Do you subscribe to the 'Whig' theory of history - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Note: nostalgia *is* allowed.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Blind King
#1913280
It'd be easy to assume that history is a 'logical' progression if you look at Western history of the past few centuries; in the past 250 years alone the West has has seen the industrial revolution. Technological innovation, wealth and population growth have moved at an unprecedented rate, not to mention the vast political and social changes.

But I think the Dark Ages are a fine example of how this isn't guaranteed. :D

Then again, it has everything to do with perception.
By Unperson-K
#1913380
canadiancapitalist wrote:Popular in the 1850's the whig theory of history is that things are always getting better. Do you subscribe to this theory, and if not, what is yours on this subject?


Do I agree with a teleological view of history that argues all civilisations and peoples in the world are going to ultimately converge on the single form of living that Eurocentric philosophers have designated (via ill-digested utopian ideals based in the Enlightenment) to be the most rational and ergo the most perfect? No. I see no reason to believe such a thing: cultural difference is not an ephemeral part of man's being that can be stripped off by the white hot heat of education. As such, to adopt a teleologically loaded notion of progress would be folly at best: mankind will never discover the one form of government and society that can satisfy all peoples everywhere as cultural differences will never successfully be either eliminated or pushed discretely into the private sphere. To believe otherwise is utopian ignorance of real historical facts.
User avatar
By Red Star
#1914627
Popular in the 1850's the whig theory of history is that things are always getting better


That isn't really the Whig theory of history. As Kirillov has already said, it has an end point - namely, it was the British political system of the late 19th century as the theory generally refers to a specific set of British historians such as Macaulay. The view was that people would attain more and more liberty with that constitutional monarchist order as the end point. Hence the fetishism over certain points of British history such as 1215 or 1688. So no, it would be silly to subscribe to the idea that the British political system of c. 1900 is the best thing ever.
User avatar
By Le Rouge
#1914643
I believe history is driven by the social interactions of various identities, the primary ('over-determining') one being economic class. I would say there is a tendency for the lowest members of society to improve their condition and for society as a whole to improve the quality of general welfare. But I would not consider this absolute.
#14691706
Unfortunately canadiancapitalist does not define the whig theory of history. Can the whig principle be summarized by the liberal idea that people should be independent individuals - as opposed to the conservative Tory principle that people form a moral community? it is evident that both principles contain elements of truth. So I have no definite preference.

However, it is also clear that the Manchester capitalism of the nineteenth century was not durable. It destroyed the working class. Therefore around 1845 several German economists formed the Historische Schule. They state that the economic system is determined by the national culture. Thus the school advocates a multidisciplinary approach. They do not search for economic laws, but they study the national history and gather social facts. A typical mark of this school is the belief, that society develops in a sequence of consecutive temporal phases. Several different phase models were proposed. In my opinion this school has stimulated Marx to introduce his historic materialism.

In 1870 the new Historische Schule started, with Gustav Schmoller as the leading person. This became a powerful movement, certainly in Germany. The universal economic laws of the classical theory and of the Whigs are rejected. Laws are only valid within a certain time period and in a certain region. The school tried to prevent the implementation of Manchester capitalism, and advocated social interventions by the state.

The funny thing is that the rise of the neoclassical theory has completely wiped out the Historic School, at least within the economic science. It was not very fruitful - although imhb the American Institutionalists may be seen as her sequel. In some areas the Historic School has left a legacy, for instance in econometrics (statistics). Also in sociology the inductive (empirical) approach of Schmoller has left its mark.

So it seems that phase models of the historic development have fallen from grace. Neither did historic materialism ever become a mainstream theory. That is not to say that phase models are completely absent. Tinbergen thougt that free markets and central planning would merge into a truly mixed economy. In the development theory some assume that the third world can not converge towards the modern states, because the accumulation of human and social capital would be an accelerating process.

However, all in all it seems to me that the modern science rejects the search for predetermined development paths, and instead tries to discover the optimal conditions for development. Progress is never certain, but there may exist conditions that increase the chances for a beneficial development.

In this respect the book "Why nations fail" by Acemoglu and Robinson has impressed me. They state that inclusion is crucial for a beneficial development. Here inclusion is the right of people to participate both in the economy and in politics (as a democracy). Only the free market allows for the innovation, that creates progress and development. And only the democracy can prevent, that the state will prey on the private economy. The society should value the spirit of enterprise. I find the arguments of Acemoglu and Robinson fairly convincing - and they look liberal, so Whig like. The national culture itself is not vital, but a solid and respected constitution is. You may call this attitude constitution patriottism.
#14691738
I don't subscribe to the view of history as a trajectory from worse to better. There are ideas, values, and ways of life from the past that we could learn a great deal from in the present. However, the fact that we have that past to refer back to means that we have a lot more material to work with, so the possibilities of what can be done expand as time progresses. It is in this sense that I think there is something that could be called progress, though it exists as a potential, rather than an inevitability. Actual progress requires agents willing and able to make use of these capacities and directing them toward desirable goals.
#14693047
@ Paradigm
This sounds indeed good. However, in our thread the Whig theory seems to define the progress as the development of a liberal system. This implies that goals are set at the micro level of individuals and interest groups. Then the actions at the micro level shape the policy at the macro level in a process of exchange and collective bargaining. It is assumed that this model is applicable at all times and for all nations. The policy system can not be chosen at will. On the other hand in the Tory theory the goals are set at the macro level. They are inferred from the collective moral, which is based on history, customs and culture, or religion. The bearers of the collective moral are the elite, the king and nobility, and the churches. So here the goals are set by institutions, such as a class, and not by individuals or interest groups. On the contrary, the individual must take his cue from the morals. According to this model each society is completely free to choose her own particular policy frame, within each period. A changing collective moral will alter the policy. In principle the Whig and Tory theory advocate different methods to further progress. For instance, the Tory elite will not necessarily strive for free global trade. The Whig elite will do so, in principle.
#14723601
Butterfield and concept of whig history.

My thoughts on whig history are as follows: it is essentially utopian and directly oppositional to conservative (tory) history which is by correlation, arcadian. The inherent assumption of the whig outlook is that individual liberty is best served by an impartial (British style) legal system and free market economy. In this regard the whig ideology is positivist, especially technologically positivist, and legalist. The default ideology of the western citizen is therefore a kind of goulash of whigish utopianism and technological triumphalism (so-called "progress").

As Marx and later Lenin pointed out, free-market capitalism generally requires the reinvention of commodities combined with the exploitation of new markets. Since, by this logic, capitalism is constantly reinventing itself and colonizing said markets, we can see the source of the technological positivism that is apparent in the whig ideology. It is almost impossible to be a consumer within a free-market and not subscribe to the notion that positivism is correct, considering the endless stream of goods- as von Mises put it- that is being showered on the consumer, not matter how silly and repetitive, or even actaully regressive those commodities might be in terms of pure technological prowess (planned obsolescence, for example).

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the assumption of the whig ideology is that history culminated in the liberal free market representative parliamentary democracy of Britain in the middle of the 19th century. As such, the utopian ideal has supposedly already been achieved, and thus no further internal legal or political or idealogical change is required. The only thing that changes, therefore, are the commodities produced by the market (based on the material whims of the consumer), and as such, the commodities themselves take on a profound political significance as a supposed manifestation of democratic, technological, progress. Wether this state of affairs emerged by design or simply as a result of the machinations of the system I am not certain.

At any rate, the people living in a whig society, who are susceptible to the whig ethos, will tend to view their society as requiring only a few economic or legalistic tweaks here and there, so long as the promise of an endless stream of (changing but not necessarily improving) commodities is distributed at least somewhat democratically by the market.

The tory ideology is just as stupid, except in reverse. The golden age of the past- when people were moral and civilization flourished- must be returned to through the preservation of the peasant stock (yeomanry), protected paternalistically by their educated aristocratic, superiors. Protecting the commons, therefore, from the intrusion of foreign decadence (the French and Roman Catholic cultures) and materialism (un-protestant hedonism) are the highest priorities. State apparatus that instil this sense of national virtue (namely, the Army) are therefore cherished above all, whereas whig societies tend to favour Navies which are inherently more technological and require more complex systems of international finance to bankroll, systems the tory's perceive as dominated by Jewish interests.

So, in short, both of these ideologies are very stupid and neither really does anything for you in terms of actualizing your human potential. In the whig ideology your greatest achievement is to become a capitalist producer of recursive technology, or a defence lawyer, who then moves into parliament where you can ensure the terrible tories don't ruin the free-market system that made you rich, or run the jewish bankers out of town as they finance the State's navy that keeps the French from taking over the country.

In the tory ideology, your greatest achievement is fight gallantly in religious or cultural crusades against heretics or heathens, while upholding the honour of your aristocratic family lineage, descended as it was from the great kings of the golden past. Your glorious victories on the field of battle and illustrious heritage ensure you a place in the House of Lords where you can keep the perfidy of the decadence apostates and jewish merchants, and their soon to be culturally bankrupted nihilistic and utilitarian whig allies, from usurping your god given power by implementing endless protectionist trade policies under the guise of saving the yoemanry.

Neither ideology does much for me, frankly. I'm surprised so many people believe in any of this rubbish.

That's assuming Russia isn't giving financial sup[…]

The link to the previous post is on this page. Ple[…]

It has already been explained that this type of c[…]

For me Republicanism is masculine and monarchism i[…]