to the untried, fact to mystery and the actual to the possible.
Oakeshott's account is worth pausing on, because it presents conservatism less as a set of doctrines than as a disposition or temperament. To be conservative, on this view, is to enjoy and value what is present and familiar for its own sake, and to be correspondingly cautious about exchanging present goods for the uncertain promise of future ones. Oakeshott also drew a famous distinction between technical knowledge — knowledge that can be written down in rules and propositions — and practical knowledge — the tacit, experiential know-how that can only be acquired by doing, and that cannot be reduced to a formula. The error of "rationalism in politics", he argued, is to suppose that political activity can be conducted from a book of rules, when in truth it depends on the kind of practical wisdom that is embodied in traditions and learned through participation. This is a powerful deepening of the conservative case against abstract theory, and it has a sharp edge: Oakeshott would regard not only socialism but also the free-market dogmatism of the New Right as a form of rationalism, an attempt to steer society by an abstract theory rather than by practical wisdom — a point that becomes important in assessing whether the New Right is authentically conservative.
It is precisely because conservatism distrusts abstract theory that some commentators question whether it is an ideology at all. The better view is that pragmatism is itself a coherent stance about the limits of human reason in politics — an ideological position in its own right.
Pragmatism gives conservatism a distinctive flexibility that its critics sometimes mistake for opportunism. Because conservatives judge policies by their consequences rather than by their conformity to a fixed doctrine, they are willing to change course when circumstances demand, even to adopt measures their principles might seem to forbid. This is why traditional conservatives could accept the welfare state and a managed economy after 1945: not because socialism had converted them, but because such measures appeared, pragmatically, to preserve social stability and head off more radical change. The same pragmatism explains the long electoral success of conservative parties, which have repeatedly adapted to survive. The deeper rationale is the conviction that society is too complex, and human understanding too limited, for any single theory to capture; faced with this complexity, the prudent course is to proceed cautiously, by trial and adjustment, rather than to impose a grand design. Pragmatism is thus not the absence of principle but a principle about how politics should be conducted in a world that human reason cannot fully comprehend.
Conservatives revere tradition: the accumulated customs, institutions and practices that have survived the test of time. Several arguments underpin this reverence. Tradition embodies the collective wisdom of countless past generations, encoding solutions to social problems that no single mind could devise. It provides continuity, identity and belonging, anchoring individuals in something larger and more enduring than themselves. And it offers empirical evidence: institutions that have endured have, by their very survival, demonstrated their usefulness, whereas untested theories have not.
Burke described society as a partnership across time — between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are yet to be born — so that the present generation are trustees of an inheritance, not its absolute owners.
This is why conservatives accept gradual, organic reform while resisting radical, revolutionary change: to discard tradition wholesale is to throw away hard-won wisdom and to gamble the social order on untried abstractions.
There are two distinct conservative arguments for tradition, and a strong answer keeps them apart. The first is Burke's, which is essentially about the wisdom embodied in tradition: institutions that have survived have done so because they work, having been refined by the experience of countless generations, so that the living should approach them with humility, as an inheritance to be cautiously improved rather than carelessly discarded. The second, associated more with Oakeshott, is about the comfort and security that the familiar provides: human beings are creatures who feel at home among the known and the customary, and who are disoriented and unsettled by sudden, sweeping change, so that tradition answers a deep psychological need for rootedness and continuity. The two arguments reinforce one another: tradition is valued both because it is likely to be wise and because it is reassuring. Both, notice, rest on conservative pessimism about the reach of human reason and the fragility of social order — which is why human imperfection is so central to the whole ideology.
Conservatism rests on a frankly pessimistic conception of human nature, in sharp contrast to liberal optimism and socialist faith in human improvability. This is arguably the single most important of conservatism's core ideas, because so much else flows from it. Where liberals see a rational, autonomous individual capable of self-government and progress, and socialists see a naturally cooperative being corrupted only by an unjust environment, conservatives see human beings as permanently flawed — and they regard this flaw as fixed rather than curable by social engineering. Conservatives typically identify three dimensions of human imperfection.
| Dimension | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Moral imperfection | Humans are prone to selfishness and wrongdoing; an idea historically linked to the doctrine of original sin. |
| Intellectual imperfection | Human reason is limited; no one possesses the knowledge to redesign society from scratch. |
| Psychological imperfection | Humans crave security and order, and are unsettled by isolation and rapid change. |
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) supplies the starkest account of why order matters. Hobbes argued that human beings are needy, vulnerable and easily led astray, and that without a powerful authority to keep them in awe, life would collapse into a "war of all against all" — solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. He therefore concluded that people would rationally consent to a strong sovereign state to escape such disorder. Conservatives draw several lessons from this pessimism: law and order are indispensable, authority is necessary to restrain human failings, and utopian projects that assume human perfectibility are not merely naive but dangerous.
Hobbes occupies an interesting position in the conservative tradition, and it is worth being precise about it. He shares with later conservatives a deeply pessimistic view of human nature and an insistence on the necessity of a strong state to secure order — for Hobbes, order is the precondition of every other good, since without it there can be no industry, no culture and no settled life at all. In this he supplies the conservative emphasis on authority and security in its most uncompromising form. Yet Hobbes reaches his strong state by a contractarian and individualist route — rational individuals consenting to a sovereign to escape the state of nature — which is closer in method to liberalism than to Burke's organic conception of society. This makes Hobbes a thinker whom conservatives draw on for his pessimism and his stress on order, while differing from his individualist starting point. For the examination, Hobbes is the thinker to cite when you need to dramatise the conservative conviction that, given human imperfection, the overriding political task is to secure order against the ever-present threat of disorder.
It is illuminating to set Hobbes and Burke side by side, because although both begin from human imperfection they build very different arguments on it, and the contrast sharpens one's grasp of the conservative tradition.
| Hobbes | Burke | |
|---|---|---|
| View of human nature | Pessimistic: needy, vulnerable, prone to a war of all against all | Pessimistic: flawed, fallible, limited in reason |
| Conception of society | Individualist — individuals contract into the state | Organic — society is an inherited, evolving whole |
| Route to order | A strong sovereign, rationally consented to | Tradition, the little platoons and gradual reform |
| Method | Contractarian, almost geometric reasoning from first principles | Empirical, sceptical of abstraction, trusting experience |
The contrast matters because it shows that conservative pessimism can be developed in more than one direction. Hobbes draws from human imperfection the need for an overwhelming sovereign and reaches it by a rationalist, contractarian route that is, in method, closer to liberalism than to later conservatism. Burke draws from the same pessimism a defence of tradition, the organic society and cautious reform, and reaches it by an empirical, anti-rationalist route that became the conservative mainstream. So when an examination question asks whether human imperfection unifies conservatism, the honest answer is that it supplies a shared premise but not a shared method: Hobbes and Burke agree about human nature yet disagree about how reason should be used in politics, which is precisely why Hobbes sits a little awkwardly within the tradition even as conservatives draw on his stress on order.
The conservative view of human imperfection also grounds a characteristic scepticism about progress. Where liberals and socialists believe that human beings and societies can be substantially improved — by reason, education or the reform of social conditions — conservatives doubt that human nature can be fundamentally changed. People will always be partly selfish, fallible and in need of restraint, whatever the social arrangements. This is why conservatives regard utopian schemes, which assume that the right institutions can perfect humanity, as not merely mistaken but dangerous: such schemes, in trying to remake human nature, tend to override existing liberties and protections, and they end in disappointment or tyranny when imperfect human beings fail to live up to the perfect blueprint. The conservative counsel is therefore one of realistic modesty: aim to manage human imperfection through established institutions and authority, not to abolish it.
Against the liberal picture of society as a collection of independent, self-made individuals, conservatives hold an organic view: society is a living whole, more than the sum of its parts, whose institutions have grown naturally over time to perform essential functions. Individuals are not self-created but are shaped by the families, communities and institutions into which they are born, and the different parts of society are interdependent, like the organs of a body.
Two important consequences follow. First, established institutions — the family, the Church, local associations, the law — deserve respect because they bind society together and socialise individuals into responsible conduct; Burke called such small social units the "little platoons" to which we first learn to attach our loyalties. Love of the little platoon, he held, is the first link in the chain that connects us to our country and to humanity, so that the local and particular loyalties conservatives cherish are the foundation, not the enemy, of wider social feeling. Second, the state itself is understood organically, as an institution that has evolved to express and protect the life of the nation, rather than as a mere contractual device for protecting individual rights.
The organic view stands in sharp and deliberate contrast to the liberal picture of society. For the liberal, society is an artefact — something individuals construct, by agreement, to serve their pre-existing interests, and which can therefore be redesigned if it ceases to serve them. For the conservative, society is an organism — something that has grown, like a plant or a body, over long stretches of time, whose parts are intricately interdependent and whose health depends on not being violently disturbed. This is why conservatives are so wary of radical reform: just as you cannot safely tear out the organs of a living body and rearrange them according to a diagram, so you cannot safely demolish the institutions of a living society and rebuild them to an abstract plan. The organic metaphor, more than any single doctrine, captures the conservative sensibility.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.