Chronological Snobbery – Mitchell News

Are new ideas always better than the old ones?

You may very well be asking – what is Chronological Snobbery? That was exactly what I did when I heard it recently.

Let’s begin by breaking it down into logical parts.

Chronological implies that it will likely have something to do with time.

Snobbery is when someone thinks of themselves as higher in standing than they are.

By putting these together, we can come up with what this term means.

In short, a chronological snob is a person who thinks of themselves as more advanced than people from previous eras simply because we are more “advanced” now than they were then.

The term was first described by Owen Barfield in the 1920s and popularized by his friend C.S. Lewis. In Lewis’s own words, chronological snobbery is assuming that “whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited.” In other words, anything from the past should be considered second-rate to those things of the present – purely because it’s from the past.

According to Wikipedia, “chronological snobbery is the belief that the ideas, art, or science of the past are inherently inferior to those of the present. It’s a common fallacy in Western philosophy that’s based on the idea that progress means that new ideas are always better than old ones.” It assumes that because civilisation has advanced in certain areas, people of earlier periods were less intelligent.

In summary, Chronological Snobbery has the following characteristics:

Assuming superiority
The belief that people in the present are more advanced and enlightened than those in the past
Disregarding the past
The idea that the past is less useful and that the present is without problems
Assuming previous ideas are outdated and are discredited
The belief that ideas that are no longer relevant are incorrect or irrelevant

What is an example of chronological snobbery?

If we use or interpret the word Medieval as describing something as backward or wrong, that is chronological snobbery. Similarly, if we use or construe the word Victorian to represent something old and without use. Both examples are blatantly ridiculous and absurd. However, many would consider this to be the case, meaning chronological snobbery is present.

Are there any counterexamples or exceptions to the generalisations?

One example from literature is Shakespeare. Although he wrote during the Renaissance, Shakespeare’s works are still read and performed today. Does this mean that Shakespeare’s writings are second-rate to the best of our current literature? I think that many, if not all, will agree that a least some of Shakespeare’s work is on par or better than that of today’s.

Another example would be the Ancient Greek philosophers. Does the fact that they are from Ancient times mean that their teachings do not hold any relevance today? Again, most people would say no. What they taught and wrote is still taught today and influences modern people and thinking.

How can we avoid chronological snobbery?

Lewis describes chronological snobbery as “the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate of our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that count discredited.”

The pivotal point came when he eventually came to understand the need to be critical by asking further questions such as: Why did this idea go out of date? What idea replaces this one? Why is it considered to be better?

Overall, although we live in a world that has changed much, and we have advanced so far technologically, the real question is not whether or not we are better than those who came before us, but whether or not the changes we have made to this world have changed us for the better.

And is this at least one factor that prevents us from valuing the wisdom of the elderly?