REPORT ON THE MEETING HELD IN FRANCE, 9-10 JULY 2008

Four currents ran through the debate: a critique of progress, as a concept and an ideology central to the dominant form of modernity; an apology of the same idea of progress, judged by its fruits; a focus on social progress, as a political project; and, a restoration of the meaning of the word and the place of the concept in different historical and cultural settings. These four perspectives, which might be labeled critical, apologetic, social and academic, are outlined below. Some common grounds are then indicated and pending questions are identified, including the possible renewed need for a Utopia.

A critique of the idea and ideology of progress

The very idea of progress has become extremely problematic. It is a sort of secularized and impoverished version of traditional religious utopia. Progress is conceived, or at least presented as a linear historical necessity: individuals and societies are supposed to always gain from it, never to loose. Social change is to bring only benefits to all, and no losses. Such illusion, such fraudulent deception carries with it great costs and a lot of human suffering. There has probably not been, historically, a single instance of so-called progress not associated with losses. Overall, material improvements of the human condition have been accompanied by tremendous losses of human solidarity and community. The pursuit of “progress” has always a price.

Yet, this ambivalence, this ambiguity of the idea of progress has been pushed aside, has been actively denied by intellectual and political forces with roots in the Enlightenment period and its fascination for the superiority of Reason. Given such heritage, it is difficult to conceive a positive use of this notion of progress. During these last few years, throughout the world, the necessity for reforms, and sometimes simply for Reform, has been proclaimed by the political and economic forces in power and it is the idea of progress that sustain and legitimize this call. But these “reforms” carry an entirely materialistic and economistic view of humanity. They are consistently against the vital interests of peoples. The words reform, progress, and even development are too loaded with ambiguities to be of safe use by those genuinely seeking the common good. If it prove to be impossible to recognize its ambivalence, it would indeed be preferable to abandon the use of the word progress.

Progress, so vigorously denounced, is more an ideology than an idea. How the idea that is was possible and desirable to improve the human condition – which would have indeed been unthinkable without the advent of reason as opposed to the tyranny of traditions – came to be transformed into an ideology of continuous and comprehensive march upwards of humankind? Although a comprehensive answer to this question was not attempted at this meeting, a few partial explanations were advanced.

The great scientific and technological advances that marked the 19th century and made possible the industrial revolution introduced in the spirit of the time the idea that reforms, revolutions, or simply government by an educated elite would put societies on a bright ascending path. Auguste Comte, his positivism and his vision of humanity going through three successive phases – Theological, Metaphysical and Scientific -, had a lasting influence on the perception of modernity. His motto, “Order and Progress” is inscribed only on the Brazilian flag, but is the de facto program of most governments, at least since the end of World War II. The eschatological aspect of Karl Marx’s political philosophy gave to the idea of progress an aura of historical necessity. At the other extreme of the political spectrum, the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham had a more profound and more lasting influence on modern Man. Progress, in one’s condition and in society, became simpler, almost readily achievable by every human being through the pursuit of self-interest. It became a middle-class value, a source of economic growth and a guarantee of personal and collective prosperity.

The advent of the United States of America as a world power provided evidence that individual freedom and progress in income and living conditions were achievable on a grand scale. Inequalities were high, but the reality and feeling of opportunities open to all were also very high. A strong and optimistic middle class, a continuous development of technologies providing both amenities and power, and a perceived benevolence on the world scene of the United States as a champion of freedom, became the features of Progress for large numbers of people in the world. In the United States itself, as well as in most of Western Europe and in the other countries members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, notably Japan, Australia and Canada, the decades after World War II were of rapidly increasing prosperity. Work opportunities were abundant, levels of living increased and a number of amenities became available. The negative facets of such social change – such as too rapid and too intense urbanization, dependence of people on the automobile and of the economy on cheap oil, decline of agriculture, weakening on traditional networks of solidarity and security – were sometimes acknowledged but rarely acted upon. But most people benefited from various forms of progress and had faith that it would continue.

When the disappearance of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s was interpreted in official circles as a victory of global capitalism and free market – seen as the “liberation” of financial forces from any regulation and constraint – the world stage was set for a take over by a new form of totalitarianism. With a speed and scope commensurate with the power of the post modern industrial/financial/media/political complex, the neo-liberal credo was spread from Washington to Cape Town and from Moscow to New Delhi. The word progress did not need to be explained, or even mentioned. The way forward was self evident. Id did not require deliberate policies, except those necessary to dismantle the legal and cultural barriers to the free circulation of capital, goods and services. At “the end of history”, that is of debates and conflicts on the ways human affairs should be organized, progress of the human condition is no longer an intellectual and political project. It is the unspoken core of the ideology of the free market. And “reforms” are to serve this ideology.

From this critical perspective, the idea of progress has been irremediably damaged by the use made of it by an ideology which has itself exposed its fallacies, illusions and lies. It is an idea which has become too ambiguous and even too dangerous – suffice to observe the destruction of the natural environment that has accompanied the process of industrialization- to provide useful criteria for social and political action.

An apology of the idea of progress, judged by its fruits

There is an undisputable fact: for a great majority of people around the world, life is better than it was for their ancestors. Since the middle of the 19th century for the inhabitants of what we called the industrialized or developed countries, and since the middle of the 20th century for the inhabitants of the still agrarian and developing countries, living conditions have improved dramatically. Life is “better” in many ways, which are well-known but in need of re-assertion when reflecting upon the idea of progress. Life is longer and healthier. Infant mortality has become a rare accident in rich countries and has been cut by at least half everywhere. Life expectancy, at birth and at all ages, has increased. Recent surge of pandemics, notably of the terrible HIV-Aids, should not obscure the fact that, since the discovery of vaccination and the development of antibiotics, people enjoy healthier lives. Life is also easier and more comfortable. A great number of innovations, tools and machines have rendered work – work for a living and work in the household – less physically demanding and less time consuming. Without going back to the respective merits of candles and electricity, one must admit that telegraph, telephone, television and now electronic communication represent a “progression” in the amenities available not to a few but to the average citizen of most countries. And there are many other such amenities that facilitate the work and life of people.

Such improvements in living conditions were generated by scientific and technological progress, itself made possible by the progressive liberation of human initiative and human creativity from various constraints. Reason, liberated from the weight of traditions, prejudices and diktats from religious and political authorities, has been and remains a tremendous source and expression of human progress. Reason, made the greatness of Athens, of Rome, of the European Enlightenment, of the American Revolution, and of the universalist project of development in the second part of the 20th century. Reason, and its applications to communications and exchanges, is also responsible for what is called the globalization process, which is also a progress. Progress, obviously, is not linear. The defeat of Athens, the fall of the Roman Empire, the move from enlightenment to scientism, as well as the current demise of neo-liberal global capitalism are prominent examples of regression. These, however, do not nullify the idea and reality of human progress.

Not linear and continuous, progress is rarely, or perhaps never comprehensive. It does not simultaneously bring up all societies and all aspects of the human condition. One could assert that, at least in modern times, technical, scientific, quantifiable progress – including progress in levels and conditions of living – has not been paralleled by progress in the organization of society. The latter is infinitely more difficult, for it is tantamount to moral progress, which is in turn dependent on the progress of the individual – or perhaps more accurately of the person and the citizen – in discernment, intelligence, altruism and wisdom. Doctrines and philosophies on the organization of society tend to underestimate the difficulty of moral progress and to forget that Man is not necessarily benevolent and virtuous. Most notably, excessive optimism on human nature was a basic flaw of the Marxist utopia. It does not follow, however, that man and society are not perfectible. Training, education, culture, habits of the heart and mind, have produced along history fine human beings and pleasant societies. With regard to the human capacity for decency and for acceptable social and political arrangements, neither cynicism nor blind optimism is warranted.

If critics of the idea of progress and of its fruits are so very unfair with the recent past, notably with this second part of the 20th century that has seen such an explosion of material progress, it is perhaps because they tend to idealize and romanticize a more distant past. The agrarian, pastoral and bucolic villages that are the more or less conscious yardsticks shaping their comparisons with the alleged materialism of modernity, are mythical. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the life of most of the distant ancestors of modern men and women was short and brutish. There is romanticism in certain denunciations of progress and modernity, and also some ingratitude and frilosity. Fear of change goes with idealization of the past.

And, says the apologist of progress and its fruits, the current crisis in the functioning of the world economy indicates that a system of management adapted to the circumstances of the 21st century has to be implemented. This crisis does not put in question the vision of change and progress that has animated Western civilization since the Renaissance. Another task is for the North, which has managed to make peace among its members, to establish a healthy and cooperative relationship with the South. Much remains to be done in the world, and the idea of progress, treated with realism and moderation, is a valid and useful guide.

A focus on social progress, as a political project in need of renewal

A different reading of the avatars of the idea of progress centers on the vicissitudes of social progress as a political project. At a first level, social progress means the improvement of the working and living conditions of those that are in a position of subordination and dependence in the economic and social system that emerged with the industrial revolution. They are the “masses”, the “workers”, the “exploited”, the “alienated” and through protests, strikes, riots and revolutions they gained from the middle of the 19th century to the last part of the 20th century a number of social rights and social benefits. Social movements, political parties, unions and an international organization – the International Labour Organization (ILO) created in 1919 – were the instruments of such social progress conceived and lived essentially as the elimination of exploitation, the correction of injustices and the elimination of extremes forms of inequality. At a second level, social progress is the movement upward of a whole society. Not only the poor and the excluded but all social groups are the beneficiaries and the actors of this movement which is “upward” through more education, more culture, more social protection and security and more active civic life and participation. The motto of “Liberté, Egalite, Fraternité” expresses this vision of an integrated and harmonious society. At a third level, social progress involves all nations and peoples. Humanity as a whole benefits, in the language of the Charter of the United Nations, from “social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” This social progress, as the other goals of the Charter, expresses “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” It is to be enjoyed by all “without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.”

Social progress, so understood in its three dimensions, came to the forefront of the world political scene in the years that followed World War II. Marxist-Leninist and Communist regimes promoted equality and access of all to essential public services, including education, but they did so through totalitarian methods of government and with a convenient contempt for what they called the “formal’ or “bourgeois” rights and liberties. Socialists, social-democrats, christian-democrats and liberal-democrats, on the other hand, managed to bring together economic activity and social justice, freedom and social cohesion, creativity and social security. They created the welfare state and proved that solidarity through taxation and redistribution was perfectly compatible with scientific and technological innovation and economic dynamism. They put in place parliamentary democracies with strong public services. In Western Europe, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and, under a different form in Japan, such regimes lifted considerably the overall well-being of their citizens. The United States itself, in the wake of the New Deal, pursued policies of social integration and reduction of inequalities and poverty. The American society became dominated by a prosperous and dynamic middle-class and the “American dream” seemed open to all.

The ideal of social progress and social justice, seen as inseparable from the ideal of peace, was embodied in the Charter of the United Nations and subsequent founding texts, notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New nations, freed from the colonial powers, were embarked in the project of development, which was outlined in international agreements such as the UN International Development Strategies. International solidarity was both symbolized and concretized by the agreement of the 1960s that developed countries will give 1% of their Gross National Product in aid to the developing countries. The cause of development of the “third world” mobilized a considerable amount of energy and dedication throughout the world, from local citizens to international experts and idealist members of non-governmental organizations. These efforts were not in vain. Failures of all types, including the destruction of societies that had their balance, can be deplored, but it is unquestionable that, among other signs of progress, education, health and the level of living of the masses improved in the developing world during the decades of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. During that period, although claims that economic aggregates were defining development were regularly heard, social issues and concerns, notably the distribution of opportunities, income and wealth, were always part of the international agenda. And the role of public authorities as guardians of the public interest was a given. Social progress, at least as a legitimate aspiration, was part of the spirit of the time.

Everything changed with the great ideological turnaround already evoked in the first section of this report. Prepared by the theoretical and journalistic work of economists/polemists of great talent such as Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and William Buckley, put into practice by the governments of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and subsequently by most countries, neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism became in a few years the arch-dominant view on the organization of human affairs. Those who had believed that the end of the Cold War and of the Soviet Empire were offering the possibility to disseminate through the whole world the ideals of the UN Charter and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were rapidly made to understand that the order of the day was very different.

Placed under the banner of freedom, the victorious ideology had the appearance and appeal of a return to common sense. But for all but a few privileged it was a very cruel ideology. Based on materialism, competition and greed it dismissed as “soft” all ideas of solidarity and redistribution. A relentless propaganda made people believe that such “pensee unique” was indeed the only way forward. The language of development and solidarity was perverted. Countries of the South were forced to “open their markets” to global economic and financial power and to reduce public expenditures and taxes – policies automatically increasing inequalities and the misery of the powerless – and were then presented with “targets” for the reduction and elimination of poverty.

With the great help of Tony Blair’s Third Way, which put a European and intellectual varnish on the basic tenets of Thatcherism and global capitalism, social democratic and liberal democratic ideas and regimes were put on a defensive position. They still are in 2008. Not all systems of social protection and social security were dismantled, not all labour laws and worker’s rights were abandoned, but all came under attack and their dissemination in economically poor countries was taken off the agenda of the most powerful international institutions. Tax systems ceased to be progressive, including in most European countries. The control of media and means of communications by gigantic private groups came to be regarded as perfectly acceptable. Everything “public” became old-fashioned and suspect, everything “private” took an aura of competence, efficiency and legitimacy. The words “social progress” disappeared from the language of the United Nations immediately after the World Summit for Social Development held in Copenhagen in 1995. The notion of social development was itself reduced to the care of specific social groups, particularly the handicapped and the elderly. With remarkable force and speed, the neo-liberal wave had swept away the intellectual and political foundations of social-democracy.

This, for those who contend that social progress is a legitimate and necessary political project, was a regression. It was a regression brought about by identifiable powers, interests and ideas. It was a step backward and an impasse, as amply demonstrated by the state of the world at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. Social progress has to be reinvented. Progressive forces have to become again visible and credible. The world needs a renewed social ideal.

Recalling the meaning of the word progress, its origins, and the history of the concept

Much of the controversies evoked above seem to have in common a distortion of the meaning of the word “progress”. Its etymology – from the Latin progressus, with pro, forward, and gradi, to walk, to move – denotes a movement, a continuous progression, but the intention, the objective and the outcome of such movement can be good, bad, or neutral. Dictionaries mention the progress of a technique as well as the progress of a disease. As rightly pointed out by the critics of the ideology of progress, value judgments and criteria are needed to determine whether a movement forward is, for an individual, a group or humankind, an improvement or a decline, and such judgments are always open to different interpretations and subject to different perspectives. For example: Is the growth of the world population a sign of a betterment of the human condition, or is it creating insurmountable problems? Is the invention of, say nitrogen bad or good as it is used for the production of explosives as well as for the production of fertilizers?

In the same vein, the frequently made observation that the roots of the transformation of the concept of progress into an ideology are to be found in the Enlightenment deserves scrutiny. It is worth noting that the Encyclopedia of Diderot and D’Alembert (l’ Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire Raisonné des Sciences, des Arts et des Métiers, published between 1751 and 1772),commonly seen as the Bible of the Enlightenment, has, out of total of 18000 pages, 15 pages on the word “progression” – which in the French language of the time had a physical, scientific, mathematical and musical meaning and certainly no moral connotation – and only five lines on “progrès”, these being on rapid progress in arts and sciences and progress on.the forces of evil. Another great encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia of Yverdon (l’Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire Universel Raisonné des Connaissances Humaines, published between 1770 and 1780), heavily inspired by the work directed by Diderot and d’Alembert but reflecting a protestant vision of the world, has 70.000 articles, none of which being on “progrès”.

The “encyclopédistes” and proponents of “les Lumières” were above all motivated and interested by the development and propagation of knowledge (“les connaissances”). They were fighting everything and everybody opposed to this “progression” of knowledge. They wanted to overcome ignorance and destroy superstitions. Neither the monarchs nor the priests were to dictate what people had to believe. Diderot, editor in chief of the great Encyclopedia, put the following credo at the beginning of this extraordinary work: “All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone’s feelings.” The “philosophes” saw freedom of thought, education and learning as a basis for individual liberty, but they did not have the naivety to believe that Reason will automatically lead humankind to a general state of happiness. It has been said that happiness was an invention of the 18th century. But there is a great difference between removing obstacles to the pursuit of happiness and mapping the road for a general state of contentment. And the Enlightenment relies on Reason, but also on other sources of knowledge. The Encyclopedia put on a comparable footing three branches of human knowledge: Memory, associated with History; Reason, attached to Philosophy; and Imagination, nurtured by Poetry. It is difficult to imagine that a simplistic and ideological view of progress could have emerged from such rich soil.

It was also from a rich soil that the old enemy of the “philosophes”, the Catholic Church, produced on 26 March 1967 the Encyclical Populorum Progresso. This remarkable document of Pope Paul VI, creating the Commission Justice and Peace, presents progress as “man’s complete development and the development of all mankind” and refers to the “material and spiritual progress” of the entire world community. Today, there is need for “a thorough examination of every facet of the problem-social, economic, cultural and spiritual”. The Church “has the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and interpreting them in the light of the Gospel.” It is “human self-fulfillment”- personal and collective- that “sum up our obligations” , because Man is “destined for a higher state of perfection”. A “transcendent humanism”, which surpasses our nature and “bestows new fullness of life” is our highest and at the same time “natural” goal.

“Every kind of progress is a two-edged sword. It is necessary if man is to grow as a human being, yet it can also enslave him, if he comes to regard it as the supreme good and cannot look beyond it. When this happens, men hardened their hearts, shut out others from their minds and gather together only for reasons of self-interest(.)The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich(.). Then the Encyclical denounces “unbridled liberalism” and asks “what are truly human conditions?” Here is the answer:”The rise from poverty to the acquisition of life’s necessities; the elimination of social ills; broadening the horizons of knowledge; acquiring refinement and culture. From there one can go on to acquire a growing awareness of other people’s dignity, a taste for the spirit of poverty, an active interest in the common good, and a desire for peace. Then Man can acknowledge the highest values and God Himself, author and end.”

Lastly, observations on the concept of progress and its history, took the form of a meditation on “the tortuous road from nihilism to hope.” Nihilism, ne-hilum,is the absence of links, of threads between “things.”It is the absolute degree of freedom. It is also the form of mysticism whereby the individual lose the self into an ocean of divine unity, a nirvana. And nihilism is the absence of roots. It therefore excludes the very concept of progress. So does the notion of an eternal present, of roots that have always been there. If nihilism is more an individual than a collective “aberration”, rootedness is “natural” to most cultures and it was the general norm until the 18th century.

Then there is the eternal return, which, while certainly not exact, carries with it useful lessons. The first is that nothing is achieved for once and all. In particular, every generation must achieve its own justice and defends its own ideals, even if it means retracing the path its forbearers tread. Thus, the marvelous achievements of the thirty years after WWII (les trente glorieuses) – compassion, social justice, solidarity between rich and poor within and between countries- have gone “to the dogs” because the following generations, which did not fight for them, do not realize their values. The second lesson is that, while it is commonly thought that each human being benefit – notably through education – of the achievements made by other human beings, experience does not support that view. See for example the tragic events that occurred in the former Yugoslavia .

But what about progress? Common images are progress like a railway, progress as an inexorable movement. With the positivism of Auguste Comte such images became the inexorable march of history towards “order and progress”, with one cause producing one effect. In reality, both causes and effects are multiple and inextricably mixed together. When one applies a set of causes, one cannot be sure of the set of effects that will follow. The simplistic opposition between “good and evil” is equally misleading. As is the opposition between “happiness and sadness” and the naïve political motto of “the pursuit of happiness”. Over the ages and throughout the cultures, these sorts of oppositions, inscribed in the books of religions, have had nefarious consequences.

Then, is progress a movement towards something better? That seems correct, but “better” is always in relation to a situation, and situations change. Provided one fix a criterion and an indicator to measure progress towards it, there can certainly be a progress towards a specific goal which is within a short distance. But the journey of humankind is longer. However, utopias are indispensable to charting our journey. Utopias, are, at the very least, way marker. It is thus necessary to turn to hope (l’esperance). Two thoughts tell us the essential of what we should know. The first is fron William the Silent (1533-1584): “There is no need to hope in order to undertake, nor to succeed in order to persevere.” The other is from William Penn, who wrote in 1682 the following: “True godliness do not turn people out of the world but enables them to live better in it and excites their endeavours to mend it.”One has to hope, and act, as if progress was possible.

Did we advance in our “Esperance” since a few centuries?

Common grounds, pending questions, markers for future reflections

• It is necessary to clean the idea of progress of its ideological dusty clothes.
• To free oneself, and humankind, form the excesses and fanaticisms that always accompany ideologies is (would be?) a progress.
• Is it equally necessary to make a distinction between change and progress.
• Critical is the further distinction between progress as a state of affairs and progress as a set of processes, as a struggle; such struggle is never achieved; and the notion of social progress may indeed be indispensable to realize that “progress” is an on-going process of change, of transformation.
• It is necessary to continue to progress in the determination to act for the betterment of the human condition, and to continue to hope, in spite of setbacks and regressions; imagination and compassion are indispensable ingredients for the struggle for social progress.
• Why not look again at the “vertus cardinals”: l’esperance, la foi, la charite.
• Why not going back to progress as defined by “les lumieres”? Faith in progress has been heavily criticized, but perhaps it is a necessary fiction; a fiction necessary to give meaning to one’s life, and certainly necessary to found any meaningful political action; it was a belief of the 18th century that everybody had a right to have a future; is it possible to give meaning to one’s life without having some faith, some hope that improvement, or “progress” is possible?
• For those who dislike the word progress, improvement is a suitable concept. But it remains imperative to define precisely what is “better”, or what is “worst”, to establish criteria for such judgments, and to be clear about the period of reference. Also, it is critical to make explicit one’s assumptions, preferences and prejudices. These are always present and to leave them in a deliberate or confused “clair/obscur” is to fall into the ideological trap. Intellectual and moral rigor are permanent requisites of human decency.

And on utopias,r

It is today necessary to formulate a reasonably realist utopia. This is imperative to avoid the destruction of our human world. One of the difficulties is to move from a reasonably limited context (for instance the “world” described by an intelligent and dynamic French farmer) to a global context.