It seems to me that it all turns on what is meant by "conservative." I hear much talk praising or disparaging "conservatism" with little explication of the word. I never enjoyed the "advantages" of a Harvard education but as an undergraduate at UCLA studying political philosophy (among many other things) more than two-thirds of century a…
It seems to me that it all turns on what is meant by "conservative." I hear much talk praising or disparaging "conservatism" with little explication of the word. I never enjoyed the "advantages" of a Harvard education but as an undergraduate at UCLA studying political philosophy (among many other things) more than two-thirds of century ago, I was taught that conservatism involved the disposition to regard change to existing institutions as attended with sufficient danger to warrant careful critical scrutiny. I now spend a good deal of my time reading papers and books in the social sciences (broadly conceived) and frankly I fail to see any notable lack of conservatism (so defined) in them. Indeed, my assessment is that critical standards in social sciences has advanced markedly over the past six or seven decades (making me much more interested in them than I then would have imagined). And most of the writings and pronouncements of self-proclaimed "conservatives" to me seem notably deficient in critical standards. The world as a whole could use a good deal more and deeper critical thinking and investigation but I doubt very much whether that is what Messrs. Teles et al have in mind.
It's entertaining, to be sure, but of how much use is it in shaping hiring decisions? You've no doubt had broader experience than I, but over the course of my career I worked for some academic-ish institutes where I was involved in hiring decisions for scores of new PhDs, interviewing each candidate in extenso and reading their dissertations. I did routinely ask who had influenced them most but with very limited exceptions would have been hard put to have placed them on a political map. There was one who wrote her dissertation on Edmund Burke (a distant relation of mine) but she focused on Burke's impassioned (and rather impolitic) opposition to slavery, which would no doubt have disqualified her as a conservative in the eyes of most who claim that title in today's US. My point is that if someone had urged me to make my department "more conservative" (or even "more liberal") while still emphasizing intellectual standards I would have had no idea how to operationalize it. After a few years you will have a candidate's body of published work to review, but that will never tell you whether the candidate is the second coming of Wilson, Huntington, etc. To me it seems that a defining characteristic of a good scholar is the capacity always to surprise you.
And if we were to find a way to answer Teles' plea and install genuine critically-minded scholars who are inclined to investigate more deeply how these issues could be seen through a "conservative" frame (however defined) what might be accomplished? Would they somehow craft arguments that would convince skeptics that the claims of authoritative religion were not only true but deserved to be taken as law? That would convince the poor, members of racial minorities, people regarded as sexual and social deviants, etc. that their inferior status is deserved and must be embraced? That would reconcile the mass to the disproportionate political power of great wealth? Putting aside any considerations of morality, is such a thing even conceivable? Surely not if one is to give any credit to the work of Ron Inglehart, Pippa Norris, et al.
I agree with this. Despite significant attempts I was never able to discern a conservative *philosophy*. It's nothing more than, as you say, a disposition to be cautious of change or perhaps that's a principle to follow. But there's no factual or principled basis for the sound bites which have passed for "conservatism" over the past, say, 90 years: keep the government out of the market; the focus on equal rights, whether for women, minorities, or LGBTQ+, is misguided; "law and order"; religion is the only solid basis for society and the government should demand it; guns; et al.
Instead what we see is "conservatism" as the public face of ethno-national authoritarianism. Those who move that agenda, no matter how softly, are making no contribution to Harvard or anywhere else.
It seems to me that it all turns on what is meant by "conservative." I hear much talk praising or disparaging "conservatism" with little explication of the word. I never enjoyed the "advantages" of a Harvard education but as an undergraduate at UCLA studying political philosophy (among many other things) more than two-thirds of century ago, I was taught that conservatism involved the disposition to regard change to existing institutions as attended with sufficient danger to warrant careful critical scrutiny. I now spend a good deal of my time reading papers and books in the social sciences (broadly conceived) and frankly I fail to see any notable lack of conservatism (so defined) in them. Indeed, my assessment is that critical standards in social sciences has advanced markedly over the past six or seven decades (making me much more interested in them than I then would have imagined). And most of the writings and pronouncements of self-proclaimed "conservatives" to me seem notably deficient in critical standards. The world as a whole could use a good deal more and deeper critical thinking and investigation but I doubt very much whether that is what Messrs. Teles et al have in mind.
Which is why I want to talk about actual, real individuals...
It's entertaining, to be sure, but of how much use is it in shaping hiring decisions? You've no doubt had broader experience than I, but over the course of my career I worked for some academic-ish institutes where I was involved in hiring decisions for scores of new PhDs, interviewing each candidate in extenso and reading their dissertations. I did routinely ask who had influenced them most but with very limited exceptions would have been hard put to have placed them on a political map. There was one who wrote her dissertation on Edmund Burke (a distant relation of mine) but she focused on Burke's impassioned (and rather impolitic) opposition to slavery, which would no doubt have disqualified her as a conservative in the eyes of most who claim that title in today's US. My point is that if someone had urged me to make my department "more conservative" (or even "more liberal") while still emphasizing intellectual standards I would have had no idea how to operationalize it. After a few years you will have a candidate's body of published work to review, but that will never tell you whether the candidate is the second coming of Wilson, Huntington, etc. To me it seems that a defining characteristic of a good scholar is the capacity always to surprise you.
Yes, indeed: someone for whom ideologies and frameworks are their tools rather than their masters...
And if we were to find a way to answer Teles' plea and install genuine critically-minded scholars who are inclined to investigate more deeply how these issues could be seen through a "conservative" frame (however defined) what might be accomplished? Would they somehow craft arguments that would convince skeptics that the claims of authoritative religion were not only true but deserved to be taken as law? That would convince the poor, members of racial minorities, people regarded as sexual and social deviants, etc. that their inferior status is deserved and must be embraced? That would reconcile the mass to the disproportionate political power of great wealth? Putting aside any considerations of morality, is such a thing even conceivable? Surely not if one is to give any credit to the work of Ron Inglehart, Pippa Norris, et al.
I agree with this. Despite significant attempts I was never able to discern a conservative *philosophy*. It's nothing more than, as you say, a disposition to be cautious of change or perhaps that's a principle to follow. But there's no factual or principled basis for the sound bites which have passed for "conservatism" over the past, say, 90 years: keep the government out of the market; the focus on equal rights, whether for women, minorities, or LGBTQ+, is misguided; "law and order"; religion is the only solid basis for society and the government should demand it; guns; et al.
Instead what we see is "conservatism" as the public face of ethno-national authoritarianism. Those who move that agenda, no matter how softly, are making no contribution to Harvard or anywhere else.
This is the problem... Brad