11/7/2023 0 Comments Roger scruton conservatism![]() There is simply an eternal alliance-although an “alliance of the unjust” who are always ready to violate the terms that bind them-between those who think in terms of dichotomies and labels. There is no such opposition as that between Left and Right, or that between communism and fascism. If there is a basic dichotomy that presently confronts us, it is between us-the inheritors of what remains of Western civilization and Western political thinking-and the purveyors of dichotomies. To the extent that you are not “on the Left,” they implied, then to that extent are you “on the Right” if not a Communist, then so much nearer fascism if not a socialist, then an advocate of “capitalism,” as an economic and political system. ![]() Such were the “terms of debate” that we inherited. Left-Right, Communist-fascist, socialist-capitalist, and so on. It is partly through the successful efforts of the communists-aided, of course, by a world war which they did not a little to precipitate-that our parents thought in terms of elementary dichotomies. As the communists realized from the beginning, to control language is to control thought-not actual thought, but the possibilities of thought. Indeed, it is, in one sense, the whole of politics. This task is part of another, and larger, enterprise: that of the purification of language from the insidious sloganizing which has taken hold of it. The first task of conservatism, therefore, is to create a language in which “conservative” is no longer a term of abuse. Only in a few places in Europe and America can a person call himself a conservative and expect to be taken seriously. The ideas whereby men live and find their local identity-ideas of allegiance, of country or nation, of religion and obligation-all these are, for the socialist, mere ideology, and for the liberal, matters of “private” choice, to be respected by the state only because they cannot truly matter to the state. Its history, like its philosophy, is detached from the concrete circumstance of human agency, and, indeed, in the case of Marxism, goes so far as to deny the efficacy of human agency, preferring to see the world as a confluence of impersonal forces. ![]() Each is abstract, even when it pretends to a view of human history. Each sees the world in “desacralized” terms, in terms which, in truth, correspond to no lasting common human experience, but only to the cold skeletal paradigms that haunt the brains of intellectuals. Each of them proposes a description of our condition, and an ideal solution to it, in terms which are secular, abstract, universal, and egalitarian. But let it be said at the outset, that, from the standpoint of our present predicament, nothing is more obvious about these systems than the fact that they are, in their presuppositions, substantially the same. And because they are systems, it is often supposed that they are organically unified-that you cannot embrace any part of one of them without embracing the whole of it. It is testimony to the persistence of the dichotomizing frame of mind that, even in Eastern Europe, the “world conflict” that endured for seventy years was frequently seen in terms of the opposition between these systems. Post-war intellectuals have inherited two major systems of political thought with which to satisfy their lust for doctrine: liberalism and socialism. It preserves inequalities, it confers privileges, it justifies power. But the concrete law that I have been advocating is very unlike anything that either a socialist or a liberal would approve. In response to liberalism, it is necessary to work for the restoration of the concrete circumstances of justice.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |