A Defense of Downton’s Nostalgia

I wrote a small
appreciation of the
show Downton Abbey as
using nostalgia astutely as a way of showing us the strengths and weaknesses of
aristocracy. Aristocrats had relational virtues—a clear sense of the connection
between privileges and responsibilities—that we don’t. When it comes to money
and justice, however, we middle-class democrats know better. Astute nostalgia is
always self-consciously selective. The model of that kind of analytic use
of nostalgia is Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, which is full of
aristocratic criticisms of democracy and democratic criticisms of
aristocracy.

On Downton Abbey, we see that the way of
life of the relational place is being improved by middle-class, American,
Irish, socialist, and even proto-feminist contributions, but usually not at the
expense of “class” in the sense of knowing who you are and what you’re supposed
to do. Who can deny that today our upper class—our meritocratic cognitive
elite—lacks and could benefit from some of the class of the Earl of Grantham
and his family? That’s not to deny that the Lord Grantham is not so astute when
it comes to the personal longing for freedom, turning a profit, tolerance of
religious diversity, modern science, and even good government. He is astute
enough, though, to accept, if reluctantly, changes that will make his way of
life more sustainable and even admirable. He is also astute enough not to
embrace the popular moralism that turns sins into crimes or even reasons for
dismissal.

My
friend George Will, who finds me “normally wise and lucid,” mistakes,
partly by presenting a quote out of its ironic context, my praise of the
relational place called Downton Abbey as a progressive and paternalistic endorsement
of the welfare state. There’s a huge difference between an aristocratic manor
and a government bureaucracy! And I said Downton is an exaggeration for our
edification—not a real place. George’s real objection is to my thought that the
effects of economic freedom aren’t all good, and for thinking, even for a
moment, that the relational dignity of knowing one’s place in the world—with
its attendant privileges and responsibilities—is anything about servitude. But
any Christian—not to mention any member of any family—knows that a huge
part of the art of living well is knowing how to serve with love and dignity.

George,
I’ve noticed, is getting more libertarian, even embracing the libertarian brand
of judicial activism. From his view now, I’m not American or individualistic
enough. For Patrick Deneen, I’m way too American by refusing to admit
that American freedom and his view of the properly Catholic
civilization of love are incompatible.

I’m
okay with being the mean between the extremes of Will and Deneen.