We would find ourselves with an atomised society in which no one felt he had any duty to anyone else

Sunday, March 29th, 2020

Years ago, back in 2004, Anthony Daniels (perhaps better known as Theodore Dalrymple) picked up a book by André Maurois, published in 1931, called L’Amerique Inattendue. Maurois, who had taken a position teaching French literature at Princeton, preferred the character of the Americans in adversity to that in triumphal materialistic optimism:

I felt distinctly uncomfortable while reading Maurois. I am no economist and am not qualified to opine on economic affairs. Yet we seem to me to have been conducting ourselves in Britain as if the present economic climate will continue forever, regardless of what we do, as if there were no tomorrow, or at least no tomorrow that might be very different from today. On the one hand, our boom requires that we spend, or it comes to an end; on the other, we shall have nothing for our old age if we do.

Our public life is frivolous, but frivolous without gaiety. It is also earnest without being serious. The Chancellor, Mr Brown, warned us recently of the threat that China and India posed to our prosperity. We cannot compete with those countries in cost of labour, of course; but their success is based not just on cheap labour, but on a powerful combination of cheap labour and an educational system that is far more serious than ours. While we — that is to say, the government of which Mr Brown is a prominent member — are so obsessed with supposed social justice that we are prepared to tolerate any degree of mediocrity, India and China foster talent in a very Darwinian fashion, in the hope and expectation that everyone will benefit in the long run. Before long, there will be nothing that we can do better than they.

At the same time, we have destroyed, or at least undermined, all forms of social solidarity other than handouts from the state. If ever there should be a serious downturn in our economic fortunes, which would not be unprecedented in history after all, we would find ourselves with an atomised society in which no one felt he had any duty to anyone else. Widespread social, or rather antisocial, disturbances might very well result.

By the time I had finished Maurois’s forgotten but suggestive little book, I was almost trembling with fear.

Comments

  1. Harry Jones says:

    American society has been atomized all my life. I’m well used to it.

    There are many kinds of solidarity. Most of them are a sham. Real solidarity is based on a common interest plus mutual regard. As for the rest, no cause to mourn the death of an an illusion.

    Systems aren’t serious. Systems are mindless. People are serious.

  2. David Foster says:

    Maurois is an interesting writer. I was impressed by his insight that: men who are intelligent, but not at all creative, tend to be voracious adopters of intellectual systems created by others, and often apply those systems more rigidly than their originators would have.

    Recently, I’ve been remembering an early-1940 interview he conducted with Paul Reynaud, who had just become Prime Minister of France. The discussion turned to the bitter conflict between Reynaud and his long-time rival Daladier.

    “Nevertheless,” said Maurois, ” you must admit that Daladier certainly a man who loves his country.”

    Yes,” replied Reynaud. “I believe he desires the victory of France, but he desires my defeat even more.”

    This may not have been totally fair to Daladier, but it certainly applies to many American politicians, academics, and media types today. Applies, indeed, in even stronger form, because “they desire the victory of America over (terrorism, coronavirus, etc)” is in many cases not true: these things are mere background for the political power struggle.

  3. Lucklucky says:

    “Maurois is an interesting writer. I was impressed by his insight that: men who are intelligent, but not at all creative, tend to be voracious adopters of intellectual systems created by others, and often apply those systems more rigidly than their originators would have.”

    Good one, David.

Leave a Reply