Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Patstick's avatar

In defence of Chesterton's fence, it was never meant to instil blind respect for all traditions. Rather, it was a reminder to only change or abolish a tradition once you thoroughly understand what purpose it serves. The fence may be keeping out a dangerous bull you weren't aware of, for example.

A thorough investigation of a tradition of widow-burning might reveal it serves to keep women as the status of chattels. Or that it allows poor societies to get rid of less productive members no longer defended by a patriarch, much as European and American witch hunts targeted "strange" old women. Proper consideration may lead you to conclude it is malign in intent and effect, and then do away with it.

The reason Chesterton's fence caught on is that many (supposedly sophisticated) people assume that all traditions are barbarous relics that are at best useless and at worst malign. People for whom the words 'tradition' and 'traditional' are risible markers of primitive ancestor worship. Of course, holding such a view is actually much less sophisticated than taking the time to understand the value and purpose of each tradition and judging each on its true merits, as Chesterton suggested.

Expand full comment
Ivan, a Patron of Letters's avatar

I got the American version of the 1066 book Ed mentions at the beginning and it's a fun read. Made me LOL several times which is quite a feat (I'm pretty dour IRL) and I recommend it for people who want a light 'n fun intro to the historical period it covers.

Speaking of Amazon reviews, I saw one reader review of the book on I think Amazon that said, amusingly, "the author is far too flippant for the subject matter." :| .

Expand full comment
17 more comments...

No posts