Theories of social reform.

Halstead and Lind briefly discuss the different theories of social reform:

The problem is as much conceptual as practical. For centuries, philosophers have debated the legitimacy of different approaches to social change. Some, like the Marquis de Condorcet, Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Jeremy Bentham, and other rationalist philosophers of the Enlightenment tradition, have sought to reform existing institutions in light of an abstract ideal or goal by deducing first principles of social order. Pragmatists, like John Dewey and Richard Rorty, have rejected grand master plans and called for ceaseless experimentation in the design of institutions. Skeptical thinkers, like David Hume, Edmund Burke, Isaiah Berlin, and John Gray, have criticized the notion that society can be redesigned by either abstract reason or pragmatic experimentation. Society, they have argued, is not a mechanical construction but an organic entity, based on gradually evolving traditions. The task of reformers is to water and fertilize —and now and then prune— a growing plant.

(Halstead & Lind: p. 167).

As it tends to be the case with secular debates, the reason why different schools of thought have persisted over time is usually related to the fact that they all have something to offer, I think (or, as some other people would put it: perhaps all of them are right in some sense). For example, it should patently clear by now that without a will to apply social reform and improve our societies we would have never made it too far. I'm not referring only to the fact that we might still be living in caves and hunting wild animals out there, but also to the fact that most of what we hold dear these days (democracy, solidarity, education, compassion, comfort...) would have never existed should humans have taken the conservative approach according to which it's always best never to mingle with things and carry out social experiments. On the other hand, perhaps the main lesson to be learnt from our tragic twentieth century is precisely that shaping societies after abstract models is not a good idea. Traditions exist for a reason, after all. They have evolved over centuries and, one would suspect, respond to some very deep need of human nature. Yes, we can change them, but it's something that we should never do willy-nilly. Finally, we have what Halstead and Lind call the pragmatists, who are skeptical of grand projects and prefer a more modest (although continuous) experimentation that tries to improve our lives. Of all the approaches, I definitely choose this latter one. As usual, the middle ground appeals to me.