Thread by @shrikanth_krish

VS Naipaul was often regarded as a "conservative" though he himself never claimed a political affiliation

But deep down, Naipaul was someone who bought the facile assumptions of the "Enlightenment" and not really a conservative

(Contd...)

While most of his critics tend to belong to the Political Left, there is much room for a right-wing conservative critique of Naipaul, that one hardly gets to see.

To understand Naipaul best it is often useful to read his essays.

Let's take a couple of them -

1. "Our Universal Civilization" - a powerful speech delivered in 1990 which purports to defend "Western Civilization" but at the same time is deeply problematic at many levels.

2. "Among the Republicans" - an essay he wrote in 1984 after attending the Republican Convention - a critical look at the GOP and Reagan's America.

Both essays reveal Naipaul was anything but a conservative but actually a "neo-liberal" whom conservatives dont criticize enough

Here's the link to both these essays -

1. Our Universal Civilization: manhattan-institute.org/html/1990-wris…

2. Among the Republicans : nybooks.com/articles/1984/…

So what makes Naipaul problematic from a conservative lens.
Let's think of the beliefs most traditionalists hold, and then see how Naipaul contradicted these ideals

a A belief that "Life" is valuable in itself
b Respect for the idea of "sacred"
c A concern for individual virtue

Naipaul's writings are problematic on all these fronts. Let's take his opening line from his great book "Bend in the RIver".

"The World is what it is. Men who are nothing, who allow themselves to be nothing, have no place it"

To me it is a deeply problematic line as a conservative.

It is a line that is hostile to the traditionalist view that upholds human life to be special no matter where it is found.

A view that inherently buys into the liberal "idea of progress" where the fittest survive

Let's now examine Naipaul's contempt for tradition. Here's an extract from his great speech "Our Universal Civilization" where he does not acknowedge the importance of tradition in promoting public virtue -

(Contd..)

Naipaul -

"We were a people of ritual and sacred texts. We also had our epics—and they were the very epics of Java; we heard them constantly sung or chanted. But it couldn't be said that we were a literary people." (Contd..)

"Our literature, our texts, didn't commit us to an exploration of our world; rather, they were cultural markers, giving us a sense of the wholeness of our world and the alienness of what lay outside"

While there may be some truth here, Naipaul starts off with a rosy view of human nature, and assumes individuals don't need the anchors of tradition/religion to maintain virtue

He sees tradition as an obstacle to "Progress" - not something that keeps people rooted and virtuous.

While many Hindu conservatives may cheer Naipaul's criticisms of Islam (which may be spot on), they don't always get that Naipaul's criticism of Islam was merely a part of a much broader criticism of Religion and Traditionalism itself, which is problematic.

Let's now look at another part of "Our Universal Civilization". Its conclusion where he valorizes the "Pursuit of happiness"

Naipaul :

"...the beauty of the idea of the pursuit of happiness. Familiar words, easy to take for granted; easy to misconstrue. " (Contd..)

"This idea of the pursuit of happiness is at the heart of the attractiveness of the civilization to so many outside it or on its periphery. .. It is an elastic idea; it fits all men. It implies a certain kind of society, a certain kind of awakened spirit." (Contd..)

"I don't imagine my father's parents would have been able to understand the idea. So much is contained in it: the idea of the individual, responsibility, choice, the life of the intellect, the idea of vocation and perfectibility and achievement. It is an immense human idea"

The problem with this extract is that it valorizes "happiness" as an end, and "Western civilization" as an enabler to that end. Both are problematic.

Firstly the expression "Pursuit of Happiness" was something coined by Thomas Jefferson - an American radical of late 18th cen.

Even back then, a conservative like George Washington took the trouble to emphasize BOTH virtue and happiness in his inaugural address

Naipaul's relative indifference to personal virtue and obsession with "happiness" suggests he was v much an Enlightenment liberal

Naipaul's urge to "get on" and make progress is pretty evident and he seeks a "universal civilization" to serve that end.

But this reveals a strong progressive bias that disdains cultural and moral diversity.

If one is genuinely conservative one cannot be comfortable with this.