Neither the Romans, nor Donald Trump: the impossibility of turning back the clock of history

There is a recent article in The Hill, titled “Dangerous nostalgia: Trump wants to turn back time”, and written by A. Scott Bolden. The idea of turning back the clock of historical social development encapsulates quite well the times that we are living through. But for anyone who has befriended the social science named history, it should be clear that our times are by no means exceptional. The entire history of mankind is full of attempts to stop social progress, as well as of movements that aimed, in vain, to turn back the time.

The reactionary moments are constant companions throughout our history. And while each such period causes significant damage in terms of human suffering, none of them can turn the clock of human development back. In this regard we are in no different situation. The progressives will simply have to endure this reactionary wave. Just as the progressives from the past had to endure the reactionary waves of their times. And this despite the fact that the progressives of the bygone eras would be considered as very conservative in our days.

History is a friend to the progressives. Firstly, the simple knowledge that the values we defend today are entrenched in material social conditions - hence they neither arise on a whim, nor can they be erased on a conservative whim - may provide comfort during these seemingly dark times. Secondly, history provides us with insight into the historical parallels and into the outcomes of the previous reactionary thrusts.

For example, the right to abortion is one of the progressive aspects of our times, which has now even been enshrined into the French Constitution. The more socially conservative countries still attempt to fight against such development, and in the so-called western world Christianity is very often the basis of such resistance. But these self-proclaimed devotees arguably rarely look back through history to the times when their own espoused and cherished religion was itself a novel and a progressive idea, and which likewise had to fight for its right to be accepted.

This acceptance within the Roman Empire, for instance, only arrived in the 4th century AD. Before that Christianity was viewed by the Roman officialdom in a similar way as abortion is viewed today by the conservatives. As going against nature, and as a harbinger of a downfall. The Roman rulers held the “belief that the pagan gods’ continued protection of the Empire could only be secured by forcing those (Christians) who had neglected them to return to their worship”. Here is a very telling quote by Aemilianus, a vice-prefect, regarding the clemency that the Emperors would have shown towards the Christians:

“...they have in effect granted you the power to save yourselves, if only you are willing to adopt that which is according to nature, worshipping gods that preserve their empire and abandoning those that are contrary to nature.”

A twist of historical irony: the Christian god was considered contrary to nature by the Roman pagans. Moreover, “Christians’ alleged ‘irrationality’ was a staple of anti-Christian polemic, as many studies have shown”. But surely, the Romans were incorrect to label Christianity unnatural and irrational, whereas our contemporary Christians are correct to label abortion rights as unnatural. Surely. The Romans were obviously wrong, and the progressives today are equally wrong. Only the conservatives are correct. And here is the reply by bishop Dionysius, representing Christianity at the trial:

“It is not true that all men worship all gods but every group worships certain gods whom they recognize. So in our case there is the one god, the creator of the universe, the one who in fact entrusted the empire into the hands of the most pious Augusti, Valerian and Gallienus. This is the god whom we both venerate and worship and to whom we offer prayers without ceasing for their empire, petitioning that it may continue unshaken.”

Ironically again, it was after the adoption of Christianity that the Roman Empire fell, despite all the prayers directed at the “creator of the universe” in the name of the empire. So should we now side with Aemilianus and accept his claim that the pagan gods were according to nature, and not the Christian one? It was the former, after all, that “had guided and protected Rome throughout its history” - something the latter was not capable of. Or rather, why not simply recognize the fact that there are neither natural nor unnatural gods? That there is no such thing as god at all. And also - that the Roman Empire would have been dissolved anyway, sooner or later.

The irrational fear of decadence, of decline, or of loss as caused by social progress is an inherent feature of the reactionary movements. As the Roman governors wanted to make the Roman Empire great again by attacking non-pagan religions, individuals such as Charles Maurras (1868-1952) from modern France wanted to make his homeland great again by renouncing modernity itself. Namely, his hope was to turn the historical clock back to the days before the industrial civilisation, before democracy, before the republic. Essentially, to go back beyond 1789, for the Great Revolution was for the contemporary conservatives like Maurras the key cause of all the evils of France.

As the pagan gods were supposed to preserve the Roman Empire, for Charles Maurras only monarchy could have saved his France from the “ravages of times”. In yet another twist of irony, whereas to the Roman governors Christianity was a threat, for Maurras it was rather its decline that constituted one of the sources of France’s potential downfall. While the former found the Christian god against nature, for the latter it was the idea of equality that went against nature. For Maurras authority and hierarchy were part of the natural laws. And surely poor Charles was as convinced that he knew correctly what was truly natural as were the Romans assured of their pagan gods to be according to nature. Just as the Victorian society in Britain was convinced that “academic study was against women’s nature and that too much knowledge could affect women’s fertility”. Everyone appears to embody the same following logic: whatever social truth I believe in - it must be in accordance with nature. Everybody is convinced: surely, I can not be wrong. Until history proves time and time again that there are no universal social truths.

To sum up, at every corner of our historical development we find the conservative doomsday prophets. The myth of decadence is a constant attribute of reactionary politics. Christianity was among the scapegoats for the Romans. Later on, Protestantism would threaten to bring the end of times for the Catholics. Then democracy and industrial city life, or simply modernity became the obsession of Maurras’ intellectual war in order to save France at the turn of the 20th century.

As for our times, among the most prominent targets in order to save the civilisation - which is somehow constantly in peril but never perishes - we find, arguably, abortion, transgender and immigrants. It would be interesting to know what new ideas and new social developments will be considered as harbingers of global decadence once the contemporary issues will become non-issues. Namely, when abortion, transgender and migrants will inevitably become as accepted as democracy and women’s higher education are today.

As the article in The Hill goes, “nostalgia is a powerful emotion. It is understandable that Trump has fond memories of growing up rich in a world of white male privilege before most Americans alive today were born. But nostalgia should not drive public policy”. And we may add: it is, in any case, powerless against the historical clock of progressive social change.

Sources:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/5443762-dangerous-nostalgia-trump-wants-to-turn-back-time/
https://www.lhistoire.fr/les-id%C3%A9es-politiques-de-charles-maurras
https://maurras.net/textes/256.html
https://grbs.library.duke.edu/index.php/grbs/article/view/15873
https://newn.cam.ac.uk/about/history-college/womens-education
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68471568

Image by Freepik.com