Chesterton's Fence as a core concept in psychology

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

G. K. Chesterton, The Drift From Domesticity

Chesterton’s Fence is a useful concept when considering quite literal institutional reforms of various kinds. It is even more useful when considering how individual people work, and can be used as a model to explain a significant portion of human psychology.

Developing good theory of mind is difficult; we cannot ever inhabit the minds of others, so we are only ever guessing at what their internal experience might be like. With that being said, Chesterton’s Fence can add a lot to our models, despite being a simple idea. People make the best decisions they can based on the information they have available to them¹, but are often trading off things that are totally illegible to outsiders against things that are wholly salient to them. This is exacerbated by the fact that the decision-maker often faces additional social pressure to conceal the illegible.

Let’s take a common, albeit clichéd, example, and imagine that a friend is considering getting back with their ex. Maybe their ex wasn’t bad per se, but they already gave it a pretty serious try, and the friend was inconsolable for weeks after they broke up. It seems overwhelmingly likely that they won’t be able to make it work any better the second time around, and I don’t want to see the friend get hurt that badly again because I care about them. It’s tempting here to take the friend aside and, in a serious voice, tell them that I think giving this relationship another shot is a Bad Idea. Chesterton’s Fence suggests that perhaps we ought to look a little closer here, though.

Why does our friend want to get back with their ex? Assuming we think they are a generally sensible person, perhaps they have more legitimate reasons than their ex having put some kind of hex on them. On some level, they probably know that getting back together is unlikely to succeed, but they are willing to entertain the idea anyway. Perhaps they have a sense of purpose when their ex is around, in a way that they have never felt otherwise. Perhaps their ex specifically alleviates some insecurity that has gnawed away at them since before they can remember. Perhaps they have been able to be vulnerable with their ex about some deep shame that they are wholly incapable of expressing to us, and of which we are completely unaware. Perhaps they are deeply fearful of being alone, in a way that is too shameful for them to admit to us, and the risk of having another bad breakup might be a price worth paying to gain a reprieve from this fear.

Joe Hudson’s VIEW (Vulnerability, Impartiality, Empathy, Wonder) model is useful when considering how to talk to our friend. Vulnerability suggests that we should express our concern — they were hurt last time, and the reason we are having this conversation is because we’re worried that they might get hurt again. Impartiality suggests we do what we can to suspend judgment, and to respect that it is our friend’s decision to make, and if we try to influence them then we risk overstepping boundaries. Empathy suggests that we should be curious, and try to understand more about what they might be feeling — does their ex have some je ne sais quoi that makes them feel something they’ve never felt before? Does their fear of being alone dog them night and day? Do they feel in a malaise more generally and in dire need of a change? Finally, wonder suggests that we ought to hold at the centre of our conversation how valuable this friendship is, and how magical an experience it is for us to have this trust and connection with our friend. We should constantly remind ourselves of the love that we share for one another.

People’s psychic defences are often invisible, but there for a good reason. The concept of Chesterton’s Fence applied to psychology is essentially what Adlerian teleology is all about; our internal policies are designed to minimise the likelihood of certain bad outcomes in our future. If we want to alter our psychology and change those policies, we need to understand the reason they were put there in the first place.

I must confess, this is all deeply personal to me. It has happened to me many times that someone in my life has told me, often in quite strong terms, that I am being avoidant or reckless or selfish in some other way, and that I ought to change. Almost every time, I am bound up in shame and fear that I feel unable to share with them, and it becomes clear in their counsel to me that they do not understand some fundamental part of my experience. Of course, I would love to change, to make the choice that seems obviously better on the outside. But it’s not that simple.

Imagine a hermit crab with an oversized shell, lumbering slowly across the sea floor. Perhaps one of its friends would say to it: “your shell is far too big! You should abandon it!” But, surely the crab would reply: “this is the only shell I have; my only defence against the outside world. No matter what you say, I cannot abandon it!”

When you are considering telling your friends that their shell is too big, find out what it’s protecting them from, and see if you can offer them one that fits them better.