One of the things I like about Dalrymple is that he knows how to rant in a succinct way...requiring a like-minded review.


http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/in-praise-of-prejudice-by-... ( )

One of the things I like about Dalrymple is that he knows how to rant in a succinct way...requiring a like-minded review.


http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/in-praise-of-prejudice-by-... ( )

This is a conservative’s attack on individualism coupled to egotism with a comma. Which is a favourite enemy of the whole of the left as well, “individualism, egotism” there being contrasted with collectivism, that is with obedience to the people’s elected “progressive” leaders. The good authority opposing said “individualism, egotism” in this book is never really attempted defined, but I think one can appreciate something like old people, traditions, and the elite authorised as such by educational institutions.

The author is somewhat weak when it comes to definition of the terms he uses in his argumentation. At the end of one chapter he tells of argumentatively crushing a neighbour on an airplane, who dislikes authority, by suggesting he take over the plane’s controls in dismissal of the pilot’s authority. This is nonsense, as the competency of anyone, like the ability to walk, and so being capable of aiding people in a wheelchair, can hardly be seen as identical to making others follow roads the choice of which they have not been party to; and so while naming both authority might be legitimate otherwise, a divergence seems mandatory here.

Much of the arguments are only half thought out. As an example of things necessarily to be taken as true on authority’s demand, and so demonstrating the weakness of a subjective or pragmatic judgement, is the information that the battle of Hastings took place in 1066. Since this information has no relevance beyond the favours obtainable through a demonstration of one’s ability to repeat it, the relevance lies wholly outside the information itself. If a school examiner has the idea that the year should be 1067 and flunks you on 1066 – then 1066 is definitely the wrong answer at that moment. Wholly different is information meant to be instructive in a process, and where its value as such demonstrates its truthfulness.

The necessity of more obedience to authority the author finds exemplified in British youths putting their feet up on seats opposite to them on trains. He might be accurate in his assumption that a protest might well get you knifed, but certainly, if more people stood up as “individualists, egotists” and protested against what surely must irritate a majority, instead of waiting for a spontaneous collective uproar or the arrival of an authoritarian ticket collector, I believe better behaviour among youths would be a result. (A fear of violence in such a situation might be mitigated by appealing to others on the train to accept a collective denouncement of the disliked practise - people will become a bit braver if forced to take a stand.)

The corrupting influence is seen as emanating primarily from J. S. Mill. But this vilification is possible only through downgrading the first part of his dictum, namely that it is only when the individual does not force others into participation that he should be free to do as he pleases. Though admittedly it is sometimes hard to ascertain when such coercion takes place, and though Mill, as Dalrymple proves, might have been something of an elitist himself, the contingent surely can’t be dismissed as Dalrymple seems to do..

In spite of protesting against his arguments, and his lack of clear conclusions as regards the implementation of more “good authority,” I think the problems addressed are real enough and well described. Dalrymple is an expert on fiasco lives: his experience as a prison doctor, and of work in a slum hospital, has given him unique knowledge of some of our most serious socio-political problems. But a lack of discipline can be addressed with other means than that of authority: if forced to suffer the natural consequences of self destructive behaviour (which includes other people’s censure), as individuals responsible for their own well being, most people prefer acquiring the necessary capacities. A general cultural swing towards individual responsibility for both oneself and ones influence on others would help – and this does not necessitate giving more power to either a socialist or a conservative elite - it might rather appear with the removal of that authority. I have been a sailor, and have seen an (unauthorised) lack of tolerance towards that of putting own responsibility into the lap of others work wonders on egotistical youths. ( )