Predicting the future is hard; many prophets have been proven wrong over the years. Chesterton makes some fun about modern prophets in the introduction to his novel 'The Napoleon of Notting Hill'. Instead of all sorts of possible changes, such as that 'science would take charge of the future', or 'we should in a very short term return to Nature', or all other sorts of contradictory predictions, Chesterton introduces a London that is, eighty years from his writing, 'almost exactly like what it is now'.
As we live a hundred years from Chesterton's London, it is rather difficult to envision his experience of the City. It does appear, though, that there are quite some interesting developments in his imaginary London. Chesterton imagines a place where people do no longer believe in revolutions, nor in democracy. Life seems to be quite dull, with people always doing what they did before. It is as if no-one has dreams anymore, about a world as it could be. All in all, it is a quite depressing description of a state of affairs.
One wonders, in how far is Chesterton's vision of the future better than that of other 'prophets'? He too, like some of the writers he criticizes, mainly extrapolates what he sees happening in his time. A difference is that Chesterton does not care too much about technology or global politics, but he does care about the dreams and beliefs of people. And then one wonders if he does not have a point: do we still really believe in the possibility of progress and care about those beliefs, or have we become complacent?
Like with most things in life, moderation is the key, and Chesterton often hit the dividing channel between progress and conservatism exactly as a person should. Pity we Americans don't have enough on the ball to do this.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, not to be a wise-guy, but that should be "prophecy", not "prophesy", in the title.