The relationship and the paradox in modern conservatism: theoretical contributions of Kirk and Scruton

Abstract

This article examines the persistent uncertainties surrounding the debate on the genesis of the contemporary sociopolitical conjuncture, proposing that understanding conservatism requires a paradoxical-relational approach. It begins from the premise that conservatism, as a political and cultural phenomenon, cannot be grasped through rigidly defined categories or fixed conceptual frameworks. Confronting the theoretical ambiguities that permeate this field of thought is driven by the articulation of multiple sociocultural, historical, and discursive processes which, through their complex interactions, reveal the constitutive fluidity of the very object of analysis. In this sense, conservatism is approached not as a cohesive and univocal system of ideas, but as a heterogeneous field of forces marked by internal contradictions, displacements, and tensions. The central hypothesis supports the impossibility of a monolithic conceptual definition, which implies recognizing that the subject who identifies as conservative is constantly interpellated by the very elements that both structure and destabilize their identity. To investigate this issue, a single case study methodology was adopted, focusing on the contributions of Russell Kirk (2014; 2021) and Roger Scruton (2014; 2019), key figures in the formulation of contemporary conservative thought. It is argued that, within the logic of conservatism, the subject is not merely a hostage to the conceptual contradictions that traverse them, as their self-image and discursive practices do not necessarily correspond to the full representational totality of their ideological positioning. On the contrary, understanding conservatism requires recognizing its performative and relational nature, situated within a field of symbolic and political disputes that resists any attempt at definitive conceptual fixation.

Keywords: conservatism; paradoxical-relational; emergence; conceptual tensions.