Sir Roger Scruton suggested that “conservatism is more of an instinct than an idea.” Apparently, what he meant was that conservatism was not primarily a construct of intellectuals, but something that comes from our natural human dispositions.
Scruton’s insight seems to be corroborated by research on the connection between human personality and political ideology. Psychologists have identified correlations between certain personality traits and ideological and political preferences. These findings suggest that there is a lot in the conservatism-progressivism divide that results from differences in personality traits.
A leading approach to the study of human personality today, called The Big Five, identifies five dimensions of the human personality: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and emotional stability (or, conversely, neuroticism). Researchers interested in assessing the extent to which differences in personality affect ideological inclinations and political choices seek to identify possible associations of these five personality traits with specific political ideologies.
After dozens of studies, with thousands of participants, one pattern of relationship between personality and political ideology has emerged clearly: There is a strong, positive relation between conscientiousness and conservatism, a correlation that has been popularized by world-famous psychologist, Jordan Peterson. Conscientiousness is the personality trait associated with industriousness, dutifulness, personal responsibility, adherence to social protocol, and respect for social norms and traditions. A person with high conscientiousness tends to have more self-control, to be more self-disciplined, to have greater capacity to delay gratification, and to plan ahead. And individuals with such predispositions are more likely to be ideologically conservative and vote for right-wing or conservative candidates and parties.
A second pattern of relationship between personality and political ideology that has emerged, albeit less consistently than in the case of conservatism and conscientiousness, is the positive relation between openness to experience and progressive, left-wing political-ideological positions. Individuals who are more “open to experience” respond more positively to new stimuli and experiences, valuing change and innovation. They tend to have a greater tolerance for risks, to be more curious and more imaginative. And individuals with such predispositions are more likely to be ideologically progressive on social issues in certain contexts.
While some studies found no relationship between emotional stability or neuroticism and political ideologies, other studies found positive relationships between conservatism and emotional stability and between progressivism and neuroticism—that is, the inclination to have negative and unpleasant emotions (nervousness, anger, tension, guilt, sadness) with repercussions on the individual’s mental life and behavior.
With respect to agreeableness—the inclination to be affectionate, cooperative, friendly, and altruistic—there seems to be some positive association between it and economic socialism and social conservatism. And when it comes to extraversion, studies have, in general, found results that are more ambiguous with respect to political ideology than the other four big personality traits.
In sum, the most robust finding in the study of human personality and political ideology is between conservatism and conscientiousness, with positive relationships also found between emotional stability and conservatism—and, conversely, between neuroticism and progressivism.
The correlation between conservatism and conscientiousness and emotional stability has also been linked to other well-documented findings with respect to human psychology and political opinion: conservatives tend to be happier, have more meaning and purpose in their lives, and are more mentally healthy than progressives. Some researchers have attributed the greater propensity of conservatives to be happy, mentally healthy, and have more meaningful lives to their more conscientious and less neurotic personalities, in addition to their greater religiosity and family stability. In sum, because conservatives tend to be less neurotic and more conscientious, they tend to have the emotional and psychological resources—in addition to the spiritual and social resources—needed for lives that are happier, more meaningful, and more psychologically well-adjusted.
Roger Scruton also noted that the main difference between liberalism, socialism, and conservatism is that while liberals value above all the idea of freedom and socialists the idea of equality, conservatives value responsibility. Here again, his insights into the nature of political opinions seem to have support from contemporary sociological and psychological research, as conservatism is correlated with greater disposition toward self-discipline, self-control, and personal responsibility.
But the conservative disposition does not appear to rely solely on the personality trait of conscientiousness. Moral psychologists have identified differences in terms of the moral intuitions that predominate among conservatives and progressives. According to the original Moral Foundations Theory advocated by, among others, Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham, there are different psychological systems that provide the lens through which we evaluate moral issues: harm/care, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/respect, sanctity/degradation. While the liberal moral intuitions seem to rely almost exclusively on the first two systems, conservatives tend to rely on all these foundations. The conservative moral system (unlike the progressive), in other words, tends to include the recognition of the moral dimensions of loyalty/betrayal, authority/respect, and sanctity/degradation. And here again, we find convergence between Scruton’s views and contemporary social science in his identification of the importance of the sanctity/degradation system to the conservative moral disposition. As Scruton noted,
There are two kinds of conservatism, one metaphysical, the other empirical. The first resides in the belief in sacred things and the desire to defend them against desecration. This belief has been exemplified at every point in history and will always be a powerful influence in human affairs.
And the second kind of conservatism—“empirical conservatism”—is, according to Scruton, “a more specifically modern phenomenon, a reaction to the vast changes unleashed by the Reformation and the Enlightenment.”
So, according to Scruton, there is a conservatism that emerges from our natural dispositions—an intuitive or instinctive propensity to seek the preservation of the things we love or consider sacred—and there is a conservatism that is a response to modern social and cultural transformations that bring discomfort or distress to many people.
I wish to suggest an additional way of cataloguing the varieties of conservatism: intuitive vs. empirical conservatism and unreflective vs. reflective conservatism. Intuitive conservatism arises from our natural dispositions grounded in the personality trait of conscientiousness and in the more complete set of moral intuitions that social psychologists have identified as linked to conservative views. Empirical conservatism arises from a reaction to social and cultural changes that dissolve social and cultural structures that are important to us. Intuitive conservatism is unreflective, in the sense that it arises from our personality traits and cognitive dispositions. Empirical conservatism can be unreflective, in the sense of dispositional reaction to change, but it can also be reflective, in the sense that even if one lacks strong conservative dispositions against the loss of order (immanent and/or transcendent) brought about by contemporary social and cultural transformations, one may reflectively come to understand that many of such changes are not necessarily good and come to the conclusion that conservatism in the social/cultural/political domains may be more suited to secure human flourishing.
Roger Scruton’s own trajectory seems to exemplify how each of these varieties of conservatisms can be understood as working together in the life, and in the intellectual and moral formation, of a conservative. Scruton wrote on how his conversion to conservatism (or the “discovery of my vocation,” as he put it) had its greatest impulse in May 1968 in Paris. The student rebellion against the “bourgeoisie,” “to whom [they] owe[d] the freedom and prosperity that enable[d] [them] to play on [their] toy barricades,” imparted on Scruton a serious suspicion of the rebellious and revolutionary spirit present in many of the social, cultural, and political changes animating Western societies since the enlightenment.
Scruton’s natural conservative instincts or dispositions seemed to have been triggered by those events. Those instincts were predominantly latent; he didn’t seem to have consciously recognized most of them at that point. But his direct experience of the tumultuous events in France and his knowledge of history and of comparative social and political systems (and more concretely, his reading of Burke and his encounter with communism in Central Europe) led him to be more appreciative of the traditions of the West, and of his own home country in particular. Thus, he went on to become a prominent advocate for conservatism, embarking on a journey of discovery, ultimately to become a defender of the importance of the conservative perspective in contemporary affairs. Thus, he went on to become a prominent advocate for conservatism. He embarked on a journey of discovery of the conservative intellectual tradition, he articulated it for contemporary audiences, and defended the importance and benefits of the conservative perspective in contemporary affairs.
So, yes, conservatism appears to be more of an instinct than an idea. But the conservative intuitions can be validated by a more reflective attitude and become a more substantive and better articulated response to contemporary events, to one’s understanding of history, of the human experience and psychological and social needs, and even to scientific findings that, as I have suggested, seem strongly to indicate that conservatism is an important—perhaps indispensable—force for human flourishing.
