Mal Fletcher considers the growing fear in society of all things traditional

Mal Fletcher

Hardly a week goes by in which we don't learn of some new psychological condition.

Consult almost any Sunday newspaper and you'll read about some previously unrecognised malady of the mind which needs attention or cure.

The American Psychiatristric Association publishes a regularly updated manual which is used worldwide as a key guide for diagnosing disorders. More than a few of the most recent additions can be attributed to our reliance upon new technologies.

Alongside recognised disorders we seem to be developing a growing list of unofficial pseudo-conditions. In the spirit of this often maddening yet ubiquitous trend, I venture to suggest the introduction into mainstream thought of a malady called historophobia.

The term already has a somewhat limited meaning and recognition within tight academic circles, but I'd like to broaden its application to mean the fear of all things traditional.

How often do we hear in public debates words like these: "His/her views belong to the 1950s. They have no place in today's world"?

There is usually little reason to object when this type of argument is used in discussions about political or administrative procedures. Late last year, for example, Deputy PM Nick Clegg defended his plans for flexible parental leave, saying that current rules "may have made sense in the 1950s but do not today".

More and more, however, this line of argument - if it warrants that label - is being applied to debates about social morality. Here it deserves to be more carefully scrutinised.

Whenever lobbyists and others opt for this approach, they are calling upon an assumption within postmodern society which is so common that it is often accepted as self-evident truth.

The supposition is that almost all moral notions held before a relatively recent point in history must be taken with a huge grain of salt. More than likely, their longevity means that they shouldn't be take seriously.

To this way of thinking, "traditional" has become, at least in terms of social policy, another word for anachronistic.

Yet in terms of moral questions, traditional views need not be either irrelevant or outdated - or for that matter unkind, judgemental or uncaring.

Indeed, in an age in which change sometimes seems ready to overwhelm us, it can be argued that we need to refer more, not less, to proven moral systems. We need to reference things that don't change if we're to negotiate and add value to the tsunami of change that's going on around us.

There are a multitude of examples available which illustrate this point. Throughout much of the world, experts continue to search for answers to the current malaise that is stifling many market-driven economies.