[davem]

There are some interesting points made by Christopher Garbowski as regards the socieites of Middle Earth:

In the Hobbit, along with its residents, Tolkien discovered the Shire, the almost archetypal small homeland, a geographical unit that adorns the entire Middle Earth of the thrid Age from the Grey Havens to Fangorn Forest & beyond. The geographical distances may be reminiscent of Europe ... but the social geography is based on what the Germans call Heimat ... Large as the Kingdom of Gondor is, it actually constitutes a federation of small states rather than a uniform one. The only large state can be said to be Mordor, which is centralistic to say the least ... Milosz writes that 'in comparison with the state, the homeland is organic, rooted in the past, always small, it warms the heart, it is as close as one's own body' ...Different homelands introduce genuine diversity, while the large state, whether benign or threatening, imposes uniformity....

Not that the small homeland is without faults. A well known example is the all too familiar division of orbis-interior/orbis-exterior, where those who are from outside the community are frequently the unwanted other, to be treated with suspicion ... Even within the Shire there is a mistrust of citizens from far flung parts; Breelanders consider hobbits from Hobbiton strange & vice versa ... Much of the conflict between Elves & Dwarves can be considered along this orbis-interior/orbis-exterior fault line.

A journey develops, or at least requires, openness & brings withit the risk of change ... The journey (in LotR) often leads from one small homeland to another. The heimats of the other are the repositories of values that often challenge cherished beliefs of the traveller, & lead to an awareness unavailable from the limited perspective of home ... Dialogue is infact a precondition for the survival of the free peoples who must overcome their isolation if they are to adequately deal with the danger facing them. (quoted in Rosebury 'Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon')

So, we have Tolkien offering us a vision of a world of smal, effectively self contained communities, which all the samemust interact with each other if they are to survive. So he seems to be condemning the attitude of the Shire Hobbits, not because they have a self contained, self supporting, society, a 'heimat' - which is good, but because they have shunned all interaction with 'outsiders'. 'United (as a collection of small, autonomous, communities) we stand. Divided (cut off from other 'heimats', letting them go hang) we fall.

This, as Rosebury points out, reflects Tolkien's political stance - 'anarchism'. The nation state (even if 'benevolent') threatens, & will ultimately destroy, the Heimat - 'the homeland (which) is organic, rooted in the past, always small, it warms the heart, it is as close as one's own body'. Its summed up, perhaps, in Merrry & Pippin's conversation in the Houses of Healing:

'Dear me! We Tooks & Brandybucks, we can't live long on the heights.'

'No,' said Merry. 'I can't at any rate. But at least, Pippin, we can now see them, & honour them. It is vest to love first what you are fitted to love, I suppose: you must start somewhere & have some roots, & the soil of the Shire is deep. Still there are things deeper & higher, & not a gaffer could tend his garden in what he calls peace but for them, whether he knows about them or not. I am glad thatt I know about them, a little.'

The end of the book seems to present us with the ideal - the Shire is not cut off totally - the hobbits have been brought into the world, played a part, & are acknowledged by the Great, yet the Heimat remains.