Tradition is the extension of Democracy through time; it is the proxy of the dead and the enfranchisement of the unborn.
Tradition may be defined as the extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition. (Orthodoxy, Ethics of Elfland, 1908)Thus, Chesterton is telling us that the best things whether they are expressed today, yesterday or 2000 years ago should be given equal hearing by us today.
Chesterton was a realist both philosophically and morally and saw through the sham of progress for its own sake, or for the sake of some ideal(ology), or for the sake of change. But he was not against progress when it was progress towards the good. Reform for Chesterton could spell an improvement in the world, as reform is limited, self-conscious and for definite improvement in a single area. This exemplifies Chesterton's loathing for the large scale project. British Imperialism, socialist welfare statism, monopolistic capitalism were all repugnant to Chesterton, because they ignored the essential values of man, and mans individual needs. The local, the limited, the boundary (the frame around a picture to invoke a Chestertonian image) were for Chesterton to be extolled because they are humane, they are genuinely human.
Chesterton saw that in his age, and age dedicated to fads and fancies, where no one knew what was real, or what to do, progress was merely the continuation of nothing. Without a definite (or absolute) creed, something to progress towards, then we have not progress but blind movement. As Chesterton says in Heretics (1904), "we meet every ideal of religion, patriotism, beauty, or brute pleasure with the alternative ideal of progress - that is to say, we meet every proposal of getting something we know about, with an alternative proposal of getting a great deal more of nobody knows what." Chesterton saw that with the decline of religious and moral codes, especially concepts such as 'the good' and 'human flourishing', all modern mass projects, education, welfare or social reform were doomed to a sterile futility. Not that progress as a word or a concept was to be condemned, but, "I say it is unmeaning with the previous definition of a moral doctrine, and it can only be applied to groups of persons who hold that doctrine in common". We see here the budding of what later will be called virtue ethics. Progress is something with a direction, a direction towards the (moral) good. It is achieved individually by those with a moral creed and collectively by those who share it. In the modern age the direction however is always disputed and so no progress is made, we are merely left with progressivism!
Chesterton tells, in his G.K.'s. Weekly, a marvelous parable regarding progress called 'The Legend of the Sword". It goes:
A strange story is told of the Spanish-American War, of a sort that sounds like the echo of some elder epic: of how an active Yankee, pursuing the enemy, came at last to a forgotten Spanish station on an island and felt as if he had intruded on the presence of a ghost. For he found in a house hung with ragged Cordova leather and old gold tapestries, a Spaniard as out of time as Don Quixote, who had no weapon but an ancient sword. This he declared his family had kept bright and sharp since the days of Cortes: and it may be imagined with what a smile the American regarded it, standing spick and span with his Sam Browne belt and his new service revolver.The Spaniard 'captures' the American in his ancient boat but it falls apart almost immediately and they both end up marooned on a raft which finally ends up on a desert island. Chesterton goes on:
The shelving shores of the island were covered with a jungle of rush and tall grasses; which it was necessary to clear away, both to make space for a hut and to plait mats or curtains for it. With an activity rather surprising in one so slow and old-fashioned, the Spaniard drew his sword and began to use it in the manner of a scythe. The other asked if he could assist.
"This, as you say is a rude and antiquated tool," replied the swordsman, "and your own is a weapon of precision and promptitude. If, therefore, you (with your unerring aim) will condescend to shoot off each blade of grass, one at a time, who can doubt that the task will be more rapidly accomplished?"As they continue after days the Spaniard remains remarkably well kempt while the American doesn't. So one day the American wakes up early to solve the mystery and "found his comrade shaving himself with the sword, which foolish family legend had kept particularly keen". It continues:
"A man with no earthly possessions but an old iron blade," said the Spaniard apologetically, "must shave himself as best he can. But you equipped as you are with every luxury of science, will have no difficulty in shooting off your whiskers with a pistol"Chesterton's characteristic wit and high farce shines out of these lines. The American of course is slightly put out by the Spaniards words but seeks to show how effective the revolver really is, "unslinging his revolver, "Well, I guess I can't eat my whiskers, anyhow; and this little toy may be more use in getting breakfast." He then shoots down five birds to eat. The Spaniard is obviously impressed proclaiming his success and declaring that they shall feast elegantly more than once. However he does rejoin, "Only after that, your ammunition being now exhausted, shall we have to fall back on a clumsy trick of mine, of spiking fish on the sword".
"You can spike me now, I suppose, as well as the fish," said the other bitterly. "We seem to have sunk back into a state of barbarism"We now proceed rapidly to the moral, which should have been obvious from the beginning:
"We have sunk into a state," said the Spaniard, nodding gravely, "in which we can get anything we want with what we have got already."
"But," cried the American, "that is the end of all Progress!"
"I wounder whether it matters much which end?" said the other.Now this parable appears in Chesterton's own paper which defended his doctrine of distributism which was fraught with disputes about the value of modern technology and advocating "three acres and a cow". It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss this the value of this, but what is pertinent for this discussion is the rich symbolism of this tale.
The sword represents tradition and proud tradition at that. It is paradoxically the most useful and most useless object. By 'use' I mean utility for the sword can slash and cleave, shave, hunt fish even fulfil its function of killing a man! But it is also useless in its simple beauty, as a treasured possession, as an aesthetic object. It stands for honour, for courage in battle (as one stands face to face with ones foe), it is provincial (for it represents ones local tradition), it stands for the strong arm of justice, it even incorporates the cross (Christ brings to the world a Sword!). With the sword, progress is made in sheltering, grooming and feeding the stranded men. The sword is the voice of tradition proclaiming small is beautiful and efficenicy is only worth while if it points to and is directed to something good!
The gun by contrast is the maximal symbol of modern efficiency and progressivism. The gun is so efficient in its purpose (namely killing other men) that it turns out to be totally useless in every sense. It delivers one impressive round of use and falls redundant. It is a great project directed at little else than its own narrow end, which falls, literally dead after its own completion. Progress needs to be directed towards something, some real value or else it is merely activity. No it is not progress that the gun is destined to bring but sterile waste (think of the modern city scape with their monstrously efficient, inhumane concrete buildings that no one can find a use for!). All that we can and should do with the gun is toss it aside and let it rust!
