Terribly Boring 5: Time travel with Philip Blond

I seem to be in that Friday night crystal window of thought between Gin & Tonic #3 and Gin & Tonic #4 so thought it just the time to have a root through the giant brain of Philip Blond, “high priest” of the so-called Red Toryism, who was profiled in the New Statesman yesterday.

I have been meaning to write about him for some time because he’s a fellow medievalist, and there’s nothing that causes me to cast off political allegiance so quickly as a jolly good chat about fourteenth-century constitutional change.

Blond shares my belief (and that of the famed Idler, Tom Hodgkinson) that medievalism is a surprisingly useful body of knowledge to bring to bear on the modern world. And its appeal is not limited to any one party or direction. Consider the ten medieval values (with my notation) outlined by Hodgkinson:

ANTI-CAPITALIST: Lending at interest, or usury, is at the basis of the capitalist system. And usury was quite specifically proscribed by medieval ethics… Very much the mood of the moment, as Tom pointed out again in the wake of the bank crisis.

ANTI-WORK: According to historian Jacques Le Goff, the medievals were opposed to hard work, because, he says, to put in long hours displayed a lack of faith in Providence. Theologically, medieval Catholicism was closer to an almost Taoist Oriental fatalism than today’s Protestant culture. And hard work might give you an unfair advantage over your brothers. Political movements do not  lend themselves to fatalism for obvious reasons, but there is something here that smacks of the “equality of outcome” beloved of the left.

ANTI-COMPETITIVE: Craftsmen organised themselves into a system of Guilds. Guild members mutually agreed to keep quality high and prices uncompetitive. They instituted the notion of a “just and fixed price” for their wares… Classic leftist protectionism.

ECO-FRIENDLY: In the era before electricity, coal, gas or nuclear power, the medievals heated themselves from sustainable sources: ie, wood. They used water and wind power to grind corn. The UK was covered in eco-friendly windmills. All vegetable production was necessarily organic, and everyone “shopped local”… Liberal localism and environmentalism.

SELF-SUFFICIENT: Even the meanest medieval peasant grew vegetables and herbs and kept pigs and chickens. And the giant yeoman class became very prosperous. Chaucer wrote of his Franklin: “It snowed in his house of mete and drynke.” Again, liberal localism.

HOSPITABLE: Just as indigenous people today would share their last crust with you, so the medievals emphasised the importance of good hospitality. The monasteries would take in wandering men and give them beer, bread and bacon, and indeed, the (later) problem of homeless, in the Elizabethan age, was a direct result of the destruction of the monasteries. A touch of Tory paternalism here, anti-welfare state.

CHARITABLE: In the days before charity had become just another institutional mega-business, it really did begin at home. The importance of charity was constantly insisted upon and there were plenty of wandering beggars and other mendicants who were ready to receive your alms. There was no disgrace attached to poverty: in fact, it was a state to be celebrated, because the apostles were poor. We had the example of St Francis of Assisi who became voluntarily poor. As above, plus true liberal individualism in the co-existence of the two ideals of wealth and poverty.

PARTY-LOVING: The medieval calendar was absolutely studded with feast days and festivals. Of course, we all celebrate Christmas now, but Christmas then was celebrated for 12 days, during which no one was allowed to work. Every three or four weeks there was some excuse for a party. May Day was for having sex and every three of four weeks there was a long break. Liberal permissive social values and communitarianism.

CHIVALROUS: It was the medieval knights and specifically the great Troubadours of Southern France who invented the custom of courtly love. Chivalry, respect and courtesy towards women was constantly insisted upon, and there were great female patrons of these poets, such as, for example, Eleanor of Aquitaine. Good manners were important. Tory social values.

NEIGHBOURLY: Christ had conceived of the world as a “brotherhood of man” and civility to your neighbour was paramount. This is because the medievals had a sense of collective responsibility: we are all in this together, so your well-being and my well-being are one and the same thing. Liberal localism and communitarianism.

Blond, of course, prefers the Tory and some of the liberal elements as his medieval building blocks. But he offers an extra insight which I think is spot on: the post-medieval state centralisation project. I’ve discussed this before myself. Blond:

[Oliver] Letwin led the way by giving a historical account of how bureaucracy first arose through the creation of the state by the monarch, who, in wishing to assert and codify his control over the realm, inaugurated a vast centralised system of state control to regulate and direct his subjects. He then concluded that this has led to its modern correlate: a managerial and bureaucratic state wholly unresponsive to its citizens and indifferent to their needs.

… a medieval network of a predominantly horizontal communal and social order, exemplified by the church but also including guilds and agrarian communities organised around differential property relationships, was destroyed by the new vertical “secular monarchs”. From the 14th century on, they asserted their power and corrupted a pre-existing highly plural and reciprocal community with demands for top-down allegiance, authority and control.

The only point I’d make here is that he and Letwin are pegging the change too early – the kind of centralist “vertical monarchy” he’s talking about only really took off with the Tudors a hundred years later.

He goes on to say that it is the task of the Tories to return to the bottom-up and pluralistic medieval model in a “post-bureaucratic age”. A lot of liberals will find resonance in that, and not just when the state is under discussion. Looking back over the eighteen-month history of the People’s Republic, I find a pattern of frustration with big systems that affect to serve all and end up serving no-one in both the state and private sectors, and an inclination to localism, efficiency and self-organisation. It’s my belief that a simpler and more individually tailored way of life would bring greater economic and social benefits than all the monolithic systems ever could that makes me a liberal. There can be little better training for the liberal life than a solid grounding in medieval history.

So what on earth, I asked a fellow who has chatted with Blond, is the difference between Red Toryism and liberalism? All this business about localism, autonomy and community sounds dashed familiar. “I think he’s moderately socially conservative,” was the reply, “He finds liberalism too permissive – he thinks that there are virtues of community which should occasionally cause us to subvert our individualism to the common good”

Thus at the end of the same piece:

the real escape from bureaucracy occurs when communities are formed that reconstitute traditions across time and place such that all relationships within that community become practised and no formal account of their nature and fulfilment is required.

Instead actions and behaviour are the subject of unconscious agreement and completion. So conceived, an ancient conservative communitarianism can be married to a hyper-modern network of trade and exchange to the mutual benefit of all.

Yup, pure social conservatism. The NS characterises Blond’s critique of liberalism like this:

liberal autonomy entails the repudiation of society, and no vision of the common good can be derived from liberal principles. The atomised dystopia of 21st-century Britain, the “broken society” overseen by a highly centralised bureaucratic state, turns out to have been the historic bequest of Locke and Mill.

Liberals are, in Blond’s view “fatally indifferent” to social obligations of the sort that the Tory tradition values. These social obligations, to his mind, are the only effective building blocks of society. Liberalism, far from being a prerequisite for successful communitarianism, is in fact damaging to it.

First, the case for the defence. Liberalism is a prerequisite for the communitarian future because only pure liberalism positively requires that power be handed back to communities, and only pure liberalism provides that individuals have the inborn and inalienable right to self-organise. Tory paternalism does not, Labour centralism certainly does not. That much, I think, is very supportable.

Moreover, most liberals would be extremely surprised to learn that they “repudiate” society. Implicit in Blond’s take on liberalism is his belief that “society” consists solely in traditional relationships. Now, unless history is static, that’s seems to me to be a belief with no meaning. One age’s traditional relationships are another age’s dangerous social innovation. But here’s a shock. In another sense I agree with Blond. There are, indeed, times when individualism needs to be subverted for the common good.

There is a critical caveat, however – it’s simply not necessary for either legislation or artificial cultural pressure to force individuals to do this. Because we do it all by ourselves. The fact that social obligations are long-standing effective societal bonds should alone tell Blond that. Human beings are, on average, naturally good at social conservatism. They literally self-select for it. I’m an abberation (and so, in other senses, is Blond) – but we’re here because society can bear the cost of abberations; they’re worth it for the innovation they bring.

Still, no permissive liberal should be in any doubt about this: if the most extreme gun-toting libertarians took over the world tomorrow and set everybody “free”, a sizeable chunk of the population would instantly organise itself into socially conservative, strictly regulated communes.

It’s the liberal’s job to let them get on with that. It’s not the liberal’s job to impose their own permissiveness on others any more than it’s the social conservative’s job to impose their conservatism. Either would interfere with a perfectly natural and effective permissive/conservative balancing act that has kept human society from self-destructing in too regular and wanton a manner for thousands of years. Social liberalism does not preclude social conservatism.

The social conservatism that Blond sees as so central to his thesis is, in fact, a bolt-on, just as permissiveness would be another sort of bolt-on. A true localist liberal must be prepared to countenance both sorts of society, if both can prove their worth by surviving.

In short, what Blond has to say is eighty per cent a liberalist and localist creed, not undermined in its essentials by the twenty per cent that is influenced by social conservatism. And what Cameron chickens out of implementing, we can chew on for ourselves. I am looking forward to the book.


  1. Extremely thought-provoking & that. I have been attracted to Tom Hodgkinson after reading his column in The Ecologist, in which he reveals himself to be a man of sound sense & shit.

    There is really something that causes me to shy away from Philip Blond, which is that he gives off an air of repudiating liberalism & individualism. Now, I was never particularly good as a student (not in the formal sense, anyway) but I did at least try to specialise in the English Civil War. I sense that he’d have been on the wrong side 🙂

    Some argue it doesn’t mean much in this day & age, but I think you know better. Have got my reservations about someone who harks back to pre-Reformation times as in my view it was the triad of the Reformation, the Civil War & the Glorious Revolution which made this country what it is.

    Medievalism may not be much more than a hobby for him, but if he carries these ideas around they will be acted upon. Maybe Cameronism will involve actions close to mine, but its inspiration is quite alien & I’m sure I won’t be hanging up my blogging pistols & that after a change of government.

    Do you know Paul Kingsnorth? I have got his books & a lot of good business in there. The only thing I really disagree with is his English nationalism as I am more a unionist & shit.

  2. Maybe the G&T has blunted one or two points.

    “unless history is static… One age’s traditional relationships are another age’s dangerous social innovation.”

    This doesn’t fit with a description of chivalry as ‘Tory social values’, at least not within it’s historical context. Surely chivalry was progress towards liberal egalitarianism and universal rights.

    Similarly, absolute self-sufficiency was a fallacy then as it is now. Animals were bred and traded, while communal rights for grazing, hunting and gathering etc were assigned. More like a mix of liberal localism and mutual interdependence.

    I tend to agree with the argument, but I don’t think you applied it evenly or quite followed your own logic through to it’s natural conclusion.

    I don’t think liberals need to provide excuses for our opponents, only provide a reinterpretion of events from our perspective to balance their claims on definition.

  3. ah, but lest we forget, “The point about Merrie England is that it was about
    the most un-Merrie period in our history. It’s only the home-made pottery crowd, the organic husbandry crowd, the recorder-playing crowd,
    the Esperanto …”

    unfortunately, at this point I believe one us meant to pause and sway; the heat, the drink and the nervousness at last joining forces.

  4. but there is something here that smacks of the “equality of outcome” beloved of the left.

    Sounds like a bit of flame-baiting to me 😉

    There are two common reasons why a lot of lefties dislike equality of outcome, even if we are resigned to it.

    1) Because it highlights inequality in the system, where one group get privileges that allow them to extend their special status and become even more powerful and richer even if it has nothing to do with doing lots of work.

    2) Gross inequality in society can also lead to more social unrest, and is generally a social negative. There’s been quite a few studies on this but I can’t find them right now as I’m doing something else.

    Point being, lefties aren’t necessarily interested in equality of outcome because they’re lazy.

  5. A modern variant: New Towns in the Country in which the people work part-time (18-to-24 hours a week) and in their free time build their own houses, cultivate gardens, and pursue other leisure-time activities.

    40 hours a week used to support a family (when I was growing up for example); why not again?

    BTW, there’s a great stimulus program hidden in here somewhere.

  6. Does anyone believe the Tories have any intention whatsoever of implementing even one word of this? Going by their Treasury and Home Office lines, they want to implement a not-so-Thatcherite-as-Hooverite cuts regime with, of course, unbounded resources for the Bill to wallop anyone who gets in the way.

    What happens when they realise North Sea oil won’t save them this time is anyone’s guess. But I reckon it won’t be anything Philip Blond’s written. It could be medieval as in “getting medieval on your ass”, I suppose.

  7. I’m 3/4 of the way through Mind The Gap, by Ferdinand Mount, and he’s making the point that nineteenth century Britain was supported/run by a patchwork of non-state institutions. So the Tories don’t have to go all the way back to the Tudors for models 🙂

  8. It looks to me more like Christian Democracy than either liberalism or conservatism (or perhaps it should be labelled “Tractarian Gothic Civic Republicanism”!).

    We English-speakers, brought up on Hobbes and not Aquinas, and on Adam Smith rather than Rerum Novarum, have never really understood Christian Democracy. This is a pity, as Christian Democracy has much to offer. In particular, being “distributist” rather than capitalist or socialist, and “personalist” rather than individualist or collectivist, Christian Democracy is able to occupy what Jim Wallis called the “moral centre” of political economy.

    Christian Democracy, while socially conservative in terms of values, is also open to political reforms aimed at limiting and sharing power. It favours a moderate and decentralised political system based, on local democracy and functional autonomy. I’m not sure where Blond stands on constitutional reform, but I cannot see how a programme of this nature could succeed without addressing the excessive concentration of power in the central executive. Christian Democrats have generally favoured proportional representation and written Constitutions, and their greatest achievements have been in constitutional design – read the Constitution of Ireland as an example of Christian Democratic thought at its best.

    Finally, Christian Democracy is also compatible with our post-industrial and post-materialist concerns, favouring sustainable sufficiency rather than the over-exploitation of resources, and quality of life over material gain – moral market, if you will.

    If Blond’s ideas really are in the Christian Democratic tradition, as it seems from a brief acquaintance with them, the question of whether the Conservative Party is a suitable vehicle for these ideas still remains. Are they not too wedded to Thatcherism, to the centralised authoritarian State, and to big-box capitalism?

    The Greens and the Liberal Democrats would seem a much more natural home for these ideas – except for one thing. As Asquith said, I fear Blond might have been on the wrong side during the Civil War. He’s not a conservative (at least not as the term has been used and understood in Britain the last hundred and fifty years), and I’m not sure he’s really even a Tory – no thinking man, except Rodger Scruton – ever was. But he does appear to be a bit of a Cavalier. At the very least, I can imagine him being much more comfortable with the Nineteen Propositions than with the Agreement of the People.

    1. Decentralisation of power is one of the Conservatives big selling points.


      As to ‘big-box capitalism’. All governments are to an extent, but I think Britain’s over-reliance on the financial services industry has been shown to expose us to more risk than is desirable, so I would expect a responsible government (which in my view excludes New Labour) to encourage diversity in the economy.

      Civitas have a unit looking at industrial policy, they may be worth watching.

Leave a Reply to tawan Cancel 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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