Neocon, I submit that most people who call themselves conservatives do not fit your description very well.
Let's put it another way. They can hardly be traumatized by "the breakdown of Christendom into competing sects," because that breakdown goes back to the Reformation (and even earlier, if you want to count the Albigensians, etc.).
They can't be traumatized by "urbanization," because most of them were born in modern, urbanized areas, or by "industrialization" either. Philosophy "fell into radical questioning" in the 17th century, and really got under way in the 18th. (And I would argue that no modern philosopher has been as "radical" as Hume, in many respects.)
In my judgment, the only thing on your list that any modern-day "conservative" -- in this country, at any rate -- could have been genuinely traumatized by, personally, is the revolution in science and technology. I would add a few things that are not on your list: social changes like the collapse of whatever there was (not very much) of a traditional class structure, the change in sex roles, and the breakdown of racial barriers.
Where these last "traumatizing" experiences are concerned, conservatives have not distinguished themselves "maintaining human values." That is, not if they are trying to maintain the status quo at the same time, which is what one expects conservatives to do (otherwise they would be "reactionaries," or "radicals," or whatever).
Your conservatives are "ideal types," in the sense employed by sociologists. Now the problem with "ideal types" -- and here I will admit to being a thoroughgoing nominalist (a position that goes back to the Middle Ages, of course) -- is that one seldom, if ever, meets them in real life.
Sorry. Just my opinion. :-)
Joan
|
