The Rhetoric of Reaction

The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy

File:Rhet React 9780674768680-lg.jpg
Author	Albert O. Hirschman
Country	USA
Subject	Conservatism — History
Publisher	The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
Publication date	1991
Pages	Paperback: 224 p. Hardback: 212 p.
ISBN	978-0674768680
OCLC	21972246
Dewey Decimal	320.5209
LC Class	JA83 .H54 1991

The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy is a book by theorist Albert O. Hirschman, which styles the rhetoric of conservativism in opposition to social change as consisting of three narratives: perversity, futility, and jeopardy, and that, further, these narratives are simplistic and flawed, and cut off debate. Hirschman illustrates this thesis with examples from the French revolution and 19th and 20th centuries. He then discusses corresponding progressive narratives, and proposes a new framework.

Reactionary narratives

Hirschman describes the reactionary narratives thus:

• According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy.
• The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent."
• Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment.

He argues that these are "rhetorics of intransigence", which do not further debate.

Progressive narratives

In the final chapter, Hirschman takes the opposite tack and discusses progressive narratives which are equally simplistic and flawed.

• The Synergy Illusion – the idea that all reforms work together and reinforce each other, rather than being competing;
• The Imminent Danger – urgent action is necessary to avoid imminent danger;
• History Is on Our Side

  Compare: “The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice,” by Martin Luther King Jr.

Proposal

Hirschman advocates instead these "mature" bases for discussion:

1. There are dangers and risks in both action and inaction. The risks of both should be canvassed, assessed, and guarded against to the extent possible.
2. The baneful consequences of either action or inaction can never be known with certainty but our reaction to either is affected by the two types of alarm-sounding Cassandras with whom we have become acquainted.