Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
07-04-2006, 06:11 PM | #1 |
Shade of Carn Dűm
|
Tolkien and Western Government
Today is the 230th birthday of the USA, when the Declaration of Independence was signed. The American Revolution was fought on nationalistic views that the Thirteen Colonies should be self-ruled under a democratic government, the Republic. The first Amendment of the Constitution is the leading principle of the Bill of Rights, which is the freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, and the right to assemble. The ninth amendment also states that there are many more unwritten rights of the people, but just because they are unwritten does not mean they can be restricted by the government.
Since then, the British monarchy has been altered to a ceremonial position over the Commonwealth rather than a political position. By Tolkien?s time, England was not that different in the ways of policy and people?s rights. During Tolkien?s time many governments took position in Europe, from the fall of Empires and monarchies during WWI, to the rise and fall of the Third Reich, and the rise of the American republic and the communist Soviet Union. Did Tolkien have any opinions about America or any other forms of government? ________ Buy Glass Bongs Last edited by Elu Ancalime; 03-04-2011 at 12:02 AM. |
07-05-2006, 03:03 AM | #2 |
Shade of Carn Dűm
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Shire (Staffordshire), United Kingdom
Posts: 273
|
I believe that Tolkien disliked all modern forms of government. He would have supported the return of an Absolute Monarchy. (He was, like all geniuses, not quite right in the head.)
The only thing he liked about America was their films; he was an avid cinema-goer. He loathed American music. Maybe someone with a better memory and more time could give some quotes from his letters? . |
07-05-2006, 05:37 AM | #3 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
He particularly disliked the "State" in its manifestation as an embodiment or apparatus of the government. A point on which I, again, agree with him. There is lots there in the Letters but, unfortunately, I don't have them to hand ...
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
07-05-2006, 06:44 AM | #4 | ||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Tolkien's word on politics:
Quote:
What Tolkien says in this quote is familiar to Brits as the kind of thing the Daily Mail and Telegraph (and most of the people for that matter) might say every few days, how the state is to blame for everything, etc. It's the mention of Anarchy that stands out as distinctly odd to me. Thinking about it, it is a philosophy kin to and opposite to absolute Monarchy. Kin because it also denies the presence of a State apparatus and opposite because Anarchy allows for no ruler whatsoever and instead is for collectivism. I often think that The Shire has something of the air of an Anarchist commune to it, but not quite, as it has ownership and people have roles. In an Anarchist collective everyone would share responsibility. There would be no contrast between the Sams and the Sandymans as both would do each other's jobs at some point in the year. Sam wouldn't garden for Frodo but for the good of the community. At least the Shire would have the pipe smoking off to a T, but would it have the necessary beard scratching to be a lovely woolly Anarchist collective? Quote:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
||
07-05-2006, 06:56 AM | #5 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,993
|
Quote:
Is this the same thing as the quasi-divine right of kingship which Aragorn apparently represents? |
|
07-05-2006, 10:39 AM | #6 |
Shadowed Prince
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Thulcandra
Posts: 2,343
|
I think we should try to avoid turning this into a thread advocating our personal prefered forms of government. Otherwise the world might just explode.
Tolkien did say that his books were not in any way related to contempotary politics. However, we can look at the governments in the books and the letters to get a feel for his beliefs. It's interesting that Tolkien says his political beliefs tend to Anarchy. Anarchy to me always evokes liberalism - each man for himself taken to an extreme. Indeed, this is what he says, "an abolition of control." I wonder to what extent he really believed in this - would his Catholicism get in the way of letting everybody pursue their own path in life? I also refute that Anarchy could ever take the form of collectivism. Anarachism should not be considered as a form of socialism or communism. As Somalia shows, absolute abolition of any form of control leads to capitalism (which I believe Tolkien mentions disliking, though I may be wrong). |
07-05-2006, 11:03 AM | #7 | |
Spectre of Decay
|
Shirepolitik
Quote:
Tolkien did not agree with the personification of the State as a being with rights, thoughts and opinions. I regard such an entity as a useful thing for people to hide behind when doing distasteful things that they wouldn't want to appear in their biographies, and that's the biggest danger of that way of thinking. Both classical Anarchy and absolute monarchy, by on the one hand removing the apparatus of government altogether and on the other placing all of the responsibility in the hands of one specific person, allow no latitude to act in the name of an entity without a face. In a modern democracy it's possible to make nobody actually responsible for anything, yet still concentrate power into the hands of a few people. I'm not saying that Tolkien was right, but I can understand why he might have held his views. In any case, his ways are no more or less right than those to which we adhere, but political science, philosophy, and finally and inevitably madness lie in that direction.
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? Last edited by The Squatter of Amon Rűdh; 07-05-2006 at 11:06 AM. Reason: Typos |
|
07-05-2006, 11:22 AM | #8 | ||||
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
I am supposed to be racing out the door, but can't resist throwing something into this pot. As was often true with Tolkien, it's possible to identify two contradictory ideals in his writings. Still, if forced to say whether Tolkien was closer to anarchism or benevolent dictatorship/monarchies, I would go with anarchism. Let's review the evidence....
First, there is the ideal at the end of LotR: the establishment of a Reunited Kingdom under a benevolent monarch. Note that this is not a "new" development, but rather the restoration of an ideal from the past. As Tolkien noted, "the progress of the tale ends in what is far more like the re-establishment of an effective Holy Roman Empire with its seat in Rome." While some readers may concentrate on the figure of the "emperor", asking what kind of power that individual wields, Bethberry is right to question that emphasis. Tolkien's real focus is not the figure of the ruler but what that ruler is trying to restore. The tight control of Saruman and Sauron, the machine horrors of Isengard, are to be replaced with a gentler hand. It's certainly clear Tolkien believed absolute power was inherently corrupting, since the Ring could destroy even those with the best intentions. With this lesson in mind, one of the first steps Aragorn takes is to limit his own authority. What absolute ruler, even a benevolent one, would agree to have parts of his kingdom where he could not even set foot? Just as Tolkien rejected Sauron's attempt to create a monolithic, machine-driven regime, he disliked the conformity and mechanization that inevitably accompanies nationalism and modernity. Tolkien felt any form of central planning was doomed to failure. The modern democratic state presupposes a huge class of bureaucrats, a group Tolkien considered morally subversive and little better than orcs. Whether or not we personally agree, Tolkien was strongly anti-totalitarian and anti-democratic: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If Tolkien's had a personal political ideal, it lay in the Shire. Since man is inherently flawed, it is best that no single individual or state wield great authority. In an ideal world, an absolute monarch who had no flaws would be the perfect answer, but realistically that situation posed too many risks. In Tolkien's eyes, better the agrarian Shire where no one person exercised control and even the notion of the "State" is non-existent. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 07-05-2006 at 04:50 PM. |
||||
07-05-2006, 02:30 PM | #9 | ||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
Quote:
I've recently realised (and quite shocked myself in the process) that the last thing I want to see in the UK is a president and a republic, as I know that the leader we would get would as likely as not be some 'charismatic' business leader, who would then go on to utilise the status brought by the position to make even more money. I feel more comfortable with the latest in a line of monarchs who have little or no 'agenda'. This I think is what Tolkien was getting at with his attitude to monarchy and 'democracy' (and the super-state or nanny state); he could see that even democracy can feed into the hands of the power and money hungry, as we must still have 'leaders'. I wonder if Tolkien's ideal of a leader is something entirely different to a Prime Minister, a King (or Queen), or a President? In Aragorn we see something of his ideal, but we do not see all that much of this man's actual Kingship. Instead we see his military leadership and his leadership of the Fellowship after Gandalf has gone. To me it seems he idealises the practical leader. Though again, this begs the question of whether Aragorn's skill would shine through in quite the same way had he been say the fifteenth in a long line of Kings in a stable country. Tolkien really sidesteps the issue of Politics as much as possible, only venturing into that territory to show how power corrupts? Which brings us back to those Anarchists...
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
||
07-05-2006, 06:27 PM | #10 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
I do not claim to speak for Tolkien, although it was the discussion on another thread here concerning Tolkien and politics, together with my own intense dislike of our what passes for "democracy" in my country, that prompted my thoughts concerning the ideal solution of a benevolent dictatorship. And, yes, Aragorn's rule might be considered a representation of it, although the "divine rule" aspect is not, to my mind, a necessary element. It is more important, in my view, that the people accept the ruler as their ruler. Aragorn had both (and this issue, I think, was explored in the thread which prompted my original thoughts). The main problem with democracy, as I see it, is that an elected government always governs with an eye to the next election and thus concerns itself more with keeping itself in power rather than truly governing for the good of the people it represents. Thus, it is reluctant to take "difficult" measures which might make it unpopular, such as those which may be in the bests interests of the society which it governs in the long-term but which may be unpopular in the short-term (measures required to protect the environment are a clasic example here). A benevolent dictator has no need to worry about electoral success, and so is free to rule for the benefit of all the people. Being benevolent, he or she would be only too willing to do so. And, being wise, he or she would make the correct choices in doing so. Aragorn's rule at the end of the Third Age does indeed represent such a system. The problem, of course, is that a benevolent dictator is, like Aragorn, a fantasy figure. It may be a cliche, but it is also a truism that powere corrupts and absolute power (which the benevolent dictator has) corrupts absolutely. A benevolent ruler, however well-intentioned to start with, would be hard pressed to remain benevolent. And, however wise, he or she would be hard pressed to always make the correct choices. Moreover, it would be impossible to rule for the benefit of all of the people all of the time, because people have different hopes, aspirations, goals and beliefs. There would always be malcontents who would wish to overthrow the ruler and install themselves in his/her place. This may be something that Tolkien intended to explore within the context of his tale of the Shadow returning in the Fourth Age (which I have not read), although (as I understand it) Tolkien portrays this in terms of the return of evil. In real life, the malcontents are generally not evil (not at the outset, at least), but rather idealists who believe that they can do a better job, based on their own aspirations and beliefs. Quote:
For my own part, I differ from Tolkien in accepting the need for a state apparatus but one which recognises individual rights and freedoms and intereferes only where necessary for the protection of individuals and for the benefit of society as a whole, and not where it has no business doing so. I am not sure that Tolkien was quite the libertararian that I am although, from what I have read in his Letters and his stated preference for anarchy, he does seem to have had a libertarian streak in him which, as TGWBS suggests, may well have conflicted with the tenets of his orthodox Catholicism. And, as Child has suggested, I believe that this "anarchist" streak found its outlet in his portrayal of the Shire. Again, it is an idealised society, with no laws as such but rather customs and practices which all Hobbits respect and subscribe to for the benefit of their society, and where each Hobbit knows, and is satisfied with, his or her place in society. As I said, somewhat idealised, but it certainly has its attractions. So, I think that Tolkien's ideal from of government finds representation in both Aragorn's rule of the Reunified Kingdom and in the Shire. Although these are very different societies, there are elements common to both. The general acceptance of those "in charge", the "laissez faire" approach to the business of government, the idea of those in charge (albeit loosely so in the Shire) working together with the people for mutual benefit and the absence of any state apparatus. In these regards, perhaps his seemingly conflicting ideals of Absolute Monarchy and Anarchy may be reconciled, or at least combined.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! Last edited by The Saucepan Man; 07-05-2006 at 06:31 PM. |
||
07-11-2006, 01:13 PM | #11 | ||||||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,993
|
No greater oxymoron than Political Science
Quote:
Quote:
My thoughts have always been that Tolkien tends to fall back upon enclosure as a way of protecting a social entity, such as Melian's Girdle, or Aragorn's ruling about The Shire for the Fourth Age, although this could be seen as a metaphor for the good vs evil theme rather than a legitimate political understanding. Quote:
Quote:
After all, now long did Monarchy have to establish itself in England? And certainly monarchy was always in a running feud with the lords. Much of the history of monarchies is merely a "might makes right" which is then formally imbued with hereditary priviledge. And I think Tokien never looks at this bloody aspect of monarchy. Henry VIII always frightens me! Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 07-11-2006 at 01:20 PM. |
||||||
07-11-2006, 06:00 PM | #12 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
Are their any forms of democracy represented within Tolkien's works? The Mayor of Michel Delving was an elected post, but it was largely ceremonial in nature. How about the Master of Laketown? Was this role perhaps elective? If so, Tolkien does not exactly portray it in a good light. The elected official greedily using his position to line his own pockets. Hmm, sounds familar. I suppose that Tolkien's putative ideal societies, The Shire and the Reunited Kingdom, might be regarded as democratic in a sense, in that those in authority rule with the will of the people. Then again, even assuming that the "people's" goodwill remains constant, any vestige of democracy ends with the death of the incumbent and the operation of the hereditary principle.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
07-11-2006, 08:18 PM | #13 | |
Regal Dwarven Shade
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: A Remote Dwarven Hold
Posts: 3,589
|
Quote:
To a certain extent, I think this might have been an idea with which Tolkien could have sympathized.
__________________
...finding a path that cannot be found, walking a road that cannot be seen, climbing a ladder that was never placed, or reading a paragraph that has no... |
|
07-13-2006, 08:12 AM | #14 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,993
|
Quote:
There is private property in The Shire, as we see the conflict between Bilbo and Lobelia over Bag End and I don't recall tenement, rental hobbit holes. Does Rohan have Viking forms of communal ownership or more medieval?
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
07-13-2006, 06:26 PM | #15 | |
Regal Dwarven Shade
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: A Remote Dwarven Hold
Posts: 3,589
|
Quote:
__________________
...finding a path that cannot be found, walking a road that cannot be seen, climbing a ladder that was never placed, or reading a paragraph that has no... |
|
07-13-2006, 08:45 PM | #16 | |
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
I think there are at least two different variables here in question.
Firstly, there is the actual size of the community. With a small commune it's easy to set up a straight democracy or a traditional rule of things. With a larger scale things get more complicated... as we can see from all ancient civilisations and from the modern world strifes around the world. Rousseau thought his ideals for a good community could be applied in Geneve of his time (40 000 inhabitants, about)! Secondly, there is the question of the rule itself and its qualities. Here I think old Aristotle is unsurpassable. He said that all the institutions of government can be reduced to six categories of which three are genuine and three are twisted. So a self-rule, when it looks to the well-being of all all is called a Kingdom [basileia] and the twisted version (where the one ruler just thinks of his own benefits) is called Tyranny [tyrannis]. The all-encompassing rule of the few (the rich & the educated) is called Aristocracy [aristokratia]and the twisted version of the elite fooling the poor is called Oligharky [oligharkia]. The power of the civilised people is called Politeia. In it the people rule and think for the best of all. The twisted mob-rule is called Democracy [demokratia] - where the majority just takes care of it's concerns and the minority just have to endure. So how did Tolkien play with these? Surely Denethor was a tyrant and Aragorn was a king? Saruman would have been a tyrant and Theoden a king? Sam would be something like a governor-character, albeit surrounded by well wishing aristocrats like Merry & Pip - so an aristocracy? Quote:
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... Last edited by Nogrod; 07-13-2006 at 08:51 PM. |
|
|
|