On Tuesday, April 2nd, The European Conservative held a congenial and highly stimulating panel discussion in Brussels with the ambitious title of “The Defense of Civilization: A Symposium on Sir Roger Scruton.”
Sir Roger Scruton’s philosophy is a natural fit for The European Conservative (TEC). As Alvino-Mario Fantini, the TEC’s editor-in-chief and the moderator of the event explained in his introduction, it was nothing short of a civilizational project Sir Roger Scruton was engaged in. The European Conservative builds on Scruton’s wisdom, meeting the challenges of today by “trying to provide some kind of coherence in a fragmented world.”
Our three distinguished guests came from three countries to discuss Scruton’s philosophy, while also providing us with the excellent opportunity to introduce two of their recently published books.
Our guests included Professor Ferenc Hörcher, the author of Art and Politics in Roger Scruton’s Conservative Philosophy, and the head of the Research Institute of Politics and Government of the University of Public Service in Budapest; Sebastian Morello, writer, lecturer, and senior editor of The European Conservative, who recently published Conservatism and Grace—The Conservative Case for Religion by Establishment; as well as Patrick Overeem, an assistant professor at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, specializing in political philosophy and ethics.
Art and Philosophy
“Reading a philosophical work is one thing, but knowing the philosopher can make all the difference,” Hörcher started his speech. And indeed, he did enjoy Scruton’s friendship for a long time, which then inspired him to write about Sir Roger’s life and work.
The ancient Greek way of philosophy is living what you teach and finding out its truth through long-term experience—exactly what Scruton did, Hörcher tells us. Although he was not born in it, Scruton chose to learn it until he “embodied a way of life, the way of the country gentleman.”
But where did his love for old-school civic conservativism come from? In many ways, art is not only at the center of Scruton’s philosophy but also his life. Originally a philosopher of art, in the summer of ’68 found Scruton in Paris, where he experienced firsthand just “how disruptive and subversive politics can be when given over to the passion and desire of the mob,” Hörcher said.
This prompted him to seek something else: a conservative conception of communal life, which he first penned in the influential Meaning of Conservatism. The book managed to convey truly timeless ideas, precisely because it didn’t focus on ideology, politics, parties, or campaign slogans, but only the fundamental question of how to live together with others—an ancient philosophical program that goes back to the heyday of Athens.
Of course, such breakthroughs are rarely appreciated at first. The Western conservative establishment was quick to turn on Scruton and his ideas, but the “lonely traveller of conservatism” found a new home in Central Europe. That is where he finished one of his main theses, which says that
arts and culture in general are upstream from politics. If you want to know what politics is about, you need to see the particularities of the local culture.
According to Hörcher, the importance of this idea is that it shows conservatism isn’t about politics, but culture and civilization, the same civilization that is now being attacked on various fronts. Scruton learned this truth in Central Europe, particularly from the ’80s generation of young revolutionaries:
If you want to survive in a politically tense situation as an underdog, then try to pretend as if things were in the normal.
Through his works, Scruton teaches us that by being aware of and preserving our traditions, as well as choosing to observe them even in difficult times, there will be no hardships that can not be surpassed. This is because all traditions center around some form of oikophilia—the love of the place where we live, made up of filled with life by concentric circles of family, community, and nation.
Thanks to Scruton, Hörcher underlined, we know that conservatism is not about politics, but its deep cultural roots interwoven in the very fabric of our societies.
Religion and Politics
On the topic of Scruton’s understanding of religion’s role in politics, the first thing to understand is that Sir Roger always argued for an explicitly secular world, Sebastian Morello began after taking over from Professor Hörcher. Scruton believed, he explained, that religion should have no place in government, but an important one instead in the confines of the family and civil society.
Morello, on his part, doesn’t share Scruton’s conviction. If religiosity is taken out of public life, politics will necessarily move to regulate it, he argued, becoming a sort of “counterfeit magistrate” that will dictate and even censor religious thought.
Scruton also recognized this dilemma, but never solved it, leaving a gaping hole in his philosophy while he remained “stridently secular,” Morello said. For Sir Roger, the role of the church was only to offer ritual, rather than bind the citizenry in unity.
However, Morello pointed out, Scruton’s anthropological works are teeming with deeply religious terms and arguments.
For instance, one of his main theses is the distinction between the human being and the human person—a faceless, objectifiable member of our species versus a unique, living individual. And without religious terminology, Morello said, the person can not be described.
This is because the philosophy of the person is about who we are in the social matrix; we discover ourselves through who we are to others, as well as how we see and treat them. In Scruton’s philosophy, Morello said,
all evil in the world is instances of the person eclipsed; instances when we revert back to treating others as human beings, as members of the species, and, therefore, replaceable.
We are constantly on the brink of slipping back from the order of the covenant to the order of nature—from person to being—which is, in Scrutonian thought, loaded with mysticism and directly connected to the idea of the original sin. This is also why he believed that if religious education didn’t happen in the family, it would give rise to a culture of repudiation instead of a culture of reconciliation.
Therefore, even if Scruton’s politics are undeniably secular, “with a serious tension in his wider philosophy that is never truly solved,” as Morello underlined, his philosophical anthropology is highly mystical and religious, “an integral part of Western value-based discourse.” For, according to Scruton,
only if we humble ourselves before Christ can the world become a living place.
Monarchy and Symbolism
Britain’s Charles III’s coronation, being just weeks away, provided a perfect opportunity to also talk about Scruton’s views on monarchy as an institution as well as its underlying symbolism, which—as Patrick Overeem explained, can only be described in sacramental terms as well, connecting well to the previous talk on Scruton’s religiosity.
Scruton’s related works, Overeem said, did no less than save the dying monarchism of the 20th century, as he “not only took it seriously as an institution but was also prepared to defend it.” Scruton believed that monarchy is quintessentially conservative in character, as it naturally embraces traditionalism and rejects rushed social progress.
However, Scruton also considered constitutional monarchy its only acceptable form (“praising the constitutional character of monarchy as its crown jewel”), and not only because of political, but practical and symbolic reasons too. If the monarch is bound to respect the law of the land—as the creature, not the creator, of law—then the people will accept even foreigners on the throne, not because of blood but because of the locally emerged symbolic role which will define the relationship.
As for the definition of this role, Scruton described the monarch as a three-dimensional symbol, with all three axes harmoniously interconnected, all of which elected political leaders can not even begin to fulfill simultaneously.
The first dimension, as Overeem explained, stretches to the left and the right at the same time, as the monarchy represents the entire nation—regardless of where one stands on the political aisle—and thus protects it from fragmentation and radicalization, from communism and Nazism alike. In this sense, it also represents the state and its national sovereignty. The royal ‘we’ stands for the two bodies of the monarch, Overeem reminded us, the person and the crown, which is the physical expression of the sovereign state.
The second is length, but defined as a temporal, not spatial dimension. “A monarchy has a place in time,” Overeem said, “it knows where it comes from and where it goes.” Because it’s virtually timeless, the monarchy also testifies to the fact that not everything is optional. “In a world where everything is optional, including your gender, monarchy stands out,” Overeem explained. But this aspect of the institution is almost entirely made possible by the hereditary element of it, which makes the monarch both a person and a symbol at the same time.
Finally, the third dimension is height: the distinction between elevated and base. According to Scruton, such a system necessarily elevates the monarch, not to suppress the others but to endorse him with dignity. This, in turn, will enable the monarchy to dignify other aspects of public life as well, becoming “the light above politics, shining below from above.” Strange as it seems, this third aspect is not only compatible with human nature, but satisfies one of its basic needs. As C. S. Lewis once observed, “The human thirst for inequality cannot be drenched.” Deny them a king, Overeem added, and they will elevate celebrities instead.
According to Scruton, the monarch is such a powerful symbol because he is dignified and ordinary, unlike ancient emperors or 20th-century dictators who would only appear to the people as divine beings. But by appearing ordinary, the constitutional monarch wears the mask of personhood, putting a face also to his country. As Scruton wrote:
From the third-person point of view, monarchy is the most reasonable form of government. By embodying the state in a fragile human person, it captures the arbitrariness and the givenness of political allegiance, and so transforms allegiance into affection.
However, Overeem said, it must also be noted that Scruton always stopped just shy of saying that the monarch can also be a religious symbol, a representation of God. “Without this capstone idea,” he said, “the arch of the monarchy cannot stand.”
Another shortfall of modern constitutional monarchies in the age of democracies is the absence of the aristocracy to support it. Without the aristocratic apparatus, it becomes a monument of its former self, like an abandoned church that has lost its original purpose and easily falls in the next storm. According to Overeem, Charles III could become the last British king we’ll ever see.
The institution is withering away before our eyes, so let us look at it carefully as long as we can.
