Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels are rising – that is a fact. Before the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels steadily remained at around 280ppm (parts per million). This number had remained constant for thousands of years, with very minor increases over the years due to natural processes. In March this year, CO2 concentrations were sitting at 418.81ppm. This huge increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has already created and will continue to create unprecedented effects on the environment globally. This daunting fact has prompted leaders across the globe to act.
Last November in Glasgow, the COP26 summit was held which was widely regarded as an instance of the UK taking global leadership in the fight against climate change. The UK has worked hard to bring all participants of COP26 to a consensus about the actions needed to mitigate against the harmful effects of climate change and reduce global CO2 emissions as a means of lessening the damage caused by global warming in the future. In doing so, the UK government has sought to fulfil their end of the bargain and beyond, making bold promises in the hopes of accelerating the UK’s charge to becoming net carbon neutral by the year 2050.
Energy production is one of the biggest issues regarding our drive to net zero, producing 21% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. As such, the government has placed a levy on domestic energy bills, costing the average UK household an extra £159 per year on energy bills as a means of financing subsidies for renewable energy products. In addition to this, the government has recently raised the household electricity price cap from £693 to £1,971. This will put immense strain on the budgets of many households, not even mentioning the skyrocketing inflation recorded at 7% in March 2022. This financial squeeze is not showing any signs of relenting, with disposable incomes predicted to fall by 1.9% this year – an even bigger decline in living standards than the one seen in the year prior to the Winter of Discontent.
With all the economic doom and gloom spreading about, a question must be asked – is net zero by 2050 worth it? The UK sits on top of huge shale gas deposits which could easily be exploited by the government issuing licences for companies to begin fracking on these lands, solving the gas supply issues which drives lots of the inflation currently seen. This gas could also be used to generate electricity domestically, reducing the UK’s reliance on French electricity whilst increasing supply to the point where households’ electricity bills could be drastically reduced. The UK currently contributes to 1% of global emissions, meaning that despite being virtuous, the drive to net zero will have relatively little effect globally when countries like China and India make relatively little efforts to reduce their own carbon footprints. Moreover, exploiting domestic energy supplies will likely result in lower overall carbon emissions than the alternative of importing, as huge amounts of carbon dioxide is emitted when transporting these resources to the UK.
As such, it is little surprise that Reform UK – the largest right-wing opposition party to the Conservative party has begun to campaign against the government’s current plans to achieve net carbon neutrality. Whilst it is a noble cause to reduce carbon emissions, the current economic reality shows that the plans currently in place will massively reduce the quality of life for millions in this country instead of being the ‘Green Revolution’ that was promised by this government. We need pragmatic, not dogmatic solutions to current issues and reviving domestic energy production is the first step to solving the cost-of-living crisis and reducing our dependence on energy imports. We still have twenty-eight years to reach our target. Making sure that people are financially safe should be the government’s priority, only then can we focus on the environment. There is no doubt that this method of mitigating the cost-of-living crisis will encounter large resistance from pressure groups such as the Extinction Rebellion, but a far larger resistance will be seen in the polls if the government does not get a handle on the situation soon.
-
In Conversation with Curtis Yarvin (The Return of Don Quixote and Anglo-Meiji Restoration)
Curtis Yarvin, known by his pen name ‘Mencius Moldbug’, is one of the most prominent social critics and reactionary writers of the contemporary era. Yarvin’s blogs, ‘Gray Mirror’ and ‘Imperial Melodies’, can be found on Substack.
Yarvin’s words are in light.
There’s a little-known Chesterton work called The Return of Don Quixote. Don’t know it at all?
I don’t. I mean, I’m familiar with the original Don Quixote by Cervantes.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, The Return of Don Quixote, and it’s about the victory of a joyous reactionary movement, written as an Edwardian novel, set in the future. It’s very interesting and it sort of catches the sort of joyousness right, which is an absolutely essential part of, like, any kind of restoration of this type.
And yet, you know, kind of Russian Hide And Seek, which is of course a much later work, is more…black-pilled, you might say, and perhaps a little more convincing. And I would say, sort of read them both. You’ll get kind of some of both of these ideas, but just breaking out of this incredible, I mean, it’s like, when you look in the rear-view mirror at Brexit. It’s like 0.1% of a British Meiji, right? And it’s a completely failed venture, and a completely failed thing, you know, I was reading Richard North’s blog EU Referendum, back in the earlier ‘00s, you know, I think he was associated to some extent with, like, early UKIP, and, um you know, the idea of having a referendum on Britain leaving the EU in 2005, let alone that referendum winning, it seemed like such, what we call here, a stretch goal.
It seemed so unimaginable and it happens. This incredible revolution happens and of course it happens and it doesn’t amount to shit. It just has no momentum. As soon as it wins it begins to lose. And, actually, the main effect of Brexit was to destroy the Brexit movement.
Pretty much.
You can’t help but feel that when you do something and people put that much effort and that much hope into something, and in retrospect you can look at it and just say “Well duh, obviously that was gonna…there was no way that could have worked in any way, shape, or form and done anything useful or relevant, or whatever,” and, the, you know…the definition of insanity is making the same mistake twice, and, right, and here, is just the form of government that has been how England rose to greatness and has been governed for pretty much all of the last two millennia, you know, before the invitation to William, right? You know, I guess, you know, William, it’s hard to know to what extent William of Orange was really interested in British domestic affairs. I don’t know how great it was.
Queen Anne was certainly pretty feeble and um, you did know that the um, the king has the right to veto legislation in parliament, right?
Yes.
And do you know who the last person, the last king, who actually used that power was?
It’s not going to be James I is it? Someone distant. Charles I?
Here’s a hint. It wasn’t a king at all.
Really? OK, so was it Queen Anne then? Was it in fact Queen Anne?
It was in fact Queen Anne. Uh, she did it once, and I forget over what. Probably some completely symbolic bullshit.
I see. They went “No, no, this is no good, we’ll get this Dutch fellow”.
Yeah, yeah, it was sort of their ‘lordships die in the dark’ moment. I think, like you know, the People’s Budget of 1911 or whatever. Yeah, Queen Anne was like the legitimate daughter of James II, right? And there was some hope that – and she was basically a Jacobite heir – it’s sort of like this woman Georgia Meloni who gets elected in Italy spouting all this rhetoric and then she’s like “We must fight for the Ukraine, the cause of Ukraine is the cause of all of us”, right?
You know, when I was in Portugal, I was in a small town in this summer and, you know, all of the…you would swear the whole population of Setúbal, Portugal, had come out and, like, popular enthusiasm for the cause of the Ukraine was everywhere, spontaneous graffiti, right, you know, and it’s like, these expressions of popular enthusiasm, like ‘workers of the world, unite’ in Czechoslovakia in 1976. You know, the greengrocer does not really care about workers of the world and I’m pretty sure that if you’re a bus driver in Setúbal, Portugal, your interest in the Dnieper isn’t really – excuse me, Dnipro – is fairly limited, and the uh, just, I mean, it’s increasingly comical, and so, the idea of just like, this whole structure collapsing in one boom is so much more realistic than the idea of Brexit. It’s so much more realistic. People think it’s unrealistic, no, it may be unrealistic, but it is vastly more realistic than Brexit.
I read your piece about a Meiji Restoration. I was sat in the middle of a bunch of naval officers and I was thinking “You know what? Rishi Sunak’s not very popular, neither is Keir Starmer, nobody likes parliament, what would actually happen right now if King Charles did in fact just go ‘guys’…”
Martial law.
Yeah exactly. What would actually happen? And you know, there’s been this sort of endless slew of headline after headline after headline of “Oh, this thing isn’t working, we’ll get the army in to drive trucks” and “Oh, this isn’t working, we’ll get the navy in to sort out this hospital”, and you just sort of look at this thing and think “Why is it that the last sort of functional bit of our government is essentially military?” And “Why is it that…” what would actually happen if…would anyone stop it? Would anyone in the military?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I was in Dartmouth. I was at BRNC when the Queen died.
Oh wow.
It’s full of these young, early twenties cadets, who are going through…you know, I was there the day…so I think I was one of the last people to officially join the Queen’s navy and one of the first to join the King’s, and you know, everybody, the whole, the whole college just stopped. I went out onto the Parade Ground at about 5pm in the early evening and every church bell in Dartmouth was ringing across the valley. And yes, there’s a huge amount of symbolic nothingness to it –
But that symbolism can be converted back into reality.
Right!
And everyone would be stunned at how easy it was, and how obvious it was.
I don’t think anyone would say no.
Well, would Sir Arthur Scargill bring the unions into the street? Would like, you know, would the SpADs like set up barricades outside of Nelson’s Column? What?
Right, right. I don’t see it.
I don’t see it. And so you can have your New Jerusalem in England’s green and pleasant land. You just have to realise that the chains that are bonding you are made of paper.
But that’s the question. The new Prince of Wales hands out copies of the Big Issue –
[*Laughs*]
And I just don’t see the king going along with this, so what do we do? Do we have some kind of new Cromwellian parliamentary lie where oh no, no, the king is held captive by these malignants and bad ideas, what is it? What on Earth are we doing?
Yeah, yeah, well, you know, um, maybe we, you know, uh, I don’t know, if Prince William did enough acid, maybe?
-
The Surrogacy Question
Are we owed a child? Is it a human right to be able to have one?
In a recent Instagram piece, Olympic diver Tom Daley posted a picture of himself, his husband Dustin and their toddler son with baby Phoenix Rose, the new addition to their family. It’s a variation of the same family picture we’ve seen thousands of times. The comments were full of excited congratulations from friends and fans alike. Again, something we’ve seen thousands of times.
What some pointed out however, was the lack of the person who had given birth to the little one: the surrogate.
Such images are common online. New parents show off their new child, but they do not show the surrogate. Some may mention her, but she is now shown. In a move that irks many, the parent or parents may sit in the hospital bed, holding the baby as though they have given birth to it.
It begs the question: is surrogacy acceptable?
What is surrogacy?
Surrogacy is the act of a woman carrying and birthing a child for another person or couple. There are two types of surrogacy:
Gestational Surrogacy: the surrogate is biologically unrelated to the baby. The eggs come from the intended adopted mother or a donor.
Traditional Surrogacy: the surrogate’s eggs are used. She is biologically related to the baby.
There are two types of surrogate services. One is altruistic, in which the surrogate is doing this as a favour and without payment. Commercial surrogacy allows payment and it can include medical fees or even more than that.
Who uses it?
Surrogacy can be used by heterosexual couples, same-sex couples and single people. Those who use surrogacy may do it for a variety of reasons. Reasons include:
● Unable to carry a child
● Single person
● Same-sex couple
● Unable to adopt
● Older person
● Does not want to be pregnant
● Worry about pregnancy
● Medically required
Celebrities that have used surrogates:
Heterosexual Couples:
● Grey’s Anatomy star Ellen Pompeo and husband Chris Ivery
● Jonas Brothers member Nick Jonas and actress Priyanka Chopra
● Rapper Kanye West and reality star Kim Kardashian
● Actor Matthew Broderick and actress Sarah Jessica Parker
● Fast and Furious star Jordana Brewster and producer Andrew Form
● Frasier star Kelsey Grammer and reality star Camille
● Actor Courtney B. Vance and actress Angela Bassett
● Star Wars creator George Lucas and wife Mellody Hobson
● Actress Nicole Kidman and singer Keith Urban
● Actor Robert DeNiro and model Toukie Smith
● Model Tyra Banks and photographer Erik Asla
● Twitter owner Elon Musk and singer Grimes
● Actor Alec Baldwin and yoga instructor Hilaria Baldwin
● Actress Cameron Diaz and singer Benji Madden
LGBT Couples:
● Modern Family star Jesse Tyler Ferguson and husband Justin Mikita
● Actors Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka
● Singer Elton John and filmmaker David Furnish
● Singer Ricky Martin and artist Jwan Yosef
● Glee creator Ryan Murphy and husband David Miller
● NSYNC singer Lance Bass and husband Michael Turchin
Single Parents:
● Pitch Perfect star Rebel Wilson
● Talk show host Andy Cohen
● Journalist Anderson Cooper
● Actress Lucy Liu
● Blogger Perez Hilton
● Footballer Cristiano Ronaldo
● Singer Michael Jackson
● Actress Amber Heard
What’s the Law?
Laws vary country to country. Altruistic surrogacy is more likely to be legal than paid surrogacy as it’s believed there is less exploitation. Laws may restrict access to non-nationals or non-married straight couples.
UK: Surrogacy is legal in the U.K., but a surrogate is not allowed to be paid beyond reasonable expenses. Contracts are not legally binding. Surrogates are automatically regarded as the legal parent, whether or not she is biologically related to the baby. It is a criminal offence to advertise your search for a surrogate, advertise that you wish to be one, for a third party to receive payment, and to broker a surrogacy agreement. This means commercial surrogacy is banned.
USA: Surrogacy laws vary from state to state. Surrogacy is totally banned in Michigan. Only straight married couples using their own eggs can use surrogacy in Louisiana, but commercial surrogacy is banned. California allows both altruistic and commercial surrogacy to all and allows pre-birth orders to establish legal paternity.
Australia: Altruistic surrogacy is legal across all states and territories.
Canada: Altruistic surrogacy with reasonably paid expenses is allowed everywhere except Quebec, where all surrogacy is banned.
France: Surrogacy is illegal.
India: Surrogacy is legal for married heterosexual Indian couples who meet certain criteria such as age and length of marriage. Certain single women are also permitted to use surrogacy. India previously allowed foreigners to use surrogates. This was limited to straight couples in 2013 before it was banned for all foreigners in 2015. Prior to 2015, India was a hugely popular destination for fertility tourism due to easiness and relative cheapness.
Iran: Surrogacy is totally legal and is a popular destination in the Middle East for heterosexual couples.
Russia: Surrogacy is legal for Russian couples. The lower house of government has passed a bill banning foreign parents from using surrogacy.
Ukraine: Surrogacy is legal for heterosexual married couples. As it’s easy to get and often relatively cheap, Ukraine is a very popular destination for fertility tourism.
Popular destinations for surrogacy include the United States, Ukraine, Colombia, Georgia and Mexico.
Religious Perspectives
Religious views on surrogacy vary even within the same faith. Different denominations have different views on the accessibility of surrogacy and the conditions that merit it.
Catholicism opposes surrogacy and all other types of reproductive assistance. One paragraph of the Catechism of 1992 states: ‘Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral.’ The Church believes that conception cannot and should not be separated from the sexual intercourse between a married, heterosexual couple. As surrogacy uses an outside source, it is deemed immoral by the Catholic Church.
The Church of the Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) still disapprove of surrogacy and strongly discourage it, but believes it is down to the individual married couple. One of Mitt Romney’s sons has used surrogacy and three have used IVF, both of which the church disagrees with.
The Russian Orthodox Church strongly opposes surrogacy. They will not baptise children born of surrogacy unless the biological parents repent.
Judaism has not got a clear line on surrogacy. The worry is the child would belong to the surrogate mother and as Judaism tends to be matrilineal, it’s an issue if the surrogate is not Jewish. Couples are usually urged to seek the help of their rabbi. Some rabbis and scholars believe it is exploitative. It’s recommended that there’s a list of Jewish surrogates to ensure there are no accidental sibling marriages. Some authorities prefer that the surrogate is not a blood relation of the father and that she is not married.
The views between the two main sects of Islam, Sunni and Shia, vary. Sunni Islam explicitly prohibits surrogacy as it is introducing the sperm of a man who is not married to the surrogate. Islam has very strict views on lineage and blood, hence why adoption in the Western sense is not permitted. Shia Islam generally permits surrogacy, and the Shia nation of Iran is actually one of the leading pioneers in fertility treatment.
Hinduism has not got a particular stance on surrogacy. Whilst there is no prohibition, the use of surrogacy by Hindus is generally quite rare. India was a popular destination for surrogacy for many years before the ban on commercial surrogacy came in, so many surrogate mothers are members of the Hindu faith.
Buddhism has not spoken out about surrogacy, but it’s generally approved of. It can be seen as an act of charity and kindness that gives one good karma.
What is right?
Few issues unite left-leaning feminists and the religious right like surrogacy does. They are united in their condemnation of the practice that they say exploits women, children and the poor. Their reasons may be different but they ultimately join together. To them, and perhaps those who don’t even subscribe to either ideology, surrogacy is wrong.
Surrogacy seems to be everywhere. As stated above, many celebrities seem to be using surrogacy in order to start their own families. The language used when reporting it does nothing to bring attention or praise to the surrogate. One article reported that Paris Hilton ‘gave birth with the help of a surrogate.’ No, Ms. Hilton did not give birth. The surrogate did. Instantly, the non-surrogates are proclaimed to be the parent. Legally that is not always true. Ethically? It’s a bit murky.
The immediate concern is for the surrogates themselves. Long have women wished to be parted from the notion that they are a walking womb, yet the role of surrogate seems to push them into that box. She may be given money and expenses and lavish items, but they are not for her, but for what she can do. The care is ultimately for the baby or babies she is carrying. Her value is what is in her womb.
Surrogacy is not without risks. Pregnancy in itself can be a danger. Pregnancy and childbirth are two very taxing, tiring things that can do a number on one’s mind and body. That is not to say that the end result is not one of joy, but it is not an easy thing to enter into. The surrogate is giving birth to a child that she is biologically attached to but will be given away almost as soon as possible.
There’s also somewhat of an obsession with perfection within surrogacy. Parents want the perfect baby. They’ll refuse a child seen as ‘defective.’ Plans are made so that the baby will look a certain way. Paris Hilton even edited her baby’s fingernails on Instagram. That is not true of all surrogate parents, but your child should not have to be perfect.
She is also bound by agreements. Whilst they are not legally binding in some places, the contracts can reward the prospective parent a lot of power over the woman’s body. It is possible for them to even control any medicine that she needs. In one episode of Chicago Med, a young surrogate comes in and ends up needing to deliver early. She refuses, as the parents won’t accept the baby or pay if she delivers before forty weeks. If the baby is disabled or the wrong gender, then they may even ask for an abortion. The woman is poor and desperate and has agreed to these terms.
This is what it all circles back to: exploitation.
India banned all foreign couples from using surrogacy in the country over concerns about the treatment of surrogates. The Indian surrogates were generally poor women who were desperate to make money for their families. These women, often uneducated and living hand-to-mouth, are giving up so much. Despite getting paid, the expenses often aren’t enough. Most of the money paid by parents goes to agencies, not the surrogate. They are often shafted. They are no given what they are due for the service they are providing. India is known for having crushing poverty so it’s no wonder these women offer themselves.
Surrogacy is not cheap. In the USA, it can cost between $100-200K. That’s not pocket money. That is money that very few people can easily spend. The costs are so astronomical which is why so many go abroad. Some even turn to loans. This means those who pursue surrogacy have means. Contrast this with the surrogate. Surrogates are more often than not much less wealthy than the parents. This creates a case of wealth buying a baby.
Once the pregnancy is done and a baby is born, the woman is disposable. The baby will be given to their new parents immediately and separated from the woman who gave birth to them. That’s hard for a woman who has just given birth- it’s a haze of hormones and feelings. Is there aftercare?
Surrogacy has not been without its scandals and controversies. One popular fertility clinic in Ukraine saw its owner and its head physician locked up for human trafficking. In places where surrogacy is less regulated, there can be cases of abuse that fly freely. It’s not an uncommon connection. Human trafficking is something that horrified any good person. Whilst even critics of surrogacy may not go as far as to compare it to human trafficking, the potential for the two to be linked is great.
Unrestrictive policies allow abuses to happen. One Japanese man gained thirteen children through surrogacy and was given custody of them by courts. The children had been found in Bangkok, attended to by nannies. Commercial surrogacy in Thailand is banned, yet this was allowed to happen.
Thailand was in the spotlight in 2014 regarding a very contentious surrogacy. An Australian man named David Farnell and his wife Wendy went to Thailand and got a gestational surrogate. When it turned out that one of the twins their surrogate Pattaramon Janbua was carrying had Down’s Syndrome, the Farnells told her to abort him. Pattaramon did not wish to and gave birth to both children. The other twin was born healthy and was given to the Farnells. Miscommunication meant that the Farnells went back to Australia with their baby daughter Pipah, whilst Pattarmon kept baby Gammy.
Controversy further arose when it was discovered that Farnell had been convicted for child sexual offences. In the 1990s, Farnell had been jailed for molesting two girls under ten and had further assaulted three women. Thai law said that the birth mother of a child was the mother, yet little Pipah was allowed to go home with this man. The courts eventually ruled that Farnell was not allowed to be alone with Pipah. He would eventually die in 2020.
That is not to say that every parent who has children the traditional way or adopts is perfect. The adoption process has seen its fair share of issues. That being said, adoption does have more restrictions. Adoption can be so strict and time consuming in the US that many go abroad to adopt in places like China.
I cannot begrudge a person or persons for wanting children. It has been the natural order of things since time immemorial. Infertility is a desperately sad thing for those who want to have a family. It circles back to the question of whether a baby is a right or a privilege. Not everyone who uses a surrogate is infertile either. It can come down to simply not wanting to be pregnant.
At the end of the day, somebody has to be pregnant in order to have a child. The question is: who should it be?
-
Rousseau and the Legacy of Romanticism
One idea that I’ve fondly taken from Augusto del Noce is that ideologies have an internal logic to them, which unfolds as they interact with real-world events. Philosophies aren’t static, but constantly changing as they play out against one another historically. This view, while similar to the Marxist notion of praxis, finds ultimate inspiration from Joseph de Maistre. It’s de Maistre who writes that the French Revolution sweeps men up against their will and devours its own children.
Once put into practice, revolutions take on a life of their own, and like a wild tiger on a leash, drag their authors to new and unheard-of places. This isn’t to deny human free will; something I strongly affirm. It’s rather to recognise that rational humans, faced with circumstances, strive to act consistently with what they believe. This mechanism of consistency is what causes ideologies to evolve over time.
This insight is a powerful tool for understanding the long-term consequences of philosophies. The social sciences may quantify popular actions and opinions, but because human wishes are often nebulous, and people are fond of lying to themselves, there’s always room to dispute the results. The romantic primitivism of Jean Jacques Rousseau is one such ideology. Since being unleashed into the world from the bloody womb of the Reign of Terror, it has branched in many different directions and morphed into shapes Rousseau himself wouldn’t have recognised.
To define romanticism, I turn to Irving Babbitt and his 1919 work Rousseau and Romanticism. Romanticism sets itself in opposition to classicism. Classicism seeks standards for ethics and culture in universal types which it deems natural. It’s not the case that classicism seeks rules necessarily (lest we confuse it with Kantianism). Aristotle is the foremost classicist, yet he denies that norms are truly codifiable into rules. A universal type is rather an ideal based upon the nature of something. A classicist (like Aristotle) might say that being polite at the dinner table is something we should do, and this politeness consists of showing due moderation in eating, drinking, talking etc. But this isn’t a rule so much as a way of displaying the excellence proper to a human being.
Classicism isn’t opposed to emotion either. Rather, it subdues emotions to rational norms. Human nature has a standard of excellence which demands the proper use of emotion. In other words, emotions are good or bad depending on how we wield them according to a standard for the human species. The one able to do this is a universal type, what Aristotle calls the phronimos, or wise man. The later Stoics didn’t condemn emotions entirely, as the popular misconception of them. They rather encouraged natural emotions and discouraged the unnatural. Again, nature is a standard for ideal behaviour, external to individual fancy.
Romanticism, on the other hand, seeks standards in what’s unique and unrepeatable. Instead of conforming to generic ideals, goodness comes from spontaneous individual acts and thoughts. The cause for this is Rousseau’s doctrine of original sanctity. Classicism makes a distinction between ‘things-as-they-are’ and ‘things-as-they-ought’. Humans, animals, and plants don’t come into the world fulfilling an ideal; they arrive imperfect and must strive after their ideal. If we deny this, as Rousseau does, then to be good just is to be what one is. The generic ideal has no purpose and drops out. Authenticity to oneself as one is becomes the aim of life, and this can only find expression in unrepeatable spontaneous acts.
Indeed, once authenticity becomes central, it’s but a short step to rebelling against all standards which society imposes on the self. Since whatever standards society imposes must be ideal repeatable types, and no ideal repeatable types are authentic, no socially imposed standards can be authentic. And since goodness lies in authenticity, being truly good means casting off the standards society has imposed.
As Alasdair Macintyre wryly says in After Virtue, Enlightenment philosophes have the least self-awareness of all thinkers. They create new and revolutionary systems, but the content of their morality is entirely inherited from the civilisation they’ve inherited and which they despise. Thus, Rousseau’s ethics are stuffed full of quaint and puritanical Calvinist ideas from his Genevan upbringing. “Effeminacy” is one of his constant worries, and he applies the term, in boyish fashion, to anything he doesn’t like. Thus, in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, he can condemn civilised man:
“By becoming sociable and enslaved, he becomes weak, fearful, and grovelling, and his soft and effeminate way of life ends by enervating both his strength and his courage.”
Take these relics away, however, and Rousseau’s romanticism has only its sentimental primitivism to act as a limiting moral principle. Goodness is whatever lies in the untainted human heart, freed from social corruption. What becomes of it then? I wager it must enter an eternal spiral of liberation. Romanticism is built on the idea that we’ll be truly happy only when we free ourselves from all external rules and uncover a pre-social authenticity. Since this is a lie, no amount of liberation will ever create happiness. So, to remain consistent with itself, romanticism must seek ever more shackles of oppression to shatter. It’s either that or admit error.
The progressive radicalisation built into romanticism is visible everywhere. The sexual revolution, for example, has no brakes, because it’s built on a romanticised and primitivist vision of sex that would be falsified the moment brakes are applied. The radicals of the mid-twentieth century believed that socialised sexuality was corrupt, and once the orgasm was freed from all external restraints, pure happiness would result (Wilhelm Reich, for example, thought-free love was the precondition to utopian social democracy). Free love hasn’t made us happier, however. So, the answer is to find ever more previously unknown sexual taboos, whose chains we must shatter if we’re at last to be free.
In everyday morality, romantic assumptions have remade the life quest we each undertake for goodness, into a quest for authenticity. Finding one’s true self is now a drain on the wallet of the entire Western bourgeoisie. People of ages past underwent transformative moral journeys that turned them from sinners to saints, but theirs wasn’t a trek for authenticity. They did something far more mundane: they changed their minds. There’s an implicit vanity in the true-self doctrine. Changing your mind means admitting error. Finding your true self means you were right all along, but just didn’t notice it, because society was keeping you blind.
The cultural production of this quest is, I believe, simply inferior to the production of a mind that looks outwards from itself onto something else. Someone obsessed with finding his authentic self doesn’t have time to stand in awe of things greater than himself. What is falling in love, if not to be overcome by the sense of the intrinsic irreplaceable value of another person, without reference to oneself? We have all effectively become Rousseau writing his Confessions. A man who delighted in nature and other people only as frissons to express his authentic self, and could begin his book with the words:
“Here is the only portrait of a man, painted exactly after nature and in all her truth, that exists and probably ever will exist.”
In education, romantic ideas have done away with the rote learning that characterised pedagogy from Ancient Greece, through the middle ages and down to the Victorian Age. Twentieth-century educators like John Dewey, following in Rousseau’s footsteps, sought to remake schooling around the true self doctrine. Instead of moulding a pupil to conform to an ideal (a gentleman or citizen), modern education exists to help him discover his uncorrupted pre-social self. Self-expression without rules has become the educational norm, with the result that we have people who are experts in analysing their own minds and emotions, but incapable of self-denial or rigour. The excellence of mind and body requires constant training. We accept this more readily about the body because physical fitness is visible. But the mind, which is invisible, needs just as much training to be fit for purpose.
In the end, I see romanticism as an enormous civilisational gamble. The difference between classicism and romanticism is about what we think reality is truly like. The classicist sees a human race born lacking and sees culture as how a scaffold is to a building. Culture exists as an aid to human completion. The romantic, meanwhile, claims that human nature isn’t completable, but already complete, and merely corrupted. He wagers that if we accept this idea, we can remake the world for the better. Like any gambler, he doesn’t think about the stakes if the wager is lost. Here the stakes are social catastrophe if the assumption is untrue. If the truth is classical, then romanticism is akin to raising a lion on a strict vegetarian diet.
