Long Live Tradition — The Democracy of the Dead

By Selwyn Duke

We hear much talk today about an “attack on democracy,” and, actually, there has long been one. That is, an attack on that “democracy extended through time,” that “democracy of the dead,” to quote G.K. Chesterton, that we call tradition. Tradition, it could be said, is the glue that binds society together. Oh, this is where the older among us might hear in our minds “Tradition!” bellowed in that famous song from the play Fiddler on the Roof. Unfortunately, we’ve done more than just fiddle with tradition in our civilization; we’ve thrown it off the roof. This may seem of little consequence to many, since they may be much like the play’s Tevye character, who confessed that he didn’t know why his people’s traditions existed.

Yet tradition’s importance has been emphasized by thinkers from Chesterton to Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke to ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius. Interestingly, too, upon being denied tradition, people will manufacture their own. Why, advanced tennis players and golfers even have their own personal “tradition,” a ritual known as a “pre-shot routine,” which for a given individual will be the same every time (e.g., bouncing the tennis ball five times before serving).  

But most significant are the traditions that stood the test of time, even if they’re not withstanding the test of our time. And perhaps no one mounted a better defense of them than the aforementioned Chesterton. It “is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time,” he wrote in his 1908 book Orthodoxy, Chapter IV, “The Ethics of Elfland.” “Those who urge against tradition that men in the past were ignorant may go and urge it at the Carlton Club [an exclusive, hoity-toity private members’ club in London].” “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors,” Chesterton later added. “It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death.”

In other words and in essence, a long-standing tradition has received the “votes” of the majority of people throughout the ages, not just those who instituted it, but those who perpetuated it. So, we could ask, does the fact that one recent generation “voted it down” tell us anything about its validity? This isn’t to say traditions can never be reviewed; it is to say there’s a problem when tradition in principle is reviled, when it’s relegated to history’s dustbin merely because it’s old.

A hundred examples could likely be cited, but let’s just consider two. There was a time when dressing your “Sunday best” for church was de rigueur; today one could think many attendees took a wrong turn while heading to a soccer game. Now, were you to point out that they’d never show up thus appareled for a wedding or funeral, you might hear that old line, “Does God care how you dress?” My answer is a resounding “Yes!” — I suspect He does. After all, God cares about everything that affects His children, and how we dress likely influences our mindset, and certainly that of others. Just consider: If everyone wore bathing suits to a function, would that not engender a different attitude than if all attendees wore three-piece suits? So perhaps this is another example of how looking the part helps you to play the part.

Then there’s the matter of teenage amorous relationships. Once called courtship, they were controlled through traditional rules, which might have dictated that a young man would “call” on a love interest, and chaperones were not unknown. But these guide rails were slowly, then more quickly, eroded. Courtship was replaced by “dating” — note that this term only came into usage around 1939 — which today generally has no limits save those prescribed by law (e.g., criminalizing rape). The result? Approximately four percent in the 1940s, the U.S. illegitimacy rate has risen to its current 40 percent. This, of course, is attended by profound social ills, with teens having children before they’re mature enough to be parents and, worse still, choosing abortion or even using it as birth control. This, not to mention that prenatal infanticide and contraception have become nation-jarring political issues — and neither would be if yesteryear’s chastity norms still prevailed.

In truth, tradition can have profound unitive and civilizing effects. Of course, it’s obvious that people will have more of a sense of cohesion when sharing traditions than when walking to the beat of different drummers. It goes beyond that, however. Discussing his book Ritual: How Seemingly Senseless Acts Make Life Worth Living with NPR in 2022, anthropologist and cognitive scientist Dimitris Xygalatas mentioned that when test subjects shared rituals, their “heart rates would synchronize no matter what they were doing at the same time.” This “shows that these rituals play a role in bringing the emotional reactions of the members of that community in alignment,” he added. “And by aligning our appearances, aligning our motions, aligning our emotions, those rituals can actually lead to social alignment.” Xygalatas also related that people “turn to ritual to find social connection and to soothe their anxiety.” This is interesting because studies have found that athletes’ pre-shot routines, mentioned earlier, also relieve “anxiety” or, as Tennis.com put it in 2019, can offer “stress relief.”

As for the civilizing effect, Burke noted:

Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend. The law touches us but here and there, and now and then. Manners are what vex or soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, but a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in. They give their whole form and color to our lives. According to their quality, they aid morals, they supply them, or they totally destroy them.

Perhaps, though, he was just echoing Confucius — or maybe it’s that great minds think alike. Regardless, the ancient sage’s thoughts on the matter were recorded in the work The Analects. “If you try to guide the common people with coercive regulations and keep them in line with punishments, the common people will become evasive and will have no sense of shame,” he stated. “If, however, you guide them with Virtue, and keep them in line by means of ritual, the people will have a sense of shame and will rectify themselves.” Website Philosophy Break elaborated on this last year, explaining, “So, it could be a wedding, or it could be something as simple as a handshake: the Confucian point is that these cultural practices and social customs have a key role to play in shaping our moral lives, for they are the language in which we communicate our shared humanity and respect for one another.”

Of course, as Confucius knew, not all traditions are created equal. In our time, we can benefit from Christian revelation, a fuller understanding of the virtues, of Truth, and can judge tradition under their light. But the bottom line is that it is the glue that can bind people together, can unite them, and can thus stabilize society. Can, that is — if only we consider the votes of our ancestors.

                   This article was originally published at The New American.