"Progressive"

[greenfield]

Were were having a discussion with people in my seminar group last night (it was at the wonderful Birkbeck College) about 'progressiveness'. I said that surely it was possible to say whether something was progressive or not, i.e: forward thinking/a good thing/Left wing (although I didn't use the phrase left wing)

No-one agreed with me and said that:

1. Who were were to say what was progressive
2. Hitler could be said to be in some ways progressive (full employment, advances in science etc.) One woman even said that the DPRK could be called progressive

Is this all post-modern relativist bollox? Or am I completely wrong?
Btw, this was taking place in the context of an English seminar about Modernism, so I thought that this was the right place for this thread - not P&P.

 

[Crispy]

Post modern relativist bollocks if you ask me.

Progressive means moving towards that which is better. Of course you can argue about what is better. I suspect that any movement/person/country could have progressive elements, but take the whole picture and you'll get a better answer I think.

Can't see the DPRK one though - that's just bonkers and is relitavism a step too far. Do all you can to help this poor woman.

 

[bluestreak]

is progressive not just another one of those labels that certain groups give themselves. just as pro-life implies anyone who disagrees is against life, calling yourself a progressive suggests that anyone who disagrees is regressive.

it's a useless term, throw it away!

 

[greenfield]

Most people in the seminar believed that progressive should simply be taken to mean the progression from the old to the new, in any direction. So what is 'good' progression to some people will be 'bad' progression to others. Surely, though, this 'progressiveness' is dislocated from any social outlook - shouldn't we measure what is progressive by it's effect on society?

What I really want to say is that 'progressiveness' should be left wing.

 

[bluestreak]

from a modernist sense that's what progression is though. modernism was all about progression and progressiveness, bulldozing the old and bringing in new notions of art, literature, architecture, and society. and naturally there will be relativist viewpoints on this, as not everyone saw progression as good, desirable, or functional.

you say progressiveness should be left wing, fair enough, but why should a right-winger who believes they are acting in a positive and progressive way be denied the right to describe themselves as a progressive? and if they did, who is going to stop them.

this is why it is a useless term really- it's too vague.

 

[tastebud]

1. Who were were to say what was progressive

This could be applied cross-culturally too. What one culture might think is a good and *progressive* movement, another culture might object to wholeheartedly.

It is a vague term.

 

[kyser_soze]

I reckon your discussion was po-mo relativist bollocks - progressive for me indicates movement forward toward goals which have postive outcomes for more and more people. Hitler could never be called 'progressive' because in the course of achieving full employment the Nazis also regressed millions to death!

I agree that it's a vague term, but anyone arguing that achieving full employment by a combination of slave labour and mass murder is 'progressive' deserves a highly regressive slap round the chops and should be made to wear a dunces cap and stand in a corner.

 

[greenfield]

anyone arguing that achieving full employment by a combination of slave labour and mass murder is 'progressive' deserves a highly regressive slap round the chops and should be made to wear a dunces cap and stand in a corner.

 

[greenman]

I don't think progressive is a useless term, I think it is a very useful term, particularly for those of us from parts of the political spectrum that are afflicted by regressive or conservative tendencies. So it is a relative term in most usage, but in contrasting some political viewpoints within a tradition both parties to the discussion might see it as appropriate (though differing over whether it is a positive thing or not!)

So, if you were a member of the Tory Party, calling yourself a "progressive conservative" might imply that you were socially liberal and in favour of technological innovation as opposed to "Conservative conservatives" who are socially reactionary and suspicious of technical and social innovation. Similarly in the green movement, describing yourself as a "progressive green" would be a political description meant to distance the persons' views from deep ecologist, primitivist or reactionary strands in the green movement, implying that you were socially liberal and far more likely to see technical and scientific innovation as having a role to play in the achievement of societal goals.

In general usage, say in the US, it seems to be a very broad brush term simply used to draw a line between left and right. I don't think this is necessarily the case in Britain, where the term is less hackneyed and is used more specifically to define differences within political organisations rather than as a left/right litmus test.

Strange as it may seem there are people from various parts of the political spectrum who do not see progress as either a given or as a good thing..... One gets the impression that this is particularly the case where hierarchical religion has any political influence. That is why it is still necessary to call ourselves "progressive".