"We’re all products of our place and time. In Scruton’s place and time, it did seem like liberalism was ascendant and that its overreach and failings needed conservative correction."
Much of Scruton's place and time was in the underground movement against communism in eastern Europe. For those NatCons who fancy themselves members of a "re…
"We’re all products of our place and time. In Scruton’s place and time, it did seem like liberalism was ascendant and that its overreach and failings needed conservative correction."
Much of Scruton's place and time was in the underground movement against communism in eastern Europe. For those NatCons who fancy themselves members of a "resistance" against some vaguely totalitarian something (which I believe is all of them), the romance of Scruton's resistance might be why they name cafes after him. And it *was* romantic, as Scruton describes in this speech:
People joined the resistance because they fell in love, because "books were forbidden, therefore dangerous, therefore precious and loved", because it was "dangerous" -- thus exciting -- "to join things, dangerous to share any kind of social ambition or any sphere of private interests." After communism, Scruton asserted, "Many people, young people especially, in Eastern Europe today, look around at their social and political inheritance and ask themselves 'How do I belong to that?' Everything distinctive, everything that makes Poland Poland and Hungary Hungary, has been... separated from the present by the sterile desert of the communist years." Scruton's work in the underground, as he describes it, was to educate the underground in a "that" they could belong to. That "that" wasn't partisan, according to Scruton:
"We made a point of not being partisan. That was easy for me, because I am a conservative, and conservatives are not partisan, as you know.However, my colleagues were for the most part leftists"
There was international intrigue:
"The secret police had not done their homework and, by arresting Derrida, precipitated a diplomatic crisis that caused them to retreat in ignominy from all that they had planned. The experience improved Derrida immensely: his night in jail with a drunken gypsy cured him of his leftism. It also improved the secret police, who thereafter left our visitors alone."
All that was, for realsies, a resistance the NatCons can only cosplay at. I'm not surprised they idolize it. Ben Parker has his "Solidarnost" poster, too. Scruton knew that progressive vogues aren't in the same league as the threat of communism:
"There are many views like that, which are suddenly projected into prominence as icons of an emerging orthodoxy...—who could have foretold, for instance, that the divide between good and evil would be suddenly discovered to lie between rival views about bathrooms? Of course, all this has an air of comedy, compared with the censorship exercised by the fascist and communist students of the 20th century."
Scruton's stated philosophy of national identity is at odds with Orbanism:
"Those experiences taught me that there is a link, in the end, between humane education, focused on what is intrinsically valuable, and the consciousness of identity—of what I am and to what I belong. Our students had been torn from their roots by the communist system, and they wanted to rediscover those roots... I draw the lesson that the business of building a collective identity, which is not the business of the state but an aspect of national consciousness, is the enterprise that makes education worthwhile."
That speech of Scruton's reveals some blind spots. He can't see conservatives as partisan. He's unaware of the gender-studies folks who do have expertise in "the language of Chaucer or the meaning of German Romanticism", who've already succumbed to the "urge to read Dante". We all have blind spots: when I consider Scruton as an individual, his seem forgivable. I can see how his philosophy of education could be degraded into nationalism. Still, how good are the NatCons at engaging with cultural heritage, rather than braying about the importance of doing so without being particularly engaged themselves? Chatting up Tucker Carlson in the Scruton cafe isn't exactly reading Dante, either.
"For those NatCons who fancy themselves members of a 'resistance' against some vaguely totalitarian something (which I believe is all of them), the romance of Scruton's resistance might be why they name cafes after him"
but it's no random NatCons naming cafes after Scruton. It's "the state-sponsored Batthyany foundation", the same foundation funding the Danube Institute.
and these cafes seem to have the blessing of Scruton's widow, who's donated memorabilia to them and attended some of their events. Prime minister József Antall of Hungary helped found the Batthyany foundation as a private institution in honor of Lajos Batthyány, a Hungarian prime minister under the Austrian empire who at first lobbied, then rebelled, for Hungarian independence.
"The Batthyány Foundation (BLA) was originally established in 1991 by the Association of Friends of MDF 'to support Hungarian public life based on common Christian values and democratic, representative governance.' It was a private foundation, financed mostly by donations. The original idea was to develop BLA along the lines of EPP’s Robert Schuman Foundation or CDU’s Konrad Adenauer Stiftung."
but, after the foundation had become a shell of itself, Orban's propaganda ministry began using it as a funding conduit for Orbanism. "For instance, in 2019, BLA received 3.5 billion forints (about $12 million) from the propaganda ministry."
Since the Pulaski Institution has an interest in place, who's doing what to capitalize on understandably fond memories of someone in a locale seems like the kind of story Pulaski could investigate better than a commenter who looked up some stuff while she was laid up with a cold. If there's enough there for a follow-up piece, we're interested.
I know the Manhattan Institute, which was supposed to be another conservative-but-liberal institution with a focus on place (the city, NYC in particular), has had problems with donor capture:
"We’re all products of our place and time. In Scruton’s place and time, it did seem like liberalism was ascendant and that its overreach and failings needed conservative correction."
Much of Scruton's place and time was in the underground movement against communism in eastern Europe. For those NatCons who fancy themselves members of a "resistance" against some vaguely totalitarian something (which I believe is all of them), the romance of Scruton's resistance might be why they name cafes after him. And it *was* romantic, as Scruton describes in this speech:
https://victimsofcommunism.org/publication/sir-roger-scruton-bringing-light-behind-iron-curtain/
People joined the resistance because they fell in love, because "books were forbidden, therefore dangerous, therefore precious and loved", because it was "dangerous" -- thus exciting -- "to join things, dangerous to share any kind of social ambition or any sphere of private interests." After communism, Scruton asserted, "Many people, young people especially, in Eastern Europe today, look around at their social and political inheritance and ask themselves 'How do I belong to that?' Everything distinctive, everything that makes Poland Poland and Hungary Hungary, has been... separated from the present by the sterile desert of the communist years." Scruton's work in the underground, as he describes it, was to educate the underground in a "that" they could belong to. That "that" wasn't partisan, according to Scruton:
"We made a point of not being partisan. That was easy for me, because I am a conservative, and conservatives are not partisan, as you know.However, my colleagues were for the most part leftists"
There was international intrigue:
"The secret police had not done their homework and, by arresting Derrida, precipitated a diplomatic crisis that caused them to retreat in ignominy from all that they had planned. The experience improved Derrida immensely: his night in jail with a drunken gypsy cured him of his leftism. It also improved the secret police, who thereafter left our visitors alone."
All that was, for realsies, a resistance the NatCons can only cosplay at. I'm not surprised they idolize it. Ben Parker has his "Solidarnost" poster, too. Scruton knew that progressive vogues aren't in the same league as the threat of communism:
"There are many views like that, which are suddenly projected into prominence as icons of an emerging orthodoxy...—who could have foretold, for instance, that the divide between good and evil would be suddenly discovered to lie between rival views about bathrooms? Of course, all this has an air of comedy, compared with the censorship exercised by the fascist and communist students of the 20th century."
Scruton's stated philosophy of national identity is at odds with Orbanism:
"Those experiences taught me that there is a link, in the end, between humane education, focused on what is intrinsically valuable, and the consciousness of identity—of what I am and to what I belong. Our students had been torn from their roots by the communist system, and they wanted to rediscover those roots... I draw the lesson that the business of building a collective identity, which is not the business of the state but an aspect of national consciousness, is the enterprise that makes education worthwhile."
That speech of Scruton's reveals some blind spots. He can't see conservatives as partisan. He's unaware of the gender-studies folks who do have expertise in "the language of Chaucer or the meaning of German Romanticism", who've already succumbed to the "urge to read Dante". We all have blind spots: when I consider Scruton as an individual, his seem forgivable. I can see how his philosophy of education could be degraded into nationalism. Still, how good are the NatCons at engaging with cultural heritage, rather than braying about the importance of doing so without being particularly engaged themselves? Chatting up Tucker Carlson in the Scruton cafe isn't exactly reading Dante, either.
Woof! Very well said. It puts Scruton in perspective for me. I had never heard of him before.
I should correct something, though. I wrote,
"For those NatCons who fancy themselves members of a 'resistance' against some vaguely totalitarian something (which I believe is all of them), the romance of Scruton's resistance might be why they name cafes after him"
but it's no random NatCons naming cafes after Scruton. It's "the state-sponsored Batthyany foundation", the same foundation funding the Danube Institute.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/06/roger-scruton-hungarian-coffee-shop-markets-in-everything.html
and these cafes seem to have the blessing of Scruton's widow, who's donated memorabilia to them and attended some of their events. Prime minister József Antall of Hungary helped found the Batthyany foundation as a private institution in honor of Lajos Batthyány, a Hungarian prime minister under the Austrian empire who at first lobbied, then rebelled, for Hungarian independence.
"The Batthyány Foundation (BLA) was originally established in 1991 by the Association of Friends of MDF 'to support Hungarian public life based on common Christian values and democratic, representative governance.' It was a private foundation, financed mostly by donations. The original idea was to develop BLA along the lines of EPP’s Robert Schuman Foundation or CDU’s Konrad Adenauer Stiftung."
but, after the foundation had become a shell of itself, Orban's propaganda ministry began using it as a funding conduit for Orbanism. "For instance, in 2019, BLA received 3.5 billion forints (about $12 million) from the propaganda ministry."
https://hungarianspectrum.org/tag/batthyany-foundation/
Very good points, Midge. I wish I’d gone into a little detail about BLA in the piece.
Thanks!
Since the Pulaski Institution has an interest in place, who's doing what to capitalize on understandably fond memories of someone in a locale seems like the kind of story Pulaski could investigate better than a commenter who looked up some stuff while she was laid up with a cold. If there's enough there for a follow-up piece, we're interested.
I know the Manhattan Institute, which was supposed to be another conservative-but-liberal institution with a focus on place (the city, NYC in particular), has had problems with donor capture:
https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/think-tank-in-the-tank/
When the donor is Orban's propaganda ministry, that sounds even hairier.
I imagine a follow-up piece could be done. I’ll be writing more over at Arc Digital in the future so there may yet be more to come.