·        The rush of legislation in the United States to ensure that marriage is defined as a union between two people of the opposite sex, from which two people of the same sex are excluded.

·        The claim by Jewish settlers that the land they occupy belongs to them, not to the Palestinians; the insistence of the Chinese government that Taiwan and Tibet and Turkestan cannot be independent; the extremes of nationalism found in every country and culture.

·        Fundamentalists of any religion.

·        The proponents of a “war on drugs” that heavily penalises the use or sales of substances that cause considerably less harm than nicotine, alcohol and prescription drugs that can be sold or used legally.

A: They are all socio-political stances that can defined as conservative. They are typical of social conservatism (financial conservatism is another matter) in that they attempt to conserve a status quo or to “return” to a state that only existed in an illusory past. Allowing two women to marry changes the definition of marriage and therefore cannot be permitted. By asserting its rule over lands that were never home to more than a few Han, Beijing hopes to return to the glorious days of the Chinese empire.

In contrast, liberals recognise that changes to the status quo may be necessary or desirable. Liberals do not believe that a 2,000-year old document should automatically deprive Palestinians of land or livelihood or that drugs that bring pleasure and not harm should continue to be criminalised.

(It is arguable that in each of the above cases, and many others that divide opinion along similar lines, the argument is not over change, but such issues as responsibility, freedom, terrorism and justice. However, if the primary goal is to resolve the issue for the maximum benefit of all concerned, then the basic question comes down to: “the current situation is producing conflict: what needs to change to reduce that conflict?” The conservative approach will be to resist change, while liberals consider that change may be necessary and / or beneficial.)

Conservation and change are opposite ends of a spectrum, at one end of which lies stasis or paralysis, and at the other chaos and anarchy. Between the two lie various hues of change, from slow to fast, from managed to uncontrolled. While extreme conservatives seek a society of rigid rules where all events are predictable and explicable, extreme liberals (this is US-speak*) shade into anarchists who believe that laws should be abolished, except perhaps those that directly prevent others from being harmed.

And what underlies our resistance to or acceptance of change? Ultimately our self-identity and self-esteem. Where change threatens our identity we resist it; where our identity exists independently of change, we are more willing to consider it. And that in turn depends on the extent to which we identify with the community or status that will be affected by the proposed change. Conservatives’ self-identity is based on the society they live in; they feel threatened when that society changes, because that implies that the values they base their self-esteem on are no longer valid. Liberals’ self-identity does not depend on society and they are therefore less affected by changes around them.

And so, if you are an Israeli whose  reason for living is based on the “right” of Jews alone to occupy certain tracts of land and that “right” is denied, your self-identity is threatened and you will fight to maintain that land. But if you are an Israeli who believes that all those in the Middle East have a “right” to live peacefullly, you will be willing to share that land – although you may continue to be as suspicious of Palestinians who threaten your “right” to be there as Palestinians are suspicious of the settlers.

Resistance to change is driven by fear. Not the physical fear of violence or pain or death, but the psychological fear of losing face, status or physical comfort. The extent to which fear drives human behaviour should not be underestimated. Much of the world’s ills can attributed to fear. On a personal level, a man beats his wife because he is afraid of losing control over her and his self-esteem depends on being a man with a woman at his beck and call. On an international level, the United States will not ratify the Kyoto Treaty because TweedleBush** is afraid that doing so would lose him the next election, and because USAmericans are afraid of losing their comfortable lifestyles. He cannot overcome that fear to provide the leadership his country and the world needs.

Fear is not always negative – it prevents us from doing many foolish things – but it is the source of the unwillingness of many otherwise rational people to accept necessary and beneficial change. And over an individual’s lifetime fear comes and goes and with it our resistance to change. Many of us begin our adult life as liberals because we have a sense of invulnerability and little to lose. As we grow older and acquire responsibilities and rewards – a good job, a home, a family, whatever – our sense of vulnerability increases and without our fear that we might lose these comforts. Our politics instinctively move towards the right.

There are exceptions, of course. Those who consciously or subconsciously come to understand that their self-esteem does not depend on their possessions, and who are increasingly recognise that the status quo does not benefit all.

And of course, being human we are inconsistent – conservative in some areas of our life and liberal in others. As I have written in previous columns, ideally I want the narrow world I grew up in not to change, but it has changed and my resistance is different only in scale, not in kind, from the resistance of Jewish settlers. The only difference is that I regret, but accept the need for change, while the settlers seem incapable of accepting that the world has moved on and so must they.

Unfortunately, we now live in a world where uncertainty and fear are increasing – and that fear feeds upon itself, leading each group to be more fearful, conservative and aggressive than the last. In every community we need leaders who can help us rise above that fear; unfortunately, such leaders are scarce on the ground.

* In British terms an extreme liberal is a contradiction - liberalism is usually seen as moderation – but other than anarchy there is no British equivalent of the US term.

** see column from two weeks ago