Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Society and the Irrational

This truth seems obvious to me: everything that gives character and colour to a society is irrational, or is at least easy to dismiss as irrational from a utilitarian perspective.

I'd go further; everything that gives character and colour to the constituent parts of society, to the "little platoons" of family, local community, school, university, sporting clubs, groups of friends, and so on, is "irrational" in this sense.

Monarchy is the most obvious example. Once again I will quote C.S. Lewis on the subject:  "It would be much more rational to abolish the English monarchy. But how, if by doing so, you leave out the one element in our state which matters most? How if the monarchy is the channel through which all the vital elements of citizenship—loyalty, the consecration of secular life, the hierarchical principle, splendor, ceremony, continuity—trickle down to irrigate the dust bowl of modern economic statecraft?"

C.S. Lewis

People often defend the English monarchy on practical grounds; it generates tourism, it provides a brake on political power, and so forth.

I must admit I'm left rather cold by these arguments. Even if there wasn't a single practical argument for retaining the English monarchy, I would very much be in favour of retaining it. I'm a romantic monarchist. To me, the benefits of monarchy can't be quantified, but can only be expressed by rather vague terms such as "continuity", "pageantry", "personification", "nationhood", and so forth.

The idea that the English people would even consider throwing away a tradition that has endured for so many centuries, and which is a central vein through so much of their history, politics, art, literature, folkore, and their national story in general, is repugnant to me.

Republicans baffle me. When I argue with them, they generally argue that it's unjust for one person to be given privilege solely on the grounds of their birth.

The argument seems bizarre to me. Privilege is everywhere in our society (and, indeed, in every society). The genetic privileges of intelligence, health, good looks, and so forth, seem no less arbitrary than any social privilege. And yet we celebrate these privileges all the time. We praise and reward people for their looks, intelligence, and talents. Nobody seems to find anything outrageous about this.

HRM Queen Elizabeth II
Social privileges also abound, on every level of society, and even in the most egalitarian societies. Who gets to choose their parents, their upbringing, their education, their opportunities, or any of the other personal circumstances that determine so much of their experience in life? Nobody. A society that somehow managed to equalize all social opportunity (and why stop with opportunity?) would require such thoroughgoing intervention that it would be a dystopian hell, even if the social engineers were entirely benevolent and pure-hearted (which they wouldn't be).

So how baffling is it that, out of the innumerable privileges that pervade every corner of society, republicans should seize upon one instance of privilege to protest-- and the most ceremonial and harmless one at that? (Doubtless some republicans would argue that they are "getting round" to abolishing all the other privileges, but nobody really expects that to happen.)

But even this is to put the case too mildly. When I tell people that I am a monarchist, and they make the argument that nobody should have special privileges on account of their birth, I feel as though I've asked somebody if they've seen such-and-such a film, and I've got the reply that they don't want to waste their time looking at actors pretending to be people who never existed, and doing things that never happened. The reply is so point-missing, so lacking in imaginative sympathy, that I feel like I'm talking to an extraterrestrial.

A similar example, in the Irish context, is the Irish language. It's the easiest thing in the world to ridicule the Irish language and the Irish people's inconsistent attitude to it. (It's so easy, in fact, that one would think this very ease would give pause to those making the argument, to ask themselves if they are not missing something.) There's no real practical argument to be made for reviving the Irish language. Various practical arguments are attempted, but they're not at all convincing.

Dr. Douglas Hyde, first President of the Gaelic League
Besides, it's quite obvious that practical arguments made for the Irish language, or the monarchy, or similar institutions, are generally factitious. The supporter of such institutions supports them for romantic or sentimental or emotional reasons, but is reluctant to defend them on such grounds, fearing ridicule. So he casts about for practical arguments, and doesn't convince anybody (though his arguments may be taken up by those who already agree with him on sentimental and romantic grounds).

Conservatives sometimes accuse liberals of being ruled by emotion rather than reason. I'm not too fond of this accusation, since I believe emotion has a rightful place in politics, and in social life. Indeed, I fear emotion has been unduly sidelined in our public discourse.

Surely every "rational" (or rationalised) society would resemble every other rational society, and surely that is an argument against rationalisation for its own sake. If we were to remove anything which can be dismissed as a historical accident, or an irrational preference, what will remain to distinguish one society from another? Climate? Topography? Industry? Those things might give some savour to a society, but they seem little enough in themselves.

When you come to think about it, almost every institution and practice which gives life flavour is irrational. Birthdays are irrational. Christmas revelry is irrational. Greeting cards are irrational. Organised games are irrational. Cheering is irrational. Shaking hands is irrational. Opening doors for ladies is irrational. Visiting graves is irrational. A minute's silence is irrational. Waving flags is irrational. Clinking glasses is irrational. Making toasts is irrational. Modesty is irrational. Politeness is irrational. Commemorating the dead is irrational. Family ties are irrational. Blue for a boy and pink for a girl is irrational. Hanging a picture of your idol on your wall is irrational. Fancy icing on cake that you're just going to cut up and eat anyway is irrational.

I could go on. A completely rational society? Sounds pretty depressing to me.

6 comments:

  1. the captions are a joke ,I'm guessing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The captions are deadly serious, but the pictures are a joke!

      (Excuse my silly sense of humour.)

      Delete
  2. As an Englishman and a monarchist, I enjoyed this very much. Yes, I agree there is something sterile and brittle about the practical arguments for monarchy; they cede too much territory. Yes, all these things are irrational — but, to use G. K. Chesterton's word, they are also sane.

    By the way, I'm afraid something has gone seriously awry with the captioning of your second picture — it jumped out at me straight away, and I couldn't miss it. It is 'HM' the Queen — for 'Her Majesty' — not 'HRH' — 'His or Her Royal Highness', which is for other members of the Royal Family. Any other editorial issues, apart from this, are small fry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cede too much territory, indeed. If the various practical defences of monarchy were to be shown to be untrue, or to become outdated, presumably there would be no reason to abolish it.

      And, gosh, that IS a serious lapse with my caption! I will correct it immediately in order to stave off a possible Anglo-Irish controversy...many thanks for pointing it out!

      Delete
    2. The fact that the picture itself is of Dirk Benedict is of comparatively little concern!

      Delete
    3. Ha!

      Of course, in my above comment, I meant: "presumably there would no reason to KEEP it".

      Delete