Chesterton’s fence progressivism

By ALMA MASON

Sheridan High School Student

Editor’s Note: The Sheridan Student Column is brought to readers by Sheridan High School’s 10th grade English class, taught by Abby Williams.

Two people are walking and they come across a fence. This fence is in their way, blocking their path. Naturally they are frustrated, and one person proposes that they tear down the fence. The other person does not allow this and instead posits that the fence is there for a reason, regardless of whether that reason is understood by the newcomers.

This is the concept of Chesterton’s fence: Don’t take away an existing structure without first recognizing its purpose.

While often used as a conservative point, Chesterton’s fence has a valuable place in progressive ideology. I am a liberal. I believe that society is not currently the best it can be and it is worth the tradeoffs it takes to fix that. At the same time, I am discontent with the modern political left, and this is in part due to a lack of restraint in the changes it advocates for.

Liberals and conservatives have always served to balance each other out – liberals call for too much change and conservatives hold back almost all change, ultimately resulting in some alterations but only if they’re necessary. Current polarization and heightened political division are causing many to lose sight of the vital role the other side plays. I believe a centrist approach is best for the individual development of beliefs; people should attempt to understand both sides and extrapolate what makes sense from each of them.

As a liberal, Chesterton’s fence is one of the conservative points I find necessary. It doesn’t call for keeping things the way they are, but rather for defeating reckless approaches in developments being made and avoiding too much novelty. The consequences of actions – whether intended or unintended – should always be understood before those actions are carried out. In other words, things are the way they are for a reason, and it is essential to understand that reason before altering beliefs and policies.

To explain this, I will go back to the Chesterton’s fence analogy: The fence may be there to serve a purpose, such as holding in cattle – in that case, it would be a disaster to remove it. The benefit of the fence no longer blocking the path for the two individuals does not outweigh the consequences of someone’s livestock now roaming freely. Of course, the individuals could find another path, or they could build a gate that allows them to travel and keep the cattle in at the same time. When one solution doesn’t work, others can always be explored.

In another scenario, the fence may just be there because it once served a purpose and no longer does, making it acceptable to dismantle it. Sometimes the reasons behind values and practices are outdated and no longer necessary, but taking the time to discover this only strengthens the case for modification.

There are two questions one might ask before advocating for variation. Does the proposed change leave things better than they were before? And is enduring the negative consequences of the proposed change worth the positive contributions it will make?

If the answer to both questions is yes, the revision may very well be worth instituting; but if not, other solutions can be investigated, and the appreciation of some tradition isn’t always bad.

In the end, the test of time is a powerful and often successful one.