The ideology of progress

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what Patrick Deneen calls the “ideology of progress.”[1] Deneen is a political scientist and in his exert opinion, “progress” is the fundamental assumption or goal that drives liberalism as a political system.[2]

Progress is variously defined, of course, but it usually boils down to the promise of increased economic opportunity and/or greater charity with regard to social expression or what is sometimes called “identity.”

Our liberal pursuit of progress has no doubt done much good in the world. But it may also be making us sick.

Like the pharmaceutical ads that seem to dominate our marketing space. A new drug promises to clear up your psoriasis but may cause liver disease. Or a drug promises to lower your A1C but may cause swelling in the anus or genitals. I saw a news headline the other day that said while LED lights are saving us money, they may be depriving us of vital light wavelengths leaving us less healthy.

“Progress” comes with tradeoffs, some of which can be serious.

I was thinking about that this morning as I hopped back behind the driver seat of a bus and helped get kids off to their first day of school, some of those kids being my own. I thought about all the parents standing at bus stops and all of their hopes for the coming year. I thought about all the teachers, administrators, and coaches who are fresh off their (hopefully) reenergizing summer breaks.

What does an uncritical commitment to “progress” do to us in the learning arena? Does it distort the learning process? Does it impose goals, expectations, or assumptions that actually work against the healthiest modes of acquiring and accommodating new information and skills? If we are driven by the felt need for ever-increasing improvement (more league titles, higher test scores, more impressive college admission rates, more newsworthy achievements, better state report card, etc.), how does that impact both educators and students?

I don’t have answers for those questions, but I do observe that both teachers and students seem to start the school year with what appear to be “full tanks” but operate as if those tanks just slowly deplete over the course of the year until by the last day of school everyone is “empty.”

Is it good that it “works” this way? Does it work this way because secretly we’re all being driven by this hidden, unspoken pursuit of progress? The felt need for more?

It’s like we’re running with a pacer who just keeps getting faster. We’re just expected to keep up. The system is never expected to slow down. In a world built on progress, slowing down would be experienced as failure.

Don’t get me wrong, I want to see kids “achieve” and “succeed” and all that. I just wonder if we’re measuring the right outcomes.

If the two were mutually exclusive, would we rather have a child who gets straight A’s and scores a 34 on the ACT but is so busy and isolated she doesn’t have time for meaningful friendships or a student who gets decent grades and scores pretty well on tests but has enough spare time to feel deeply connected to people?

If the two were mutually exclusive, would we rather have teachers who focus on pushing students academically and athletically, or who focus on helping young people become the healthiest versions of themselves?

I know these things are not mutually exclusive, but I am trying to draw out the fact that if Deneen is correct and our political order is uncritically committed to the endless pursuit of progress, the next generation always having more and achieving more than the previous one, our educational systems are caught up in that. And while that leads to some good in the world, it may also contribute to why so many of us feel existentially unwell.

In his book Unconditional Love, the Jesuit John Powell makes this claim: “The crisis facing contemporary society is, ‘Is love really the pathway to personal satisfaction and happiness?’”[3] He wrote that in 1978!

How much more relevant is the question today? I know it’s not the business of public schools to measure this and I’m not suggesting they do. This post isn’t really about education at all. Kids going back to school just got me thinking about all of this. Why are we not as committed to the progress of love? If society is driven by the felt need for ever-increasing improvement, why do we not seem to care to see ourselves and others constantly growing in love, at least as much as we seem to care to see advancement in other areas of life?

Love is the one area where the pursuit of “improvement” doesn’t seem to come with a shadow side, some way in which it makes us sicker.
   
   [1] From his most recent book Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future (New York, NY: Sentinel Press, 2023).
   [2] When you hear the word “Liberalism,” don’t think “liberals,” as opposed to “conservatives.” Liberalism refers to the general political structure of American society, as opposed to say Marxism. Both “liberals” and “conservatives” are liberals in the sense that they all subscribe to this form of political order. Deneen argues that the fundamental assumption behind the liberal political order is the pursuit of progress, variously defined, but usually with reference to economic opportunity and social expression or what is sometimes called “identity.”
   [3] Powell, Unconditional Love (RCL Bentziger Publishing, 1978).