The English were well known for their disposition to provide help in emergencies. This disposition went to the heart of their conception of society, as a duty-bound relation between strangers. Their charitable behaviour was a way of emphasizing that strangers are just as important as friends — because all of us, in the end, are nobodies. By devoting yourself to the distressed stranger you make it clear that you too are a stranger in this world. You reaffirm the distance between yourself and others, by showing that the motive that binds you to society is one of impartial justice and objective duty. The charitable relief of strangers was simply another aspect of English reserve.
That is from Roger Scruton’s over the top but nonetheless fascinating England: An Elegy; he portrays the English as a people who have substituted morale and teamwork for intimacy. If you are looking to understand why so many parts of the world find it difficult to adopt either capitalism or free political institutions, this is one of the very best places to start. The English recipe is by no means the only way to go, but from Scruton one gets a good sense of just how much cultural background is needed to sustain liberty.
just how much cultural background is needed to sustain liberty
Hence Tyler’s support for open borders?
I haven’t read the book so perhaps I am completely off base, but Scruton’s opinion that English society is “a duty bound relation between strangers” doesn’t seem right.
The English Common Law was/is notoriously limited in implying duties. If you see a baby face down in a puddle of water, you have no duty to rescue. Although someone may rightly point out that I am using a more restrictive (legal) definition of duty than Scruton, I think these legal doctrines imply a contrary cultural background to the one posited by Scruton.
I think Common Law duty doctrines imply a harsher individualism, and self-reliance that is necessary for Capitalism, but repugnant to more communal or authoritarian cultures.
I should probably just read the book.
A similar sense of duty–to truth, to the search for knowledge, and to helping strangers–helps drive people to converse, blog, post comments, create wikis, and the like over the internet.
I’ve debated with others (ok, my wife) who says that such conversations are not as meaningful as face to face interactions with “real” friends and acquaintances. Now, I can say, it’s the British way, don’t you know.
“Would it be unkind to guess that’s there something very American about reading a passage about another nation’s customs and immediately start to confuse them with its law?”
I am not an anthropologist and have only limited experience, however if I merited a guess I would agree that it certainly an American cultural trait to compare a nation’s customs and their law, as the U.S. Constitution seems to be held in a high esteem to the American people when defining American culture. Though I would also argue that “American culture” is a vague notion at best and can hardly hold over the sheer diversity of the states. It hardly makes sense at all to say there’s something “very American” unless you are talking about the one thing all Americans share in common, the U.S. Constitution.
“out of this arises, similar to England, a respect and love for the stranger.”
and the sheer joy of judging them by our own standards, let’s not forget.
That final reference should be to 20% of the French population.
Has even the arid Professor Cowen seen a small glimpse of reality? With luck or grace, this glimpse, now no larger in his mind’s eye than a man’s hand, might grow into a full vision of truth that rains down understanding and washes away the dust and grime of dreamy “free trade† and open borders orthodoxy.
I believe the preacher is trying to say that since freedom grew out of English culture, if we import enough people that do not share that culture our freedom will be threatened.
Before according Scruton any great authority as an English analyst of Englishness, it might be wise to check his other writing in political theory for credibility. for instance, his “the meaning of conservatism.”
I fear the results may be disappointing. Even in Conservative circles, Scruton has little standing: his view of Englishness is idealised (and un-scottish), to the extent that close association with his think-tank would undermine Conservative credibility rather than serve the party’s interests. Outside the Conservatives, he is thought to be the leading theorist for the fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden party.
Read him for yourself, and see if you think this is a man in touch with the roots of English culture
Comments on this entry are closed.