The primary barometer for progress, in my mind, has very much to do with increasing the extent of knowledge and its application towards our understanding and interaction with the world around us. In essence, progress occurs when there is a net positive outcome for the collective quality of life of all people on earth, while maintaining a reasonable expectation that resources would not be depleted through this advancement. Most of the time, this is accomplished through science, but that is not the only means by which a society can progress. Social and economic initiatives can occur that would offer greater equality to disenfranchised and underrepresented groups, no matter how much science had progressed at that point. While science is a major factor in progress within a society, it is social and economic ideals that determine how that knowledge is used and disseminated among the people of a society.
Science has proven to be an excellent indicator of progress in the civilized world, particularly since the Enlightenment. Machine after machine, vaccine after vaccine, each of these things has helped to make our lives just a little bit easier. We can produce more, we can travel more, we can communicate more, all thanks to science and technology. Regardless of whether or not one thinks that science is the be-all end-all of societal progress, one would find it difficult to deny that it plays an important part. New medicines allow us to live longer and cure diseases previously thought uncurable. Science brings us cars, boats, planes, spaceships - new ways to get us to where we want to go. We understand more about how the world works, and that is typically considered progress.
However, if these scientific improvements are not employed in the best way, it is possible that there is no real progress at all. It does not matter if a new medicine can cure a new type of cancer if it is not distributed to the right people - if certain groups are left out because of their economic status or their social standing, this fails to be a progressive society and falls into regression. The greater sense of progress comes in the allotment of rights to everyone equally, and the slow, arduous but ultimately rewarding process leading to that goal. Progress only occurs for a select few, and not for society as a whole, when people are not afforded the rights and privileges due to certain mitigating factors. Only when our steps toward progress are afforded to all of society can we really call it 'progress.'
Machiavelli's ideas of progress and scientific knowledge fall greatly in line with this perspective. He placed a great emphasis on science and empirical knowledge of the world as a means to progress as a society; by exploring the world from these perspectives, we could better find ways to benefit from these discoveries and enhance everyone's quality of life. On the other hand, Machiavelli was also very much a pragmatist; he knew the value of a ruler being both loved and feared, as fear often brings security1. While virtue is inarguably a good thing, it may not necessarily make people happy, since acting virtuously often goes against what we might personally want. Therefore, while we are good, being good does not necessarily fulfill us. However, to my mind, progress doesn't necessarily involve personal fulfillment in a strict sense, but the greatest level of collective happiness, which often comes through self-sacrifice.
Machiavelli's perspectives would fit in very well in 21st century America; many political groups see the need to sow fear and discord in order to push their agendas, but this time, it is fear of the other side that they wish to inspire, not fear of themselves and their power. However, unlike Machiavelli, instead of focusing on empirical knowledge, many are depending on pointless fears and regressive politics to make their points. Distracting political discourse and actively discouraging scientific and educational advancement for the sake of anti-intellectualism is an active betrayal of what should constitute progress. The conservative movement in the 21st century of America, perpetually concerned by the "ivory tower" elite and "uppity" intellectuals, believes that it is simply good enough to know just what one needs to know, and that the status quo must be maintained. This sense of stagnation should come even at the expense of disenfranchised and discriminated groups like gays and women, using religious conservatism to actively inhibit initiatives to bring about social progress and scientific advancement, the abortion, birth control and stem cell research debates being examples of this. According to this mindset, our society has progressed enough, and should not progress any further - this is potentially out of fear that they would no longer be relevant or as powerful if everyone were allowed to live with the same privileges as they do.
In conclusion, progress comes when the greatest number of people are happy and taken care of, both emotionally and practically. This typically comes at the hands of scientific advancement, though social and economic practices also further progress. A society that has progressed is better on the whole than they were before; the socioeconomic conditions are better, which can happen (but does not strictly have to) through scientific discovery. As 21st century America looks more towards science, we are also looking forward at what is possible in the future. Given the current political discourse in the country today, it can be tempting to believe that the nation is pushing toward a more regressive idea of society, pulling away rights and forbidding certain groups access to technology acquired through scientific discovery (e.g. birth control and oral contraceptives for women). A society has to combine these new discoveries with the wisdom to use them well, or not refuse them because of arbitrary and often strictly political reasons.
Works Cited
Paul Feyerabend. The Harper & Row Reader.
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince.
