The late conservative philosopher Roger Scruton’s defence of the nation-state stands out for its emphasis on preserving cultural identity, tradition, and national heritage, particularly in response to the challenges posed by globalisation and multiculturalism. 

Across his works, such as On Human Nature (2017), The Need for Nations (2004), Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Need to Defend the Nation State (2006), and Liberty and Civilization: The Western Heritage (2010), Scruton argues that the nation-state is essential for maintaining social order, safeguarding individual liberty, and fostering cohesion among citizens. For him, the nation-state is a political entity and an organic community that upholds a shared cultural inheritance. However, while Scruton’s arguments are compelling in their defence of tradition, they rest more on the cultural fabric that unites a people than on the political institutions and structures necessary for modern governance.

At the heart of Scruton’s defence is a vision of the nation-state that draws from the philosophy of cultural nationalism, particularly as articulated by Johann Gottfried Herder. Like Herder, Scruton sees the nation as a product of shared history, language, customs, and traditions — elements that define the identity of a people. For Scruton, this sense of cultural unity is the foundation for a stable society, ensuring a sense of belonging and mutual responsibility among its members. In contrast to theories that emphasise legal or constitutional frameworks, Scruton believes that cultural continuity, not formal political arrangements, holds a nation together. However, this emphasis on culture raises questions about how well Scruton’s nation-state model addresses the practical demands of governance, particularly in increasingly diverse and pluralistic societies.

Scruton’s cultural nationalism also reflects the influence of Johann Gottlieb Fichte, who argued for the importance of cultural unity in the political life of a nation. Like Fichte, Scruton is deeply concerned with preserving a distinct national identity in the face of external pressures, whether from immigration or the forces of globalisation. This concern for cultural preservation drives Scruton’s critique of multiculturalism, which he sees as a threat to the nation-state’s cohesiveness. However, in prioritising cultural homogeneity, Scruton neglects political institutions’ role in managing diversity and resolving conflicts within a pluralistic society. His emphasis on cultural unity suggests that he sees the nation-state primarily as a vessel for cultural preservation rather than a political framework for navigating the complexities of governance.

Paradoxically, Scruton’s critique of Enlightenment thought aligns him, perhaps unintentionally, with elements of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s philosophy. Rousseau, whose ideas influenced both Herder and Fichte, argued for the importance of collective identity and the subordination of individual interests to the general will. While Scruton rejects many political ideals associated with the Enlightenment, his defence of the nation-state mirrors Rousseau’s emphasis on the need for a shared sense of belonging to maintain social cohesion. In this way, Scruton’s thought echoes Rousseau’s belief in the importance of the collective over the individual, even as Scruton frames his arguments in opposition to the universalizing tendencies of Enlightenment rationalism.

Scruton’s vision of the nation-state is more concerned with cultural preservation than the political structures necessary to govern a modern society. His reliance on shared traditions, language, and history to sustain the nation overlooks that political legitimacy in a diverse, globalised world often requires more than cultural unity. By focusing on the nation-state as a cultural construct, Scruton downplays the importance of political institutions, laws, and governance in managing the complexities of contemporary life. As a result, his defence of the nation-state, while rich in its cultural depth, falls short of providing a comprehensive political framework that addresses the challenges of modern governance.

The cultural foundation of Scruton’s nation-state

At the core of Roger Scruton’s defence of the nation-state lies his belief in the importance of cultural unity. For Scruton, the nation is not merely a legal or political entity bound by constitutions or borders; it is an organic community deeply rooted in shared customs, historical experiences, and a common language. This view emphasises cultural continuity as the foundation of national identity and stability. Scruton’s position aligns closely with the tradition of cultural nationalism, particularly the ideas of Johann Gottfried Herder, who argued that each nation has a unique Volksgeist, or “spirit of the people”. Herder feared that external influences could erode the distinctive qualities of national cultures, a concern that Scruton echoes in his defence of the nation-state against immigration and multiculturalism.

Scruton’s 2004 work The Need for Nations asserts that the nation-state is essential for preserving a shared cultural inheritance, which he views as the bedrock of social stability and cohesion. For Scruton, these cultural bonds — not abstract political institutions — hold a nation together and foster mutual trust among its citizens. He argues that the cultural unity of a people is necessary to maintain the social fabric. This position reveals his deep scepticism toward the capacity of political structures alone to sustain a stable society. In his view, the state is not simply a mechanism of governance but a reflection of the shared cultural life of its people.

Scruton’s vision of the nation-state thus prioritises cultural cohesion over political order, focusing on preserving traditions, language, and historical memory as vital to the state’s health. His approach contrasts with more conventional political theories that emphasise the role of institutions, laws, and governance in maintaining stability. Scruton downplays these elements, arguing that even the most well-constructed political systems will eventually falter without cultural unity. This suggests that the legitimacy and strength of the nation-state are derived primarily from its cultural foundations rather than from its political frameworks or democratic processes.

This cultural emphasis places Scruton in the intellectual lineage of figures like Johann Gottlieb Fichte, who similarly argued that the unity and strength of a nation stem from its shared cultural identity. Fichte’s Addresses to the German Nation urged Germans to resist foreign domination by cultivating their distinct cultural and linguistic identity. Like Fichte, Scruton is deeply concerned with preserving cultural integrity, particularly in the face of immigration and the pressures of globalisation. For both thinkers, cultural unity is seen as a defence against external forces that could erode the internal cohesion of the nation. However, this focus on cultural homogeneity raises significant questions about the political dimensions of the state and how it can manage internal diversity.

Scruton’s emphasis on cultural nationalism highlights a fundamental limitation in his understanding of political life: the relative absence of a comprehensive political theory for managing governance in a diverse society. While cultural unity might foster a sense of belonging and collective identity, it does not address the practical challenges of governing a society where cultural differences and pluralism are inevitable. Scruton’s reliance on cultural continuity as the foundation of the nation-state overlooks the importance of political institutions in managing conflicts, protecting individual rights, and balancing competing interests. In this sense, his defence of the nation-state is incomplete, as it rests more on cultural cohesion than a nuanced understanding of political structures.

Moreover, Scruton’s defence of the nation-state as a culturally unified entity appears increasingly difficult to sustain in a globalised world where societies are marked by increasing diversity. By prioritising cultural homogeneity, Scruton risks alienating those who do not fit within the dominant cultural narrative of the nation. His critique of multiculturalism, which he argues undermines the shared cultural bonds that hold a nation together, reflects his broader concern that the erosion of cultural continuity will lead to social fragmentation. However, his vision offers little guidance on how to accommodate cultural diversity within the framework of the nation-state, raising concerns about the exclusionary implications of his position.

Scruton’s defence of the nation-state is grounded in a vision of cultural nationalism that emphasises the preservation of shared traditions, language, and history as essential to maintaining social stability. While this cultural emphasis offers a compelling critique of the forces of globalisation and multiculturalism, the political challenges of governing a pluralistic society remain unresolved. Scruton’s emphasis on cultural identity as the cornerstone of the nation-state also aligns with Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s nationalist philosophy. In Addresses to the German Nation, Fichte argued that the German people needed to cultivate their distinct cultural identity to resist foreign domination and political disintegration. Like Fichte, Scruton is deeply concerned with preserving cultural integrity in the face of external forces—foreign powers or the pressures of immigration and multiculturalism.

However, this focus on cultural homogeneity raises a fundamental question about Scruton’s understanding of political life. Scruton downplays the importance of political institutions, governance structures, and laws in shaping a stable polity by rooting the legitimacy of the nation-state in cultural continuity. For Fichte, as for Scruton, the state is seen as expressing a unified cultural identity, but this cultural nationalism is not a political theory. It does not address the practical issues of governance or explain how a diverse society can be politically managed without cultural uniformity.

Cultural over political legitimacy

Scruton’s defence of the nation-state hinges on the belief that cultural unity generates political legitimacy, making the nation-state a natural outgrowth of a shared identity. This vision elevates culture as the foundation of political order. It contrasts with political theories emphasising governance structures, legal authority, and the rule of law as the primary means of ensuring stability and justice. However, the assumption that cultural unity will naturally lead to political stability oversimplifies the complexities of modern political life. Societies today are marked by diversity and pluralism, and cultural homogeneity is often the exception rather than the norm. Scruton’s failure to account for the political challenges of governing heterogeneous populations suggests that his model of the nation-state is ill-suited to address the realities of a globalised world. Cultural unity alone cannot ensure political stability, especially when diverse communities with differing values, beliefs, and identities must coexist within the same political framework. Scruton’s emphasis on cultural sameness obscures the role of political institutions in managing these differences.

Scruton’s focus on cultural cohesion also neglects the need for political mechanisms to accommodate and mediate differences within a political community. In pluralistic societies, where individuals and groups may not share a common cultural background, political systems need robust institutions that balance competing interests, protect minority rights, and foster social cooperation despite differences. By prioritising cultural homogeneity, Scruton overlooks the importance of legal frameworks, democratic processes, and political institutions that maintain order and promote justice in diverse contexts. His model of the nation-state risks becoming exclusionary, privileging certain cultural groups while marginalising others who do not fit the dominant narrative.

Scruton’s vision is also problematic in its response to immigration and multiculturalism. His concern for preserving cultural identity leads him to view immigration as a threat to the nation-state, as it introduces new cultural elements that may disrupt the existing cultural fabric. In “Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Need to Defend the Nation-State”, Scruton argues that multiculturalism undermines social cohesion by eroding the shared values that bind a nation. However, this perspective fails to recognize that modern nation-states are often built on the integration of diverse cultures and that immigration can enrich rather than weaken the cultural life of a society. By framing cultural preservation as a defence against external influence, Scruton risks reinforcing a narrow and static conception of national identity that is resistant to change.

Further, Scruton’s reliance on cultural unity as a source of political legitimacy overlooks the importance of civic nationalism, which emphasises the role of shared political values and institutions in creating a sense of belonging. Civic nationalism allows for the integration of diverse cultural groups within a political community, as it is rooted in a commitment to common political principles such as democracy, liberty, and the rule of law. In contrast, Scruton’s cultural nationalism ties political legitimacy to cultural samenesse. This raises concerns about how Scruton’s model of the nation-state can accommodate political dissent, minority rights, and the diversity of opinions and values that characterise modern democratic societies.

Scruton’s model … overlooks the political realities of globalisation itself

Scruton’s model is paradoxical in that it seeks to defend the nation-state as a bulwark of stability in a globalised world. Yet, his approach overlooks the political realities of globalisation itself. In an interconnected world, nation-states must navigate complex political, economic, and social relationships that transcend national borders. Focusing narrowly on cultural preservation, Scruton offers little insight into how the nation-state can engage with global challenges such as trade, migration, environmental issues, and international conflict. His cultural nationalism appears inward-looking, more concerned with defending the artistic integrity of the nation than with addressing the external political dynamics that shape the modern world.

While Scruton’s defence of the nation-state offers a compelling case for preserving cultural identity, it falls short of providing a comprehensive political framework for modern governance. A more robust defence of the nation-state would need to integrate cultural and political elements, recognizing the importance of shared values, institutions, and governance in fostering a stable and inclusive society.

Rousseau’s influence and the paradox of Scruton’s position

Ironically, despite Roger Scruton’s well-known critique of the Enlightenment and its legacy, his defence of the nation-state echoes ideas found in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s political thought, especially as Herder and Fichte later developed Rousseau’s ideas. Rousseau’s concept of the volonté générale (general will) emphasised the need for a collective identity in political life, where individual interests are subordinated to the common good. In Rousseau’s vision, this shared identity was the foundation of political legitimacy, creating a unified community that resisted the corruption of modern political institutions. While Scruton approaches the issue from a conservative cultural standpoint, he similarly argues that the stability of the nation-state depends on a sense of common belonging, in which shared traditions, language, and history form the core of national unity.

Rousseau’s critique of modernity as alienating and corrupting, particularly regarding the individual’s disconnection from the community, also resonates with Scruton’s concerns about the erosion of traditional ways of life. Scruton’sdefence of the nation-state as a cultural bulwark against destabilising forces parallels Rousseau’s fear that modernity weakens the bonds between individuals and their communities, leading to societal fragmentation. Both thinkers share a deep concern for preserving a collective identity as a remedy for the perceived ills of modernity, though they arrive at this conclusion from different ideological paths.

However, Rousseau’s political thought also illustrates the dangers of relying too heavily on collective identity as the foundation of political legitimacy. Rousseau recognized that when the emphasis on unity becomes too strong, it can suppress individual freedoms and pluralism, creating a form of tyranny under the guise of collective will. Similarly, Scruton’s overemphasis on cultural unity risks marginalising those who do not share the dominant cultural narrative of the nation-state. His focus on preserving a homogeneous national identity overlooks the complexities of modern political life, where diversity and pluralism are often unavoidable. 

Moreover, while Rousseau’s concept of the volonté générale was tied to a specific political theory of governance, including the role of democratic participation and social contracts, Scruton’s defence of the nation-state lacks a comparable political framework. Scruton focuses almost entirely on cultural continuity as the key to political stability. Still, he offers little insight into how political institutions, laws, and democratic processes should function within his ideal nation-state. His reluctance to engage with the political structures necessary for governance reveals a significant gap in his argument, especially when compared to Rousseau, who recognized the importance of institutions in channelling collective identity into functional governance.

Scruton’s defence of the nation-state shares meaningful affinities with Rousseau’s emphasis on collective identity; his failure to account for the political mechanisms needed to manage diversity and maintain democratic governance leaves his vision incomplete. While also focused on unity, Rousseau’s thought contained a more nuanced understanding of the dangers of collective identity and the necessity of balancing it with individual freedoms and political institutions. 

Cultural exclusion and the limits of Scruton’s nationalism

Scruton’s emphasis on cultural unity as the foundation for the nation-state leads to a problematic form of exclusion. In his work Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Need to Defend the Nation-State, Scruton contends that immigration and multiculturalism threaten the cultural cohesion essential for the stability of the nation-state. He argues that limiting the influx of individuals who do not share the same cultural background is necessary to preserve national identity. This perspective reduces the complex challenges of integration and political coexistence to a purely cultural issue, overlooking the crucial role that political institutions and policies can play in managing and embracing diversity within a nation.

By prioritising cultural homogeneity, Scruton risks endorsing a form of nationalism that inherently excludes those who do not fit within the dominant cultural narrative. His vision of the nation-state, grounded in shared cultural traditions and values, implies that those who do not conform to these standards deserve less inclusion or acceptance. This exclusionary stance is not a genuine solution to the political challenges posed by diversity but rather a retreat from addressing these issues. It suggests that cultural purity is a prerequisite for national stability, thereby marginalising individuals and groups who contribute to the nation’s social and cultural fabric but do not fit neatly into the dominant narrative.

Scruton’s approach to the nation-state thus emphasises cultural cohesion at the expense of political pluralism. His argument presumes that a stable and cohesive nation-state can only be achieved through cultural uniformity, neglecting the possibility of building a political community that accommodates a variety of identities and perspectives. This narrow focus on cultural unity disregards the potential for political institutions to mediate and manage diversity effectively. It fails to consider how democratic processes, legal frameworks, and inclusive policies can foster social cohesion and stability in a diverse society.

Furthermore, Scruton’s exclusionary vision undermines political institutions’ role in addressing modern governance’s complexities. Effective political systems are designed to accommodate and integrate diverse voices, ensuring that all individuals have a stake in the political community, regardless of their cultural background. By reducing the challenges of diversity to a cultural problem, Scruton’s framework neglects the importance of creating and maintaining political structures capable of managing and harmonising differences. This oversight limits the nation-state’s ability to adapt to contemporary realities where cultural and ethnic diversity is increasingly prevalent.

In this sense, Scruton’s defence of the nation-state is less about the nation-state as a political entity and more about the nation as a cultural artefact. His arguments prioritise preserving cultural heritage over developing political mechanisms that can address the realities of modern, pluralistic societies. This emphasis on cultural unity as the sole basis for national cohesion risks undermining the political stability that comes from inclusive and adaptive governance. Therefore, Scruton’s vision of the nation-state falls short in addressing the practical needs of political life in a diverse and globalised world.

Scruton’s cultural nationalism presents a limited view of the nation-state that fails to engage fully with the political dimensions of governance and diversity. Scruton’s approach offers a retreat from the complexities of modern political life rather than a constructive solution by focusing on cultural homogeneity and excluding those who do not align with the dominant cultural narrative. A more comprehensive understanding of the nation-state must incorporate the role of political institutions in managing diversity, ensuring that all individuals can contribute to and benefit from a cohesive and just political community.

The political shortcomings of cultural nationalism

Roger Scruton’s cultural nationalism, deeply influenced by the ideas of Johann Gottfried Herder and Johann Gottlieb Fichte, places cultural continuity at the heart of his defence of the nation-state. While this emphasis on cultural unity offers a necessary perspective on the bonds that hold communities together, it overlooks the critical role of political institutions in shaping and maintaining a stable state. Modern states are complex entities that require governance structures, laws, and political representation to function effectively, especially in increasingly diverse societies. Scruton’s focus on culture alone is insufficient to address these broader challenges of political life.

Scruton’s concern about the erosion of cultural traditions, particularly in the face of globalisation, immigration, and multiculturalism, drives much of his defence of the nation-state. He believes that cultural continuity is under threat and that the nation-state must serve as a protective barrier against these forces. However, he fails to provide a clear political vision for how the state should navigate these challenges beyond preserving cultural identity. Scruton sidesteps the practical political issues of managing a diverse population by grounding the state’s legitimacy solely in cultural homogeneity. Modern political life is not solely about cultural preservation but also about how institutions adapt to change, accommodate diversity, and maintain justice.

Scruton’s argument appears to rest on an idealised vision of cultural unity that is difficult to reconcile with the realities of contemporary societies

One of the critical weaknesses in Scruton’s argument is his lack of attention to legal and institutional frameworks essential for governing a diverse and pluralistic society. While Scruton focuses on cultural identity as the glue that holds the nation-state together, he does not adequately address the importance of laws and institutions that protect minority rights, promote social cohesion, and ensure political representation. These mechanisms are crucial in managing the complexities of modern governance, where cultural differences are often a source of tension. Scruton’s cultural nationalism, though valuable in its critique of modernity’s destabilising effects, is ultimately incomplete without a robust political theory that accounts for the legal and institutional dimensions of statecraft.

Moreover, Scruton’s argument appears to rest on an idealised vision of cultural unity that is difficult to reconcile with the realities of contemporary societies. In most modern states, cultural diversity is a given, whether due to historical migration patterns, global interconnectedness, or the evolution of national identities over time. The kind of exclusion Scruton’s model could entail leads to social fragmentation and conflict, which are the issues that effective political institutions aim to manage. Scruton’s failure to engage with these realities weakens his argument and exposes a fundamental gap in his defence of the nation-state.

Scruton’s reliance on cultural arguments also reveals an implicit assumption that political stability will naturally follow from cultural unity. However, this assumption is problematic because cultural unity alone cannot guarantee political cohesion or stability. Political institutions are crucial in mediating conflicts, distributing power, and ensuring justice. Without addressing the importance of governance structures, Scruton’s vision of the nation-state is ill-equipped to handle the practical realities of political life in a diverse and globalised world. A stable nation-state requires more than just shared cultural traditions; it requires functional political mechanisms that can adapt to change and manage internal diversity.

In an increasingly diverse and interconnected world, political stability depends on shared identity and the strength of political institutions that protect individual rights, promote social cohesion, and ensure fair representation. By focusing too heavily on cultural homogeneity, Scruton overlooks these crucial aspects of political life, leaving his defence of the nation-state incomplete and inadequate for the challenges of the modern world.

In conclusion, Roger Scruton’s defence of the nation-state is primarily a cultural argument. Like Johann Gottfried Herder, who believed that each nation possesses a unique Volksgeist, Scruton argues that cultural cohesion is the foundation for social stability and political legitimacy. Like Rousseau, meanwhile, Scruton is deeply concerned with the erosion of traditional ways of life in modernity, particularly under the pressures of globalisation and multiculturalism. Both thinkers emphasise the importance of shared belonging in political communities, seeing it as a remedy for the alienation caused by modernization. However, while Scruton draws parallels with Rousseau’s critique of modernity, he does not fully address the potential dangers of relying too heavily on cultural identity as the basis of political life — dangers that Rousseau himself warned about.

Moreover, Scruton’s reliance on cultural identity as the foundation for the nation-state leaves significant gaps in his understanding of political governance. Political life in modern, pluralistic societies requires more than shared traditions; it demands effective institutions, democratic processes, and legal frameworks to accommodate diversity and manage political conflict. By prioritising cultural unity over political institutions, Scruton overlooks the importance of governance structures that ensure stability and justice within a diverse society. His defence of the nation-state thus lacks a sufficient engagement with the practical realities of law, authority, and power distribution.

In the end, Scruton’s vision of the nation-state remains a cultural rather than a political construct. His focus on cultural preservation offers a narrow view of political life that does not fully grapple with the complexities of governance in a globalised and pluralistic world. While his concerns about tradition and identity are compelling, they do not provide a comprehensive framework for addressing the political challenges that modern nation-states face. Without a more robust understanding of governance, authority, and law, Scruton’s defence of the nation-state is incomplete, resting too heavily on cultural foundations without adequately considering the political mechanisms necessary for sustaining a stable and just society.