Oikophobia was mentioned earlier (in one of the postmodernism posts) as one of the principal dangers of postmodernism. There, I used Scruton’s definition of “repudiation of inheritance and home,” and mentioned some of his work on the subject. In this category, I will expand a bit further on this destructive trend, discussing especially its relationship with the sad state of American history pedagogy – the state that Glenn Reynolds has described as, “the sort of thing a conqueror might impose on a defeated people to break their spirit.”
To this end, I will mention here another shorter, more accessible paper of Scruton’s on the subject: his 1993 paper entitled “Oikophobia” in the venerable Journal of Education. It’s a short paper, well worth reading in its entirety (which I wholeheartedly recommend). In it, Scruton makes the case that the presence of oikophobia (which was noticeable in the 1990’s and pervasive now) is largely due to a postmodern avoidance of moral education, leading to “multiculturalism” (which he describes as an “absolute commitment to relativism”) which in turn leads to a toxic, false, stereotypical view of “home.” Normally this seems to consist in taking actual societal problems and insisting that they are defining features of the society in question. Thus, the details of the stereotypical view will depend on the particular “oik” being “phobed.” In this category, I will only discuss the current state of American oikophobia, but there are similar things happening in other countries and in particular regions (I’m particularly familiar with the Texas version being attempted).
I will begin by quoting Scruton’s outline of the oikophobic view of American society, and a bit of his response to it:
- American society, morality and law express a “culture,” in the anthropologist’s sense — namely “Western culture,” which is distinguished by its imperialism, its desire to absorb, override, or extinguish every rival.
- Notwithstanding such imperialism, there are other cultures competing for attention in the American market.
- To grant privileges to one culture in the educational system is to “discriminate against” other and equally valid cultures.
- To be truly “inclusive,” it is not enough to teach those other “minority” cultures. We must remove from them the stigma of disadvantage, by actively promoting them.
- Each culture has its own set of “values,” and each set of “values” has an equal claim to respect.
Scruton then states that each of these propositions is evidently false (this portion is not a direct quote, but is lightly edited – again, read the original):
- American society is not a “culture” in the anthropologist’s sense, but a part of Western civilization. It was formed by legal rather than cultural forces, and has absorbed culture after culture without change to its fundamental structure of secular government.*
- There are no “rival” cultures competing in the American market. For years, Americans assumed that they belonged to a single society, marked by local variations but with a common loyalty, a common language, and a common law. They were self-critical and conscious of social problems; but they never lost their hope that these problems could eventually be solved by the democratic process and the rule of law. These assumptions cohered about a core of moral instinct, in which respect for freedom went hand in hand with an equal respect for public decency.
- American education could never be in the business of providing or promoting “rival cultures.” Its purpose is simply to provide worthwhile knowledge. American education was expected to encourage some version of the Judaeo-Christian outlook and to instill a measure of respect for America, its people, and its history. In college, it was assumed that one would learn solid, decent, useful things: the kind of things that help you to get on in America, and help America to get on in the world. Without being nationalists or xenophobes, Americans assumed that it is right and normal to be proud of your country, to defend it in war, and to enhance it in peace. Our grandparents already had a great many “cultures” in the curriculum. They studied the languages, religions, history and literature of ancient Palestine, Greece, and Rome, and if they came across some other culture that seemed worthy of interest, they studied that as well. But the purpose was not to introduce a choice of cultures; it was to study universal human nature, as revealed in other tongues and other times.
- To choose a culture or a set of values is precisely to have no culture and no values. A tolerant person is not one who thinks that everything goes and nothing matters – such a person is not tolerant at all, but merely indifferent. The tolerant person is the one who puts up with that of which he disapproves, so as to avoid civil conflict. Tolerance has been a cornerstone of American society; but it is increasingly worn away by this new thing which merely pretends to be tolerant while being not tolerant at all.
- Values are not freely chosen; they set limits to choice, by distinguishing right from wrong. If someone tells me that there is a “culture” in which people expose new-born infants, abandon women after seducing them, force their neighbors to worship idols, freely kill strangers from another tribe or another religion, keep slaves or concubines, and mount public spectacles of torture, then I do not say that these people have other “values.” I say that they are wicked. If I teach my students to study these people, then I should hope that they would find them wicked, too.
He goes on to add that some amount of stereotyping is unavoidable: “We all need to make rough judgments if we are to survive as a society: we spontaneously divide people into types, and every person who is strange to us – who does not speak our language, obey our customs or look like ourselves – challenges us to find some general law so that we can comprehend his behavior. In these circumstances stereotypes are necessary, and part of the instinct whereby societies protect their group identity and make ready to defend their home. There may be good humor and an instinct for truth in this natural stereotyping, which facilitate our ability to accept the other as other, to tolerate his otherness, and to renounce the desire to force him to conform.”
In contrast, the negative stereotypes of oikophobia are invested by intellectuals with “a frustration that recognizes no limits, since it comes from within and is a work of the imagination. And its stereotypes are drawn with great flair and rhetorical skill – they are works of art, and the artist himself is quite taken in by them, believing as Marx did that the world exactly conforms to his preposterous theories.”
Clearly, the most significant infection vector for oikophobia is the teaching of history, so it is on this subject (specifically, American history) that most of the rest of this category will focus.
Final comments before we commence our look at Bad History:
- Scruton’s discussion did not foresee (who could have?) the utterly bizarre development of the monomania surrounding “cultural appropriation.” We must now, apparently, support minority cultures uncritically, but not represent them in mainstream advertising or partake in any of their celebrations or customs. Some things we do not explain, we merely report!
- It is worth emphasizing again (as Scruton did) that none of my opposition to oikophobia is intended to oppose any criticism of or teaching about particular negative aspects of American society. A clear-eyed understanding of the flaws present in society is the only way such flaws are remedied. Oikophobia is not the repudiation of aspects of “home” because they are flawed and in need of remedy, it is instead the repudiation of “home” as a whole because it is “home.”
* see also here for similar observations.