What do you think?
Rate this book
Ideas in Profile
Conservatism: Ideas in Profile
Roger Scruton looks at the central ideas of conservatism over the centuries. He examines conservative thinking on civil society, the rule of law and the role of the state on the one hand; and freedom (including freedom of expression and association), morality, equality, property and rights on the other. He traces the origins and development of the conservative ideology in the philosophies and thoughts of, among others, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, John Ruskin, Michael Oakeshott, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick. He shows how conservative ideas have worked out in the politics and policies of leading figures people such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Disraeli, the Earl of Salisbury, Calvin Coolidge, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. He also looks closely at the degree to which capitalism and free markets have been, and are integral to, conservative ideology and politics in the UK and in the USA. Professor Scruton's clear, incisive guide is essential reading for anyone wishing to understand the politics and policies of the west now and over the last three centuries.
169 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2017
247 people are currently reading
2285 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 - 30 of 180 reviews
September 5, 2018
In recent years I’ve had to ask myself an awkward question: Am I, after all, a conservative?
I call the question awkward because it is political (I dislike politics) and because I have vaguely considered myself a liberal, leaning toward moderate, most of my adult life. I see, however, that I live conservatively, and as “liberalism” drowns in the incoming tide of social progressivism, I find myself stepping briskly out of the surf.
If I adopt the definition of conservatism that Roger Scruton communicates in this fine book (the best thing I’ve read by him) then I have to admit here and now that I am a conservative and may secretly have been one all along. As a rule, I prefer: tradition to innovation, sustainability to growth, local control to centralized control, equality before law to equality of outcome. My instincts are empiricist and Aristotelian rather than rationalist and Platonic. I distrust ideals. I flee good intentions. I shudder at utopian schemes.
I see all around me that, as Scruton puts it, “good things are more easily destroyed than created,” that “without tradition, originality is neither significant nor truly perceivable,” and that, in the end, “liberalism makes sense only in the social context that conservatism defends.”
A few more passages that had me nodding in agreement:
“Liberals saw political order as issuing from individual liberty; conservatives saw individual liberty as arising from political order. What makes a political order legitimate, in the conservative view, is not the free choices that create it, but the free choices that it creates.”
“The lesson of history for Hume is that established order, founded on customs that are followed and accepted, is always to be preferred to ideas, however exultant and inspiring, of those who would liberate us from our inherited sense of obligation.”
“Burke rejected the liberal idea of the social contract... Society, he argued, does not contain the living only; it is an association between the dead, the living and the unborn. Its binding principle is not contract but something more akin to trusteeship. It is a shared inheritance for the sake of which we learn to circumscribe our demands, to see our own place in things as part of a continuous chain of giving and receiving, and to recognize that the good things we inherit are not ours to spoil but ours to safeguard for our dependents.”
Scruton might have improved his book if he’d wrapped it up more effectively; it suffers a bit at the end. I don’t claim that it’s shaken me into some kind of political awakening. I prefer political sleep. But Scruton has helped me to orient myself and I won’t shrink any longer from the “conservative” label, though I may ask what exactly you mean by it.
I call the question awkward because it is political (I dislike politics) and because I have vaguely considered myself a liberal, leaning toward moderate, most of my adult life. I see, however, that I live conservatively, and as “liberalism” drowns in the incoming tide of social progressivism, I find myself stepping briskly out of the surf.
If I adopt the definition of conservatism that Roger Scruton communicates in this fine book (the best thing I’ve read by him) then I have to admit here and now that I am a conservative and may secretly have been one all along. As a rule, I prefer: tradition to innovation, sustainability to growth, local control to centralized control, equality before law to equality of outcome. My instincts are empiricist and Aristotelian rather than rationalist and Platonic. I distrust ideals. I flee good intentions. I shudder at utopian schemes.
I see all around me that, as Scruton puts it, “good things are more easily destroyed than created,” that “without tradition, originality is neither significant nor truly perceivable,” and that, in the end, “liberalism makes sense only in the social context that conservatism defends.”
A few more passages that had me nodding in agreement:
“Liberals saw political order as issuing from individual liberty; conservatives saw individual liberty as arising from political order. What makes a political order legitimate, in the conservative view, is not the free choices that create it, but the free choices that it creates.”
“The lesson of history for Hume is that established order, founded on customs that are followed and accepted, is always to be preferred to ideas, however exultant and inspiring, of those who would liberate us from our inherited sense of obligation.”
“Burke rejected the liberal idea of the social contract... Society, he argued, does not contain the living only; it is an association between the dead, the living and the unborn. Its binding principle is not contract but something more akin to trusteeship. It is a shared inheritance for the sake of which we learn to circumscribe our demands, to see our own place in things as part of a continuous chain of giving and receiving, and to recognize that the good things we inherit are not ours to spoil but ours to safeguard for our dependents.”
Scruton might have improved his book if he’d wrapped it up more effectively; it suffers a bit at the end. I don’t claim that it’s shaken me into some kind of political awakening. I prefer political sleep. But Scruton has helped me to orient myself and I won’t shrink any longer from the “conservative” label, though I may ask what exactly you mean by it.
March 26, 2022
The most concise history of conservatism out there, probably better than Russell Kirk’s book. You’ll learn how conservatism’s relationship with liberalism isn’t one of antagonism but rather one of symbiosis. Conservatives, as Scruton points out, believe in adherence to customs and traditions and the protection of institutions. The stories and philosophy of conservatives like Edmund Burke, Thomas Jefferson, Russell Kirk, T.S. Elliot, and William F. Buckley are told. You need to read this if you’re new to conservatism.
July 8, 2018
I had run across Sir Roger Scruton’s name at various times over the past few years, and became more acquainted with him from his numerous interviews, talks, and panel discussions available on the internet. He is a lifelong writer, philosopher, musician, and Renaissance man, having been a professor of philosophy for a number of years as well, and now pursuing his many intellectual endeavors from his country estate in rural England. It all sounds quite pleasant to me …..
This recently published (June 2018) small volume is an excellent overview of the political philosophy of conservatism. After a short background discussion of ancient and medieval history, Scruton begins the heart of this survey from the Enlightenment forward, starting with the American and French Revolutions, and the writings of Burke and Rousseau. Some German and French history also enters the discussion, and the foundations laid by Hegel, Chateaubriand, and Tocqueville.
He then surveys cultural conservatism, as well as political, drawing upon Comte, Coleridge, Ruskin, T.S. Eliot and others, and finishes with a broad discussion of 20th century socialism and the prospects of conservatism in our present day. His final word: “My own view is that conservatism will be a necessary ingredient in any solution to the emerging problems of today, and that the tradition of thinking that I have outlined in this book should therefore be part of the education of all politicians everywhere”.
Roger Scruton has a wealth of knowledge and a rich, deep writing style. I really enjoyed reading this one, and will be back to his bookshelves for more.
This recently published (June 2018) small volume is an excellent overview of the political philosophy of conservatism. After a short background discussion of ancient and medieval history, Scruton begins the heart of this survey from the Enlightenment forward, starting with the American and French Revolutions, and the writings of Burke and Rousseau. Some German and French history also enters the discussion, and the foundations laid by Hegel, Chateaubriand, and Tocqueville.
He then surveys cultural conservatism, as well as political, drawing upon Comte, Coleridge, Ruskin, T.S. Eliot and others, and finishes with a broad discussion of 20th century socialism and the prospects of conservatism in our present day. His final word: “My own view is that conservatism will be a necessary ingredient in any solution to the emerging problems of today, and that the tradition of thinking that I have outlined in this book should therefore be part of the education of all politicians everywhere”.
Roger Scruton has a wealth of knowledge and a rich, deep writing style. I really enjoyed reading this one, and will be back to his bookshelves for more.
May 9, 2019
Scruton traces the history of modern conservatism, and in the process defines what conservatism is and what it has stood for throughout time. I've always been conservative-leaning, but now I better understand conservatism as a philosophy in its own right and not just as a jumble of positions on different issues. It's given me a framework to navigate politics and social issues, and I will definitely be following it up with
How to Be a Conservative.
June 29, 2018
If you're looking for a concise and well-written summary of conservatism as a political philosophy, then this is a good place to start. Russell Kirk's "The Conservative Mind" is probably still the best book for a more detailed history of conservatism. But if you're looking for a simple introduction that reads quickly, then this is the book.
January 18, 2020
The political climate in the US – and elsewhere – is not making sense to me. I read Roger Scruton's Conservatism to try to shed some light on what is happening.
I believe that what conservatives avow makes sense to them – just as what liberals believe makes sense to them. How conservatives and liberals make sense of the world depends on at least two factors: (a) their values, and (b) what kinds of information they look at. (Liberals and conservatives can look at reports of the same event and believe that it supports what they believe).
In general, modern conservatives attempt to maintain continuity "to conserve what we are and what we have" (p. 3). Tradition, they argue, offers time-honored answers to enduring questions. Traditions, institutions, and attitudes shape responsible citizen, and political order leads to and supports individual liberties and freedom. Too much government, especially government from the top, undermines its citizens' willingness to accept responsibility for their lives.
Liberals and conservatives tend to differ in other ways, too. Liberals tend to be much more open to a range of experiences (my reading list being a case in point). We tend to be more likely to question traditional answers and rebel. We tend to be concerned with the underprivileged, minorities and socially excluded groups, and believe that government can create social justice. Scruton, however, argued
Social justice is not a form of justice at all, but a form of moral corruption. It means rewarding people for feckless behaviour, for neglecting their own and their family’s well-being, for breaking their agreements and for exploiting their employers. (p. 110)
Scruton's description of conservative viewpoints was somewhat measured and convincing throughout most of this short book, but he seemed to lose control as he talked about political correctness, which he saw as unnecessarily constraining freedom of expression and deriving from Western guilt. And, while sometimes he talked about militant or extremist forms of Islam, at other points he seemed to paint all of Islam with the same brush. He also perceived conservatives as defending the US Constitution, while liberals "read into that brief document the rights and freedoms that appeal to modern liberals, but not, on the whole, those that appeal to conservatives (such as the right to life of the unborn child)" (p. 142).
Of course, liberals believe that the conservative judges in the US Supreme Court – and lower courts – are selectively reading things into the Constitution that may have made sense when the Constitution was written, but that conveniently align with their own value system. Liberals also believe that "political correctness" is about respectfulness and avoiding abuses of power and privilege.
I am not sure that I am much further along in terms of understanding the US political scene after reading Conservatism, although I suspect this stems from at least two problems unrelated to this book. Many people who I have previously called Conservatives or Republicans are, probably, Libertarians, some identifying as such and others not. Further, I don't believe this president is a real conservative, but more of an opportunist.
I believe that what conservatives avow makes sense to them – just as what liberals believe makes sense to them. How conservatives and liberals make sense of the world depends on at least two factors: (a) their values, and (b) what kinds of information they look at. (Liberals and conservatives can look at reports of the same event and believe that it supports what they believe).
In general, modern conservatives attempt to maintain continuity "to conserve what we are and what we have" (p. 3). Tradition, they argue, offers time-honored answers to enduring questions. Traditions, institutions, and attitudes shape responsible citizen, and political order leads to and supports individual liberties and freedom. Too much government, especially government from the top, undermines its citizens' willingness to accept responsibility for their lives.
Liberals and conservatives tend to differ in other ways, too. Liberals tend to be much more open to a range of experiences (my reading list being a case in point). We tend to be more likely to question traditional answers and rebel. We tend to be concerned with the underprivileged, minorities and socially excluded groups, and believe that government can create social justice. Scruton, however, argued
Social justice is not a form of justice at all, but a form of moral corruption. It means rewarding people for feckless behaviour, for neglecting their own and their family’s well-being, for breaking their agreements and for exploiting their employers. (p. 110)
Scruton's description of conservative viewpoints was somewhat measured and convincing throughout most of this short book, but he seemed to lose control as he talked about political correctness, which he saw as unnecessarily constraining freedom of expression and deriving from Western guilt. And, while sometimes he talked about militant or extremist forms of Islam, at other points he seemed to paint all of Islam with the same brush. He also perceived conservatives as defending the US Constitution, while liberals "read into that brief document the rights and freedoms that appeal to modern liberals, but not, on the whole, those that appeal to conservatives (such as the right to life of the unborn child)" (p. 142).
Of course, liberals believe that the conservative judges in the US Supreme Court – and lower courts – are selectively reading things into the Constitution that may have made sense when the Constitution was written, but that conveniently align with their own value system. Liberals also believe that "political correctness" is about respectfulness and avoiding abuses of power and privilege.
I am not sure that I am much further along in terms of understanding the US political scene after reading Conservatism, although I suspect this stems from at least two problems unrelated to this book. Many people who I have previously called Conservatives or Republicans are, probably, Libertarians, some identifying as such and others not. Further, I don't believe this president is a real conservative, but more of an opportunist.
November 2, 2018
This small, beautifully written book filled so many gaps in my knowledge. Pure joy!
October 7, 2020
Em 2017, Roger Scruton (1944-1920), o mais conhecido filósofo conservador contemporâneo do mundo anglo-saxão, lançou esse pequeno livro para apresentar, de maneira sintética, os autores mais importantes para o conservadorismo moderno. O método de Scruton se resume a tecer comentários sobre importantes acontecimentos na história do conservadorismo e apresentar as ideias de alguns filósofos, economistas, críticos, romancistas e poetas mais influentes.
Segundo Scruton, “O conservadorismo moderno começou como defesa da tradição contra as reivindicações de soberania popular e se tornou um apelo em nome da religião e da alta cultura contra a doutrina materialista do progresso”. Isso significa que o conservadorismo se ressente do Iluminismo, quando a ciência e a razão tomam a frente no pensamento filosófico europeu, providenciando as bases mentais para as Revoluções Francesa e Industrial, a dupla revolução que tanto moldou o mundo desde então e tornou possível a ideia de progresso ilimitado, noção que foi explorada tanto por liberais quanto por socialistas. Como o subtítulo do livro indica – “um convite à grande tradição” – o conservadorismo preocupa-se, em primeiro lugar, com a tradição. É, portanto, em uma época de forte questionamento à tradição e aos costumes que o conservadorismo moderno encontra condições ideais para seu surgimento.
Dessa forma – e com algumas exceções -, o conservadorismo de Scruton está firmemente ancorado na tradição anglo-saxã e começa nos séculos XVII e XVIII, tendo Adam Smith (1723-1790) como principal autor pré-Revolução Francesa (início em 1789) e as Revoluções Gloriosa (1688) e Americana (1765-1783) como principais eventos históricos, pois afirmam valores vistos como conservadores por Scruton. A Revolução Francesa, com seu ataque aos costumes e às tradições, deu à luz um dos principais autores do conservadorismo, Edmund Burke (1729-1797), um dos escritores mais discutidos tem no livro.
Avançando no século XIX e olhando para o continente europeu pelo prisma político, os principais autores para Scruton são, claramente, o alemão Hegel (1770-1831) e o francês Tocqueville (1805-1859). Pelo prisma cultural, os destaques são o poeta inglês Coleridge (1772-1834), os críticos ingleses Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) e John Ruskin (1819-1900). Também é no século XIX que surge o socialismo, inimigo tão terrível que leva o conservadorismo a “unir forças com os liberais clássicos na luta contra o socialismo”. Um pouco mais tarde, temos T.S. Elliot (1888-1965), que apesar de já fazer parte do movimento modernista do século XX, era um firme defensor da tradição e da alta cultura como vista no século XIX.
Já ao final da Segunda Guerra Mundial, temos as obras do austríaco Friedrich Hayek (1899-1993) e do inglês Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990) para guiar o conservadorismo no plano econômico e filosófico, enquanto do outro lado do atlântico os grandes nomes são William F. Buckley (1925-2008) e Russel Kirk (1918-1994). No plano cultural, há o espanhol Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955), a francesa Simone Weil (1909-1943) e o inglês George Orwell (1903-1950). Curiosamente, Scruton é tão fascinado pelas tintas conservadoras nas obras de Weil e Orwell que escolhe ignorar o socialismo autoproclamado de ambos os autores.
Com o fim da Guerra Fria e o desmonte da União Soviética, o conservadorismo precisa buscar novos opositores, o que o leva a se tornar-se “defensor da civilização ocidental contra seus inimigos, em particular dois deles: o politicamente correto (notadamente suas restrições à liberdade de expressão e sua ênfase na culpa ocidental) e o extremismo religioso, especialmente o islamismo militante promovido pelas seitas wahabitas / salafistas.” O politicamente correto seria ou o “estágio final do individualismo liberal – o estágio no qual todas as barreiras contra a identidades autoescolhida são removidas” ou a “derrogação da grande tradição liberal”, onde a busca pela igualdade levou a “uma incansável caça às bruxas contra os defensores das distinções sociais”. Já o fundamentalismo islâmico – e a imigração vinda do mundo muçulmano – atentaria contra os valores, costumes e tradições do mundo ocidental.
É essa, em resumo, a história do conservadorismo de Scruton. Apesar da brevidade do livro, ele fala sobre um número grande de autores, indo muito além dos que citei. Isso pode ser bom para aqueles que querem ter uma visão ampla do conservadorismo, mas é fato que vários poderiam ganhar uma análise mais detida. Como esse é, basicamente, um livro de exaltação do conservadorismo, Scruton não se detém em temas mais espinhosos, como as críticas que Adam Smith faz à desigualdade criada pelo capitalismo, a influência de Hegel para o marxismo e a base econômica da Revolução Americana (escravidão). Também me parece deveras paranoica a visão que Scruton nos apresenta de tudo que cheire a socialismo, como noções de justiça social, ainda mais agora que o tema desigualdade se tornou tão urgente. Essa paranoia se mantém em relação aos inimigos atuais do conservadorismo: o politicamente correto e o islamismo / imigração de países islâmicos.
Por fim, acredito que a noção do conservadorismo da importância das tradições, dos costumes e da comunidade – frequentemente esquecida por progressistas –, é, de fato, relevante. Scruton nos diz que “O conservadorismo advém de um sentimento que toda pessoa madura compartilha com facilidade: a consciência de que as coisas admiráveis são facilmente destruídas, mas não são facilmente criadas. Isso é verdade, sobretudo, em relação às boas coisas que nos chegam como bens coletivos: paz, liberdade, leis, civilidade, espírito público, a segurança da propriedade e da vida familiar.” Fico, contudo, com uma dúvida: Scruton afirma que a sociedade deve evoluir de maneira orgânica, de modo a preservar as “boas coisas”, mas será que essa velocidade seria moralmente aceitável sem os choques do liberalismo e do socialismo, que, segundo Scruton, tanto fizeram mal à sociedade? Sem eles, não estaríamos ainda repetindo argumentos escravistas do século XIX, quando senhores de escravos diziam ser contra a escravidão, mas que ela só poderia acabar de maneira lenta, talvez nos próximos 100 anos?
Segundo Scruton, “O conservadorismo moderno começou como defesa da tradição contra as reivindicações de soberania popular e se tornou um apelo em nome da religião e da alta cultura contra a doutrina materialista do progresso”. Isso significa que o conservadorismo se ressente do Iluminismo, quando a ciência e a razão tomam a frente no pensamento filosófico europeu, providenciando as bases mentais para as Revoluções Francesa e Industrial, a dupla revolução que tanto moldou o mundo desde então e tornou possível a ideia de progresso ilimitado, noção que foi explorada tanto por liberais quanto por socialistas. Como o subtítulo do livro indica – “um convite à grande tradição” – o conservadorismo preocupa-se, em primeiro lugar, com a tradição. É, portanto, em uma época de forte questionamento à tradição e aos costumes que o conservadorismo moderno encontra condições ideais para seu surgimento.
Dessa forma – e com algumas exceções -, o conservadorismo de Scruton está firmemente ancorado na tradição anglo-saxã e começa nos séculos XVII e XVIII, tendo Adam Smith (1723-1790) como principal autor pré-Revolução Francesa (início em 1789) e as Revoluções Gloriosa (1688) e Americana (1765-1783) como principais eventos históricos, pois afirmam valores vistos como conservadores por Scruton. A Revolução Francesa, com seu ataque aos costumes e às tradições, deu à luz um dos principais autores do conservadorismo, Edmund Burke (1729-1797), um dos escritores mais discutidos tem no livro.
Avançando no século XIX e olhando para o continente europeu pelo prisma político, os principais autores para Scruton são, claramente, o alemão Hegel (1770-1831) e o francês Tocqueville (1805-1859). Pelo prisma cultural, os destaques são o poeta inglês Coleridge (1772-1834), os críticos ingleses Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) e John Ruskin (1819-1900). Também é no século XIX que surge o socialismo, inimigo tão terrível que leva o conservadorismo a “unir forças com os liberais clássicos na luta contra o socialismo”. Um pouco mais tarde, temos T.S. Elliot (1888-1965), que apesar de já fazer parte do movimento modernista do século XX, era um firme defensor da tradição e da alta cultura como vista no século XIX.
Já ao final da Segunda Guerra Mundial, temos as obras do austríaco Friedrich Hayek (1899-1993) e do inglês Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990) para guiar o conservadorismo no plano econômico e filosófico, enquanto do outro lado do atlântico os grandes nomes são William F. Buckley (1925-2008) e Russel Kirk (1918-1994). No plano cultural, há o espanhol Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955), a francesa Simone Weil (1909-1943) e o inglês George Orwell (1903-1950). Curiosamente, Scruton é tão fascinado pelas tintas conservadoras nas obras de Weil e Orwell que escolhe ignorar o socialismo autoproclamado de ambos os autores.
Com o fim da Guerra Fria e o desmonte da União Soviética, o conservadorismo precisa buscar novos opositores, o que o leva a se tornar-se “defensor da civilização ocidental contra seus inimigos, em particular dois deles: o politicamente correto (notadamente suas restrições à liberdade de expressão e sua ênfase na culpa ocidental) e o extremismo religioso, especialmente o islamismo militante promovido pelas seitas wahabitas / salafistas.” O politicamente correto seria ou o “estágio final do individualismo liberal – o estágio no qual todas as barreiras contra a identidades autoescolhida são removidas” ou a “derrogação da grande tradição liberal”, onde a busca pela igualdade levou a “uma incansável caça às bruxas contra os defensores das distinções sociais”. Já o fundamentalismo islâmico – e a imigração vinda do mundo muçulmano – atentaria contra os valores, costumes e tradições do mundo ocidental.
É essa, em resumo, a história do conservadorismo de Scruton. Apesar da brevidade do livro, ele fala sobre um número grande de autores, indo muito além dos que citei. Isso pode ser bom para aqueles que querem ter uma visão ampla do conservadorismo, mas é fato que vários poderiam ganhar uma análise mais detida. Como esse é, basicamente, um livro de exaltação do conservadorismo, Scruton não se detém em temas mais espinhosos, como as críticas que Adam Smith faz à desigualdade criada pelo capitalismo, a influência de Hegel para o marxismo e a base econômica da Revolução Americana (escravidão). Também me parece deveras paranoica a visão que Scruton nos apresenta de tudo que cheire a socialismo, como noções de justiça social, ainda mais agora que o tema desigualdade se tornou tão urgente. Essa paranoia se mantém em relação aos inimigos atuais do conservadorismo: o politicamente correto e o islamismo / imigração de países islâmicos.
Por fim, acredito que a noção do conservadorismo da importância das tradições, dos costumes e da comunidade – frequentemente esquecida por progressistas –, é, de fato, relevante. Scruton nos diz que “O conservadorismo advém de um sentimento que toda pessoa madura compartilha com facilidade: a consciência de que as coisas admiráveis são facilmente destruídas, mas não são facilmente criadas. Isso é verdade, sobretudo, em relação às boas coisas que nos chegam como bens coletivos: paz, liberdade, leis, civilidade, espírito público, a segurança da propriedade e da vida familiar.” Fico, contudo, com uma dúvida: Scruton afirma que a sociedade deve evoluir de maneira orgânica, de modo a preservar as “boas coisas”, mas será que essa velocidade seria moralmente aceitável sem os choques do liberalismo e do socialismo, que, segundo Scruton, tanto fizeram mal à sociedade? Sem eles, não estaríamos ainda repetindo argumentos escravistas do século XIX, quando senhores de escravos diziam ser contra a escravidão, mas que ela só poderia acabar de maneira lenta, talvez nos próximos 100 anos?
May 21, 2024
Книга дала можливість усвідомити, що я тяжію до консервативних ідей
“Консерватизм у своїй оригінальній формі був відповіддю на класичний лібералізм, чимось на кшталт «так, але...» у відповідь на «так» народного суверенітету. Це був захист спадку від радикальних інновацій, наполягання на тому, що звільнення людини неможливо досягнути, не зберігши звичаїв та інститутів, які опинилися під загрозою через цілеспрямований наголос на свободі й рівності.”
“Але ліберали й консерватори досить відрізняються за темпераментом. Ліберали зазвичай бунтують, консерватори зазвичай підкорюються. Консерватори вважають, що якщо знищити культуру покори, тоді проголошуватимуться права, але забуватимуть про обовʼязки, і наслідком цього стане тоталітарний терор, як той, що слідував за Французькою революцією.”
“…лібералів і консерваторів обʼєднувало їхнє визнання особистої свободи як основної політичної цінності, але вони відрізнялися у своїх поглядах на традиційні інститути. Ліберали розглядали політичний порядок як такий, що випливає з особистої свободи; консерватори ж тлумачили особисту свободу як таку, що походить з політичного порядку. На думку консерваторів, легітимним політичний порядок робить не вільний вибір, який його створює, а вільний вибір, створений політичним порядком. Питання про те, що було першим - свобода
чи порядок, — розділятиме лібералів і консерваторів упродовж подальших двохсот років. Але в належний час зʼявляться нові загрози, що знову їх обʼєднають, не остання з яких — розвиток модерної держави.”
“Станом на кінець ХІХ століття консерватизм став визначати себе інакше: як відповідь на грандіозні схеми «справедливого» суспільства, які мав просувати новий різновид адміністративної держави. У цій боротьбі консерватизм загалом став справжнім захисником свободи, у кращому випадку від нової системи бюрократичного уряду, а в гіршому - від Радянського Союзу, тиранії, ще більш убивчої, ніж якобінці в революційній Франції.”
“Сучасний консерватизм розпочався як захист традиції проти закликів до народного суверенітету; він став зверненням на захист релігії та високої культури проти матеріалістичної доктрини прогресу, перш ніж обʼєднав зусилля з класичними лібералами проти соціалізму. У своїх найнещодавніших спробах самовизначення він очолив західну цивілізацію в боротьбі з її ворогами, особливо з двома: політкоректністю (зокрема з її обмеженням свободи висловлювання та наголосом на тому, що в усьому є провина Заходу) та релігійним екстремізмом, особливо войовничим ісламізмом, що його просувають ваххабітські та салафітські секти. У всіх цих трансформаціях щось лишилося незмінним, а саме переконання в тому, що добрі речі легше знищувати, ніж створювати, а також налаштованість триматися за ці добрі речі перед лицем змін, які несе політична інженерія.”
“Консерватизм у своїй оригінальній формі був відповіддю на класичний лібералізм, чимось на кшталт «так, але...» у відповідь на «так» народного суверенітету. Це був захист спадку від радикальних інновацій, наполягання на тому, що звільнення людини неможливо досягнути, не зберігши звичаїв та інститутів, які опинилися під загрозою через цілеспрямований наголос на свободі й рівності.”
“Але ліберали й консерватори досить відрізняються за темпераментом. Ліберали зазвичай бунтують, консерватори зазвичай підкорюються. Консерватори вважають, що якщо знищити культуру покори, тоді проголошуватимуться права, але забуватимуть про обовʼязки, і наслідком цього стане тоталітарний терор, як той, що слідував за Французькою революцією.”
“…лібералів і консерваторів обʼєднувало їхнє визнання особистої свободи як основної політичної цінності, але вони відрізнялися у своїх поглядах на традиційні інститути. Ліберали розглядали політичний порядок як такий, що випливає з особистої свободи; консерватори ж тлумачили особисту свободу як таку, що походить з політичного порядку. На думку консерваторів, легітимним політичний порядок робить не вільний вибір, який його створює, а вільний вибір, створений політичним порядком. Питання про те, що було першим - свобода
чи порядок, — розділятиме лібералів і консерваторів упродовж подальших двохсот років. Але в належний час зʼявляться нові загрози, що знову їх обʼєднають, не остання з яких — розвиток модерної держави.”
“Станом на кінець ХІХ століття консерватизм став визначати себе інакше: як відповідь на грандіозні схеми «справедливого» суспільства, які мав просувати новий різновид адміністративної держави. У цій боротьбі консерватизм загалом став справжнім захисником свободи, у кращому випадку від нової системи бюрократичного уряду, а в гіршому - від Радянського Союзу, тиранії, ще більш убивчої, ніж якобінці в революційній Франції.”
“Сучасний консерватизм розпочався як захист традиції проти закликів до народного суверенітету; він став зверненням на захист релігії та високої культури проти матеріалістичної доктрини прогресу, перш ніж обʼєднав зусилля з класичними лібералами проти соціалізму. У своїх найнещодавніших спробах самовизначення він очолив західну цивілізацію в боротьбі з її ворогами, особливо з двома: політкоректністю (зокрема з її обмеженням свободи висловлювання та наголосом на тому, що в усьому є провина Заходу) та релігійним екстремізмом, особливо войовничим ісламізмом, що його просувають ваххабітські та салафітські секти. У всіх цих трансформаціях щось лишилося незмінним, а саме переконання в тому, що добрі речі легше знищувати, ніж створювати, а також налаштованість триматися за ці добрі речі перед лицем змін, які несе політична інженерія.”
January 17, 2020
I began reading this on the day he died. It is a good, concise review of the conservative instinct in Western civilization —very well done. I thought he gave short shrift to Russell Kirk, though.
September 17, 2024
“Social traditions, Burke pointed out, are forms of knowledge. They contain the residues of many trials and errors, and the inherited solutions to problems that we all encounter. Like those cognitive abilities that pre-date civilisation they are *adaptations*, but adaptations of the community rather than of the individual organism. Social traditions exist because they enable a society to reproduce itself. Destroy them heedlessly and you remove the guarantee offered by one generation to the next.
.... [F]or Burke, traditions and customs distil information about the indefinitely many strangers living *then*, information that we need if we are to accommodate our conduct to the needs of absent generations.
Moreover, in discussing tradition, we are not discussing arbitrary rules and conventions. We are discussing *answers* that have been discovered to enduring *questions*. These answers are tacit, shared, embodied in social practices and inarticulate expectations. Those who adopt them are not necessarily able to explain them, far less justify them. Hence Burke described them as 'prejudices', and defended them on the grounds that, though the stock of reason in each individual is small, there is an accumulation of reason in society that we question and reject at our peril.”
.... [F]or Burke, traditions and customs distil information about the indefinitely many strangers living *then*, information that we need if we are to accommodate our conduct to the needs of absent generations.
Moreover, in discussing tradition, we are not discussing arbitrary rules and conventions. We are discussing *answers* that have been discovered to enduring *questions*. These answers are tacit, shared, embodied in social practices and inarticulate expectations. Those who adopt them are not necessarily able to explain them, far less justify them. Hence Burke described them as 'prejudices', and defended them on the grounds that, though the stock of reason in each individual is small, there is an accumulation of reason in society that we question and reject at our peril.”
July 25, 2019
With Conservatism: An Introduction to the Great Tradition, Roger Scruton has written a useful introduction to not only the basic tenets of conservatism, but also to how it as redefined itself over time in response to political and social challenges.
This volume is eminently readable, owing partly to its condensed size. Unfortunately, the size of the book is also one of its drawbacks. Scruton covers roughly 400 years in 150 pages, summarizing the conservative movements in England, continental Europe, and the United States along the way. While the clarity with which he touches on these topics is admirable, there's simply not enough space for Scruton to expound the way he's capable of. Fortunately he does offer many recommendations for the reader to further investigate figures and movements within conservatism.
Overall, this would be recommended reading for anyone, on the political right, center, or left, who is looking for a basic introduction to the beliefs and principles of philosophical conservatism (and since this was the intended audience of the book, it's hard to say that this effort was not a success). For others who, like me, are looking for an exposition and defense of the conservative worldview, this book is unlikely to be fully satisfying. Even so, it provides a useful context and historiography of conservatism, which will aid the more curious reader in future study.
This volume is eminently readable, owing partly to its condensed size. Unfortunately, the size of the book is also one of its drawbacks. Scruton covers roughly 400 years in 150 pages, summarizing the conservative movements in England, continental Europe, and the United States along the way. While the clarity with which he touches on these topics is admirable, there's simply not enough space for Scruton to expound the way he's capable of. Fortunately he does offer many recommendations for the reader to further investigate figures and movements within conservatism.
Overall, this would be recommended reading for anyone, on the political right, center, or left, who is looking for a basic introduction to the beliefs and principles of philosophical conservatism (and since this was the intended audience of the book, it's hard to say that this effort was not a success). For others who, like me, are looking for an exposition and defense of the conservative worldview, this book is unlikely to be fully satisfying. Even so, it provides a useful context and historiography of conservatism, which will aid the more curious reader in future study.
April 15, 2021
The world lost a treasure in 2020 when Sir Roger Scruton passed. A leading British philosopher, aesthete, and social critic, Scruton was also a prodigious author, penning over 50 books.
In this concise volume, Scruton presents conservatism as a tradition worth defending, tracing its growth from the Enlightenment down through the 21st century. He also traces the change in language over time, recognizing that what is known as 'conservatism' in the 21st century would rightly have been called 'classical liberalism' in the past.
Similar to Kirk's "The Conservative Mind," Scruton interacts with prominent conservatives of the past, giving an emphasis on the English and American variety, but doing diligence to European conservatives of the German, French, and Spanish persuasion. Along with Kirk and especially Bradford, he instinctively understands that conservatism is fundamentally opposed to ideology of any type and therefore difficult to define. Essentially, it is a recognition that the reasoning capacity of humans is inherently limited and that tradition is an important form of knowledge--an inheritance that can either be guarded or squandered.
No attempt at building a society on the basis of reason alone has ever succeeded, partially because the attempt always starts from a flawed foundation--that policy and the form of government precede civilization. Scruton and his kind recognize that civil society precedes government and that law (rightly understood) is a reflection of the received norms of a people. His section on the English common law was especially good.
Very, very good. Highly recommended.
In this concise volume, Scruton presents conservatism as a tradition worth defending, tracing its growth from the Enlightenment down through the 21st century. He also traces the change in language over time, recognizing that what is known as 'conservatism' in the 21st century would rightly have been called 'classical liberalism' in the past.
Similar to Kirk's "The Conservative Mind," Scruton interacts with prominent conservatives of the past, giving an emphasis on the English and American variety, but doing diligence to European conservatives of the German, French, and Spanish persuasion. Along with Kirk and especially Bradford, he instinctively understands that conservatism is fundamentally opposed to ideology of any type and therefore difficult to define. Essentially, it is a recognition that the reasoning capacity of humans is inherently limited and that tradition is an important form of knowledge--an inheritance that can either be guarded or squandered.
No attempt at building a society on the basis of reason alone has ever succeeded, partially because the attempt always starts from a flawed foundation--that policy and the form of government precede civilization. Scruton and his kind recognize that civil society precedes government and that law (rightly understood) is a reflection of the received norms of a people. His section on the English common law was especially good.
Very, very good. Highly recommended.
December 15, 2018
Many politicians who call themselves Conservative aren’t. Destructive actions such as legislating to reduce the powers of a Democrat governor, as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is doing; creating gerrymanders, as Republicans have in the United States; or denying a US President the right to nominate a judge for the Supreme Court, as the then Republican dominated Senate did in 2016.
Extreme right wingers calling themselves conservative is a misnomer. They’re radical.
Well-known British conservative academic, philosopher and editor, Sir Roger Scruton, has written a concise book about conservatism, its origins and its manifestations that aren’t restricted to politics and its proponents.
It’s an enlightening book, some of which I disagreed, some of which I did. Conservatism is a Conservatism 101; not only an excellent introduction to the subject but an enlightening read about political philosophy. The prose keeps polemics at bay until towards the end when Sir Roger pontificates about the dangers of multiculturalism.
Extreme right wingers calling themselves conservative is a misnomer. They’re radical.
Well-known British conservative academic, philosopher and editor, Sir Roger Scruton, has written a concise book about conservatism, its origins and its manifestations that aren’t restricted to politics and its proponents.
It’s an enlightening book, some of which I disagreed, some of which I did. Conservatism is a Conservatism 101; not only an excellent introduction to the subject but an enlightening read about political philosophy. The prose keeps polemics at bay until towards the end when Sir Roger pontificates about the dangers of multiculturalism.
May 16, 2021
A Mass of Contradictions
This is a useful book in that it provides a fair minded account of the conservative tradition. What it cannot hide, however is that this tradition is a mass of contradictions.
Scruton is at his best in explaining the rise of conservatism as a qualification of liberalism after the French Revolution. He then notes the rise of Reactionary thought, but does not do enough to show that this illiberal element cancels out the original liberalism of the tradition. Subsequent conservatism simply moves between these liberal and illiberal poles.
One cannot fail to see the vast deterioration of conservative thinking in the late twentieth century. To put Ayn Rand in the same sentence as Edmund Burke tells the story.
This is a useful book in that it provides a fair minded account of the conservative tradition. What it cannot hide, however is that this tradition is a mass of contradictions.
Scruton is at his best in explaining the rise of conservatism as a qualification of liberalism after the French Revolution. He then notes the rise of Reactionary thought, but does not do enough to show that this illiberal element cancels out the original liberalism of the tradition. Subsequent conservatism simply moves between these liberal and illiberal poles.
One cannot fail to see the vast deterioration of conservative thinking in the late twentieth century. To put Ayn Rand in the same sentence as Edmund Burke tells the story.
February 10, 2020
Nice, succinct introduction to conservative thought from its emergence in Europe in the wake of the French Revolution though the present in the United States and Europe, with an accent on English conservatism. Even so, for the wholly uninitiated, there will be much to follow up on in the brief list of books for further reading. I might suggest finding a few points of personal interest, and then looking into those individual writers in their own words.
November 29, 2020
Além do tema ser particularmente difícil de engolir, a escrita não me agradou... Tudo muito confuso e pouco objetivo. Só finalizei porque faz parte do clube do livro que estou participando. Enfim, minha opinião sobre o tema terminou do mesmo jeito que começou.
October 9, 2021
Published in 2017, a little over two years before his death, this I think was Roger Scruton’s last published work devoted to conservatism proper. He has written other books on music and art, albeit as seen through a conservative lens, but their primary focus were aesthetic and not civic. Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition summarizes a great career of a man who has lived his life in the public square with a particular philosophy that runs against the current of contemporary ethos. Roger Scruton (1944-2020) was a conservative in the paleo conservative sense, not some neoconservative rebranding of once Liberal thought. He is British, though has had a voice in European and American conservative circles, a professor of philosophy, has published over 50 books on a wide range of subjects, and for almost twenty years was chief editor at the conservative quarterly, The Salisbury Review. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Scruton helped establish an underground academic networks in communist controlled countries.
This is an excellent and concise book on the history of modern conservatism by an author who lived through most of the debates of the last fifty years. When Scruton identifies modern conservatism, he says it is “a product of the Enlightenment,” although acknowledging that conservatism dates back in every era of history. Conservatism for Scruton is a set of customs, values, and institutions built by a community over time that have proven to sustain and preserve and “ensure [the] community’s long-term survival” and that give it a sense of identity and unity. Conservatism in the modern sense is a counter to the Liberal emphasis of reshaping society as radical individualism that rose out of the Enlightenment. “Tradition,” as Scruton observes from Edmund Burke, “is a form of knowledge.”
Scruton walks us through the philosophical ideas that have shaped conservatism going back to Edmund Burke, who argued against a notion of society as a “social contract” (from Jean-Jacques Rousseau) but as a “shared inheritance for the sake of which we learn to circumscribe our demands, to see our own place in things as part of a continuous chain of giving and receiving, and to recognize that the good things we inherit are not ours to spoil but ours to safeguard for our dependents” (p. 45). Indeed I never signed a social contract but I was certainly born into a shared inheritance.
This is not a book of the ins and outs of political battle over the course of 250 years, but the philosophic developments over that time in Western culture. Scruton takes us from the Enlightenment, through the British conservative counter-reaction, through the American founding, through continental European developments, and finally as a reaction to socialism in the twentieth century. Conservatism for Scruton—and for me, since this has been my view too—is not so much a political philosophy or an economic theory or an intellectual construct, but more a desire to preserve one’s culture and traditions in the face of forced change. Yes, there is intellectual process which ultimately undergirds the inclination, but foremost is that our culture is our home, which we have ordered through love, and to tear down that home is to violate that love. Perhaps a summary paragraph of the book is stated as Scruton brings the reader into contemporary times:
Scruton brings us through a lot of material and personages in such a short book: Burke, Locke, Hume, Blackstone, Adam Smith (and not just for his economic theories), Jefferson, Madison, Tocqueville, Maistre, Chateaubriand, Coleridge, Arnold, Ruskin, Chesterton, Hayak, even T.S. Eliot, Simone Weil, and D.H. Lawrence. And of course there is William F. Buckley, Russell Kirk, and Scruton himself. I can’t name them all, but it is quite a journey. This is a gem of a book.
This is an excellent and concise book on the history of modern conservatism by an author who lived through most of the debates of the last fifty years. When Scruton identifies modern conservatism, he says it is “a product of the Enlightenment,” although acknowledging that conservatism dates back in every era of history. Conservatism for Scruton is a set of customs, values, and institutions built by a community over time that have proven to sustain and preserve and “ensure [the] community’s long-term survival” and that give it a sense of identity and unity. Conservatism in the modern sense is a counter to the Liberal emphasis of reshaping society as radical individualism that rose out of the Enlightenment. “Tradition,” as Scruton observes from Edmund Burke, “is a form of knowledge.”
Scruton walks us through the philosophical ideas that have shaped conservatism going back to Edmund Burke, who argued against a notion of society as a “social contract” (from Jean-Jacques Rousseau) but as a “shared inheritance for the sake of which we learn to circumscribe our demands, to see our own place in things as part of a continuous chain of giving and receiving, and to recognize that the good things we inherit are not ours to spoil but ours to safeguard for our dependents” (p. 45). Indeed I never signed a social contract but I was certainly born into a shared inheritance.
This is not a book of the ins and outs of political battle over the course of 250 years, but the philosophic developments over that time in Western culture. Scruton takes us from the Enlightenment, through the British conservative counter-reaction, through the American founding, through continental European developments, and finally as a reaction to socialism in the twentieth century. Conservatism for Scruton—and for me, since this has been my view too—is not so much a political philosophy or an economic theory or an intellectual construct, but more a desire to preserve one’s culture and traditions in the face of forced change. Yes, there is intellectual process which ultimately undergirds the inclination, but foremost is that our culture is our home, which we have ordered through love, and to tear down that home is to violate that love. Perhaps a summary paragraph of the book is stated as Scruton brings the reader into contemporary times:
Modern conservatism began as a defense of tradition against the calls of popular sovereignty; it became an appeal on behalf of religion and high culture against the materialist doctrine of progress, before joining forces with the classical liberals in the fight against socialism. In its most recent attempt to define itself it has become the champion of Western civilization against its enemies, and against two of those enemies in particular: political correctness (notably its constraints on freedom of expression and its emphasis in everything on Western guilt) and religious extremism, especially the militant Islamism promoted by Wahhabi-Salif sects. In all these transformations something has remained the same, namely the conviction that good things are more easily destroyed than created, and the determination to hold on to those good things in the face of politically engineered changed. (p. 127)
Scruton brings us through a lot of material and personages in such a short book: Burke, Locke, Hume, Blackstone, Adam Smith (and not just for his economic theories), Jefferson, Madison, Tocqueville, Maistre, Chateaubriand, Coleridge, Arnold, Ruskin, Chesterton, Hayak, even T.S. Eliot, Simone Weil, and D.H. Lawrence. And of course there is William F. Buckley, Russell Kirk, and Scruton himself. I can’t name them all, but it is quite a journey. This is a gem of a book.
August 2, 2022
Scruton is a brilliant mind who writes with incredible clarity, insight, and wide-ranging knowledge. He briefly (yet thoroughly) explores the roots of conservatism, and follows its progression and development throughout the history of Western civilization. He carefully notes the thinkers and circumstances in continental Europe, Britain, and the United States that helped shape and define conservative philosophy and politics. He also provides insight into the current challenges facing conservatives and the Western world. This book was heavier than expected, given its small size. Yet, Scruton is essential reading!
January 28, 2023
You’d expect a better book chronicling the history of conservatism from a conservative stalwart like Roger Scruton but alas this forgettable book is what we got. There is throwaway line near the beginning that is a dig at Islam but I guess that’s how the author proves his Conservative™ credentials. I’ve read other books by Scruton which I found insightful but the best thing I can say about this is book is that it introduced me to Chateaubriand.
February 19, 2025
Dense for such a small book, but very informative. I’ll admit that some of it probably went above my head, but I think it’s good for us to be reminded of how much we don’t know and still have yet to learn.
I appreciated the references to other authors and conservative minds so that I can build my list of what books to read to better understand the political sphere and the roots of conservatism, liberalism, etc.
I appreciated the references to other authors and conservative minds so that I can build my list of what books to read to better understand the political sphere and the roots of conservatism, liberalism, etc.
March 30, 2023
The venerable Sir. Roger Scruton hits another home run with this short but no less magnificent book.
February 12, 2021
4,5.
Gostei mais que o outro livro do autor “Como ser um conservador”. Leitura fluida e mais fácil. Mostra a história do conservadorismo e seus desafios. Muito bom. Recomendo.
Gostei mais que o outro livro do autor “Como ser um conservador”. Leitura fluida e mais fácil. Mostra a história do conservadorismo e seus desafios. Muito bom. Recomendo.
December 6, 2025
Informal Review:
Scruton's historical survey of western conservatism offers a great introduction to the main philosophical arguments of both British and American conservatism. He makes convincing points throughout its history, and uses the English common law system as a strong material representation of conservatism's viability. Scruton initially relies heavily on Hegelian materialism as a philosophical basis for conservatism. However, his refutations of Marxist historical materialism and socialism were weak and idealistic. Furthermore, his very clear bias for free-market capitalism (the invisible hand of the market) conveniently ignores the not so invisible imperial baggage which has historically (and therefore materially) accompanied it.
Chapter 7 is particularly heinous, as he seems to contradict the philosophy he has laid out at prior points. In his brief analyses of radical Islamism, which he considers to be the contemporary "enemy" of western civilization, he omits the historical (and thus Hegelian materialist) context through which that ideology emerged. Speaking further on Islam, he treats Islam in Europe as a monolith ("Muslim immigrants"), when writing on their "threat" to western civilization. He espouses the "profound thought" of the American founders when describing their framing of the constitution, yet attacks the use of the Supreme Court (itself a part of the common law tradition he claims to admire), when he personally disagrees with their rulings. Scruton also makes some debatable claims about "political correctness" and the alleged ostracization of conservatives in the academy (something he would find particularly ironic given the current Trump administration's stance on academic freedom).
Ultimately, it seems that the reasonable arguments (many of which I disagree with) and solid (albeit Eurocentric) history presented in the earlier chapters are intended to de-fang many preconceived notions that curious liberals may have, lessening the impact of his contradictory defense of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. This is best observed via his absorption of many ideas and thinkers into his conservative philosophy that many would think of as liberal or left-leaning, especially in their historical context (Examples of this include Dr. King, Orwell, and the American founders).
To liberals, leftists, and socialists, I recommend reading this book to understand the history of western conservatism, but also to see the contradictions of both historical and contemporary conservative analysis laid bare.
Scruton's historical survey of western conservatism offers a great introduction to the main philosophical arguments of both British and American conservatism. He makes convincing points throughout its history, and uses the English common law system as a strong material representation of conservatism's viability. Scruton initially relies heavily on Hegelian materialism as a philosophical basis for conservatism. However, his refutations of Marxist historical materialism and socialism were weak and idealistic. Furthermore, his very clear bias for free-market capitalism (the invisible hand of the market) conveniently ignores the not so invisible imperial baggage which has historically (and therefore materially) accompanied it.
Chapter 7 is particularly heinous, as he seems to contradict the philosophy he has laid out at prior points. In his brief analyses of radical Islamism, which he considers to be the contemporary "enemy" of western civilization, he omits the historical (and thus Hegelian materialist) context through which that ideology emerged. Speaking further on Islam, he treats Islam in Europe as a monolith ("Muslim immigrants"), when writing on their "threat" to western civilization. He espouses the "profound thought" of the American founders when describing their framing of the constitution, yet attacks the use of the Supreme Court (itself a part of the common law tradition he claims to admire), when he personally disagrees with their rulings. Scruton also makes some debatable claims about "political correctness" and the alleged ostracization of conservatives in the academy (something he would find particularly ironic given the current Trump administration's stance on academic freedom).
Ultimately, it seems that the reasonable arguments (many of which I disagree with) and solid (albeit Eurocentric) history presented in the earlier chapters are intended to de-fang many preconceived notions that curious liberals may have, lessening the impact of his contradictory defense of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. This is best observed via his absorption of many ideas and thinkers into his conservative philosophy that many would think of as liberal or left-leaning, especially in their historical context (Examples of this include Dr. King, Orwell, and the American founders).
To liberals, leftists, and socialists, I recommend reading this book to understand the history of western conservatism, but also to see the contradictions of both historical and contemporary conservative analysis laid bare.
March 5, 2022
This book is phenomenally challenging.
Scruton takes a concise thorough journey through the history of conservative thought from it's inception, as a tension with classical liberalism, to the modern day, where is it is in conflict with the liberal left. If the aim is to educate one about the true meaning of the word "conservative", it has utterly succeed.
But has it convinced me to adopt conservatism as my founding dogma?
Well, there is a flaw that sits at the heart of conservative thought, which is, how does one know what to conserve? As a theory, it cannot answer, simply inviting one to look at ones surroundings and work it out.
Now, maybe that's not the point. It's certainly more of a system than a philosophy. Yet it still tries very hard to convict the reader of a certain understanding of a 'purposed end' that fulfils the criteria of 'the good'.
So, with its incessant calls back to Christianity and in particular Catholicism as the patrimony, the book cannot help but end up convicting me more of my faith than ever before.
Scruton cannot seem to make the jump himself, even to the extent where the transcendent hole he has dug for himself, which could easily be filled by what so obviously fits there, namely God, is instead filled with an "Invisible Hand".
His refusal to accept the teleological, despite literally quoting Aquinas, make some of his arguments seem woolly and unattractive, and so as I started by stating, if it is trying to convince me to be adopt conservatism, it has failed. Because I have something much better: its purposed precursor which makes the same arguments only stronger and more holistically. Catholicism.
And so, if the purpose of the book is to outline the coherence of the political philosophy, I find it lacking without overtly proposing a place to ground the philosophy. The experience I have had reading it, will not be the same for someone who doesn't share the same grounding, and I believe it could have the opposite effect that the author intended.
Tldr: The Conservatism which Roger Scruton presents is a mere facsimile of Christianity, it is a placebo for a world which has rejected objective truth in favour of a subjective one
(Still, gotta hit five stars, it's such a beautiful read. And blimey, it puts a lot of issues in such stark relief that you cannot help but be filled with zeal.)
Scruton takes a concise thorough journey through the history of conservative thought from it's inception, as a tension with classical liberalism, to the modern day, where is it is in conflict with the liberal left. If the aim is to educate one about the true meaning of the word "conservative", it has utterly succeed.
But has it convinced me to adopt conservatism as my founding dogma?
Well, there is a flaw that sits at the heart of conservative thought, which is, how does one know what to conserve? As a theory, it cannot answer, simply inviting one to look at ones surroundings and work it out.
Now, maybe that's not the point. It's certainly more of a system than a philosophy. Yet it still tries very hard to convict the reader of a certain understanding of a 'purposed end' that fulfils the criteria of 'the good'.
So, with its incessant calls back to Christianity and in particular Catholicism as the patrimony, the book cannot help but end up convicting me more of my faith than ever before.
Scruton cannot seem to make the jump himself, even to the extent where the transcendent hole he has dug for himself, which could easily be filled by what so obviously fits there, namely God, is instead filled with an "Invisible Hand".
His refusal to accept the teleological, despite literally quoting Aquinas, make some of his arguments seem woolly and unattractive, and so as I started by stating, if it is trying to convince me to be adopt conservatism, it has failed. Because I have something much better: its purposed precursor which makes the same arguments only stronger and more holistically. Catholicism.
And so, if the purpose of the book is to outline the coherence of the political philosophy, I find it lacking without overtly proposing a place to ground the philosophy. The experience I have had reading it, will not be the same for someone who doesn't share the same grounding, and I believe it could have the opposite effect that the author intended.
Tldr: The Conservatism which Roger Scruton presents is a mere facsimile of Christianity, it is a placebo for a world which has rejected objective truth in favour of a subjective one
(Still, gotta hit five stars, it's such a beautiful read. And blimey, it puts a lot of issues in such stark relief that you cannot help but be filled with zeal.)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 18, 2018
This is an excellent review of the philosophical underpinnings of conservative thinking. He explains that conservatives at base realize that “good things are more easily destroyed than created,” and are therefore naturally wary that ideology-driven innovations may have far-reaching harmful unintended effects. He takes a historical tour through the ideas of Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Kant, Hegel, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke, and through more recent thinkers such as Hayek, Friedman, and Kirk.
One particular insight which was new to me is that information about how to live a good life in a community becomes encoded over time in its common law, traditions, and morals. This is analogous to Adam Smith’s insight that information about the value, worth, and demand for a product becomes encoded in its price, enabling the invisible hand to provide a benefit to both parties in a free exchange. The spontaneous order that arises in a free market is then akin to the spontaneous order that arises in a local community.
Check out the more thoughtful and informative review by Graychin:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
And hey MGM, I think you’d enjoy this book!
One particular insight which was new to me is that information about how to live a good life in a community becomes encoded over time in its common law, traditions, and morals. This is analogous to Adam Smith’s insight that information about the value, worth, and demand for a product becomes encoded in its price, enabling the invisible hand to provide a benefit to both parties in a free exchange. The spontaneous order that arises in a free market is then akin to the spontaneous order that arises in a local community.
Check out the more thoughtful and informative review by Graychin:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
And hey MGM, I think you’d enjoy this book!
October 3, 2020
Apesar de fazer uma contextualização histórica importante do pensamento conservador, a escrita quase forçosamente erudita de Scruton é difícil e certamente afasta leitores menos dedicados e menos abertos. Livro curto, mas que me exigiu muito em termos de concentração e dedicação. Não recomendo como primeiro contato com o posicionamento conservador.
December 8, 2020
Excelente... Agora entendi pq falam tanto do Scruton. Esse cara era um gênio.
Com uma escrita simples apresenta uma infinidade de artigos, dados e história de uma forma leve, sem ser cansativo e maçante.
Não se engane com o tamanho do livro... Tem informação demais... É com certeza para mais de uma leitura e mais de uma vez!
Com uma escrita simples apresenta uma infinidade de artigos, dados e história de uma forma leve, sem ser cansativo e maçante.
Não se engane com o tamanho do livro... Tem informação demais... É com certeza para mais de uma leitura e mais de uma vez!
May 1, 2019
This isn't the type of thing I usually read, but this book as it was recommended to me by someone in light of a discussion about what really constituted "conservatism." I have long asserted that I'm anything but a political animal (polis-creature, in the literal translation), but after reading it, I'm starting to question that belief. It certainly wasn't what I was initially expecting: happily, rather than focusing on tired talking points, it serves as a treatise on what I would call "philosophical" rather than "political" conservatism. To that end, it is delightfully devoid of the polemic which is currently issuing forth on every media platform in the world.
As I'm attempting to stay as neutral as possible, this review will be more of a description of the author's arguments and methods, so I'm expecting that this entry will be anything but inspired. In general, this rather short (and in some respects superficial) treatise reads like a history of "conservatism," or, rather, what the author believes constitutes modern "conservatism," largely through the lens of a lengthy pedigree of political philosophy. It also reads like a dissertation chapter to that effect, in fact, specifically a lit review that hits the highlights, at least. It is broad in scope but does really lack depth, brushing over major figures such as Locke, Hume, Smith, Voltaire and others in a couple of paragraphs, and occasionally, a handful of sentences. That it assumes a fair amount of knowledge on the part of the reader is not in itself problematic (at least for me), considering the intended audience, but if one is going to reference the works of these luminaries, they deserve adequate treatment, even in a piece this condensed. Nor does it make thorough application to much of the material, specifically the pedigree of conservatism, which ostensibly is the author's primary point. (hence the subtitle: an invitation to the Great Tradition).
As with proponents of most ideological systems, S. starts "at the beginning," drawing on a distant past to lend a modicum of legitimacy to the ideological system he's advocating, a method which has been employed since time immemorial. He states that the conflict between the competing ideologies of "liberalism" and "conservatism," terms which to my way of thinking remain rather nebulous and ill-defined throughout, dates to the publication of Locke's treatise of Civil Government, itself a response to an earlier treatise of Sir Robert Filmer (1588-1653) advocating the divine right of kings. S. states that "henceforth, the dispute between liberals and conservatives would emerge in its modern form, as a dispute within the broad ideas of popular sovereignty, the liberty of the individual, and constitutional rights." Since these ideologies morphed and evolved considerably over time, however, the connection to the pre-modern dialogue seems something of a stretch.
One of the particular strengths of the book is the inclusion of so many facets of what the author terms "conservatism," although the lack of definition is problematic. The author does eventually provide a specific definition of conservatism, but not until page 105. It should be in the introduction, and it's still rather vague. He notes that the ideology of conservatism involves not only ideas of the political and economic, but the social, aesthetic, literary, religious, and even scientific. On the whole, however, the book remains something of a fractured collection of topics rather than a comprehensive portrait.
My primary objection to the book is the loaded language it employs: many of the terms S. uses consistently and frequently aren't expressed in sufficient detail. They are highly complex, and, indeed, represent a broad and often contradictory concept or ideology which need some serious unpacking. An example is the following passage: "...modern conservatism arose as a defense of the individual against potential oppressors, and an endorsement of popular sovereignty." Sounds mighty like something a "liberal" might argue for, so who may constitute "oppressors" and what "popular sovereignty" consists of is highly a matter of perspective and interpretation. Hence, these loaded terms need to be articulated and defined much more carefully. Similarly: "For the conservative, human beings come into this world burdened by obligations, and subject to institutions and traditions that contain within them a precious inheritance of wisdom, without which the exercise of freedom is as likely to destroy human rights and entitlements as to enhance them." I would argue that this admonition does not just apply to "conservatives," which is an argument seemingly implicit in this statement.
And, yet another sterling example of what I would label the "carelessness" of his use of language: "the institutions of law and government exist in order to assign responsibilities and to ensure that they are not evaded or abused. Of course, this is something that liberals too will acknowledge. But the difference of emphasis is crucial to the conservative position. Conservatism is about freedom, yes. But it is also about the institutions and attitudes that shape the responsible citizen, and ensure that freedom is a benefit to us all. Conservatism is therefore also about limits to freedom. And here, in the potential conflict with the extreme liberal view that values freedom above all other things and refuses to set limits to its exercise, we encounter one of the principal political issues of our time." S. does not cite specific examples to support his argument, which brings me to the heart of another major criticism of this book. It highlights another major problem I have with this entire world view, in fact: it divides the country, and, perhaps, the world, into two opposing camps. This totalizing discourse is problematic on a number of fronts, not the least of which is the fact that not everyone can be so neatly categorized. In S.'s world view, there is no room for nuance, nor dissenting opinion. I would state, hopefully correctly, that I do not identify as a member of either, so, what would the author do with someone like me? The most egregious example I found: "liberals and conservatives are temperamentally quite distinct. Liberals naturally rebel, conservatives naturally obey."
Overall, I think this book is definitely worth a read, but I expect many will come away just as confused as when they started. It is a worthwhile introduction to much of Europe's enviable philosophical tradition, much of which S. draws on, but I'm still not sold on the concept of conservatism vs. liberalism, probably because the terms themselves are so ill-defined. Many of the statements S. makes about one or the other could easily apply to both, and there are few discrete examples to support his theories. I was just hoping for more clarification, I guess, and it came up short in that regard.
People often ask me where I stand on the political spectrum, and I'm often reticent to answer, for a number of reasons. I think I'll give it a go, however, in this final paragraph, as it has a bearing on this review. Although this book definitely eschews the puerile political infighting currently occurring in the US, to its great credit, I did want to address it. Final answer, in my opinion: as Jefferson once noted, party politics may well bring about the demise of our republic, and we may not be far off, for exactly the reasons S. notes in this book, although he doesn't go into specifics. Every issue and challenge imaginable has become so polarized and weaponized that cooperation and compromise for the purpose of mutual benefit has become impossible. This gang-war mentality two-party system has taken on the insane, rabid fervor and zealotry of religious orthodoxy, where loyalty to one's cult reigns supreme and the application of reason has become almost impossible. Half the people an elected representative is charged with working with to the betterment of our nation become their sworn enemy, bent on their destruction at all costs, the first day they show up for work. This toxic environment has become utterly untenable, to the detriment of all of us. Despite its obvious flaws, this book was a worthwhile read, even if it served as an affirmation of what I already know, and have long known: divisive rhetoric is an inherent aspect of modern politics, and as such, being a member of the Blue Tie Cult or the Red Tie Cult is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
--------------NOTABLE PASSAGES-------------
"contempt for the dead leads to the disenfranchisement of the unborn, and although that result is not perhaps inevitable, it has been repeated by all subsequent revolutions....Radical individualists enter the world without social capital of their own, and they consume all that they find."
"Social traditions exist because they enable a society to reproduce itself. Destroy them heedlessly and you remove the guarantee offered by one generation to the next."
"For Medieval craftsmen, work was an act of piety and was sanctified in their own eyes as in the eyes of their God. For such labourers, end and means are one and he spiritual wholeness of faith is translated into the visual wholeness and purify of their craft. hence their craft was also art, a permanent testimony to the reality on earth of humanity's spiritual redemption."
"Many accuse conservatism of being no more than a highly-wrought work of mourning, a translation into the language of politics of the yearning for childhood that lies deep in us all."
"To offer toleration to those gripped by animosity to your way of life is to open the door to destruction." An elaborate lit review, more the history of conservatism.
As I'm attempting to stay as neutral as possible, this review will be more of a description of the author's arguments and methods, so I'm expecting that this entry will be anything but inspired. In general, this rather short (and in some respects superficial) treatise reads like a history of "conservatism," or, rather, what the author believes constitutes modern "conservatism," largely through the lens of a lengthy pedigree of political philosophy. It also reads like a dissertation chapter to that effect, in fact, specifically a lit review that hits the highlights, at least. It is broad in scope but does really lack depth, brushing over major figures such as Locke, Hume, Smith, Voltaire and others in a couple of paragraphs, and occasionally, a handful of sentences. That it assumes a fair amount of knowledge on the part of the reader is not in itself problematic (at least for me), considering the intended audience, but if one is going to reference the works of these luminaries, they deserve adequate treatment, even in a piece this condensed. Nor does it make thorough application to much of the material, specifically the pedigree of conservatism, which ostensibly is the author's primary point. (hence the subtitle: an invitation to the Great Tradition).
As with proponents of most ideological systems, S. starts "at the beginning," drawing on a distant past to lend a modicum of legitimacy to the ideological system he's advocating, a method which has been employed since time immemorial. He states that the conflict between the competing ideologies of "liberalism" and "conservatism," terms which to my way of thinking remain rather nebulous and ill-defined throughout, dates to the publication of Locke's treatise of Civil Government, itself a response to an earlier treatise of Sir Robert Filmer (1588-1653) advocating the divine right of kings. S. states that "henceforth, the dispute between liberals and conservatives would emerge in its modern form, as a dispute within the broad ideas of popular sovereignty, the liberty of the individual, and constitutional rights." Since these ideologies morphed and evolved considerably over time, however, the connection to the pre-modern dialogue seems something of a stretch.
One of the particular strengths of the book is the inclusion of so many facets of what the author terms "conservatism," although the lack of definition is problematic. The author does eventually provide a specific definition of conservatism, but not until page 105. It should be in the introduction, and it's still rather vague. He notes that the ideology of conservatism involves not only ideas of the political and economic, but the social, aesthetic, literary, religious, and even scientific. On the whole, however, the book remains something of a fractured collection of topics rather than a comprehensive portrait.
My primary objection to the book is the loaded language it employs: many of the terms S. uses consistently and frequently aren't expressed in sufficient detail. They are highly complex, and, indeed, represent a broad and often contradictory concept or ideology which need some serious unpacking. An example is the following passage: "...modern conservatism arose as a defense of the individual against potential oppressors, and an endorsement of popular sovereignty." Sounds mighty like something a "liberal" might argue for, so who may constitute "oppressors" and what "popular sovereignty" consists of is highly a matter of perspective and interpretation. Hence, these loaded terms need to be articulated and defined much more carefully. Similarly: "For the conservative, human beings come into this world burdened by obligations, and subject to institutions and traditions that contain within them a precious inheritance of wisdom, without which the exercise of freedom is as likely to destroy human rights and entitlements as to enhance them." I would argue that this admonition does not just apply to "conservatives," which is an argument seemingly implicit in this statement.
And, yet another sterling example of what I would label the "carelessness" of his use of language: "the institutions of law and government exist in order to assign responsibilities and to ensure that they are not evaded or abused. Of course, this is something that liberals too will acknowledge. But the difference of emphasis is crucial to the conservative position. Conservatism is about freedom, yes. But it is also about the institutions and attitudes that shape the responsible citizen, and ensure that freedom is a benefit to us all. Conservatism is therefore also about limits to freedom. And here, in the potential conflict with the extreme liberal view that values freedom above all other things and refuses to set limits to its exercise, we encounter one of the principal political issues of our time." S. does not cite specific examples to support his argument, which brings me to the heart of another major criticism of this book. It highlights another major problem I have with this entire world view, in fact: it divides the country, and, perhaps, the world, into two opposing camps. This totalizing discourse is problematic on a number of fronts, not the least of which is the fact that not everyone can be so neatly categorized. In S.'s world view, there is no room for nuance, nor dissenting opinion. I would state, hopefully correctly, that I do not identify as a member of either, so, what would the author do with someone like me? The most egregious example I found: "liberals and conservatives are temperamentally quite distinct. Liberals naturally rebel, conservatives naturally obey."
Overall, I think this book is definitely worth a read, but I expect many will come away just as confused as when they started. It is a worthwhile introduction to much of Europe's enviable philosophical tradition, much of which S. draws on, but I'm still not sold on the concept of conservatism vs. liberalism, probably because the terms themselves are so ill-defined. Many of the statements S. makes about one or the other could easily apply to both, and there are few discrete examples to support his theories. I was just hoping for more clarification, I guess, and it came up short in that regard.
People often ask me where I stand on the political spectrum, and I'm often reticent to answer, for a number of reasons. I think I'll give it a go, however, in this final paragraph, as it has a bearing on this review. Although this book definitely eschews the puerile political infighting currently occurring in the US, to its great credit, I did want to address it. Final answer, in my opinion: as Jefferson once noted, party politics may well bring about the demise of our republic, and we may not be far off, for exactly the reasons S. notes in this book, although he doesn't go into specifics. Every issue and challenge imaginable has become so polarized and weaponized that cooperation and compromise for the purpose of mutual benefit has become impossible. This gang-war mentality two-party system has taken on the insane, rabid fervor and zealotry of religious orthodoxy, where loyalty to one's cult reigns supreme and the application of reason has become almost impossible. Half the people an elected representative is charged with working with to the betterment of our nation become their sworn enemy, bent on their destruction at all costs, the first day they show up for work. This toxic environment has become utterly untenable, to the detriment of all of us. Despite its obvious flaws, this book was a worthwhile read, even if it served as an affirmation of what I already know, and have long known: divisive rhetoric is an inherent aspect of modern politics, and as such, being a member of the Blue Tie Cult or the Red Tie Cult is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
--------------NOTABLE PASSAGES-------------
"contempt for the dead leads to the disenfranchisement of the unborn, and although that result is not perhaps inevitable, it has been repeated by all subsequent revolutions....Radical individualists enter the world without social capital of their own, and they consume all that they find."
"Social traditions exist because they enable a society to reproduce itself. Destroy them heedlessly and you remove the guarantee offered by one generation to the next."
"For Medieval craftsmen, work was an act of piety and was sanctified in their own eyes as in the eyes of their God. For such labourers, end and means are one and he spiritual wholeness of faith is translated into the visual wholeness and purify of their craft. hence their craft was also art, a permanent testimony to the reality on earth of humanity's spiritual redemption."
"Many accuse conservatism of being no more than a highly-wrought work of mourning, a translation into the language of politics of the yearning for childhood that lies deep in us all."
"To offer toleration to those gripped by animosity to your way of life is to open the door to destruction." An elaborate lit review, more the history of conservatism.
January 23, 2020
I feel slightly embarrassed that I should even admit that I am actually reading, let alone appreciating, a book entitled Conservatism! I have always regarded it as the term used for a party that is supported by those lucrative and sometimes shady "capitalists" who have nothing but selfish interests at heart.
But my exploration into the late Roger Scruton's works have pleasantly inspired me. This book is an easy and quick read with many interesting references to follow up - philosophers, politicians and thinkers such as Matthew Arnold, Wendell Berry, Edmund Burke, G K Chesterton, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, T S Elliot, Friedrich Von Hayak, Hegel, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, John Locke, Michael Oakeshott, George Orwell, John Ruskin, Adam Smith, Simone Weil.
As a philosopher this book is about political philosophy rather than political practice. Scruton's aim is to show "the underlying coherence of the conservative vision" so even if you are not politically conservative there is much to be gleaned and if we are honest, though it is not the trendiest thing to admit, there is some conservative in us all!
The author deals with, not only British Conservatism but also American, and Continental. He shows how cultures have been inspired by Conservatism in art, music, poetry and philosophy and as the term suggests there is a need to "conserve" all that is wholesome, all that is good and beautiful for future generations. (For this reason I would like to explore how conservatism fits with Process Philosophy. RS didn't seem to have come across Alfred North Whitehead. Most present representations of PP seem more aligned with Marxist thinking which to me is a bit of an anomaly)
Needless to say, Scruton contrasts the Marxist/socialist agenda with incisive clarity. I know from his story that he fell into Conservatism by default. In the sixties he was studying in Paris and, at the time, there were student socialist riots on the streets below wrecking everything they saw - even the cars belonging to the workers they professed to be supporting! Scruton said "I don't know what I believed but whatever it was I said to myself 'it is not that!'" And so it seems he has spent his life trying to define what that "whatever" is - often by negation.
For instance one such observation of Oakeshott on p. 106 "Oakeshott followed his argument on an attack on 'ideology'. This was his name for political belief systems - collections of ideas, goals and theories designed to justify the believer in taking charge of the future. The Marxist theory of revolution, the fascist idea of the corporate state under quasi- military command, the Nazi philosophy of race were all ideologies in Oakeshott's sense. They were designed to justify political control, by creating, at the intellectual level, a sense of emergency: only if we do this and do it now will the future of society be secured.
Against ideology Oakeshott advocated the politics of 'intimations' - intuitive understandings of how things are and how they might be changed, which arise from an active engagement in the political order and an openness to conversation with others. The aims of political association, Oakeshott insisted, are not imposed but discovered, and this means that politics is an art of listening and enquiring, rather than barking out orders or reading from a sheet of a-priori rules."
Again concerning revolutionists: p.40 "...through their contempt for the intentions and the emotions of those who had laid things by, revolutions have systematically destroyed the stock of social capital, and always revolutionaries justify this by impeccable utilitarian reasoning. Radical individualists enter the world without social capital of their own, and they consume all they find. .... Contempt for the dead leads to disenfranchisement of the unborn ... It has been repeated by all subsequent revolutions."
Using Burke he also contrasts Conservatism with Liberalism (at least in its early stages) which seeks freedom as an ultimate goal and refuses to set limits to it's exercise. On the other hand, Conservatism limits freedom so that through constraint all may benefit. This is shaped through institutions and attitudes which over time furthers responsible citizenship.
P.38 referring to "Edmund Burke 1790 ... Recognises that freedom is always in jeopardy and must be protected by law. And he is clear that a modern society must be organised politically, by a government that is to a certain measure independent of religious, tribal and family ties. But he defends religion and family as forms of collective wisdom, while rejecting the extreme individualism that refuses to acknowledge the indispensable part played by social membership in the exercise of free rational choice. Burkes's argument gives a detailed and subtle defence of the social inheritance that makes popular sovereignty possible, against the intellectuals who wish to tear down all settled laws in the people's name."
For me, it is through these institutions, (which we seem so hasty in these days to abandon), that a slow but gradual refinement and development of all that is good and beautiful can evolve. Aesthetics and beauty are in Scruton's books always emphasised as well as the value of love, especially as it is expressed in the Christian faith. Again my thoughts are that these things are so delicate which we, having first run roughshod and trampled them under the foot of (post)modernity, fill the vacuum with (a god of) banality and ugliness.
Another observation is that Conservatism, whose definition is elusive, is not perfect. It is not utopian. It does not profess total liberty for the oppressed. And neither does it profess to be a water-tight system which, if not adhered to, resorts to the elimination or removal of unwanted parts. It takes into account inequality and competition which is a reality whether we like it or not - they won't go away and indeed are a necessary part of healthy human economic and social relations. We live in an imperfect world where grace and patience are needed. (Another reason for us to recognise our true Christian heritage rather than replace it with human systems.)
Is all this cultural Conservatism just a nostalgic, sentimental longing for that which is lost and gone forever? Personally I feel that perhaps Scruton's perception of beauty though embraceable is nevertheless nostalgic - aesthetics can also progress and be constantly re-evaluated - but not at the expense of traditional artistic representation.
I do believe it takes more that human willpower to regain what has been traditionally lost in our culture especially relating to the centrality of, say, Paul's message in 1 Corinthians 13 where respect and love for all - even those who we disagree with - even those who may be considered our enemies, is central. I do believe "nature abhors a vacuum" and something evil could, in the next 50 years, overtake our wonderful heritage. But I am committed to radical optimism and a hope that is based on love which love will with sincere prayer win the day!
But my exploration into the late Roger Scruton's works have pleasantly inspired me. This book is an easy and quick read with many interesting references to follow up - philosophers, politicians and thinkers such as Matthew Arnold, Wendell Berry, Edmund Burke, G K Chesterton, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, T S Elliot, Friedrich Von Hayak, Hegel, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, John Locke, Michael Oakeshott, George Orwell, John Ruskin, Adam Smith, Simone Weil.
As a philosopher this book is about political philosophy rather than political practice. Scruton's aim is to show "the underlying coherence of the conservative vision" so even if you are not politically conservative there is much to be gleaned and if we are honest, though it is not the trendiest thing to admit, there is some conservative in us all!
The author deals with, not only British Conservatism but also American, and Continental. He shows how cultures have been inspired by Conservatism in art, music, poetry and philosophy and as the term suggests there is a need to "conserve" all that is wholesome, all that is good and beautiful for future generations. (For this reason I would like to explore how conservatism fits with Process Philosophy. RS didn't seem to have come across Alfred North Whitehead. Most present representations of PP seem more aligned with Marxist thinking which to me is a bit of an anomaly)
Needless to say, Scruton contrasts the Marxist/socialist agenda with incisive clarity. I know from his story that he fell into Conservatism by default. In the sixties he was studying in Paris and, at the time, there were student socialist riots on the streets below wrecking everything they saw - even the cars belonging to the workers they professed to be supporting! Scruton said "I don't know what I believed but whatever it was I said to myself 'it is not that!'" And so it seems he has spent his life trying to define what that "whatever" is - often by negation.
For instance one such observation of Oakeshott on p. 106 "Oakeshott followed his argument on an attack on 'ideology'. This was his name for political belief systems - collections of ideas, goals and theories designed to justify the believer in taking charge of the future. The Marxist theory of revolution, the fascist idea of the corporate state under quasi- military command, the Nazi philosophy of race were all ideologies in Oakeshott's sense. They were designed to justify political control, by creating, at the intellectual level, a sense of emergency: only if we do this and do it now will the future of society be secured.
Against ideology Oakeshott advocated the politics of 'intimations' - intuitive understandings of how things are and how they might be changed, which arise from an active engagement in the political order and an openness to conversation with others. The aims of political association, Oakeshott insisted, are not imposed but discovered, and this means that politics is an art of listening and enquiring, rather than barking out orders or reading from a sheet of a-priori rules."
Again concerning revolutionists: p.40 "...through their contempt for the intentions and the emotions of those who had laid things by, revolutions have systematically destroyed the stock of social capital, and always revolutionaries justify this by impeccable utilitarian reasoning. Radical individualists enter the world without social capital of their own, and they consume all they find. .... Contempt for the dead leads to disenfranchisement of the unborn ... It has been repeated by all subsequent revolutions."
Using Burke he also contrasts Conservatism with Liberalism (at least in its early stages) which seeks freedom as an ultimate goal and refuses to set limits to it's exercise. On the other hand, Conservatism limits freedom so that through constraint all may benefit. This is shaped through institutions and attitudes which over time furthers responsible citizenship.
P.38 referring to "Edmund Burke 1790 ... Recognises that freedom is always in jeopardy and must be protected by law. And he is clear that a modern society must be organised politically, by a government that is to a certain measure independent of religious, tribal and family ties. But he defends religion and family as forms of collective wisdom, while rejecting the extreme individualism that refuses to acknowledge the indispensable part played by social membership in the exercise of free rational choice. Burkes's argument gives a detailed and subtle defence of the social inheritance that makes popular sovereignty possible, against the intellectuals who wish to tear down all settled laws in the people's name."
For me, it is through these institutions, (which we seem so hasty in these days to abandon), that a slow but gradual refinement and development of all that is good and beautiful can evolve. Aesthetics and beauty are in Scruton's books always emphasised as well as the value of love, especially as it is expressed in the Christian faith. Again my thoughts are that these things are so delicate which we, having first run roughshod and trampled them under the foot of (post)modernity, fill the vacuum with (a god of) banality and ugliness.
Another observation is that Conservatism, whose definition is elusive, is not perfect. It is not utopian. It does not profess total liberty for the oppressed. And neither does it profess to be a water-tight system which, if not adhered to, resorts to the elimination or removal of unwanted parts. It takes into account inequality and competition which is a reality whether we like it or not - they won't go away and indeed are a necessary part of healthy human economic and social relations. We live in an imperfect world where grace and patience are needed. (Another reason for us to recognise our true Christian heritage rather than replace it with human systems.)
Is all this cultural Conservatism just a nostalgic, sentimental longing for that which is lost and gone forever? Personally I feel that perhaps Scruton's perception of beauty though embraceable is nevertheless nostalgic - aesthetics can also progress and be constantly re-evaluated - but not at the expense of traditional artistic representation.
I do believe it takes more that human willpower to regain what has been traditionally lost in our culture especially relating to the centrality of, say, Paul's message in 1 Corinthians 13 where respect and love for all - even those who we disagree with - even those who may be considered our enemies, is central. I do believe "nature abhors a vacuum" and something evil could, in the next 50 years, overtake our wonderful heritage. But I am committed to radical optimism and a hope that is based on love which love will with sincere prayer win the day!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 180 reviews