The current political class is dominated by the ethics of
vanity identified by Jesse Norman MP in his book on Edmund Burke MP as liberal
individualism. This liberal individualism
permeates the thinking of the metropolitan class that has the time and money to
govern the rest of us. It is the
nadir of a gradual decline in Western thinking that puts the material before
the spiritual, the modern and novel before tradition, the atomised individual
before society and science before religion.
On the Left we see this reductionist outlook represented in
its disparaging of institutions that make up the fabric of our society,
sneering at valuable institutions from monarchy to marriage. If we are all individuals the Left says
we should not be oppressed by conjugal vows or subject to a Queen.
Meanwhile the Right has forgotten its duty to conserve our
institutions and has turned a legitimate institution, the market, into an idol.
It regards market economics rather than values and norms of behaviour as
explaining human actions.
Patriotism and faith are replaced by rational choice theory.
Things really seemed to go wrong after the wonderful
scientific discoveries of men of faith such as Isaac Newton. This great deepening of our
understanding of the material world, which began as a wonder at Creation was
turned into idolatry of science, where science was claimed as the explanation
of all things and our institutions and traditions were only seen as valuable if
they could be justified by scientific tests.
Not only was this so-called Enlightenment anti-religious it
was also in a sense anti- human.
The one man who did most to pervert our new scientific understanding was
that serpent in the garden of philosophy, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. At university the blogger undertook a
whole module on this leading thinker of the Enlightenment and discovered a
misanthrope. He seemed to regard
human interaction as leading to a destructive amour propre. For him the human institutions that
bind generations together with their accumulated wisdom were forces of
oppression. He therefore detested
the society Man had built up in the light of religious faith.
The French revolution with its belief that Rationalism
independent of tradition could explain everything followed, with Rousseau as
its hero. Since then this
rationalist and materialistic outlook has continued to attack tradition and
faith. It has chipped away at our
social bonds, questioned the norms of behaviour that make living together
possible and indeed life enhancing.
Much is attributed to the Enlightenment from individual
freedom to parliamentary democracy.
England gives the lie to this.
Much of what people give the Enlightenment credit for was already
underway in these Islands before Rousseau and the others put pen to paper. Religious pluralism came about
following the new settlement of the Glorious Revolution (one hundred years
before France committed regicide), but this was only implementing ideas that
were gradually developing following the Restoration in 1660. Charles II’s reign might have seen
reversals in the journey towards religious pluralism, but a compromise was
being worked out. It was finally
achieved with the accession of William III, but not by reverting to the narrow
Puritanism of Cromwell and the Regicides.
A middle of the road solution was reached without reference
to abstract theory. In good
Anglo-Saxon fashion a compromise was cobbled together that allowed people to
worship God true to their own interpretation of the Bible, Parliament was given
freedom from Royal Prerogative and the Whigs therefore got what they
wanted. It was a compromise that
worked however because it realised men live by tradition and affections not rationalist
theory. So the settlement
preserved the monarchy and indeed the pageantry of monarchy. It preserved the House of Lords and it
continued with the Church of England as an established church – so the Tory
affection for tradition was acknowledged too. It recognised that while we must be free we are also social
creatures who need institutions and traditions.
Over the
Channel, when abstract principles were followed rather than the lessons from
history, the Terror and the guillotine resulted. That is not to say that only the French make such a
mistake. While atheism and
materialism took power by force in 1789, in the United Kingdom its growing
strength has been more insidious and by stealth. “Clever” people no longer respect our traditions. They act as though our institutions
survive by some strange accident, some oversight when we were embarked on
dismantling the structure of oppression while on the road to liberty. What they do not realise is that true
liberty depends on these institutions rather than the false freedom of liberal
individualism which is to be lonely and weighed down by the material world.
So people are right when they look back nostalgically to
better times, because as these abstract, rationalist ideas have gradually
permeated our nation more and more we are constantly losing what is life
enriching.
As we approach Christmas however the whole country returns
home, casting off abstract rationalism.
Family, tradition and the Christ Child are seen again for how central
they really are to our lives. It
is a return to the Merry England of carolling and wassailing, Christmas pudding
(banned by the Puritans), Father Christmas, hunting (banned by New Labour),
hawking and feasting.
So our resistance to the liberal individualists with their
economic theories and their scientific explanations of religion begins when we
wish each other “Merry Christmas”.
Certainly if we start to wish each other “happy holidays” instead, we
have given up the fight.
No comments:
Post a Comment