By now, it comes as no surprise that one of the deepest experiences of modern societies is uncertainty. Whether approached from a political or a psychological perspective, and considered at the level of the individual: the question of belonging has become increasingly fragile. We are less certain about where we belong, to whom we are bound, and within what frameworks we interpret ourselves. In short: belonging has become subjective; what is frequently described as freedom often proves to be a form of uncertainty. A shared culture and tradition provide the emotional and moral background within which justice becomes intelligible at all. Their absence gradually \u2013 almost imperceptibly \u2013 dismantles the secure framework upon which our rules rest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a society we define as just, our rules carry a far deeper web of meaning, within which individuals recognize one another as belonging to the same community. In this sense, our shared culture is not an external ornament or mere decoration, but the supporting pillar of communal life. It shapes how we relate to our laws, to responsibility, and to one another. It is an intellectual and spiritual resource that provides not only an external political point of orientation, but also inner steadiness and psychological balance. Self-identity, in turn, creates inner freedom and introduces continuity into one\u2019s self-conception in a changing world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Roger Scruton does not place his faith in cosmopolitanism, but rather in the conviction that the path toward humanity leads through the nation. His critique is by no means directed against openness, but against oikophobia. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that he is not advocating nationalism. For him, the nation is not a claim to superiority, but a moral and political framework: the medium within which responsibility, loyalty, and justice can be learned and practiced. In his thought, the nation is not an ideology but a precondition: it does not exclude, it enables.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Shared culture, of course, does not in itself guarantee justice; yet without it, justice becomes unstable. History offers numerous examples showing that where the cultural framework was strong, societies \u2013 even in times of conflict \u2013 remained capable of self-correction. By contrast, where a community became culturally fragmented, rules lost their legitimacy and justice appeared merely as coercion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Scruton does not approach the question one-sidedly; he also warns against the distortions of an excessively \u201cthick culture,\u201d as seen in closed tribal alliances or insular religious sects. In such cases, culture functions as a closed system that excludes, and justice applies only to insiders. If, however, culture becomes too \u201cthin,\u201d it fails to hold people together; shared standards disappear, and differences can no longer be meaningfully interpreted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For me, this is not merely a theoretical question. As someone of Transylvanian origin, with roots that bind me to generations past, I have personally experienced the power that emerges when a community shares stories, traditions, gestures, and unspoken norms. This sense of belonging is like an ember: seemingly dormant, yet a small spark is enough for it to flare into flame wherever we may meet in the world. The value system transmitted across generations \u2013 sometimes excessive in form, yet essentially preserving what matters \u2013 builds emotional security and provides firm ground beneath one\u2019s feet, the ground to which our roots bind us: I know where I belong, and I know what I may expect from the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The \u201cwe\u201d of which Scruton speaks is one in which culture is not necessarily loud or declarative, yet precisely for that reason it is present and effective. For this very reason, justice in general may be said to emerge where we can say: this order is ours \u2013 and therefore we are willing to assume responsibility for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In our time, an increasing number of countries are characterized by diverse social backgrounds. The recent past and the present alike abound with examples in which the absence of a shared cultural foundation has resulted in deep crises of trust, feelings of injustice, and serious social harm. Under present circumstances, the question is not whether coexistence is possible, but rather how it is to be achieved. Where no cultural minimum exists, the very concept of justice fragments: it may refer to legal correctness, moral acceptability, efficiency, or legitimacy in the eyes of the community. All of these are indeed important considerations, yet without a shared interpretive framework they remain merely competing notions. What is therefore required is a framework in which differences do not pull a community apart but instead hold it together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We must also resist viewing justice solely as a set of present-tense procedures. Scruton reminds us that the political community is not a momentary contract, but a historical process \u2013 indeed, a relationship among the living with the past and with a future oriented toward justice. For this reason, the experience of continuity is of particular importance, whether conveyed through shared memory politics, education, or storytelling. In this way, differences are less likely to harden into absolute fault lines; a political-moral-cultural minimum may emerge in which, even if we do not think alike in every respect, we nevertheless inhabit a common historical space to which each person may relate differently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A particularly important direction for resolution lies in making political responsibility visible. In many diverse societies, the experience of unfairness does not stem primarily from flawed rules, but from the lack of clarity about who makes them and who assumes responsibility for them. Scruton\u2019s critique is especially relevant here: where decisions become detached from accountability, moral credibility is lost. For this reason, it is essential that decision-making retains its proximity, so that citizens do not experience themselves as passive subjects of processes, but as active agents shaping their shared future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Overall, the creation of a minimal common foundation is indispensable. Nevertheless, rules cannot be regarded as just in themselves; it is at least as significant what kinds of relationships they generate among people. We need relational and institutional structures that prevent the individual from dissolving into a multiplicity of differences, and equally prevent withdrawal into an isolated identity. Such a solution does not replace shared culture, but mitigates its absence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is hardly conceivable that a universal recipe or an all-encompassing moral order could resolve every problem. Yet by taking into account certain fundamental principles \u2013 principles rooted in the patterns of attachment and moral sensibilities inherent in our human condition \u2013 it is possible to establish a foundation that does not coerce, but sustains. Within the psychological space of the experience of \u201cwe,\u201d a shared horizon of meaning can endure \u2013 one in which there is not merely a common space, but a common \u201cwe\u201d within which differences can be carried together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For Scruton, the nation is the name of this space: not a final destination, but a precondition. His thought helps us recognize that justice is not merely a legal condition, but a communal experience. And this experience arises where people do not drift, but live anchored together \u2013through the nation. Communal life does not unfold on the open sea: without compasses, memories, and attachments, even the most precise rules dissolve into drift.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The \u201cwe\u201d is not a boundary but a shoreline: it does not constrict freedom, but holds it \u2013 so that there is somewhere to which one may return.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– N\u00f3ra Kecseti<\/strong> <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By now, it comes as no surprise that one of the deepest experiences of modern societies is uncertainty. Whether approached from a political or a psychological perspective, and considered at the level of the individual: the question of belonging has become increasingly fragile. We are less certain about where we belong, to whom we are bound, and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":77,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-egyeb"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Scruton Ambassador<\/p>\n\n\n\n