"Progressive": Limits of the Very Word

What does it mean to be progressive?  Are progressive politics clearly defined?

Today, the faculty at my university were voting on a new policy that would give graduate students limited family leave time when they either adopted a child or had one through natural means.  While family leave policies are fairly common at the faculty level at most universities, they are rare at the level of graduate students.  The question being debated, then, was do we expand family leave policies from faculty to graduate students who work as research and teaching assistants?

As these discussions often go, there was a rumble from some folks discussing the high costs of such a policy; a rumble from others about the particular structure of the policy; and a louder set of arguments in favor of the policy.  I have no particular interest here in discussing my own stance toward the policy nor the ways in which I balance my values as a way of arriving at my stance (although, for the record, there are clearly very strong arguments in its favor, and I did ultimately support it).  What I do wish to discuss is the wording used in one particular argument in favor of the policy.

As the argument was coming to a close, one young faculty member raised his hand and observed something to the nature of, “While we would not be the first university to have such a policy, it would certainly be a progressive policy move on our part.”

Hmmmmmm . . . . this is the point at which I perked up.  Were these policies in fact “progressive”?  Now that could lead to an interesting argument.

However, rather than encourage debate, the claim of progressive politics tends to silence debate.  I do understand the argument.  For quite awhile, there has been a general articulation—on the left/liberal side, any way rate---of family leave policies as a specific form of progressive politics.  Indeed, the articulation is so strong in my mind, at least, that a reminder of the “progressiveness” of such policies would have made it difficult to argue against the policy even if I have been so inclined.  The assumption is strong enough that to come out against such a policy would have the affect of labeling oneself as “regressive,” or at least as nonprogressive.

Again, this inquiry is neither in favor nor against the policy itself.  I want to leave that question neutral and simply discuss the problem with the assumption that the policy is progressive.  As I’ve noted before, while family leave policies are clearly a good idea, there is a lot to say for policies that work against an increase in world population.  On such grounds, one could feasibly argue that a “progressive” politics would discourage child bearing.  In this case, one could either not endorse family leave policies or allow them only in cases in which children were adopted.  Given the fact that individuals in privileged families and cultures tend to use more natural resources than disadvantaged populations, policies that discourage population growth (or at least don’t encourage it) in situations like these can be seen as especially “progressive.” 

Again, I’m less interested here in questioning the policy itself and more interested in raising the point that those who consider themselves “progressive”—indeed, those who take on any political label—often chain themselves into existing positions without reflection.  I don’t want to imply that questioning the “progressive” nature of this one policy would have led people to take new positions; rather, I want to argue that questioning a policy from multiple directions without the benefit of a catchall phrase benefits everyone to the degree that they think toward implications rather than political labels.  A model that encourages rigorous public debate without the benefit of short cuts ultimately leads to better policy. 

Comments

[Janet]

Indeed. The labels are so undefined as to be useless for any real political discussion. They can, however, effectively steer the conversation from the issues to defense (and attack) of affiliation. So much less bothersome. We can have the same arguments over and over, rather than actually having to come up with solutions.