Fiona Schouten: First of all, just now in the debate there seemed to be a sort of par­ti­tion, you being sort of the real­ist against the ide­al­ism of Alain Badiou. 

Roger Scruton: Yes.

Schouten: Don’t you think the world needs a bit of idealism?

Scruton: No, I think it needs a bit less ide­al­ism. The 20th cen­tu­ry was cre­at­ed by ide­al­ism. Communism and fas­cism and Nazism are all based on ide­al­ized sys­tems, what the world should be ide­al­ly, and how it isn’t what it should be, and there­fore we’re enti­tled to change it rad­i­cal­ly and take con­trol of it in order to do so. And the imme­di­ate result is geno­cides, as we see. I think ide­al­ism of Badiou’s kind is extreme­ly dan­ger­ous. I was there in 1968 in Paris at the time when he was in the streets shout­ing out his ideals, and it was enough to con­vert me to the oth­er side.

Schouten: Really.

Scruton: Yeah.

Schouten: It was that bad?

Scruton: It was that bad see­ing these arro­gant young peo­ple pre­tend­ing that they rep­re­sent­ed the work­ers, where­as in fact they were wealthy byprod­ucts of the mid­dle class, want­i­ng to dic­tate to every­body the sys­tem of pol­i­tics which they had con­ceived from their half-educated read­ing. And it stayed in that class of French intel­lec­tu­als ever since. And I think peo­ple like me have a duty to be real­ist in oppo­si­tion and say, Look, this uni­ty between the intel­lec­tu­als and the work­ers, who was actu­al­ly cre­at­ing it? It was you intel­lec­tu­als. How many work­ers were involved? Very few. Only those that you could con­trol through trade unions.” And let’s get rid of all those illu­sions and treat peo­ple as they are.

Schouten: Alright. I won’t use the word cri­sis,” but sure­ly you must think that there are things in the world today that are wrong and that should be changed.

Scruton: Yes. Of course. There are lots of things that are wrong and should be changed. But the ques­tion is how. The rev­o­lu­tion­ary way of address­ing this ques­tion is to form togeth­er a small con­spir­a­cy of the elite to craft a solu­tion and then impose it from above on the mass of mankind. I take the oth­er view, which is the clas­si­cal English view. Which is that peo­ple should be giv­en the free­dom to under­stand their prob­lems and address them from their own exist­ing reper­toire of social and polit­i­cal ges­tures, and grad­u­al­ly come to some con­sen­sus. And that is a very dif­fer­ent approach.

Schouten: So it is. Absolutely. You’re not say­ing, though, that we need a new aristocracy?

Scruton: No. Things of course would be bet­ter if I had more of a voice than I do. But there’s no way in which that can hap­pen. But I’m lucky that the Nexus Institute allows me to speak. But in my book on green phi­los­o­phy I do describe what I think of as an alter­na­tive to these top-down solu­tions to the big prob­lems of the envi­ron­ment, and how my alter­na­tive is to make the space for ordi­nary motives of ordi­nary peo­ple to take charge of the problem. 

Schouten: Alright. And how would they then take charge of the problem?

Scruton: Well, the prob­lem first of all has to be local. This is one thing I agree with about what Badiou said in his lec­ture, which is that the great points of tran­si­tion in com­mu­ni­ties and also in indi­vid­u­als are local. That they involve some prob­lem that you are liv­ing through and which also makes you rec­og­nize your depen­dence upon oth­er peo­ple, how you need them to join with you in order to solve this problem. 

And the Dutch did this very well in the 17th cen­tu­ry. They had a huge envi­ron­men­tal prob­lem, after all, and they built the dikes to solve it. It is one of the great achieve­ments. It was not done by some com­mit­tee of rev­o­lu­tion­ary van­guard impos­ing upon the ordi­nary Dutch peo­ple a solu­tion they did­n’t want. It was ordi­nary peo­ple local­ly get­ting togeth­er to build their own dike. And grad­u­al­ly the coun­try solved its prob­lem. And I think many of our envi­ron­men­tal prob­lems today can be con­front­ed in that way, as long as you keep those intel­lec­tu­als out of them. 

Schouten: Finally, you men­tioned that you think the sacred should return to our soci­ety. Explain that [inaudi­ble].

Scruton: Yes. I think human beings are incom­plete with­out a con­cept of the sacred. They must have a sense that this world in which they live has moments, places, events, peo­ple, etc. which are in some sense stand­ing out­side the ordi­nary course of events. They’re not just things to be bar­gained with, things to be bought and sold, but as it were stand in judge­ment on us. And all of us have that sense when we’re chil­dren, because that is instinc­tive in us. But it’s wiped away by mate­ri­al­ism and by the ease of sat­is­fy­ing our wants and so on. And the result is that we are in a cer­tain mea­sure bereft. Bereft of some­thing that is need­ed for our hap­pi­ness, which is the sense that we are in good rela­tions with sacred things.

Further Reference

How to Change the World?, the 2012 Nexus Conference event page

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.