The Right Side of History

I sometimes hear people say that they want to be “on the right side of history” and that they believe their social causes will be, because they are true and just.

What does this idea mean, though? How do we define what is the “right” side? Is it just whatever comes to dominate the culture (e.g., what is legal and what most people do and believe)? Here are some problems with that idea.

1. At what point in history do we measure the “right side”? Customs and beliefs change over time. For instance, slavery was largely absent in western culture until the enlightenment, and then purged again in the mid 1800s. What was the “right side” in each century? Are we merely to measure all history by our present sensibilities? At which point is history right, or is it always right whatever happens at any given time?

2. What do we do with those cultures which have not historically gone the same path as ours have? For instance, there are still places that practice slavery. There are countries that have very different ideas about women’s rights and marriage. And there are countries that have implemented extremely repressive political regimes. By what measure do we judge those cultures whose histories have taken a different trajectory? Are we just talking about being on the right side of local history or some universal historical vision?

3. This seems to suggest that morality is nothing but the result of cultural consensus and/or political control, whatever that happens to be. So, if the Third Reich had prevailed, then “the right side of history” would look very different. It is interesting that it is also often said that “history is written by the victors,” as if to say that where we have arrived is not always good and according to truth.

4. Why must anyone conform their beliefs and values to that of mainstream culture? What higher moral law demands such conformity to whatever history delivers? Saying that we “should be” on the right side of history is an objective moral claim. Why is it bad to be the underdog? Why is diversity of opinion wrong here?

5. If the “right side of history” is nothing more than where history happens to take us. Then saying you want to be on that side is equivalent to saying that we should root for whatever team appears to be winning the game. Is this actually a moral claim or just advice to try to seek out and join the winning team?

In order to say that history (here or somewhere else) has gone (or is going) the “right” way, there must be an objective standard of morality to which we can appeal. There must be a standard that sits above history and humanity by which we can measure and calibrate our progress. This implies that history can actually go in the wrong way sometimes, and that people who are on the wrong side of that path can actually be in the right.