Permanence vs. Urgency: A Study of Changing Social Order
Russell Kirk and Michael Oakeshott express a view on government that serves to value the present accept change as inevitable but potentially dangerous. Cornel West and Ta-Nehisi Coates place emphasis on a flawed society founded on white supremacy that must be altered immediately. However, what West and Coates fail to accomplish is express a means to bring change to society that doesn’t disrupt civil order. Henceforth, Kirk and Oakeshott offer a more sound and plausible argument by revering permanence and handling change in a rational manner whereas Coates and West merely state the imperfections of society without offering logical solutions to their predicaments. Kirk and Oakeshott both define conservatism in two different manners, but express the same sentiment with regard to the roles of change and innovation in modern society. Kirk addresses in his 10 conservative commandments that society is founded on the ideals of previous generations that provide lasting stability and continuity. …show more content…
In the case of Kirk and Oakeshott, both define the approach to change as one that emphasizes rationality and caution while affirming their respect for the founding ideas that carry society. It is their logical and thought out expression of change that makes their argument evident and concise. However, West and Coates bring to fruition a change but fail to signify the measures in which it will be carried out. To pursue this further, what West and Coates do is offer an extensive study on a problem in society but never address what society must do to bring about change or take into account the implications it has on people. However just their cause may be, neither thinker addresses the social and racial implications it has on
Russell Kirk and Michael Oakeshott express a view on government that serves to value the present accept change as inevitable but potentially dangerous. Cornel West and Ta-Nehisi Coates place emphasis on a flawed society founded on white supremacy that must be altered immediately. However, what West and Coates fail to accomplish is express a means to bring change to society that doesn’t disrupt civil order. Henceforth, Kirk and Oakeshott offer a more sound and plausible argument by revering permanence and handling change in a rational manner whereas Coates and West merely state the imperfections of society without offering logical solutions to their predicaments. Kirk and Oakeshott both define conservatism in two different manners, but express the same sentiment with regard to the roles of change and innovation in modern society. Kirk addresses in his 10 conservative commandments that society is founded on the ideals of previous generations that provide lasting stability and continuity. …show more content…
In the case of Kirk and Oakeshott, both define the approach to change as one that emphasizes rationality and caution while affirming their respect for the founding ideas that carry society. It is their logical and thought out expression of change that makes their argument evident and concise. However, West and Coates bring to fruition a change but fail to signify the measures in which it will be carried out. To pursue this further, what West and Coates do is offer an extensive study on a problem in society but never address what society must do to bring about change or take into account the implications it has on people. However just their cause may be, neither thinker addresses the social and racial implications it has on