The West and the Rest

Roger Scruton wrote The West and the Rest to try to explain what makes up the political philosophy we call the West, and how this conflicts with Islam and other parts of the world. He's a good writer, quite clear, who hasn't a clue what the real origin and nature of religion is. He considers them constructs designed to bind people together in communities, instead of responses to the numinous with obedience and community being side effects.

Setting aside this inadequacy, his analysis is quite good. He explains why democratic institutions are not sufficient to create a democratic society—the society must in some form pre-date the political forms. It is not enough to vote, you must vote for the common good, and that means you must consider yourself part of the community. If you do not, your attachments will be local to family, clan, religion, or the small territory you call home. Why this rather obvious fact hasn't been discussed more I can't say, but it is rather disgusting to read of observers at an election in a place like Liberia testifying that the elections were open and fair and democratic, when anybody can see that the decision was preordained, the courts corrupt, and the loyalties tribal at their widest.

The Enlightenment era brought the rise of the modern nation-states in which the web of obligations is based on territory and a somewhat secular government. Religions are required to recognize that secular law has its own jurisdiction. But the loyalty to a territory larger than a village is a bit abstract, and must be founded on some kinds of associations. To defend a nation requires people willing to die for it, which means people willing to die for strangers. Most nations in the UN are not actually nations in this sense, but are instead territories which we agree to call a nation and which are ruled by some particular tribe which is stronger than the rest.

Islam, of course, rejects the concept of secular law, despises the garbage we sell defended by free speech, and has recently begun to fuse the requirement for jihad with the concept of a suicide attack as self-sacrifice; as shown in Khomeini's government and the current Palestinian culture. Scruton finds some good in the madrasah system, in that the students are given a common culture, a dignified text to memorize, and “a repertoire of quotations, maxims, and well-crafted sayings upon which to draw in one's daily life and relationships.” This certainly is superior to an education by TV, with quotes from Beavis and the Simpsons. He calls this a common but not high culture, which honors knowledge but ignores the high culture of medieval Islam; and contrasts this with our education, which “does not impart a common culture; it gives little guidance for life, few certainties, and unequal skills,” but which does offer for those interested the opportunity to learn a high culture where ignorance is despised.

Globalization forces the conflict, and makes the irritations worse. He regrets the acquisition of essentially sovereign powers by the global financial institutions. He despises the imposition of modern architecture, and shows how this contributes to the resentment. He holds that “It is Israel's relation to America that makes Israel the target of militant Islam,” not our relationship to Israel that makes us the target. (Partly true, I think) Globalization also spreads the terrorism, and since it is not based in any simple well-defined territory or political entity, the standard methods of fighting it fail.

Still worse, the dominant political philosophies in Europe and the US are explicitly multicultural, undercutting any demand that immigrants become part of the culture with its web of obligations: and growing numbers, especially Muslims, do not. These are not just parasites, but form a source of violent discontents themselves—since they define themselves by religion, and the clearest way to do this is by violence.

He says we must reexamine and possibly change

• our immigration philosophy and policies
• multiculturalism as a goal
• free trade in the sense of undermining other nation's sovereignties when they establish barriers in their own interests
• our legal recognition of multinationals as legal persons
• our indifference to the erosion of secular law and territorial jurisdiction by predatory litigation
• our devotion to consumption, especially consumption of things we have to import

“Terrorism is not, after all, an enemy, but a method used by the enemy. The enemy is of two kinds: the tyrant dictator, and the religious fanatic whom the tyrant protects. To act against the first is feasible, if we are prepared to play by the tyrant's rules. But to act against the second requires a credible alternative to the absolutes with which he conjures. It requires us not merely to believe in something, but to study how to put our beliefs into practice.”

OK, do we believe in anything besides consumerism anymore? It isn't perfectly clear if Scruton wants us to believe in the Enlightenment or in Christianity. Let me warn against trying to become Christians in order to have something to defeat the enemy with—God isn't a means.

Read the book.