Essay on "A Critique of the Philosophy of Progress"
by Robert W. Watson
(29 September 2001)

A difference in worldviews is why philosophers and psychologists fail to mix well. The philosopher ponders how the world ought to be and makes value judgements. On the other hand, the psychologist explains how the world is and makes no value judgements. The former discipline is prescriptive; the latter, descriptive. Yet, Lyle H. Lanier is comfortable both as a philosopher and a psychologist, and thus represents a rare breed of scholars. Born in Tennessee, Lanier studied philosophy at Vanderbilt and continued graduate research in psychology at George Peabody College. The combining of these two disciplines led to his writing, Studies in the Comparative Abilities of Whites and Negroes (1929). As a firm believer in the democratic process, Lanier was convinced that the drive towards a political efficiency would end in a totalitarian state with a dictator as its leader. When man is regarded only in the abstract as any science tends to do, then man is removed from reality and ceases to be human. Thus, social scientists sow the seeds for their own destruction whenever they try to manipulate human beings as machines.

In his essay, "Critique of the Philosophy of Progress," Lanier concedes that there will be change in society, but he questions whether this change can be rightly called "progress." Like Arthur's Camelot, which represented genuine faith emanating from the soul, but later relied upon a mysticism centred on the quest for a tangible holy grail, progress has become a "super-slogan" to be used liberally for keeping business profits high, while morality and honour continue to fall. Lanier points out that the helter-skelter found in American life is purposeless activity, heading in every direction without any destination, making the exploitation of the masses through advertising an easy task. However, as John Dewey suggested, "exploitation will run its course, with the probable result that the masses will be activated with equal ease" against their exploiters; in other words, the masses have become conditioned to easily follow any demagogue, whether a salesman, newscaster, or politician, who pushes the right psychological buttons. Since typical Americans are driven by emotions and slogans, an honest evaluation of history will show that the American imperial experience demonstrates a singularly incessant advancement in the applied sciences directed towards war, but also reveals a full retreat from human freedom and civilisation.

According to Lanier, the concept of progress does not have ancient roots, but can be found in recent history. Lanier marks the thinking of Roger Bacon as the genesis of modern progress. To Bacon, Greek philosophy was static and incapable of achieving results. Of course, Bacon was right, but he insisted that valid knowledge comes only from observing natural phenomena. This knowledge, however, is not to make man more humane, but so that man can learn to control nature in order to better man's social and economic well-being. Later, astrologers and alchemists experimented (along with expressing a few incantations) to control nature, either to foretell the future or to change base elements into gold. During the Renaissance, the scholars would attempt their own brand of magic by trying to control the will of man through human reason. Thus, the solution for man's salvation shifted from a concern for one's own soul and a contentment with one's station in life to a belief in the perfectibility of man in this present world and the desire to make the world a better place to live in.

As soon as "progress" was accepted as an indisputable axiom, the notion of evolution became easier to accept. Modernistic thought centres on the doctrine of evolution and gives rise to such bankrupt ideas like positivism, pragmatism, Socialism, and racism. Eliminating the notion of a Creator God, positivism suggests a progressive hierarchy of social order beginning with mathematics and ending with sociology. Pragmatism posits a universe, not as a closed system, but one that has neither limits nor bounds, whether physically or morally. Socialism espouses the ever evolving State that will ultimately subsume all political, social, and religious institutions. And the evolutionary progress of homo sapiens is marked by an obvious racism that establishes the earliest ancestors of man to be an ape-like Negro who "evolved" into Cro-Magnon man, who looks remarkably like any modern Caucasian. As the above four examples show, modernism with its reliance on progressive evolution is dangerous to human beings.

In order to comprehend the current direction of American "progress," Lanier argues that John Dewey with his instrumentalism must be studied and understood. Please recall that Dewey is known as the "Father of modern American education." Asserting that socialism was the only viable means for realising social and moral values, Dewey envisioned a society of "liberty, equality, and fraternity" that would sweep away "feudal intellectual barriers, class distinctions, and traditions." Yet, Dewey laments in his writings that the ideal has not been achieve, because he sees an archaic notion of individualism that was popular in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to be impeding this glorious revolution. Referring to this point, Lanier states, "This individualism was natural in an agrarian society where there was considerable isolation and personal autonomy in the conduct of life, but [according to Dewey] such a spirit has no place in a machine age where the conditions make for an aggregated mental and emotional life." In other words, past traditions and culture must be set aside to make way for a revised individualism that is defined by the State, while the human being loses himself in the collective.

However, Lanier insists that Dewey's new individualism is flawed. First of all, there is abundant evidence that socialism fails to be the best way to order the lives of human beings. Yet Dewey sees the industrial corporate structure to be the model for the modern State. Socialism does seem justified if the desire is to rid the exploitation of human beings: "A logical method of abolishing this unethical system would seem to be the communistic state based upon a metaphysics of equality and upon patterns of economic, political, and social participation by all individuals in all forms of activity." But according to Lanier, "the corporate form of our economic system makes possible a scale of exploitation unheard of in history." In addition to this tendency of industrialists' taking advantage of workers and consumers, socialism is impossible without first remaking human nature. Men are not machines; they are souls, uniquely gifted. Dewey's socialism presupposes a mass-production of identical automatons who live and die for the State. So long as one man or woman refuses to bow down and worship the State, a complete Socialist state will fail.

The second fallacy of Dewey's project is the means lacking to achieve the socialist State. If everyone is equal in such a society, then there can be no leaders in the traditional sense of the term. Equal people have no heroes to emulate, because the individual becomes his own hero, or rather his own anti-hero. Equal people have no geniuses among themselves, nor any spiritual leaders. According to Lanier, equality must provide a new kind of leadership; but the best that can be offered is a vague sense of collective purpose supported by abstract slogans and platitudes. History, on the other hand, has shown that any development of great civilisations has always been accomplished through gifted men and women, who gave guidance and direction to others to imitate and to follow towards a tangible goal, not an intangible sound bite like "united we stand." These gifted individuals are rare, but in any moment in time, they do exist in every nation, kindred, and tongue. Lanier states, "We have been operating [without leaders] for a number of years, and if ever a nation needed 'geniuses,' 'heroes,' or 'divine leaders' it is America now." In that this thought was written in 1930, it ought to cause any thinking person to ponder whether the American empire is beyond all hope and redemption.

Finally, Lanier argues that the third fallacy of Dewey's socialist, industrialised State is the mistaken belief that industrialism affords the individual a greater opportunity to participate with the collective. However, the opposite effect takes place. The increased commitment of natural resources into the applied sciences has alienated individuals from each other. The poet Gerard Manly Hopkins wrote that man is even alienated from nature, since he now wears shoes and does not come into contract with the very substance that sustains his life. Lanier expresses the alienation differently: "The two thousand patrons of a modern movie palace engage in no real communication or interaction, and consequently could scarcely be said to participate in an aggregate emotional life or to be sharing experiences in a manner calculated to produce development of personality." Of course, this was written in the heyday of motion pictures. But has not the situation become worse that now even in the home a group of alienated souls sit in front of a television to "engage in no real communication or interaction"?

The only meaningful way for the individual to become part of the collective is by his talking face-to-face with another human being, diligently cultivating a personal relationship. This social relationship with the collective has always been true in agrarian communities, regardless whether the communities are located in the South, North, Europe, or elsewhere. The industrialised metropolis with its artificial, concrete caves cannot develop intimate communions when the majority of relationships are transient, aloof, and spontaneous. The social institution hit hardest with this impersonal approach to social ordering is the family. Industrialism stresses a division of labour, where workers become "experts" at one task only. The industrialised citizen then relies on experts to teach his children, to police and defend his nation, and to ensure his minimum sustenance. Even some churches have fallen into the division-of-labour mania by segregating parents and children during church services and activities. On the other hand, the truly free man will teach his own children, will learn to defend his family and his interests, and will provide for himself. Since the family is the fundamental social, economic, and spiritual unit ordained by God, the socialist State can only usurp the functions of the family by force, a position that makes the industrialised State anti-God and anti-family.

Thus, the socialistic State with its industrialism promotes a personal alienation and a division of human activities into rigid categories, controlled by impersonal and formal institutions. If Dewey's dream was to have a greater sharing of nature's bounty and the liberating of the individual from his personal inhibitions, then the American dream is a nightmare where the masses are exploited more than ever, and the American is a contemptible slave with such low self-esteem that he must destroy others in order to feel that he has purpose in his wretched life. Since men are believed to be machines and automatons, it naturally follows that destroying people will have little emotional impact. Indeed, no one has ever formed an emotional attachment with a power saw, a microwave oven, a television, or even a '57 Chevy. The industrialised, socialistic philosophy of progress is a philosophy of human death, because citizens have been programmed by a constant indoctrination that the use of human beings as machines, as resources for the glory and the furtherance of "free enterprise" and "the greatest nation on earth " is as "American" as baseball and apple pie.

Yet, the greatest evil spawned by industrialism is the transformation of contented souls into materialistic consumers. Lanier correctly explains that any demand, particularly if it is artificially induced by advertising, will eventually reach a point of saturation. Whenever this happens, people lose their jobs. Of course, the industrialists will say that the "human resources" are temporarily displaced, and they can train for a "better job." But there are opportunity costs involved, and training costs money. Even if the government helps by funding the retraining, where does the money come from in order to pay for the over-priced home, the three cars, and the wide-screen TV? With computer and airline employees being sacked by the hundreds of thousands, there are not even enough "lesser" jobs to absorb the "temporarily displaced human resources." But again, the American labourer expects the "experts" to come up with some solutions. Yet, after experimenting with industrialism for over 150 years, the central government's pitiful "fine tuning" of the economy has only amounted to an elaborate Ponzi scheme that has postponed the coming judgement day. In short, American progress has been a colossal failure for human civilisation.

Lanier's solution to this current abysmal failure is to repudiate the "capitalistic industrial program." This is not to say that technology should be discouraged or that industries should be eliminated. Indeed, the primary business entity should be the small, local industry serving a local community and region, rather than the conglomerates and mega-corporations that leech local communities and that seek international markets. However, better mechanised, smaller industries mean a larger pool of surplus workers and labourers. Though it will require a far-sightedness that is absent in the year 2001, the only humane thing to do is to encouraged the chronically unemployed and the unemployable to turn to agriculture as self-sufficient farmers. While it is true that agri-business suffers from overproduction since it uses an industrial model, small-scale farming will allow people to provide for themselves instead of suffering the indignity of a dole from the government. The main purpose of the small farm is not to become a money-machine, but to exist with human dignity and worth. Most important, the family will have a commonality of purpose, and fathers, mothers, and children will reconstruct their shattered lives, which industrialists discarded like outdated equipment.

Lanier's solution is a positive step away from dehumanisation and towards a humane society. This is real progress where human relations in a home and community are strengthen and forged. Yet, because of industrial indoctrination, farming is regarded as being undignified, while a corporate employee having to lose his scruples in order to keep his job is considered infinitely better. In that governmental interference has driven most farmers either deeply into debt or completely out of farming all together, today's young people see no incentive to live and work on a farm. A subsistence living cannot compete with the money-based economy when advertising convinces the masses that they "need" the thousands of widgets that will make they lives supposedly easier. However, it does seem too much to ask folks to be satisfied with only the bare essentials in life, even when they approach that life with an uncommon stoicism.

Therefore, I suggest that families augment their cash economy with a subsistence economy as well. The bare minimum of this economy would be a food garden. Dig up a couple of the flower beds and plant cabbages, carrots, and beans. Learn to preserve the harvest. The garden ought to be a family effort where parents and children labour together for the common good, thus giving the family a common purpose. The attitude should be that your family will either live or die depending on the success of your garden. This will eliminate a lot of wasted time with mindless entertainment and will get everyone out doors breathing fresh air, coming into contact with the soil, and cultivating human relationships. This is just a start towards being a free people, but it will be progress in the right direction with an achievable goal. Your family deserves no less.

I only touched on some of the points brought out in this excellent essay. Lanier gives a concise history of philosophical thought from Bacon to Dewey. Also, I did not do justice to Lanier's critique on John Dewey. "A Critique of the Philosophy of Progress" needs to be read several times. If Americans want to experience true progress, then they need to declare war against industrialism, which has been waging war against their families during the entire twentieth century. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.