This is Bound to End in Tears

[LMcD]

Was it John Redwood?

see #87

[teamsaint]

He seems to have written to completely the wrong politicians in any case.

[Lat-Literal]

Nothing to tell really. It was backstage at a book event. We got free sarnies , and the former foreign secretary had a scotch egg. He'd had a puncture on the way, luckily very near a Kwikfit.
But he did seem to know the ins and outs of the EEA, EFTA stuff.
I'd vote for him. But then you should see the tossers we have as MPs round here.

Yes - it would have been at a book event.

[french frank]

But not all criticism of one's own culture, homeland, people, institutions etc is negative, just as not all attitudes that get marked down as xenophobic are negative or without justification.

It is perhaps relevant to say that, in its political sense, it is a neologism coined by Roger Scruton in developing his thesis. In other words: it's what he thinks. Useful because, in the psychiatric sense, it denotes a disorder.

I would disagree with the opinion that 'xenophobia' can have other than a negative sense, since it refers to 'people' (unlike oikophobia - unless more recently adapted by Scruton), but doesn't differentiate between individuals. It may be grounded in experience, but it still generalises on the basis of very limited, personal experience, which isn't fully rational; and it's hard to see how this can even be neutral in its effects.

But I feel a whole thesis coming on. Must work on this, but first - to the Coop.

[Beef Oven!]

It is perhaps relevant to say that, in its political sense, it is a neologism coined by Roger Scruton in developing his thesis. In other words: it's what he thinks. Useful because, in the psychiatric sense, it denotes a disorder.

I think that's irrelevant and a distraction from the topic.

I would disagree with the opinion that 'xenophobia' can have other than a negative sense, since it refers to 'people' (unlike oikophobia - unless more recently adapted by Scruton), but doesn't differentiate between individuals. It may be grounded in experience, but it still generalises on the basis of very limited, personal experience, which isn't fully rational; and it's hard to see how this can even be neutral in its effects.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said, or did you simply not read it properly? You have bolded my words but completely missed what I said.

[french frank]

I think that's irrelevant and a distraction from the topic.

Neither irrelevant nor a distraction, but fundamental to Scruton's - and, apparently, your - thinking. It identifies 'rejection' of one's own culture as a 'phobia', as if it is natural/good to prefer one's own culture over - what exactly? All 'alien' cultures? Hang on a minute …

IAre you deliberately misrepresenting what I said, or did you simply not read it properly? You have bolded my words but completely missed what I said.

You said #74, in response to my comment that you used 'oikophobia' too negatively: ‘I do not deliberately use it negatively - I mean it is a negative tendency in the first place.’

Scruton is a philosopher: I find it hard to understand how he can create what seems to me a non-existen dichotomy, di- in the sense of 'two'. There is my 'culture' and - everyone else's 'culture', just as if encountering other cultures doesn't make it entirely natural to form an individual, syncretic culture of one's own, selecting what one likes/admires about other cultures. It needn't mean one 'hates' or 'rejects' one's own culture, simply that one has little interest in preserving it in some sort of pure form. That appears to be what you and Scruton would find a 'negative' tendency.

In reply to S_A’s #69, your #70: ‘Xenophobes do not have a blanket form of condemnation - you lazily assign that to them. If not, then you've never come across a Xenophobe.'

Is this another example of Scrutonesque linguistic manipulation? Xenophobia: A deep antipathy to foreigners. Sounds fairly blanket to me. And, as I said earlier, refers to other human beings, indiscriminately, not to their cultures. How can a 'deep antipathy towards foreigners' be anything but negative? All races are capable of hideous atrocities: that isn't a reason to fear everyone.

[Beef Oven!]

You want to talk about Roger Scruton? Fine. But don't expect me to engage in that discussion. I'm not interested.

[french frank]

You want to talk about Roger Scruton? Fine. But don't expect me to engage in that discussion. I'm not interested.

No, the last thing I wanted to discuss was Roger Scruton. I was merely pointing out how he is involved in the debate, regarding semantics and philosophy; and since, like you, he speaks of oikophobia as the 'antonym' of xenophobia, I assumed that you had made yourself familiar (out of interest?) with his work in a way that I have not. But I am content to leave the matter here, resisting the temptation to pursue the further point which occurred to me over lunch

[Beef Oven!]

No, the last thing I wanted to discuss was Roger Scruton. I was merely pointing out how he is involved in the debate, regarding semantics and philosophy; and since, like you, he speaks of oikophobia as the 'antonym' of xenophobia, I assumed that you had made yourself familiar (out of interest?) with his work in a way that I have not. But I am content to leave the matter here, resisting the temptation to pursue the further point which occurred to me over lunch

I haven't familiarised myself with his work and it's not Roger, as far as I'm aware, who talks about oikophobia as an antonym of xenophobia.

Don't tease me - what's the point that occurred to you over lunch?

[french frank]

I haven't familiarised myself with his work and it's not Roger, as far as I'm aware, who talks about oikophobia as an antonym of xenophobia.

'Scruton uses the term as the antithesis of xenophobia', Justine Lacroix, Kalypso Nicolaīdis, European Stories: Intellectual Debates on Europe in National Contexts, Oxford University Press, 2011, P.159

Don't tease me - what's the point that occurred to you over lunch?

Well, it would take a while to expand and see whether it worked, and in such a way that you might have a useful response.

I live in an area with nigh on 100 eateries/cafes in our long high street. Up my end are the ones I frequent: Turkish, Italian, Hungarian - and a bit further away a French bistro. There are four English cafes (more than any other nation) and I avoid them because they all serve the same thing: all-day breakfast, stuffed jacket potatoes &c. and one also has a daily meat and two veg. None of that appeals to me because I prefer to eat my main meal at lunchtime. You could say that was a sign of my oikophobia, and in a strict, non emotional way, it would be true. I don't like the English cafes.

The Hungarian cafe which I go to once a week for its Hungarian specials is run by four exuberant young Hungarians, who have been in the UK for about ten years, courtesy of the EU's FoM, I presume. Chief chef is Krisztian: they all do cooking but he's the one with professional training. Last time he sat down to eat lunch he was having an all-day breakfast (which the cafe also offers, among other non-Hungarian dishes). I teased him and one of the girls laughed and said 'Krisztian loves his breakfasts.'

That's the anecdote done with. Now for what occurred to me over lunch (chez moi, nut roast): this is a generalisation which clearly does not apply to either you or Scruton, though I don't believe that invalidates the general point: I have a very wide experience of other gastronomic traditions, which comes from having travelled widely and come across them abroad and I always want to try new things. I put that down, to a considerable extent to the reflection of a broad and deep education. Krisztian, having come to the UK discovered English breakfasts and liked them. If we choose - out of distinct preference - something which is not part of our culture but someone else's, that isn't oikophobia: it's knowing what the world has to offer.

Going beyond food I would put forward the view that so-called xenophobia indicates a lower level of education and so-called oikophobia a hgher level; and that poorer, less well-educated people voted to Leave the EU (as reflecting the unfamiliar, things that they mistrust). People who have had a wider experience of the world tended to vote Remain. "Xenophobia" = low level of education, "Oikophobia" = higher level of education.

But, not at all - the whole point of leaving the EU is to be "global Britain", isn't it? to reach out to the world. My feeling is that that is an argument which appeals to the 'plutocratic elites' rather than the mass of Leave-voters who are influenced by their perception of 'foreigners' - and what they were told about them: taking jobs, putting a strain on the public services…

In short: there's a flaw in Scruton's entire theory, or philosophy of oikophobia: in terms of culture there is a vast range of 'non-British' cultures which provide endless pleasure/ enjoyment if one knows about them. If UK culture is all you know it keeps people within their own boundaries and makes them fearful of the unfamiliar. Is it natural/good to remain inside your own boundaries? UK culture has a lot of competition from all the other cultures in the world.

Whether any individual's 'oikophobia' involves 'hating their own culture' is a matter for the individual: at least it doesn't make an "oikophobe" shout gratuitous insults at people who are British, and beat them up for being British.

To me, the poorly educated "xenophobe" is as easy to understand as the well-educated "oikophobe". Both are understandable and only the effects allow one to judge whether they are good or bad.

[Beef Oven!]

'Scruton uses the term as the antithesis of xenophobia', Justine Lacroix, Kalypso Nicolaīdis, European Stories: Intellectual Debates on Europe in National Contexts, Oxford University Press, 2011, P.159



Well, it would take a while to expand and see whether it worked, and in such a way that you might have a useful response.

I live in an area with nigh on 100 eateries/cafes in our long high street. Up my end are the ones I frequent: Turkish, Italian, Hungarian - and a bit further away a French bistro. There are four English cafes (more than any other nation) and I avoid them because they all serve the same thing: all-day breakfast, stuffed jacket potatoes &c. and one also has a daily meat and two veg. None of that appeals to me because I prefer to eat my main meal at lunchtime. You could say that was a sign of my oikophobia, and in a strict, non emotional way, it would be true. I don't like the English cafes.

The Hungarian cafe which I go to once a week for its Hungarian specials is run by four exuberant young Hungarians, who have been in the UK for about ten years, courtesy of the EU's FoM, I presume. Chief chef is Krisztian: they all do cooking but he's the one with professional training. Last time he sat down to eat lunch he was having an all-day breakfast (which the cafe also offers, among other non-Hungarian dishes). I teased him and one of the girls laughed and said 'Krisztian loves his breakfasts.'

That's the anecdote done with. Now for what occurred to me over lunch (chez moi, nut roast): this is a generalisation which clearly does not apply to either you or Scruton, though I don't believe that invalidates the general point: I have a very wide experience of other gastronomic traditions, which comes from having travelled widely and come across them abroad and I always want to try new things. I put that down, to a considerable extent to the reflection of a broad and deep education. Krisztian, having come to the UK discovered English breakfasts and liked them. If we choose - out of distinct preference - something which is not part of our culture but someone else's, that isn't oikophobia: it's knowing what the world has to offer.

Going beyond food I would put forward the view that so-called xenophobia indicates a lower level of education and so-called oikophobia a hgher level; and that poorer, less well-educated people voted to Leave the EU (as reflecting the unfamiliar, things that they mistrust). People who have had a wider experience of the world tended to vote Remain. "Xenophobia" = low level of education, "Oikophobia" = higher level of education.

But, not at all - the whole point of leaving the EU is to be "global Britain", isn't it? to reach out to the world. My feeling is that that is an argument which appeals to the 'plutocratic elites' rather than the mass of Leave-voters who are influenced by their perception of 'foreigners' - and what they were told about them: taking jobs, putting a strain on the public services…

In short: there's a flaw in Scruton's entire theory, or philosophy of oikophobia: in terms of culture there is a vast range of 'non-British' cultures which provide endless pleasure/ enjoyment if one knows about them. If UK culture is all you know it keeps people within their own boundaries and makes them fearful of the unfamiliar. Is it natural/good to remain inside your own boundaries? UK culture has a lot of competition from all the other cultures in the world.

Whether any individual's 'oikophobia' involves 'hating their own culture' is a matter for the individual: at least it doesn't make an "oikophobe" shout gratuitous insults at people who are British, and beat them up for being British.

To me, the poorly educated "xenophobe" is as easy to understand as the well-educated "oikophobe". Both are understandable and only the effects allow one to judge whether they are good or bad.

Thank you, very interesting - quite a lot there too. I'll probably need to reply a few times over a few days, as and when I digest, reflect and bounce things off my own ideas. I'm glad you have such wonderfully cosmopolitan high street - I am lucky to have the same where I live so I know the enjoyment to be had.

Ok, it's probably best if I just put down my first thoughts even though they might be half baked and a bit random.



I probably 'choose' more foreign things over British things, right across the board and I'm always eager to try new things. I may not be as educated or well-travelled as yourself but I had a very varied upbringing. Growing up, my Homelife was a mixture of things British and continental and the food side of life was the most foreign influenced (for example, I'd never had baked beans until I left home). I also spent quite long spells in the USA, Italy and Slovenia, all before the age of 18. So I'm probably as curious as you, but via a different route.

It might be that xenophobes are less educated than oikophobes. Putting aside your views on RS's 'philosophical' perspective on oikophobia and any fundamental flaw (more about that in a later post), I believe that one the main characteristics of oikophobia and oikophobes is under-achievement and a perception of being under-valued. They don't feel they have done as well as they should have done, given their ability, education and privileged start in life (yes, in Beef Oven-world, oikophobes tend to be middle class!). It hasn't worked for them. They don't get the recognition and credit they deserve. They aren't as valued as they deserve to be. They cease to be stake-holders, so they fight and sneer against it. RS may take a political/philosophical approach, mine's psychological.

And hating their own culture is not purely a personal thing, a personal choice. When they slag off The Monarchy, Remembrance Day, the British Army and all the other things they view as part of an order that doesn't value them, they are offending others that share that culture.

Arsenal v Chelsea is about to kick off so I'm nipping over to a neighbour's house to watch it on Sky (not having a TV, I certainly don't have SkySports!)

to be continued ..........

[french frank]

to be continued ..........

Look forward to it, and will mull - I may have questions!

[french frank]

I'm now beginning to understand the areas that give you and Scruton problems. Rather more than 'culture' in general, we're speaking of British institutions (one could add the Church of England to the list).

What I see here is a set of symbols. The 'oikophiles' perceive them as assuring stability, safety, the unchanging aspects of British life. Which, not surprisingly, would be associated with a conservative (or 'right-wing') outlook. So all Scruton is really doing with his invention of 'oikophobia' is attacking 'leftists' who denigrate these well-loved pillars of British society.

It seems to me that he is simply putting an emotive label on those 'leftists' who see society as needing to be fundamentally changed, who threaten what he has referred to as 'the survival of our way of life.' They might agree with that …

[french frank]

Furthermore, BeefO (in case anyone thinks I’m talking to myself here), Scruton’s intention that ‘oikophobia’ should be the antithesis of ‘xenophobia’ is clearly unsound – at least in the way you have used it (I’m not familiar with his own examples). Xenophobia clearly exists: in its most extreme manifestation it results, not infrequently, sadly, in a violent physical attack on, even the murder of, an unkown human being who is clearly of another colour or nationality. In milder forms it may be perceptible hostility, discrimination or exclusion against such a human being.

So what is ‘oikophobia’? Slagging off our British institutions and Way of Life, so cherished and respected by the British People? Calling Prince Philip ‘Phil the Greek’? Refusing to wear a red poppy for Remembrance Day? Not putting anything in the British Legion’s collecting tin? This is what I have words for: ‘rude and churlish’, but our British tolerance permits it. Is there any sense in which it could be ‘the antithesis’ [Scruton] of xenophobia? This is not to deny that trashing other people’s poppy wreaths round a cenotaph is ‘worse’ (in my opinion) than averting one’s eyes, ostentatiously, from a woman in a niqab – which she may not notice anyway.

It seems to me that there is a conservative objection, doubtless quite justifiable in some cases, to the bandying about of the word ‘xenophobe’; and therefore there needs to be a similar noun to describe the ‘leftist’ behaviour. I would say that, in that respect, ‘oikophobia’ is a failure.

Furthermore, whereas ‘slagging off the Monarchy’ is likely to be rude and unproductuve, holding a political view that monarchy as an institution, including our British Monarchy, should have no place in the 21st century seems to me an argument which can be sustained quite reasonably (and regardless of the fact that I would probaby advance arguments against this). Holding paciifist views in which one opposes national wars and which colour one’s view of the Army seems also admissible. To march in protest over a war (Iraq) – fine; daubing graffiti over an army barracks or throwing an egg at a passing group of soldiers – juvenile.

But those were a few thoughts that occurred while making the dough this morning. They may not have answered your points to any degree. Scruton may have coined the term, but you were the one who used it and know what you meant. Like others, I had to look it up.

[Beef Oven!]

Furthermore, BeefO (in case anyone thinks I’m talking to myself here), Scruton’s intention that ‘oikophobia’ should be the antithesis of ‘xenophobia’ is clearly unsound – at least in the way you have used it (I’m not familiar with his own examples). Xenophobia clearly exists: in its most extreme manifestation it results, not infrequently, sadly, in a violent physical attack on, even the murder of, an unkown human being who is clearly of another colour or nationality. In milder forms it may be perceptible hostility, discrimination or exclusion against such a human being.

So what is ‘oikophobia’? Slagging off our British institutions and Way of Life, so cherished and respected by the British People? Calling Prince Philip ‘Phil the Greek’? Refusing to wear a red poppy for Remembrance Day? Not putting anything in the British Legion’s collecting tin? This is what I have words for: ‘rude and churlish’, but our British tolerance permits it. Is there any sense in which it could be ‘the antithesis’ [Scruton] of xenophobia? This is not to deny that trashing other people’s poppy wreaths round a cenotaph is ‘worse’ (in my opinion) than averting one’s eyes, ostentatiously, from a woman in a niqab – which she may not notice anyway.

It seems to me that there is a conservative objection, doubtless quite justifiable in some cases, to the bandying about of the word ‘xenophobe’; and therefore there needs to be a similar noun to describe the ‘leftist’ behaviour. I would say that, in that respect, ‘oikophobia’ is a failure.

Furthermore, whereas ‘slagging off the Monarchy’ is likely to be rude and unproductuve, holding a political view that monarchy as an institution, including our British Monarchy, should have no place in the 21st century seems to me an argument which can be sustained quite reasonably (and regardless of the fact that I would probaby advance arguments against this). Holding paciifist views in which one opposes national wars and which colour one’s view of the Army seems also admissible. To march in protest over a war (Iraq) – fine; daubing graffiti over an army barracks or throwing an egg at a passing group of soldiers – juvenile.

But those were a few thoughts that occurred while making the dough this morning. They may not have answered your points to any degree. Scruton may have coined the term, but you were the one who used it and know what you meant. Like others, I had to look it up.

See post #97