Tolkien and Western Government

[Elu Ancalime]

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

[Selmo]

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?
.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Selmo

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.)

Actually, I rather agree with him. Benevolent Dictatorship is the optimium form of government but, unfortunately it is unachievable in practice and so hopelessly idealistic.

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 ...

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien's word on politics:

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to 'King George's council, Winston and his gang', it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy.

Its clear he admired the idea of a benevolent monarchy - though he was fully aware that it was not a perfect system as seen in the long lines of sorry excuses for Kings that beset Numenor, Arnor and Gondor. He even seems to make out that Kings such as Aragorn are one in a million.

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?

the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind

Tolkien is correct here though. What is the identity of 'England'? Its just a bit of Britain seemingly, without any identity of its own, especially now Wales, Scotland and NI have their own assemblies. In that respect, 'England' has no mind. It also has no rights as we are not citizens, we are subjects, and servants of the Queen. We have no Bill of Rights.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Benevolent Dictatorship is the optimium form of government but, unfortunately it is unachievable in practice and so hopelessly idealistic.

Hmm. Hmm. Hmmmm. Let's not be hasty. On what grounds do you make this claim about "optimium form of government", assuming you are speaking also for Tolkien?

Is this the same thing as the quasi-divine right of kingship which Aragorn apparently represents?

[the guy who be short]

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).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

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).

Spain in the 1930s. Anarchists there were exercising collectivism. I suppose the correct term for that attempt at a practical application of Anarchy as a collective 'system' would be Anarcho-Syndicalism. There is also Christiania in Denmark, and there are various religious communities whp have operated for hundreds of years on something og an Anarchist basis.

Originally Posted by Squatter

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.

Its clear that this was something Tolkien did 'see', that democracy may not be as wonderful as it is held up to be. There are choices given to us but these`are very limited choices and it is not altogether clear if those people up for election really are there for the good of the people or are doing it in order to gain the power to pursue a personal agenda.

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...

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

What is the identity of 'England'? Its just a bit of Britain seemingly, without any identity of its own, especially now Wales, Scotland and NI have their own assemblies. In that respect, 'England' has no mind. It also has no rights as we are not citizens, we are subjects, and servants of the Queen. We have no Bill of Rights.

I don't think that's quite what Tolkien meant here. I think that he was trying to say that the realm of England, unlike the English state (or the German state for that matter), is something that is inferior to the individuals who inhabit it. The State, as referred to in the gutter press, is a thing which is supposedly virtually omniscient, can claim arbitrary and sweeping authority and controls some mysterious nexus of genius that renders it practically infallible. Tolkien wouldn't be the first person to find that a disturbing entity to have in existence. England, on the other hand, is the proper noun for a country of North-Western Europe, bordered by Scotland to the north, Wales and the Irish Sea to the west and the English Channel and North Sea to the South and East. Nothing particularly threatening about that.

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.

[Child of the 7th Age]

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:

"I am not a democrat, only because humility and equality are spiritual principles corrupted by the attempt to mechanize and formalize them, with the result that we get not universal smallness and humility but universal greatness and pride, till some Orcs get hold of a ring of power--and we get and are getting slavery.

For Tolkien "politics" was a nasty business that inevitably led to an unacceptable concentration of power. It is Denethor rather than Aragorn whom he pinpoints as the possible absolute ruler:

Denethor was tainted with mere politics: hence his failure, and his mistrust of Faramir. It had become for him a prime motive t preserve the polity of Gondor, as it was, against another potentate, who had made himself stronger and was to be feared and opposed for that reason rather than because he was ruthless and wicked......If he had survived as a victor, even without use of the Ring, he would have taken a long stride towards becoming a tyrant, and the terms and treatment he accorded to the deluded people of east and south would have been cruel and vengeful. He had become a "political" leader....

These quotes underline Tolkien's rejection of the modern state, democratic or otherwise. The first is from Mythopoeia and the second in a letter to Christopher, who was fighting in the second World War.

Blessed are the legend-makers with their rhyme
of things not found within recorded time.
It is not they that have forgot the Night,
or bid us flee to organized delight,
in lotus-isles of economic bliss
foreswearing souls to gain a Circe-kiss
(and counterfeit at that, machine-produced,
bogus seduction of the twice-seduced)

However, it is, humans being what they are, quite inevitable, and the only cure (short of universal Conversion) is not to have wars nor planning nor regimentation...All Big Things planned in a big way feel like that to the toad under the harrow, though on a general view they do function and do their job. An ultimately evil job. For we are attempting to conquor Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed. But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs.....Well, there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai.

Tolkien's second ideal was the agrarian Shire. What fascinates me is how the Shire embodies the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson (at least before Jefferson's life became tangled up with politics and slavery). Both Tolkien and Jefferson espoused an isolationist community of farmers, a half republic loosely ruled by a natural aristocracy. The Shire had a mayor or two, a few Watchers and Bounders, an hereditary thain only called upon in time of emergency, but nothing more. Until the arrival of Saruman's henchmen, hobbits did not know the meaning of the word "coercion".

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.