I think G,K. Chesterton's discussion of that mysterious fence is more clever than wise.
Chesterton famously wrote:
n the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
It is clever and the point, so far as it goes, is correct. If there really is no better reason for tearing down a fence than one’s inability to understand why it is there, there is no reason at all. Further, since tearing down is generally easier than building, the presumption should be in favor of the fence builders, our sympathies with the fence preservers.
I suspect there have been few reformers of any influence in history who have been so simple minded as to fail the test that this parable sets for them. The important ones have given some thought to why the existing fences are where they are, and their case for razing some of them generally includes a hypothesis on that subject, a hypothesis to the effect that a particular fence was built to keep out those who properly ought to be allowed in, or that the fence was built at a time when foot traffic patterns made it valuable, but that those patterns have changed.
All actual reformers of significance, then, come under the second or "more intelligent" category offered above, a fact that makes the contrast near to vacuous.
Comments
Post a Comment