Fallacy of Novelty

I was on my way to pick up some pizza for dinner at Buddy's, the dutiful husband that I am, when I encountered an interesting tidbit of radio idiocy on NPR. The feature, a response from Justice Stephen Breyer, argues against the judicial philosophy of "originalism" (espoused by those like Justice Scalia) which in essence says we need to accept the meaning of the Constitution as the framers originally intended as the foundation for American jurisprudence--especially at the Supreme Court level. Breyer, on the other hand espouses a significantly more "flexible" (cavalier?) interpretive framework, making the Constitution fit the times we live in. In this model, a supposedly more "democratic" approach is taken, because the words of the Constitution are all subject to the interpretation of judges over the ages. What was good for one age may not be so any longer, and vice versa. This not only hearkens back to literary theorists such as Stanley Fish and Jacques Derrida, it also holds one tenent which is taken as a given and unassailable: the times they are a-changing.

I believe such a mindset is inherently invalid. It first bopped around as the mind child of the Enlightenment concept of Progress (which catapulted to even greater euphoric heights through early Darwinists). Then as we have had our illusions shattered by reality during the 20th Century, we got rid of our optimism, but still kept this vestige of chronological snobbery (a la C.S. Lewis) alive. We still culturally seem to accept this mumbo jumbo that human beings, as they advance technologically, morph (since we can't "advance" anymore--the idea of Progress is dead). We morph morally, politically, culturally, psychologically to the point that we aren't the same humans anymore. At least that's how the thought process goes.

Instead, I agree with the maxim, "the more things change the more they stay the same." I think Solomon summed it up well when he said, "There is nothing new under the sun." Why is human cloning such a big deal except that it really is rehashing the old-fashioned struggle of the inherent God-given dignity of human beings versus a supremely naturalistic view of humanity? New technologies make sinful pleasures more private and more ubiquitous, but they do not fundamentally change the nature of how people respond when faced with temptation and vice. So did the framers anticipate the affirmative action debate? They had their own version of affirmative action with the 3/5 compromise when the Constitution was first adopted. Today we are thankful for the 14th Amendment, which more justly rectified the problems of racism that have been around since Babel. But societies are run by people who are eternally caught up in these things called bodies. We cannot deny that we are human, and that there is a continuity in our human nature which does not essentially change even when there is flux within the culture at large. The sooner we grow to accept this, the sooner we can cast off the fallacy of novelty and realize that we aren't so different from our ancestors and our potential progeny as we pretend to be.