Contemporary Radicalization as a Denial of “Order and Progress”

On November 9, 2026, the newspaper Monitor Mercantil published our article entitled “Contemporary Radicalization as a Denial of ‘Order and Progress.’”

The original article can be read here.

We reproduce the text below.

*    *    *

Contemporary Radicalization as a Denial of “Order and Progress”

 

In our time of profound social and political radicalization, and in light of the inspiring motto on our national flag, a question naturally arises: does “Order and Progress” have anything to say or offer as a guiding principle? If so, what?

A few preliminary considerations are necessary. The first concerns our use of the term “radicalization” rather than “polarization.” For the purposes of this article, let us consider polarization to be the division of sociopolitical groups into opposing poles according to some criterion, while radicalization consists of an ever-increasing distance between those two poles. Politics is generally polarized, if only because groups compete and struggle over positions, resources, and influence. Radicalization, however, drives the poles progressively farther apart, weakening the ties that connect them and making communication, coexistence, and mutual recognition increasingly difficult. Brazil (and the West) has been experiencing profound radicalization, rather than merely polarization, since around 2015.

This radicalization does not necessarily occur simultaneously at both poles of contemporary politics—the “right” and the “left.” The current radicalization is taking place on the right, which is becoming increasingly extremist and deliberately seeks to weaken, if not sever, its ties with the left. Through this extremism and intentional rupture of social and political ties, the far right presents itself as intolerant, violent, and aggressive, while showing a particular eagerness to create and consume political myths (the so-called fake news). The Brazilian right has experienced other periods of extremism, as part of a broad cycle that began in the 1930s and continued until the late 1970s. Not coincidentally, this was a right that eagerly aligned itself with fascism, remained closely associated with militarism, and almost always relied on the Catholic Church. Between the end of the military regime and 2015, however, the Brazilian right appeared ashamed of its fascist, authoritarian, and coup-oriented past, preferring a centrist and liberal profile as it pursued public office and access to public resources.

The left, by contrast, has had its own extended periods of extremism. Far-left groups still exist, but despite their activity, they have very little social influence. In general, since 2002—and, in fact, since 1994—the Brazilian left has increasingly moved toward the center.

Third, human beings are social beings: they live and develop only within society, and it is within society that they find happiness and fulfillment. There are no isolated “individuals”; there are human beings who develop and act within societies, drawing on the past and present efforts of all other human beings in the service of a collective future. The search for a sense of “belonging” is one of the most powerful human motivations. Conversely, the search for meaning in life always includes elements of dedication to others. This is altruism: dedication to others, which guides and regulates individual selfishness (rather than denying it, as individualism advocates). The social dimension of human existence is multifaceted: it encompasses our origins and our destiny, the possibility of existence and the realization of meaning, individual happiness, and orientation toward others.

Let us now turn to “Order and Progress.” It is not a sequence of the kind “B after A, and B only if A.” The motto does not mean that progress can occur only after order has been (fully) secured. If that were the intended meaning, the motto would read “Order, THEN Progress”—or, in the view of the most cynical, whether on the right or the left, “Order and, PERHAPS, Progress.” Nor is it an alternative: it does not say “Order OR Progress.” Both elements are necessary and must be pursued simultaneously. That is precisely why the word “AND” is there.

“Order” and “Progress” must be understood in historical and sociological terms. “Order” refers to the social institutions that sustain society over time, particularly its political and economic institutions. “Progress” refers to the drive toward human improvement (material, physical, institutional, intellectual, and, above all, moral). Yet order is neither static nor motionless; it is always dynamic. Conversely, progress is possible only if there is something that can progress. Accordingly, the founder of sociology, Auguste Comte, defined order and progress in relation to one another: order is the consolidation of progress, and progress is the development of order.

Thus, order and progress stand apart from both conservatism and revolution—understood, of course, in the common and oversimplified senses of these terms. In everyday usage, conservatism is static or even regressive. Today's conservative movements insist on rejecting progress—any kind of progress—and argue that society should remain unchanged or, preferably, return to an earlier era, one reconstructed through idealization and myth. Revolution, in everyday usage, is understood either as the systematic destruction of “what is already there” or as change that is simultaneously impossibly profound and immediate, resulting in violence, illegitimacy, and social fragility. Conservatism and revolutionism deny society and history: conservatism rejects the future and progress (but also the present), while revolutionism rejects the past and order (but also the present). Both proclaim “Order OR Progress,” yet neither delivers order nor progress.

For at least 250 years, the history of the West has oscillated between a backward-looking, conservative order and a revolutionary, destructive conception of progress. This oscillation takes the ambiguous form of a struggle between the “right” and the “left,” each of which regards the other as its opposite and seeks to negate it. Rather than remaining at the level of polarization, both sides repeatedly move toward radicalization and mutual negation, although there have also been periods of reduced conflict and even accommodation. To consider only the twentieth century: Nazism and fascism between 1922 and 1945; the Soviet system between 1917 and 1991; World War II (1939–1945); the Cold War (1947–1991); the ultraliberalism of the 1990s; and, since around 2015, the current wave of radicalization. The underlying content has remained more or less the same over time, despite certain “innovations,” such as traditionalism on the side of order (in Nazism and fascism, and once again since the 2010s) and identitarianism on the side of progress, since the 1990s.

These opposing conceptions accumulate serious misconceptions, and their confrontation produces deeply damaging consequences. Each perspective is inherently limited, which is already a problem in itself; beyond that, each also entails the rejection of fundamental human dimensions associated with its opposite. Thus, regressive conservatism and destructive revolutionism are incapable of achieving what they supposedly defend and, at the same time, for that very reason, incapable of meeting the opposing needs they despise and fight against.

All partial philosophies, religions, and ideologies are insufficient and incapable of solving these problems precisely because they are partial. Celebrations of struggle, whether on the right (“virility”) or the left (“agonism”), are different ways of perpetuating and deepening these problems. All these perspectives, with their supposedly partial solutions, firmly embrace “Order OR Progress,” if not “Order AGAINST Progress.”

There is no effective solution within these terms. Despite the irrationalist pretensions of postmodern thought, this problem must be addressed. The solution lies in rejecting both static, regressive order and destructive progress (whose outcome, incidentally, is authoritarianism, with neither order nor progress). It lies in recognizing that order is dynamic and that progress consists of improvement. That is what “Order and Progress” means.

 

Gustavo Biscaia de Lacerda is a sociologist at the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR) and holds a PhD in Political Sociology.