The Arc of History?

Progressivism’s understanding of existence may be not just problematic, but fundamentally wrong.

One of the most widely embraced ideas in contemporary progressivism is the concept of an “arc of history.”

In essence, history itself is gradually progressing toward moral perfection, albeit at a slow and relentless pace. In many ways, this is the ani ma’amin, the catechism of progressivism: Everything is moving toward something superior and ultimately utopian. As Barack Obama put it, “The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.” That is the whole of the law.

The concept of an “arc of history,” about which I have written before, is appealing in a certain sense. Above all, it is ferociously optimistic: everything will turn out all right in the end. In a world such as ours, plagued by violence and instability, the appeal of this is undeniable.

However, the “arc of history” concept, at the very least, demonstrates a certain intellectual poverty. It reduces the entirety of human existence to a mere shibboleth, and a largely unexamined one at that.

The contingency of progress

In the essay linked above, I explored the origins of the concept of the “arc of history” within a form of deracinated Christianity. In essence, this concept sees all history as a progression towards a messianic age.

This idea was most eloquently articulated by St. Augustine, who described the “six ages of the world” from the Creation to the arrival of Jesus and its aftermath. Ultimately, a “seventh age” is anticipated, reminiscent of the Sabbath, which will mark the end of history and bring a period of “rest” for the world.

I observed that this perspective on history is widely accepted in the Western world, but it is, in fact, highly culturally contingent. For most of human history, it has been entirely alien to most civilizations, which have embraced alternative and less teleological views of existence.