A.C.’s Failings…

I am really enjoying the radicalisation of the once-complacent, smug and optimistic humanist elite. Seriously, AC Grayling’s thunderous tirades against “Brexit” are admirably spirited and engaging. True, they are still full of absurdities. Take this:

Too many people were disenfranchised: 16 and 17 years olds, UK citizens living abroad for more than a certain period and tax-paying EU citizens resident in the UK (who should have had a vote on this matter on the principle “no taxation without representation” as they would be directly affected by it).

“No taxation without representation” was a phrase of American colonists, in America, forced to pay taxes to Britain. This is not equivalent to Poles, Frenchmen and Spaniards in Britain paying taxes to Britain. Even the broadest definitions of this phrase restrict it to citizens. I mean, I am a British citizen in Poland and I do not feel entitled to vote on anything.

Still, I really do welcome this new embattled urgency in liberals. It makes them more eloquent and more sincere. Take this, from Grayling:

I like to be a citizen of a community which can boast in its heritage Beethoven and Goethe, Shakespeare and Descartes, Leonardo da Vinci and Newton, Einstein and Moliere, Kant and Vermeer, Dante and Diderot, Spinoza and Titian, Balzac and Milton, Faraday and Proust, Yeats and Fermat, and the rest of a pantheon stretching all the way back to Virgil, Cicero, Aristotle and Homer. I like to think that I am a citizen of region of our planet which stretches from the beautiful Adriatic coast to the equally beautiful Welsh mountains, from Greece’s Cyclades to the isles of Scotland, from the forests of Germany to the green hills of Ireland, from the Baltic coast to the beaches of Portugal. I like feeling at home in Rome and Prague and Amsterdam, because I am a citizen in each of them.

This stirred my love of Europe quite effectively. All I would say is that I do not feel “at home” in Belgium or the Czech Republic. More in my cousin’s home. We are related but we are not from the same nuclear family. The job of federalism, to the extent that it is valuable, is to unite us without obscuring our differences.

But I am infected with a touch of schadenfreude. Liberal humanist complacence has enabled the imperilment of everything a man like Grayling so deeply admires. As European people – who, not only in Britain, but in France, the Netherlands and Hungary, where Le Pen, Wilders and Orban have profited from the same popular grievances as Farage – were growing embittered towards the swelling European project, Grayling and his comrades were blissfully ignorant. He, like Alain De Botton, served liberal bromides with a veneer of philosophy.

Of the idea of a nation, Grayling was scornful. The English, he claimed, were “a mixture of so many immigrations over time that the idea of an English ethnicity is comical”. In fact, Bryan Sykes, Emeritus Professor of Human Genetics, has found that “by about 6,000 years ago, the [matrilineal genetic] pattern was set for the rest of the history of the Isles, and very little has disturbed it since“. No matter. Grayling warned us that national particularism, whatever its basis, “has produced discrimination, apartheid, Nazism, the Holocaust”. So let us not even think of good and bad nationalisms. Put away your flags, boys. That way lies the gas chambers.

It is ludicrous how pie-eyed Grayling’s universalist optimism has been. In an essay before the 2002 Six Nations, he said the singing of the national anthems were “stomach-turning”. “It is the connection of innocuous-seeming national ardour…with the ugly cancer of real nationalism.” There should be “a single anthem, in which all can participate for the joy of the game”. And video games should be about cooperation, not violence. And Twitter should conform to a Socratic ideal. At the risk of sounding like the lazier populists, it is this kind of ivory tower internationalism, which reacts violently even against the mildest, most good-natured expressions of clannishness, that is enabling nationalist radicalisation.

Nationalism, Grayling said, was “interrupting the great historical movement towards larger comities of peoples where loyalty is to peace and cooperation, and whose citizens are humans first and foremost, before they are Serbs or Aryans or Tutsis””

Grayling is, famously, a critic of religion. Indeed, he is an aggressive and insulting critic. For him religious belief shares “the same intellectual respectability…as belief in the existence of fairies”. Religion is “rooted in the superstitions of illiterate goatherds”. He loves this image, writing elsewhere of the “superstitious lucubrations of illiterate goatherds”. And again! “The beliefs of ancient goatherds”. Grayling! What on earth did a goatherd do you?

I hope it is obvious how crude and boorish these insults are. Whatever the epistemic merits of the concept, God is posited to explain the existence of matter, motion, consciousness and morals. Fairies are posited to explain the existence of folk tales. How a philosopher can reduce to theism to “goatherds”, ignoring Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Avicenna, Leibniz, Kierkegaard, Haldane and Plantinga is beyond me.

It is also absurd how Grayling ignores the human impulse towards religion: the attachment to narratives of intelligent creation, objective meaning and eventual justice. I am sure he thinks our brief existence in a heartless universe where bad men die in comfort and small children die in pain is far richer and more fulfulling than the narratives of faiths but many people disagree.

The act of disagreement baffles many liberal humanists, who think that their ideas are self-evidently true. So do people of all tribes, of course, but it is especially sad in people who praise rationality and independent thought. This leads them to irrational overconfidence in their ideas but also ignorance of other people. Men and women across the world are tribal and religious (religious in thought if not even in coherent belief). Even if one disagrees, such attitudes must be accounted for. Appeals for reason are paper darts on the walls of human behaviour.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Britain, Liberalism. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to A.C.’s Failings…

  1. Simon says:

    For what it’s worth the ideological architects of the post-WW2 European Economic Community that the EU evolved out of were all Roman Catholic arch-conservatives: Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany being perhaps the best known example, but as much of the planning was done by France’s then-prime minister Antoine Pinay as well as future Italian PM Giulio Andreotti and Otto von Habsburg (the former last Crown Prince of the Austrian Empire) who all largely shared Adenauer’s ideological inclinations.

    The identification of the pan-European political programme with secular liberal cosmopolitanism, rather than Catholic conservatism, is in other words a rather recent phenomenon. Perhaps the rise of people like Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen would have been more difficult if the EU had put more effort into creating a pan-European cultural identity that could fulfil the same function as the traditional nation-states. Of course, since Adenauer and Pinay had tied that identity to their religious loyalties I don’t know how their vision could have worked with so many countries that aren’t majority-Catholic in the Union…

    At the end of the day, as you pointed out most humans simply do not function psychologically without *some* type of collective consciousness to belong to. This does not have to necessarily take the form of the nation-state, which is after all not much older than the 19th century… but it *is* the last type of collective identity we know works in practice.

    Like

    • bsixsmith says:

      I’m no expert on the origins of the EU but as far as I can tell it had a significant anti-communist element to it and has become more managerial and, in a sense, liberal as that has stopped being relevant.

      Perhaps the rise of people like Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen would have been more difficult if the EU had put more effort into creating a pan-European cultural identity that could fulfil the same function as the traditional nation-states.

      I think that would have run into problems of scale. The US runs into problems of scale and it has had a lot longer to think about it!

      I’m interested in the genuineness, or otherwise, of the Catholicism of someone like Andreotti. Yes, he went to Mass every morning but how did he fit that in with being such an enormous liar?

      Like

      • Simon says:

        Well, the “significant anti-communist element” is hard to avoid when you’re starting from a viewpoint of Catholic conservatism.

        Whether or not Andreotti actually did much to live up to those ideals in his life is probably a matter of debate to say the least, but it’s the political project his own public career was based on promoting. His international political allies in France and Germany certainly took it seriously!

        Like

      • Simon says:

        Today things are of course different. Here in Denmark there are three Eurosceptic parties in parliament: One far-left, one libertarian-right and one nationalist-right. The first one is also frequently raked over the coals by the rest of the left by allying with nationalists against the EU. Interestingly enough, the libertarians are much more willing to compromise on their Euroscepticism than the leftists are…

        I guess it’s similar in the UK? I have communicated with several British left-wingers who voted Leave and are very vocal about it, but I get the impression they are in the minority.

        Like

  2. Whyaxye says:

    “I like to be a citizen of a community which can boast in its heritage Beethoven and Goethe, Shakespeare and Descartes, Leonardo da Vinci and Newton, Einstein and Moliere, Kant and Vermeer, Dante and Diderot, Spinoza and Titian, Balzac and Milton, Faraday and Proust, Yeats and Fermat, and the rest of a pantheon stretching all the way back to Virgil, Cicero, Aristotle and Homer. I like to think that I am a citizen of region of our planet …etc”

    Does he think one needs to be a citizen in order to appreciate these things? Or even a member of a customs union? If he switches on Spotify, he’ll probably find as much Beethoven as ever. Balzac hasn’t mysteriously disappeared from his bookshelves. Those nice views are still there.

    Still, all this sounds a lot more stirring than the minutiae of trade agreements.

    Like

    • bsixsmith says:

      Indeed! I can understand taking a measure of pride and identification in being European – I do! – but there’s no contradiction between doing that and not being in a federal union.

      Like

  3. Pingback: Links Post 18/02/17 | Alastair's Adversaria

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s