Reviews for The moderniser's dilemma

The average rating for The moderniser's dilemma based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-11-16 00:00:00 Oliver Ortiz An extraordinary read (I read the second edition, originally published in 1984): most of Scruton's discussion here is pre-Thatcher/Regan, and his understanding of conservatism is rather shocking. There's little here about the importance of ridding ourselves of government, and living as free individuals; there's much more about the cultivation of traditions and communities (i.e., the very things that contemporary conservatives do their best to productively disrupt). Scruton's 'dogmatic' (his word) statement of these conservative values and beliefs is clear, honest and should be appealing to anyone who has even a shred of basic humanity left in them after the neoliberal decades. But it's also fascinating to read this as a document of its time. For Scruton, conservatism is allegiance to the existence of a tradition in the present as a form of authority. This only makes sense if the tradition is actually effective in the present: an invented tradition, or a 'rediscovered' tradition, cannot be the basis for a conservative allegiance (so white power, for instance, is not conservative). And here is where the problem starts for a conservative like Scruton. What do you do, as a conservative, if the effective tradition of the present just is, as I think it is, a kind of wishy-washy classical liberalism? His solution is to insist that 'liberalism' is an "elite creed". It's almost possible that this was true in the late seventies, when he first wrote the book (though, of course, election results would tell a different story: the Tories returned to power as liberals, as did the Republicans). But today? Today, the effective tradition in the anglo-saxon world, as well as many other parts of the world, just is the liberalism of pleasure seeking individuals. So now the conservative seems to have no leg to stand on. Liberalism (individualism, moral relativism, anti-government, light-libertarianism) just *is* his society, and largely thanks to the parties he has supported over the last thirty years. Where to from there? How can you be a conservative in a radically individualistic, self-seeking, capitalist world? To paraphrase G. A. Cohen, sometimes you need a revolution to conserve that which is worth saving. True conservatives will have no truck with this, believing as they do that any 'utopian' desire for a better world is inherently dangerous. They might be right. But either way, if you are a conservative in both senses (you want to conserve the traditions of the human species--let's call them 'civilization'--and you believe radical political and social change is unwelcome), you essentially have no choice but to retire to a fortress somewhere out of the way, cultivate your goats, and collect books, in the hope that in a few generations people will come to their senses and start valuing that which is truly worth saving. And I'm far more comfortable with those people than I am with those who try to have it both ways. You can't be a conservative, and a capitalist: the world doesn't work that way. Capitalism (i.e., the widespread practice of preferring the profitability to other values) is revolutionary. It doesn't disrupt the outdated in favor of the efficient; it destroys the past. Scruton knows this very well, and argues for strong control of capital and labor flows. Anyway, Scruton's book is almost uniformly excellent, though he does let a few of the Good Olde Englishe bigotries slip in. Why, I wonder, can't a society of more than one race function perfectly well? No answer forthcoming. What possible harm does it do to anyone if a man somewhere rubs his genitals on the genitals of another man? No answer. And like all conservative political theorists, he slips between 'state' and 'society' far too easily when he wants to (i.e., society is a good tradition, state is an unwarranted interference in society), while distinguishing between them rigorously when that suits his claim better (i.e., the state must be supported in war because of patriotism, society should not be involved in this). Sooner or later someone will write a book that combines the best of conservatism (community, security, dignity for individuals, respect for tradition) with the best of socialism (economic security, equality for disadvantaged groups, awareness of historical injustices and their continuing effects). And when that happens, the real conservatives and the real socialists can come together to fight off the horrors of the liberal regime we currently live under. Of course, those five people won't be able to get much done, but what they write will be substantially better than the garbage churned out under the Washington Consensus and its offspring.

Review # 2 was written on 2016-03-04 00:00:00 Amber Shattuck This itself is a classic. It was published in 2000 - yet remains relevant to this day, and more likely than not, for many years to come. Here, Scruton outlines a conservatism seemingly shrouded in mystery and gathering dust, as it were. A forgotten ideology misappropriated by other ideologues. This kind of conservatism doesn't place emphasis on money, the individual, on greed - that isn't conservatism. It places emphasis on tradition, allegiance, loyalty, law and order, society, family, faith. This is what is important to a great society. The fact this has been forgotten by many Conservatives, bar perhaps the Cornerstone Group, has left our society in mortal decline. Conservatism isn't neo-liberalism. It isn't about destroying the state and getting out of the way like a young William Hague once said. It places such emphasis on the state, as Scruton outlines, to assert its legitimate authority and power. When you leave the sphere, you leave a vacuum to be filled by decadence. That is what has occurred and where Thatcher went wrong. And clearly, as Scruton brilliantly outlines, the state shouldn't make education subordinate to its aims for society, but rather to society itself. Ultimately private schools are preferable because of their focus on a classical education rather than 'Women's Studies' or 'Football Studies', and more likely than not, are not a secular hell hole of 'play nice and no winning'. Ultimately, liberalism is incompatible with conservatism. Let's not pretend otherwise. So we shall sail down the road of destruction with no end in sight. But hell, I will fight on. For as Scruton outlines, you shouldn't just abandon the wreck because the going gets tough. Just look at Poland for an example of a resurgent nation. We should have confidence in our ability as a nation again, not shun it. Let us say the things that ought to be said, and those that hear it with a sound mind shall follow. The rest will be sheep - that is man, but never mind. No Surrender.