Precautionary and Proactionary as the New Right and the New Left of the Twenty-First Century Ideological Spectrum

Article

Abstract

Despite its specific origin in the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly after the revolution of 1789, the right–left divide of the ideological spectrum has proved remarkably resilient in anchoring public intellectual life for over two centuries. In this article, I argue that we are witnessing a 90° rotation of this ideological axis, resulting in a new set of poles, each of which combines elements of the old right–left divide. The ‘precautionary’ pole brings together the conservationist side of the right and the communitarian side of the left, whereas the ‘proactionary’ pole unites the libertarian side of the right and the technocratic side of the left. I prepare the ground for discussing these new alternatives with a consideration of the political theology of the old right–left divide, which ultimately turns on alternative visions of how the past determines the future. This ‘left’ basically holds that what is possible significantly exceeds what is probable, with liberals adopting an ‘antirealist’ and socialists a ‘realist’ stance towards the prospect of an optimal social order. Both the precautionary and proactionary poles of the new ideological spectrum are fixated on our attitude towards a future in which the ontological constitution of the polity (i.e. its ‘humanity’) is among the issue under contestation. In this emerging ideological conflict, more of which is transpiring in video than in print, the precautionaries are marked as more ‘risk-averse’ and the proactionaries more ‘risk-seeking’ than had been presumed to be the normal attitude in the modern welfare state.

Keywords

Ideology Left Liberal Political theology Popper Precautionary Proactionary Right Socialist Welfare state 

References

  1. Agassi, J. (1975). Science in flux. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, J. D. (2009). Hollywood intellect. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  4. Böhm-Bawerk, E. (1959). Capital and interest: history and critique of interest theories. (Orig. 1884). South Holland: Libertarian Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brague, R. (2007). The law of God: the philosophical history of an idea. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Briggle, A. (2010). A rich bioethics. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brush, S. (1975). Should history of science be rated X? Science, 183, 1164–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cassirer, E. (1923). Substance and function. (Orig. 1910). La Salle: Open Court Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chan, S., Zee, Y.-K., Jayson, G., & Harris, J. (2011). ‘Risky’ research and participants’ interests: the ethics of phase 2C clinical trials. Clinical Ethics, 6, 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Commager, H. S. (1977). The empire of reason: how Europe imagined and America realized the enlightenment. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  11. Crichton, M. (2006). Next. New York: Harpercollins.Google Scholar
  12. Davies, W. (2010). Economics and the ‘nonsense’ of law: the case of the Chicago antitrust revolution. Economy and Society, 39, 64–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duhem, P. (1969). To save the appearances: an essay on the idea of physical theory from Plato to Galileo (Orig. 1908). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Elster, J. (1983). Sour grapes: studies in the subversion of rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Elster, J. (1998). Deliberation and constitution making. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 97–122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Extropy Institute (2004). Extropy Institute’s Vital Progress Summit challenges President Bush’s Bioethics Council Report (press release: 19 February) http://www.extropy.org/summitpress.htm. Accessed 30 July 2012.
  17. Festinger, L., Riecken, H., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuller, S. (2000). The governance of science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fuller, S. (2002). Knowledge management foundations. Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  20. Fuller, S. (2007). New frontiers in science and technology studies. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fuller, S. (2008). Dissent over descent. Cambridge: Icon.Google Scholar
  22. Fuller, S. (2009). The sociology of intellectual life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Fuller, S. (2010). Science: the art of living. Durham, UK: Acum McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fuller, S. (2011). Humanity 2.0: what it means to be human past, present and future. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Fuller, S. (2012). Preparing for life in humanity 2.0. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Fuller, S., & Collier, J. (2004). Philosophy, rhetoric and the end of knowledge (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Orig. 1993, by Fuller.Google Scholar
  27. Fuller, S., & Lipinska, V. (2013). The proactionary imperative. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Funkenstein, A. (1986). Theology and the scientific imagination. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Garcia, S. M. (1996). The precautionary approach to fisheries. In FAO Technical Fisheries Papers (No. 350). Rome: United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/W1238E/W1238E01.htm#ch1. Accessed 30 July 2012.
  30. Goodman, N. (1955). Fact, fiction and forecast. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Grundmann, R., & Stehr, N. (2001). Why is Werner Sombart not part of the core of classical sociology? Journal of Classical Sociology, 1, 257–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harrison, P. (2007). The fall of man and the foundations of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hirschman, A. O. (1991). The rhetoric of reaction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Jacob, M. (1996). Sustainable development: a reconstructive critique of the United Nations debate. Ph.D. dissertation. Göteborg: Göteborg University Department of Theory of Science.Google Scholar
  36. Kirby, D. (2008). Hollywood knowledge: communication between scientific and entertainment cultures. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: new models, new practices (pp. 165–180). Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  38. Kurzman, C. (2009). Democracy denied, 1905–1915: intellectuals and the fate of democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lippmann, W., & Merz, C. (1920). A test of the news. The New Republic, 4, 1–42.Google Scholar
  40. LSE Mackinder Programme (2010). The Hartwell Paper: a new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009. London: London School of Economics. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/. Accessed 30 July 2012.
  41. Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and Utopia. (Orig. 1929). New York: Harcourt and Brace.Google Scholar
  42. Mason, P. (2012). Why it’s kicking off everywhere: the new global revolutions. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  43. McCloskey, D. (1975). The economics of enclosure. In W. Parker & E. Jones (Eds.), European peasants and their markets (pp. 123–160). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Milbank, J. (1990). Theology and social theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  45. More, M. (2005). The proactionary principle. http://www.maxmore.com/proactionary.htm. Accessed 30 July 2012.
  46. Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: how not to liberate the world. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  47. Newey, G. (2012). I have £2000, you have a kidney. London Review of Books, 34(12), 9–12.Google Scholar
  48. Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  49. Popper, K. (1957). The poverty of historicism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rawls, J. (1972). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Read, R. (2012). Guardians of the future. Weymouth: Green House Publications. http://www.greenhousethinktank.org/files/greenhouse/home/Guardians_inside_final.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2012.
  53. Runciman, D. (2008). Political hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Sandel, M. (2007). The case against perfection. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sandel, M. (2012). What money can’t buy. New York: Farrar.Google Scholar
  56. Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  57. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Silver, L. (1997). Remaking Eden: cloning and beyond in a brave new world. New York: Harpercollins.Google Scholar
  59. Standage, T. (1998). The Victorian internet. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
  60. Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Whately, R. (1963). Elements of rhetoric. (Orig. 1828). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations