Though the West has been seriously challenged repeatedly throughout its history, most of the threats have come from Western Civilization itself, as in the twin 20th century cases of extreme nationalism and totalitarian socialism prove. We have yet to finish dealing with those two catastrophic strands of Western thought, but we are nowhere close to grasping the heart of our newest struggle (even as we approach a decade of explicit awareness) with Islamic terrorism, or as it is alternately known, radical Islamism.
It is with this new struggle that Scruton is concerned, and he makes a reasonable argument for the central place that forgiveness and irony occupy in Western culture. He further contends that the idea of citizenship, so central to post-Enlightenment governance, cannot replace "social membership" or stand for a deeply personal "brotherhood". Citizenship, he says, is only really good for providing a basis for conflict-resolution.
I would put the case more strongly still: the Enlightenment in its approach to the concept of secular citizenship actually took for granted the social benefits of Christianity while repudiating the institutional well from which they spring. And so I would argue that one cannot reap the benefits of Judeo-Christian tradition (i.e. forgiveness) without first accepting the source of the tradition. So what Scruton really needs is a re-Christianization of the West.
But even if we disagree about that, he's certainly right about his characterization of the existential struggle we face with radical Islamism:
The confrontation that we are involved in is thus not political or economic; it is not the first step toward a negotiation or a calling to account. It is an existential confrontation. The question put to us is: “What right do you have to exist?” By answering, “None whatsoever,” we invite the reply, “That’s what I thought.” An answer can avert the threat only by facing it down; and that means being absolutely convinced that we do have a right to exist and that we are prepared to concede an equal right to our opponents, though only on condition that the concession is mutual. No other strategy has a remote chance of succeeding.
Indeed, Islamic terrorists are utterly implacable. They are to be opposed on every front and in every conceivable way. Even in our favorite mode--that of reasonable negotiation--they are searching for ways to undermine our very existence. Only by denying them their object at every turn can we ultimately triumph over this enemy of the West.
Scruton concludes that our "culture of repudiation" is wrecking the West and that a renewed consciousness of what makes Western Civilization great is the bedrock on which a strong and successful defence against Islamic terror must be built:
[W]e should emphasize the very great virtues and achievements that we have built on our legacy of tolerance and show a willingness to criticize and amend all the vices to which it has also given undue space. We should resurrect Locke’s distinction between liberty and license and make it absolutely clear to our children that liberty is a form of order, not a license for anarchy and self-indulgence. We should cease to mock the things that mattered to our parents and grandparents, and we should be proud of what they achieved. This is not arrogance but a just recognition of our privileges.Undoubtedly our struggle to define Western Civilization in opposition to current threats will continue, but Scruton's argument for the recovery--or even rediscovery--of the enduring foundations of the West is a good stroke in the right direction.
We should also drop all the multicultural waffling that has so confused public life in the West and reaffirm the core idea of social membership in the Western tradition, which is the idea of citizenship. By sending out the message that we believe in what we have, are prepared to share it, but are not prepared to see it destroyed, we do the only thing that we can do to defuse the current conflict.
Email Me
