Tolkien and Sociology

[7doubles]

"new topc", i think Tolken was a socialist of the highet order. giving a religious begining to a political ideal. the stories remind me of a curious mixture of the two (like, George Washington is realy Moses") so it is like a constitution\bible\fantacy adventure. packed with moral vallues, lessons of the many aspects of life and good virtues. there is always a behavioral code behind each event to point out the follies of life. "metafore heven"

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by 7doubles
"new topc", i think Tolken was a socialist of the highet order. giving a religious begining to a political ideal. the stories remind me of a curious mixture of the two (like, George Washington is realy Moses") so it is like a constitution\bible\fantacy adventure. packed with moral vallues, lessons of the many aspects of life and good virtues. there is always a behavioral code behind each event to point out the follies of life. "metafore heven"

I like the idea, but the word socialist may not be the right choice. When I think of socialists, George Orwell comes to mind. especially in The Road to Wigan Pier. Now there is a socialist outcry if even there was one. I suggest it to any and all of you out there. But to get back on track, Tolkien I gather was more of a Paternalist. Or, to put another way, a Conservative in the original sense (not like Thatcherism). The original conservatist ideal was that private and corrporate sectors would take care of their workers and employees out of a sense of obligation and duty, rather than government regulation and law. In short "He who governs least governs best" Remember that Tolkien would be well versed with the General Strikes of 1914 and the labour discontents shortly following the Great War.

To put it bluntly in a nut shell, Tolkien was a member of the Squirearchy and delighted in the "Garden England" of the south rather than the "Mechanized England" of the north. In fact, many of the earliest British critics of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings felt that these works were social commentary about the industrialization of the North and Midlands.

Just my two cents
RD

[7doubles]

i agree the king inplys a monarchy but fundamentaly the entire story is catagorised in diferent stages of social reform.(" flotsam and jetsam" is the key) leading up to "the scouring of the shire" where economic and enviermental reform are the basis of socialogical rebellion. which was not fought by the kingdom but by the farmers on a local stage. thats why i believe it was fitting for frodo to say to sam "yes, this is mordor" in book 3 page 297 paragraph 7 & 8, sums up the the verry essence of rural comunitys and social order.

[7doubles]

anyone can join in on the coversation any tine. you can give your perspective. it might just atribute to a different way of relating to, and understanding each others believes. and influence eachothers general knowlage and comunacation skills. :cool:

[Rangerdave]

Man what a bummer!

We have a great topic for a good old fashioned yet civilized debate on the table here. The only problem is that the only two people to post seem to agree with each other.

What do you have to do to get a good discussion going? I guess I could always resort to calling someone a Booger-Head or something. But as this is supposed to be a adult group I shall refrain from the name calling gamit.

Come on people, lets get on the stick here

RD

[Ancalagon]

Hmmm, intriguing debate.

Socialist? I wouldn't have envisaged Tolkien as encouraging socialism, unless it was within the confines of small communities who must till and reap their own lands.

Conservative? I have to again disagree that Tolkien would advocate such direct political leanings in his work for the simple fact that I believe Tolkien was a Royalist. If Tolkien were to seek to address conservatism in his work, it would only be that of a culutral restraint on growth in both Industry and Technological advancement. Tolkien was in this way then, anti-capitalist, for progress was only ever at the expense of ecological and cultural eradication.

I arrive at this theory because while industialisation, population growth and agricultural despoilment was taking place, so too was the rise in political autonomy, detracting from the role of the Monarchy and clearly eroding the Monarchs role in society. Possibly Tolkien saw these two go hand-in-hand and identified the role of the politician as destructive in nature, seeking only personal gain. While Royalty showed strength in its ability to govern. However, then the dilema is that a Monarchy alone cannot seek to govern an expanding land without the assistance of a parliament.

However I have often wondered at the significance of the Kingship throughout Tolkiens work, particularly the fact that no political system is in place except in Gondor. This can be attributed to a plethora of reasons and assumptions, though two seem to stick in my mind;

1. Tolkien identifies the Return of the line of Elendil as the equivilant return of a rightful, catholic Monarch to the British throne.

2. The Stewards are keepers of the reins of power until such a return is complete. The Stewards signify the role of Government in ruling Britain as it was then and still remains.

This tends to link in with the Return of King Arthur to Britain to bring back a sense of morale code, culural structure and a role of a ruling monarch. Britain is the bride and the Monarch is the groom.

If that makes any sense to you I would gladly have you explain it to me:)

[7doubles]

i dissagree because i feel it was saruman who represented capitalism, explained in "flotsam and jetsam. gandalph's sympahy was for the weak, leaves me to believe he is a humanatarion, so he counted on the strong to pertect the weak as he he himself did and felt abliged to do for the child like inocence and good nature or the hobbits not for pesonal gain. thats why minas tirith was the last bastion of hope, or the enamy could sweep the farm lands of the greenway like the orks and wild men who took dor-lomen.

i also believe the steward denethor believed his own devine reverence as a spiritial counceler of the king. in the kings absence he then rose to a position to ( represent the church) "his kingdom was recived by fate" or 'a divine intervention from god". also by conserving And preserving the old way of life by passivly negociating mith the enamy to make futile treetys he nearly lost the kingdom in his foolish pride to to mach sauron's will over the palentier, in sone respcts theodan was the same. but in the end he fell with honor from his patryotic heroics.

[Rangerdave]

Sorry about the confussion. When I mentioned British Conservatives, I was refering to the Original sense of the party. Pre-World War II. The original conservatives were anti-capitalist/paternalists. The last thing they wanted was for common people to make and have their own money. No telling what they would spend it on. Licquer and prostitutes for sure.

No, the original conservatives were all landed gentry, and royalists to the core. They saw their duty to protect the British common man from the evils of industrialization. They did not think the commoners were smart enough to think for themselves. Chruchill was a strong advocate of this as was David Lloyd George and Neville Chameralain.

Sorry again for the misunderstanding.

RD

[7doubles]

great point Dave. but that can all fall under comonwealth tax as well.

[Arvedui]

This thread is moved out of teh Guild of Ost-in-Edhil. As I have a feeling that more could be said about this subject, I have moved it here, instead of to the Archives.

Have fun.

[Inderjit S]

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 of 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 Theocracy. Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. 'Letter 52' Letters of Tolkien

Hope to make a more detailed most later.

[Malbeth]

Exactly; Tolkien had strong anarchysts leanings; he was not a socialist because he believed in the goodness of private property and strongly distrusted governments; socialists are the exact reverse, believing private property is evil and that government can be used for good; Saruman was not a capitalist (someone who wants to gain money), he was not even, when destroying the Shire, a socialist, he was simply out for revenge and would have suceeded in his plan if not for the Lady's gift; however, the means Saruman used, confiscating goods by force with the pretext of fairly sharing them is exactly the way socialist governments have ever behaved; Saruman's manner of speech is, of course, that of a modern politician; I think it was Shippey who pointed out how like Saruman's words are to a modern politician; vague, ambiguous and deceiving.

Economically, Tolkien certainly disliked modern capitalism, but this does not make him a Socialist; there were other anti-capitalists currents of thought in England then; one of them was fascism, but Tolkien was certainly not a Fascist; another, little known, was named Distributism, and was very popular among English Catholics mainly because of the influence of Chesterton and Belloc, pro-eminent lay Catholics and defenders of Distributism; in this system, private property exists, is defended, and is recognized as good, indeed very good; so good that they want everybody to have this property; I think their motto was something like "x acres of land and a cow for every family". The Shire was probably greatly influenced by this view, together with Tolkien's distrust of omnipotent government.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Tolkien was what is called an "enlightened capitalist" and not a lesse faire capitalist. The first is someone who believes in capitalism PROVIDED that it is based upon Biblical morality; that is, honesty, charity, the care for others and the stewardship of nature. Lesse faire capitalists (like Ayn Rand) are not bound by such considerations being either unreligious or atheistic. It was this latter type of capitalist and property owner who was destroying Tolkien's trees and nature and turning England into a mini-Mordor.

But on the other hand, he had no use for socialists whom he considered to be interfering people who thought they knew how to live your life better than you did and had rules and regulations for everything. These people had their nose into everyone else's business and spent their time buying up or otherwise obtaining everything so that no one could live without having to kowtow to them. Lotho Sackville-Baggins was a thinly disguised socialist (NOT a capitalist!) and the Scouring of the Shire with its ugly buildings and its countless unnecessary and inexplicable "rules" are Tolkien's very negative comment upon socialism.

If Tolkien had had his way, there would have been capitalism but the rich would have taken thought for those less fortunate and no one would have been permitted to starve or go without. However, that burden would have fallen to individuals rather than government. Tolkien didn't trust "governments" as they exist in our world. He had seen too much in the trenches to put his faith in the infallibility of men who rule over their fellows.