“There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.'”
- G. K. Chesterton, The Thing
I frequently see Chesterton’s famous fence analogy used in appeals to procedural conservatism: if you want to reform something, understand what you wish to reform, and how your proposals will achieve what you wish. The unstated premise underlying its invocation, I find, is often that the fence should just be left alone. Those most keen to quote Chesterton’s advice frequently have made up their minds that the fence is a fine fence indeed, and ought to remain precisely where it is. The mere suggestion that the middle of a freeway may be in fact be an inopportune location for a fence gets written off as hideous radicalism.
The funny thing with Chesterton’ fence, though, is that it cuts in multiple directions; it defends not just against the radical, but against the reactionary as well. A radical sees a fence, does not consider why somebody put it there in the first place, and concludes that someone ought to remove it. The reactionary, likewise, sees a field where a fence used to be, and concludes that he ought to erect another in its place. In doing so, he fails to consider that perhaps somebody had a very good reason for removing the fence in the first place. The tried and true have much to commend them, but when they no longer do, considering an alteration in course appears only sensible.
So you say you want a counterrevolution, monarchy and all. Splendid. Monarchy is, after all, a highly traditional form of government. It was the norm for much of the world for millennia. People do seem to have a tendency to gravitate towards charismatic leadership of one stripe or another, and ritualistic monarchies satisfy human longing for stability, order, and enchantment. What man needs in his postmodern hubris is really a return to the hierarchy and stability that only a hereditary monarchy with an established church can offer. Only what we truly desire, the mysticism and the disinterestedness of a single ruler who, unlike petty deputies and squires dispatched from outlying constituencies, can govern us well, even against our own inclinations.
Such arguments often fail to consider, however, that someone could have said much the same thing at the times the ancien regime monarchies collapsed. To sustain simultaneously that the French Revolution was a calamity, but also that the Bourbons were not doing a great job, requires no great feats of mental gymnastics. It can be true both that the regicide of Charles I was excessive, and that he had badly mismanaged his realms during his time on the throne. To argue that something should not have been changed merely out of adherence to tradition misses a key point: sometimes the fence has to go. “We should go back to having absolute monarchies, there are very good historical reasons why polities have chosen to be governed by kings.” This is true, but it is also true that there are also very good historical reasons why those monarchies were deposed and replaced by national states. Sometimes you get George V, but you can also get a feeble-minded wreck like Henry VI.
The problem with Chesterton’s Fence lies not in the principle stated in itself. Chesterton offers wise counsel: understand what you want to do before you do it. The problem lies in the application. We should not consider this principle inherently conservative or stabilizing. We ought not offer it up as a stumbling block to any and all reforms. If you offer this as an ideal principle to underlie human action, you have to prepare yourself to reckon with one of the possible outcomes: sometimes, you just have to get rid of the fence. There exist good reasons why people continue to do things the way they have for so long. When those reasons cease to exist, so should the behaviors and practices they enable.