T.S. Eliot on tradition and community

T.S. Eliot had some relevant things to say about tradition, culture, and community, recorded in the book After Strange Gods: A Primer of Modern Heresy, which is material from lectures he gave in the 1930s.

He warns against being sentimental towards the past necessarily, because any ‘living tradition’ is bound to be a mix of good and bad. In other words, we have to be selective and discriminating about what we preserve and what we leave behind. I think these are important ideas to our age, as we seem to be at a crossroads.

But let’s look at what Eliot says here I’ve bolded parts I think most interesting or relevant.

“Nor can we safely, without very critical examination, dig ourselves in stubbornly to a few dogmatic notions, for what is a healthy belief at one time may, unless it is one of the few fundamental things, be a pernicious prejudice at another.
What we can do is to use our minds, remembering that a tradition without intelligence is not worth having, to discover what is the best life for us not as a political abstraction, but as a particular people in a particular place; what in the past is worth preserving and what should be rejected; and what conditions, within our power to bring about, would foster the society that we desire. Stability is obviously necessary. You are hardly likely to develop tradition except where the bulk of the population is relatively so well off that it has no incentive or pressure to move about. The population should be homogeneous; where two or more cultures exist in the same place they are likely to either be fiercely self-conscious or both to become adulterate. What is still more important is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable. There must be a proper balance between urban and rural, industrial and agricultural development. We must also remember that — in spite of every means of transport that can be devised — the local community must always be the most permanent, and that the concept of the nation is by no means fixed and invariable. It is, so to speak, only one fluctuating circle of loyalties between the centre of the family and the local community, and the periphery of humanity entire. Its strength and its geographical size depend upon the comprehensiveness of a way of life which can harmonise parts with distinct local characters of their own. When it becomes no more than a centralised machinery it may affect some of its parts to their detriment, or to what they believe to be their detriment; and we get the regional movements which have appeared within recent years. It is only a law of nature, that local patriotism, when it represents a distinct tradition and culture, takes precedence over a more abstract national patriotism. This remark should carry more weight for being uttered by a Yankee.

The last sentence hints at Eliot’s sympathetic views toward the South. Eliot was something of a maverick in his political sentiments, especially amongst so many liberal/leftist writers and ‘artists.’ His casual statement about Jews in the above excerpts makes it no surprise that he was accused of anti-Semitism.

Regardless of his political and social views, I think he shows very sound thinking on the issues he talked about in this particular segment, and it’s all very relevant to our world now, as tradition is being jettisoned by both the ‘Frankfurt School’/Critical Theory crowd on the left, and by segments of the right, who have decided that nothing in our past is worth saving, and that we can’t learn anything from our ignorant forefathers.

There is a place for stability, continuity, and tradition. It is not possible to built a culture from the ground up, to start from scratch, as some seem to think we ought to do if it is ever in our power to have a say in our future.  Eliot recognized this. We don’t have many men of his calibre today, and so much the worse for us.

4 thoughts on “T.S. Eliot on tradition and community

  1. the local community must always be the most permanent, and that the concept of the nation is by no means fixed and invariable.

    A good point. We always need to keep in mind that just two or three centuries ago (a very short time as far as history is concerned) many of the nations we take for granted today did not exist. There was no such country as Germany, or Italy, or Poland, or Bulgaria. And there were lots of nations that have vanished – Bavaria, the Venetian Republic, Scotland.

    Local identities were more important to people than national identities. As recently as the early 1980s I met people in Cornwall who still had a fierce sense of Cornish identity. They were very indignant if you made the mistake of referring to them as English!

    The real evil of globalism is not so much that it destroys national identity but that it destroys regional and local identities.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Yes, agreed. The local and regional identities have been declining for some years in this country. Southern identity was usually the strongest but in recent years that’s been undermined by demographic changes and of course the political correctness that has been designed to induce shame about our past.
    I have heard that the regional British identities, like the Cornish, are still alive, and that’s good; here’s hoping that mass immigration does not destroy that.
    I wondered, excuse my ignorance,but are there strong regional identities in Australia, or are ethnic identities more important still?


    • I wondered, excuse my ignorance,but are there strong regional identities in Australia, or are ethnic identities more important still?

      I’ve never been able to detect any signs at all of regional identities in Australia.

      As for ethnic identities, prior to the disastrous mass immigration that started in the late 1940s there was a very strong sense of identity among Irish Catholics here. That survived until the 1960s. It’s completely disappeared now.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks for replying. I had wondered about any regionalism in Australia.
        It’s too bad that ethnic identities are weakened (or gone?) in Australia now. I think that ethnic and regional identities are more genuine than the civic ones, obviously, but apparently we’re supposed to be ‘global citizens’ primarily and maybe TPTB will allow us to be ‘civic nationalists’ as long as we foreswear ethnic or racial loyalties.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s