What do you think?
Rate this book
The Meaning of Conservatism
First published in 1980, The Meaning of Conservatism is now recognized as a major contribution to political thought, and the liveliest and most provocative modern statement of the traditional "paleo-conservative" position. Roger Scruton challenges those who would regard themselves as conservatives, and also their opponents. Conservatism, he argues, has little in common with liberalism, and is only tenuously related to the market economy, to monetarism, to free enterprise, or to capitalism. It involves neither hostility toward the state, not the desire to limit the state's obligation toward the citizen. Its conceptions of society, law, and citizenship regard the individual not as the premise but as the conclusion of politics. At the same time it is fundamentally opposed to the ethic of social justice, to equality of station, opportunity, income, and achievement, and to the attempt to bring major institutions of society - such as schools and universities - under government control.
Its root conceptions are those of loyalty, allegiance, community, and tradition. The conservative vision of society is one in which autonomous institutions and private initiative predominate, and in which the law protects the shared values that bind the community together, rather than the rights of those who would blow the community apart.
Its root conceptions are those of loyalty, allegiance, community, and tradition. The conservative vision of society is one in which autonomous institutions and private initiative predominate, and in which the law protects the shared values that bind the community together, rather than the rights of those who would blow the community apart.
220 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1980
61 people are currently reading
1268 people want to read
About the author
Roger Scruton
140 books1,352 followersSir Roger Scruton was a writer and philosopher who has published more than forty books in philosophy, aesthetics and politics. He was a fellow of the British Academy and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. He taught in both England and America and was a Visiting Professor at Department of Philosophy and Fellow of Blackfriars Hall, Oxford, he was also a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington D.C.
In 2015 he published two books, The Disappeared and later in the autumn, Fools Frauds and Firebrands. Fools Frauds and Firebrands is an update of Thinkers of the New Left published, to widespread outrage, in 1986. It includes new chapters covering Lacan, Deleuze and Badiou and some timely thoughts about the historians and social thinkers who led British intellectuals up the garden path during the last decades, including Eric Hobsbawm and Ralph Miliband.
In 2016 he again published two books, Confessions of A Heretic (a collection of essays) and The Ring of Truth, about Wagner’s Ring cycle, which was widely and favourably reviewed. In 2017 he published On Human Nature (Princeton University Press), which was again widely reviewed, and contains a distillation of his philosophy. He also published a response to Brexit, Where We Are (Bloomsbury).
In 2015 he published two books, The Disappeared and later in the autumn, Fools Frauds and Firebrands. Fools Frauds and Firebrands is an update of Thinkers of the New Left published, to widespread outrage, in 1986. It includes new chapters covering Lacan, Deleuze and Badiou and some timely thoughts about the historians and social thinkers who led British intellectuals up the garden path during the last decades, including Eric Hobsbawm and Ralph Miliband.
In 2016 he again published two books, Confessions of A Heretic (a collection of essays) and The Ring of Truth, about Wagner’s Ring cycle, which was widely and favourably reviewed. In 2017 he published On Human Nature (Princeton University Press), which was again widely reviewed, and contains a distillation of his philosophy. He also published a response to Brexit, Where We Are (Bloomsbury).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
August 5, 2014
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.
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.
March 4, 2016
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.
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.
January 17, 2020
"He said he advocated “a subdued sense of the importance of history and tradition, of doing things in an orderly way,” rather than Thatcher’s paramount emphasis on free-market economics."
- this, from the Washington Post obituary of Roger Scruton, my former Aesthetics teacher, is obvious to those who have read The Meaning of Conservatism, but of the many obituaries of him that I have read this is the first to mention this essential difference. By Scruton's meaning of the term, it isn't clear that Thatcher was a Conservative at all.
At his best - Art and Imagination, Sexual Desire - Roger Scruton was able to use the fashionable tools of analytical philosophy to support very unfashionable views. I suppose to his political opponents this made him dangerous, to his philosophical opponents it made him irrelevant. I think it was the creeping sense of his own irrelevance, rather than the persecution of a Marxist establishment that caused him to leave full time academia in the UK. It should be noted that Birkbeck had made him a full professor of Aesthetics even though it was a tiny department that didn't focus on Aesthetics. This was presumably to try to hang on to him. Having enjoyed the breadth of his knowledge and his gentle demeanour as a lecturer, and the clarity and rigour of his arguments as a writer of philosophy, I think his departure was a loss.
His later non-philosophical writing I found disappointing to the point of embarassment. The autographical stuff in On Foxhunting and England, an Elergy reveals how much he had been caught up in the English snobbery system. Something I was able to escape from myself to a new life in Hungary. The lowpoint was when he admitted, as a grammar schoolboy, to feeling envious of public schoolboys. I was a public schoolboy and I still think the difference is that grammar schools select on the basis of ability, the public schools on the basis of parental income. The current Conservative leadership is a product of the Public School/Oxford system which has been blamed for the lack of clarity and rigour that dominated the recent debate over Brexit. I think it sad that such an accomplished intellect should become enthralled to all that, but that I suppose is the way of the 'public intellectual'.
- this, from the Washington Post obituary of Roger Scruton, my former Aesthetics teacher, is obvious to those who have read The Meaning of Conservatism, but of the many obituaries of him that I have read this is the first to mention this essential difference. By Scruton's meaning of the term, it isn't clear that Thatcher was a Conservative at all.
At his best - Art and Imagination, Sexual Desire - Roger Scruton was able to use the fashionable tools of analytical philosophy to support very unfashionable views. I suppose to his political opponents this made him dangerous, to his philosophical opponents it made him irrelevant. I think it was the creeping sense of his own irrelevance, rather than the persecution of a Marxist establishment that caused him to leave full time academia in the UK. It should be noted that Birkbeck had made him a full professor of Aesthetics even though it was a tiny department that didn't focus on Aesthetics. This was presumably to try to hang on to him. Having enjoyed the breadth of his knowledge and his gentle demeanour as a lecturer, and the clarity and rigour of his arguments as a writer of philosophy, I think his departure was a loss.
His later non-philosophical writing I found disappointing to the point of embarassment. The autographical stuff in On Foxhunting and England, an Elergy reveals how much he had been caught up in the English snobbery system. Something I was able to escape from myself to a new life in Hungary. The lowpoint was when he admitted, as a grammar schoolboy, to feeling envious of public schoolboys. I was a public schoolboy and I still think the difference is that grammar schools select on the basis of ability, the public schools on the basis of parental income. The current Conservative leadership is a product of the Public School/Oxford system which has been blamed for the lack of clarity and rigour that dominated the recent debate over Brexit. I think it sad that such an accomplished intellect should become enthralled to all that, but that I suppose is the way of the 'public intellectual'.
April 24, 2016
A very densely-packed exposition of what conservatism consists of. Although updated since its original publication in 1980 it's still dated as Scruton inveighs against Tony Blair. As well, for the most part, Scruton focuses on his native England and its brand of conservatism although with frequent nods to American conservatism. This makes it a little less pertinent to, say, an Australian or a Canadian. I for one don't have the great fondness or nostalgia for the glories of British monarchy that Scruton possesses. To my populist, egalitarian mind I find some of his ideas still a bit too steeped in an arbitrary privilege that makes more sense when you are among the haves as opposed to the have-nots. I don't agree with him on hereditary inheritance in terms of public life. Private inheritance makes sense and allows family to maintain their private property but this is different, to me, than hereditary titles. Again, "The Meaning of Conservatism" is tightly-packed but because it is so compact many of its arguments and positions appear in their brevity. It warrants a re-reading for sure.
November 9, 2021
As the title suggests, this book attempts to give the reader a broad understanding of the conservative perspective, and correct many of the common misunderstandings caused by the popular modern image of conservative leaders as immoral cartoonish villains. As an academic philosopher, Scruton takes a clearly philosophical rather than political approach, and some of his text comes across as rather esoteric and hard to follow without a solid background in philosophy. First published in the 1980s, the political landscape has changed a lot. However, the main tenets of his explanation still apply, and he offers an intelligent, complex and occasionally surprising argument in favour of the conservative point of view.
While I don’t consider myself a conservative, I do agree with some right-leaning political views; yet I see great value in quite a lot of the left side as well. As a rule, I don’t vote for major political parties, because I can’t “join the team” and go along with the nonsense that always seems to accompany policy in either direction. I read this book to better understand the conservative, who is much maligned and misrepresented in popular culture. Now I need to find a similar volume that outlines the small-l “liberal” perspective.
While I don’t consider myself a conservative, I do agree with some right-leaning political views; yet I see great value in quite a lot of the left side as well. As a rule, I don’t vote for major political parties, because I can’t “join the team” and go along with the nonsense that always seems to accompany policy in either direction. I read this book to better understand the conservative, who is much maligned and misrepresented in popular culture. Now I need to find a similar volume that outlines the small-l “liberal” perspective.
August 23, 2024
Scruton’s conservatism is characteristically English, so he has a much higher view of the state than a traditional American conservative. However, his reflections on civil society, inheritance, and rule of law are poignant and truly Burkean in nature.
August 20, 2015
A joy of Scruton's work is its beautiful prose and clarity, but my head has been left spinning (slightly) from a book so densely packed with complicated ideas on some of the most difficult of questions. It is certainly not a book to be embarked upon lightly and I admit that I found it a struggle at times. But, this effort of mind is not a bad thing and I feel the effort has been rewarded by a deepening my political understanding. An understanding I am sure will continue to be deepened by reflecting on the ideas met in this book.
It is particularly refreshing to read the perspective of a conservative writing from a philosophical perspective and concerned with a purer, older conservatism much maligned and obfuscated by the wayward 'big c' Conservative parties and their obsession with neo-liberal economics. Scruton is not only intelligent, but a truly rare thinker and should be valued as such. His books are always a pleasure and I would recommend this book to those seriously looking to better understand politics and develop their political views.
It is particularly refreshing to read the perspective of a conservative writing from a philosophical perspective and concerned with a purer, older conservatism much maligned and obfuscated by the wayward 'big c' Conservative parties and their obsession with neo-liberal economics. Scruton is not only intelligent, but a truly rare thinker and should be valued as such. His books are always a pleasure and I would recommend this book to those seriously looking to better understand politics and develop their political views.
November 8, 2023
*sigh* I am so disappointed by this book. I mean, the premise is given very strongly in the beginning. He is going to show us the foundations of conservatism. Not a philosophical argument for it, but a demonstration of how conservatives, despite their varied positions, generally formulate their values. Since this is not a point of view I have, I thought that this promise is very interesting. Boy, reading this book has really been a roller coaster for me.
The first 50-80 pages is amazing. Excellent. I really applaud Scruton. He really shows me something I've not read before. This is an aesthetics statement about conservativism, not only in opposition of, but also in a positive light. Liberals tend to see conservativism about hatred, which is somewhat true (Liberalism can also have hatred) but to understand a point of view is to grok why one would want to be in those shoes. Scruton really does this well. He explains that conservatism at its best is about love, the preservation of something as a transcendental continuity. It was good for me in my childhood so that experience should be preserved for my children and my children's children, etc. There is a transcendental quality to the belonging for these conservative practitioners, as with various institutions like marriage, the military, a religion, a nation, a peoples, or any tradition. There's conservatives even in philosophy, engineering, music and the sciences!
So that's really wonderful. Then towards the end I think Scruton got very sloppy. He could have built a foundation but instead he spent time ranting against liberalism (especially in his education section). He sometimes would break out like that in the previous section but, hey, it's his book, so whatever. But to have 10+ pages of solid judgement...
Let me put it this way. If you want judgement about something then that is fine; that means you don't really want to think about it. You just want an easy heuristic to go about understanding what has value. That's kind of boring. That's not worth reading about. What's worth reading about is what Scruton promised. He promised to give us the way to understand what has value (as a conservative would see it). There are many ways to see what has value. For instance, you can use the rarity of something, or its cultural value, or its commercial value, or its historic or biographical connections... there's many ways. The conservative way is often practiced but rarely is it given in explicit philosophical terms. By exposing the explicit value-formation, so Scruton hoped to get more intellectuals onto the conservative side... Scruton rightly understands that intellectuals tend to be liberal because liberalisms offer so many philosophical frameworks/instrumentation/methodologies. In that sense, Scruton is hoping to find a philosophy... he just wishes NOT to give a philosophical justification of conservativism. Edmund Burke and others have done so already. No, Scruton's contribution promises to be a kind of recruiting/cheering, so that we non-believers can bask in some of the promise of a conservative worldview...
☝*this promise* is what I want.
To my disappointment at the end of the text he gets very sloppy. Judgements only give you the conclusion of having certain values. Judgements don't let you form your own conclusions. As Scruton set out to develop a form of understanding meaning construction, at the end of this text he shows us that he as a book he has failed... although as he set out to do, the first section does exactly what he set out to do (and is marvelous).
His failure as an author stems from his destruction of the integrity of his book. His section on education is horrible. He sets out to impose this standard that education that is good for nothing can give us everything (he claims this is the conservative view of education -- why we should study the classics) but in his ranting against liberals, he shows the opposite. His claim is that liberal education is worthless (about nothing, given with hyperbole that is meant to be taken literally -- invoking the strawman fallacy) yet liberals get such cozy positions of economic benefit from having such an ideology, as they fill out universities and government. In his defense, his everything was to understand the network of friends, and the meaning of life and so on... really, a repetition of the likes of Mathew Arnold and friends... a more direction assessment of these conservative thinkers of education you can turn to William Spanos's End of Education: Towards a Posthumanism... but anyway, this just goes to show. Perhaps Spanos was under pressure to come up with a certain page count. Or perhaps he was running out of things to say. He's so self-aware of liberal and conservative values it seems unlikely he would fail to notice that he was ranting self-contradictory nonsense. But there it is .
I do rather like the book. So I give it four stars, because in the first part Scruton really does a great job of doing what he set out to do. If that was all, then he would be five stars. The rest of it was too much, as Nietzsche later said of Birth of Tragedy, he should have stopped writing at his first impulse... although I don't know if Scruton had any impulse one way or another.
Anyhow, definitely worth checking out, that is why it is impressive -- not because the book itself is remarkable, only just some of its contents.
The first 50-80 pages is amazing. Excellent. I really applaud Scruton. He really shows me something I've not read before. This is an aesthetics statement about conservativism, not only in opposition of, but also in a positive light. Liberals tend to see conservativism about hatred, which is somewhat true (Liberalism can also have hatred) but to understand a point of view is to grok why one would want to be in those shoes. Scruton really does this well. He explains that conservatism at its best is about love, the preservation of something as a transcendental continuity. It was good for me in my childhood so that experience should be preserved for my children and my children's children, etc. There is a transcendental quality to the belonging for these conservative practitioners, as with various institutions like marriage, the military, a religion, a nation, a peoples, or any tradition. There's conservatives even in philosophy, engineering, music and the sciences!
So that's really wonderful. Then towards the end I think Scruton got very sloppy. He could have built a foundation but instead he spent time ranting against liberalism (especially in his education section). He sometimes would break out like that in the previous section but, hey, it's his book, so whatever. But to have 10+ pages of solid judgement...
Let me put it this way. If you want judgement about something then that is fine; that means you don't really want to think about it. You just want an easy heuristic to go about understanding what has value. That's kind of boring. That's not worth reading about. What's worth reading about is what Scruton promised. He promised to give us the way to understand what has value (as a conservative would see it). There are many ways to see what has value. For instance, you can use the rarity of something, or its cultural value, or its commercial value, or its historic or biographical connections... there's many ways. The conservative way is often practiced but rarely is it given in explicit philosophical terms. By exposing the explicit value-formation, so Scruton hoped to get more intellectuals onto the conservative side... Scruton rightly understands that intellectuals tend to be liberal because liberalisms offer so many philosophical frameworks/instrumentation/methodologies. In that sense, Scruton is hoping to find a philosophy... he just wishes NOT to give a philosophical justification of conservativism. Edmund Burke and others have done so already. No, Scruton's contribution promises to be a kind of recruiting/cheering, so that we non-believers can bask in some of the promise of a conservative worldview...
☝*this promise* is what I want.
To my disappointment at the end of the text he gets very sloppy. Judgements only give you the conclusion of having certain values. Judgements don't let you form your own conclusions. As Scruton set out to develop a form of understanding meaning construction, at the end of this text he shows us that he as a book he has failed... although as he set out to do, the first section does exactly what he set out to do (and is marvelous).
His failure as an author stems from his destruction of the integrity of his book. His section on education is horrible. He sets out to impose this standard that education that is good for nothing can give us everything (he claims this is the conservative view of education -- why we should study the classics) but in his ranting against liberals, he shows the opposite. His claim is that liberal education is worthless (about nothing, given with hyperbole that is meant to be taken literally -- invoking the strawman fallacy) yet liberals get such cozy positions of economic benefit from having such an ideology, as they fill out universities and government. In his defense, his everything was to understand the network of friends, and the meaning of life and so on... really, a repetition of the likes of Mathew Arnold and friends... a more direction assessment of these conservative thinkers of education you can turn to William Spanos's End of Education: Towards a Posthumanism... but anyway, this just goes to show. Perhaps Spanos was under pressure to come up with a certain page count. Or perhaps he was running out of things to say. He's so self-aware of liberal and conservative values it seems unlikely he would fail to notice that he was ranting self-contradictory nonsense. But there it is .
I do rather like the book. So I give it four stars, because in the first part Scruton really does a great job of doing what he set out to do. If that was all, then he would be five stars. The rest of it was too much, as Nietzsche later said of Birth of Tragedy, he should have stopped writing at his first impulse... although I don't know if Scruton had any impulse one way or another.
Anyhow, definitely worth checking out, that is why it is impressive -- not because the book itself is remarkable, only just some of its contents.
April 5, 2016
My first trip into philosophy; one time through won't be enough for this one. Will need to read it again, with a pencil and notepad handy.
November 21, 2023
Quite a long opinion
April 1, 2021
This was a really insightful book to read. Even as a self-proclaimed conservative, it crushes your views and rebuilds them in a way only Roger Scruton could do. He challenges the ideas of Marxists, Socialists, and Liberals and uses their own arguments against them, as the foundation of the Conservative argument.
My favourite insight from this piece was that of the "mean" and the "end", and they are not a dichotomy. Roger builds on this Kantian supposition.
Here are a few quotes I found either thought-provoking or just beautiful:
"The state's relation to the citizen cannot be contractual. It is not the relation of the employer to employee. The state has the authority, the responsibility, and the despotism of parenthood. If it loses those ties it must perish"
"Reward extravagantly those servants who are essential, but make them servants. As for the others, let them strike, and permanently"
"things which, conceived under the aspect of ownership, are seen as representing to the world the inner life of a room and its inhabitant. In still life, we see further the attempt to overcome through art the attitude of consumption, to represent as an end what is normally seen only as means."
"Alienation is not the condition of society, but the absence of society."
"No one can retreat from the pursuit of truth once he has acquired the habit of self-conscious analysis. Yet the pursuit of truth leads one to doubt the myths that reinforce society. "
My favourite insight from this piece was that of the "mean" and the "end", and they are not a dichotomy. Roger builds on this Kantian supposition.
Here are a few quotes I found either thought-provoking or just beautiful:
"The state's relation to the citizen cannot be contractual. It is not the relation of the employer to employee. The state has the authority, the responsibility, and the despotism of parenthood. If it loses those ties it must perish"
"Reward extravagantly those servants who are essential, but make them servants. As for the others, let them strike, and permanently"
"things which, conceived under the aspect of ownership, are seen as representing to the world the inner life of a room and its inhabitant. In still life, we see further the attempt to overcome through art the attitude of consumption, to represent as an end what is normally seen only as means."
"Alienation is not the condition of society, but the absence of society."
"No one can retreat from the pursuit of truth once he has acquired the habit of self-conscious analysis. Yet the pursuit of truth leads one to doubt the myths that reinforce society. "
Read
March 27, 2020puikiai išdėstyta, tai, ką giliai jaučiau tik nepajėgiau suformuluoti matydama besikeičiančius žmonių santykius, prišiukšlintus paupius, dingstančius miestelių ir kaimų pavadinimus, visose šalyse vienodėjančius miestus, dingstančius peizažus ir praeities nežinojimą, dėkingumo protėviams, palikusiems mums šį pasaulį ir atsakomybės prieš dar negimusius stoką, nykimą visuomenės kultūrinio pagrindo ir socialinių kodų, leidžiančių pajusti bendrumą. Apskritai knyga apie tai, kiek daug mes praradome tapdami belaikiais, beviečiais ir beveidžiais, kokių pasekmių galima tikėtis kai galutinai išseks kultūrinis ir socialinis resursas mums paliktas mūsų protėvių. Ir apie tai, kokios galėtų būti išeitys.
December 16, 2020
Esse é um livro que vou precisar ler mais de uma vez pra entender.
A coerência do pensamento conservador e das narrativas expostas pelo autor, parecem ser muito frágeis ou quase inexistentes. Ao abordar a tradição como uma verdade para o bem da sociedade e da liberdade de expressão , desconsiderando as raizes de onde elas são construídas. Ou seja, em uma premissa de que sociedade deve ser livre e não dependente e submissa a questões do Estado prezando pelo zelo as tradições, desconsidera que as próprias tradições não foram construídas pela sociedade de forma livre e igualitária mas sim por uma parcela de intelectuais que pregam e ditam a “ordem” e “as regras” que devem ser zeladas para o caos e a perda da nossa liberdade não acontecer mediante fatores externos.
A coerência do pensamento conservador e das narrativas expostas pelo autor, parecem ser muito frágeis ou quase inexistentes. Ao abordar a tradição como uma verdade para o bem da sociedade e da liberdade de expressão , desconsiderando as raizes de onde elas são construídas. Ou seja, em uma premissa de que sociedade deve ser livre e não dependente e submissa a questões do Estado prezando pelo zelo as tradições, desconsidera que as próprias tradições não foram construídas pela sociedade de forma livre e igualitária mas sim por uma parcela de intelectuais que pregam e ditam a “ordem” e “as regras” que devem ser zeladas para o caos e a perda da nossa liberdade não acontecer mediante fatores externos.
March 24, 2017
Não aconselho para brasileiros pois ele lida com um conflito surreal para a realidade brasileira.
Há algumas passagens no livro muito interessantes, dignos de Scruton, mas tem muito conteúdo que considerei irrelevante. A justificativa é que o livro é antigo, sendo a última correção de 1980, e foi escrito para aquele tempo.
Esperava bem mais desse livro porque li anteriormente o "Como ser um Conservador", um dos meus top 10.
Há algumas passagens no livro muito interessantes, dignos de Scruton, mas tem muito conteúdo que considerei irrelevante. A justificativa é que o livro é antigo, sendo a última correção de 1980, e foi escrito para aquele tempo.
Esperava bem mais desse livro porque li anteriormente o "Como ser um Conservador", um dos meus top 10.
February 4, 2021
Ótimo livro para entender o que realmente é conservadorismo.
Hoje em dias os conceitos estão muito misturados.
Interessante observar que para o autor não existe um Conservador Liberal e ele explica por que.
Muito bom.
Hoje em dias os conceitos estão muito misturados.
Interessante observar que para o autor não existe um Conservador Liberal e ele explica por que.
Muito bom.
April 17, 2020
Really good. I hope to read again.
January 18, 2022
rockerfeller congralutated book. lot of preaching but Scruton pushed Thatcherism later on in his life despite the sentiment to the contrary expressed here.
Want to read
January 20, 2023sophie Jan 2023 (What?!?)
March 9, 2021
Deep and insightful work. It is a slow read. Very much a political-philosophical treatise. Unlike the modern political polemic this is not filled with catchy jabs across the political aisle or click-bait headline arguments. Sir Roger is a deep and thorough thinker and writer. He will be missed in the public political discourse but thankfully his writing will live on. Despite being written originally in the 80's the book has been updated somewhat. It retains it's original argument (amazing how much is still relevant today) with a few additions to modernize the general attitude towards post-Soviet leftism. Perhaps the most important lesson from Sir Roger's work is that conservatism is the base of all society. If you are not conserving institutions, traditions, and laws (regardless of what type of society those result in) then you have no society at all.
December 14, 2016
As far as comprehensiveness is concerned, The Meaning of Conservatism touches on almost all of the essential components of society (state, church, education, family, morality, etc.), but it is not exhaustive, and hundreds more pages could be written about each of those components. Therefore, this book will only serve as a sort of blueprint for the beginning conservative, and the details will have to be developed elsewhere. This is not a failing of Scruton, mind you, just an observation of mine for what the potential reader should expect.
When it comes to style, Scruton writes beautifully; he has knack for condensing difficult ideas into succinct, memorable, almost-poetic sentences. He also has a sense of dry humor reminiscent of B. Russell.
In regards to content, the ideas are presented in such a commonsensical way that I find it hard to imagine any liberal beginning this book and not finishing it converted to traditionalism (my preferred term for conservatism). For instance, our liberal society likes to talk incessantly about rights and democracy and inveighing against privilege and aristocracy. But as Scruton rightly points out, it is impractical to submit every kind of governance to popular vote. Sometimes appointments have to be made without the participation of the public. Also, presidents and ministers do not have a right to govern even after being voted in; what they have is a privilege. So neither is democracy an absolute value, nor is aristocracy/monarchy irrational because it is based on privilege. Granted, some of Scruton’s arguments will not work outside the English world (and he does sometimes rely heavily on the political situation of his home country to make his case), but then again conservatism is not a universal abstract theory (like liberalism) that is meant to apply anywhere at any time. So there is no one conservative philosophy, but several, each dependent on the historical circumstances of each country.
Finally, when it comes to the form of argument, I must say Scruton could have done a little better. While his prose is beautiful, it lacks the full force of philosophical argumentation. The points made in the book are not straightforward in many cases; they are merely hinted at, and the reader is left to develop them on his own. Even the Appendix, where philosophical argumentation proper takes place, will be difficult to follow because of the author’s roundabout way of arguing. That is why, I think, many readers have complained that this is a very dense book.
Nevertheless, this is a great read, one of the best of the year (2016) for me, and I highly recommend it, whether you are a beginning conservative or a liberal wanting to widen his horizons.
When it comes to style, Scruton writes beautifully; he has knack for condensing difficult ideas into succinct, memorable, almost-poetic sentences. He also has a sense of dry humor reminiscent of B. Russell.
In regards to content, the ideas are presented in such a commonsensical way that I find it hard to imagine any liberal beginning this book and not finishing it converted to traditionalism (my preferred term for conservatism). For instance, our liberal society likes to talk incessantly about rights and democracy and inveighing against privilege and aristocracy. But as Scruton rightly points out, it is impractical to submit every kind of governance to popular vote. Sometimes appointments have to be made without the participation of the public. Also, presidents and ministers do not have a right to govern even after being voted in; what they have is a privilege. So neither is democracy an absolute value, nor is aristocracy/monarchy irrational because it is based on privilege. Granted, some of Scruton’s arguments will not work outside the English world (and he does sometimes rely heavily on the political situation of his home country to make his case), but then again conservatism is not a universal abstract theory (like liberalism) that is meant to apply anywhere at any time. So there is no one conservative philosophy, but several, each dependent on the historical circumstances of each country.
Finally, when it comes to the form of argument, I must say Scruton could have done a little better. While his prose is beautiful, it lacks the full force of philosophical argumentation. The points made in the book are not straightforward in many cases; they are merely hinted at, and the reader is left to develop them on his own. Even the Appendix, where philosophical argumentation proper takes place, will be difficult to follow because of the author’s roundabout way of arguing. That is why, I think, many readers have complained that this is a very dense book.
Nevertheless, this is a great read, one of the best of the year (2016) for me, and I highly recommend it, whether you are a beginning conservative or a liberal wanting to widen his horizons.
December 17, 2022
I feel like my last 2 years of philosophical development led to an appreciation of this work that I couldn't possibly have had before, so I'm inclined to think ppl unfamiliar or unsympathetic with late Wittgensteinian or Oxford school ideas about meaning, thought, language, ontology, and social practice might be apriori put off of the book by Scruton's confession that this is a work not of philosophy but of dogmatics, that does not pause to consider abstract questions to which the system of beliefs has no answer.
Scruton doesn't much like citations and enjoys speaking in isms. The upside to this is that it might find purchase with a wider audience through a multiplicity of interpretations. The downside is that Scruton is as often brilliantly insightful as he is prone to speak in cliches. It also means that you're just gonna have to take his word on a lot of his descriptions of political reality, which you don't have to at all to appreciate the value of the work.
Nevertheless, thoughtful and often breathtaking exposition of politics, community, and their foundations. It is at the same time a relentless and sound attack on liberal presuppositions and its own foundations to which no one unfamiliar with them can come out of reading this the same as they were before, as well as a convincing defense of authority and institutions. A book that, from the soundness of its premises, I found myself in danger of agreeing with more and more. I kept getting visions of a conversation with T. Eagleton where the great man said: "That's what ppl always say to me whenever I talk: 'I'm in danger of agreeing with you.'"
A book about the highest as well as the lowest of us. About a people that put humanity over transcendent forms of universal reason. About the clerk, the farmer, the trash man, and the mail man, the ppl to whom the middle-class appeal of traditional liberalism has not yet reached, who still live intrinsically tied to the foundations of political life. An ode to those who, regardless of their own personal standing, still believe in the nobility of our inherited values and virtues, not because they're true sub specie aeternitatis but because they're our own.
As relevant today as it was 40 years ago.
Scruton doesn't much like citations and enjoys speaking in isms. The upside to this is that it might find purchase with a wider audience through a multiplicity of interpretations. The downside is that Scruton is as often brilliantly insightful as he is prone to speak in cliches. It also means that you're just gonna have to take his word on a lot of his descriptions of political reality, which you don't have to at all to appreciate the value of the work.
Nevertheless, thoughtful and often breathtaking exposition of politics, community, and their foundations. It is at the same time a relentless and sound attack on liberal presuppositions and its own foundations to which no one unfamiliar with them can come out of reading this the same as they were before, as well as a convincing defense of authority and institutions. A book that, from the soundness of its premises, I found myself in danger of agreeing with more and more. I kept getting visions of a conversation with T. Eagleton where the great man said: "That's what ppl always say to me whenever I talk: 'I'm in danger of agreeing with you.'"
A book about the highest as well as the lowest of us. About a people that put humanity over transcendent forms of universal reason. About the clerk, the farmer, the trash man, and the mail man, the ppl to whom the middle-class appeal of traditional liberalism has not yet reached, who still live intrinsically tied to the foundations of political life. An ode to those who, regardless of their own personal standing, still believe in the nobility of our inherited values and virtues, not because they're true sub specie aeternitatis but because they're our own.
As relevant today as it was 40 years ago.
October 10, 2024
A thought-provoking and articulate exploration of conservatism, Roger Scruton's The Meaning of Conservatism presents a vision that feels increasingly distant from the modern conservative movement in the United States. Scruton’s conservatism is rooted in respect for tradition, a cautious approach to societal change, and a deep understanding of culture and history as essential guiding forces. His emphasis on preserving institutions and maintaining continuity contrasts sharply with the populist and reactionary trends that have come to dominate the U.S. conservative landscape today. As Scruton sees it, conservatism is not merely about opposing change but about guiding it thoughtfully in alignment with what is valuable and enduring in society.
In light of Scruton's philosophical framework, it's striking how far contemporary American conservatism has drifted from these principles. The rise of MAGA conservatism, with its focus on nationalism, disruption, and the rejection of established norms, often seems more like a departure from conservatism itself. By Scruton’s standards, this movement appears closer to a form of radical liberalism—a philosophy that seeks to upend traditional structures in favor of a new order shaped by individual will and populist sentiment. It's a reminder that Scruton’s call for stability and preservation is fundamentally at odds with the chaotic and reactionary impulses seen in much of today's political rhetoric.
One of the key takeaways from reading Scruton today is the hope that more contemporary U.S. conservatives might engage with his work. The Meaning of Conservatism challenges readers to think beyond slogans and partisanship, urging them to see the deeper philosophical roots that underlie a true conservative ethos. If more people in the current conservative movement could absorb Scruton’s nuanced perspectives, perhaps it could lead to a reinvigoration of a conservatism grounded in cultural respect, thoughtful reform, and a genuine commitment to the principles that make society resilient. For anyone concerned about the direction of modern politics, this book offers an important and refreshing reminder of what conservatism could and should be.
In light of Scruton's philosophical framework, it's striking how far contemporary American conservatism has drifted from these principles. The rise of MAGA conservatism, with its focus on nationalism, disruption, and the rejection of established norms, often seems more like a departure from conservatism itself. By Scruton’s standards, this movement appears closer to a form of radical liberalism—a philosophy that seeks to upend traditional structures in favor of a new order shaped by individual will and populist sentiment. It's a reminder that Scruton’s call for stability and preservation is fundamentally at odds with the chaotic and reactionary impulses seen in much of today's political rhetoric.
One of the key takeaways from reading Scruton today is the hope that more contemporary U.S. conservatives might engage with his work. The Meaning of Conservatism challenges readers to think beyond slogans and partisanship, urging them to see the deeper philosophical roots that underlie a true conservative ethos. If more people in the current conservative movement could absorb Scruton’s nuanced perspectives, perhaps it could lead to a reinvigoration of a conservatism grounded in cultural respect, thoughtful reform, and a genuine commitment to the principles that make society resilient. For anyone concerned about the direction of modern politics, this book offers an important and refreshing reminder of what conservatism could and should be.
October 22, 2008
I'll write a good, long review of this one - just hold your horses for a while. In the meantime ....
Whatever your political persuasion, it's refreshing to get a philosopher's definition of conservatism rather than a demagogue's (and it doesn’t hurt that the author’s a Brit). In essence, the conservative position is skeptical about the goodness and reliability of human nature, and it doesn’t have a program per se, but considers any “liberal” position to bear a burden to demonstrate that a scheme for change is reasonably likely to result in improvement. It’s neither a mindless position nor one opposed to change, but it is inherently cautious. It also doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with finance capitalism, nor with any of a number of things in the contemporary American Republican Party platform. The overexposed American “conservative” pundits and demagogues would find a lot they don’t like in this book.
Whatever your political persuasion, it's refreshing to get a philosopher's definition of conservatism rather than a demagogue's (and it doesn’t hurt that the author’s a Brit). In essence, the conservative position is skeptical about the goodness and reliability of human nature, and it doesn’t have a program per se, but considers any “liberal” position to bear a burden to demonstrate that a scheme for change is reasonably likely to result in improvement. It’s neither a mindless position nor one opposed to change, but it is inherently cautious. It also doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with finance capitalism, nor with any of a number of things in the contemporary American Republican Party platform. The overexposed American “conservative” pundits and demagogues would find a lot they don’t like in this book.
November 17, 2014
I was expecting this to be pretty good, but this was surprisingly good. The work he does on law, on the relationship between power and authority, on attitudes to custom and tradition, and on the centrality of the family, are all excellent. Some of it was puzzling, but most of it was lucid.
November 27, 2008
Manifesto dei conservatori
Cortina Raffaello, 2007
Cortina Raffaello, 2007
July 10, 2015
Review will be posted later. A bit disappointed but still worth reading.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews