The late English philosopher Sir Roger Scruton devoted much of his intellectual life to defending Western civilisation against those who regarded its inherited institutions, traditions and values as obstacles to progress. His conservatism was not simply a political programme concerned with taxation, economic management or the size of government. It was a philosophy of cultural inheritance, rooted in the conviction that a civilisation cannot survive indefinitely if its people cease to understand, appreciate and defend the institutions that sustain it.
Australian author and educationalist Dr Kevin Donnelly has returned to this theme in his October 22, 2026, article for The Daily Sceptic, "Riots in France Are an Attack on Western Civilisation." Reflecting upon unrest in France and other European cities, Donnelly argues that the deeper problem confronting Western societies is not merely economic hardship, unemployment or dissatisfaction with government. It is a crisis of cultural identity, social cohesion and confidence in the Western inheritance itself.
Donnelly draws upon Scruton's insistence that Western peoples must rediscover their defining commitments and recognise that their political inheritance is inseparable from a religious and moral tradition. This is a profoundly important argument. A civilisation cannot be sustained solely by economic growth, technological innovation or administrative efficiency. It also requires a shared understanding of its history, institutions, obligations and moral purposes.
The central insight of Scruton's conservatism is that civilisation is inherited rather than manufactured. Human beings are born into societies possessing languages, laws, customs, institutions and moral traditions that have developed across generations. These arrangements are not necessarily perfect, nor are they beyond criticism. Nevertheless, they embody accumulated experience that cannot simply be discarded and replaced through abstract political planning.
This is why Scruton regarded conservatism as something deeper than resistance to change. The conservative seeks to preserve those inherited goods that make constructive change possible. Families, communities, religious institutions, the rule of law, parliamentary government and the traditions of civil society provide the foundations upon which individuals can exercise freedom and pursue meaningful lives.
Western civilisation has produced an extraordinary intellectual, cultural and institutional inheritance. Its foundations include Greek philosophy, Roman law, Christianity, medieval scholarship, Renaissance humanism, the scientific revolution, constitutional government and the development of modern liberal democracy. These traditions were neither uniform nor free from conflict. Indeed, much of Western history consists of arguments within the civilisation about the nature of truth, justice, freedom and legitimate authority.
Yet that capacity for internal criticism is itself among the West's most important achievements. The intellectual tradition extending from Socrates and Aristotle through Augustine, Aquinas, Locke and later thinkers, encouraged the examination of inherited assumptions through reasoned argument. Western civilisation developed institutions through which authority could be challenged, governments held accountable and competing interpretations of truth debated.
It would be historically inaccurate to suggest that every important discovery, scientific advance or political ideal originated exclusively in the West. Western civilisation benefited enormously from intellectual exchanges with the Islamic world, India, China and other societies. Nevertheless, the particular combination of Christianity, classical philosophy, scientific inquiry and constitutional government that developed in Europe made a distinctive contribution to the modern world.
Donnelly is therefore justified in insisting that Western achievements should not be dismissed merely because Western history also contains serious injustices. Colonialism, slavery, religious persecution and warfare are legitimate subjects of historical investigation and moral criticism. But the existence of these wrongs does not invalidate the entire civilisation, any more than the failings of other societies justify dismissing their cultural achievements.
The difficulty arises when education ceases to involve a balanced examination of historical achievements and failures and instead encourages students to regard their own civilisation primarily as an instrument of oppression. Historical understanding requires criticism, but it also requires appreciation. Young Australians should know about the injustices of their country's past, while also understanding the development of parliamentary democracy, common law, freedom of conscience, scientific achievement and the institutions that have contributed to national prosperity.
This is particularly important in education. A society that fails to transmit knowledge of its cultural inheritance eventually produces generations who enjoy the benefits of institutions they neither understand nor necessarily value. Constitutional government, freedom of expression, legal equality and religious liberty can come to be regarded as automatic features of modern existence rather than fragile achievements requiring continuing protection.
Scruton's philosophical contribution was to explain why these institutions cannot be understood simply as products of rational design. They are sustained through habits, loyalties, obligations and shared understandings developed over time. A legal system, for example, depends not merely upon written legislation but upon public confidence in impartial justice. Democracy requires more than elections; it also requires citizens willing to accept lawful political disagreement and the legitimacy of constitutional procedures.
The Christian inheritance occupies a particularly important place in this account. Christianity contributed to Western ideas concerning the moral significance of the individual, the obligations of charity, the limitations of worldly power and the distinction between political authority and spiritual responsibility. Christian thinkers helped shape debates about natural law, conscience, human dignity and the moral foundations of government.
These developments were historically complicated and often contested, but their significance cannot be erased from any serious understanding of Western civilisation. Even many contemporary secular moral commitments have developed within societies whose institutions and ethical vocabulary were profoundly influenced by Christianity.
Donnelly's argument is especially relevant to the continuing debate over multiculturalism and national identity. A society can accommodate people from different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds while maintaining a common civic identity. Indeed, the capacity to incorporate newcomers into an established constitutional and legal order has been an important feature of successful immigrant societies.
However, cultural diversity does not eliminate the need for shared civic obligations. Citizens must possess sufficient common commitments to resolve disagreements peacefully, respect the law, recognise one another's equal standing and participate in national institutions. Where governments emphasise cultural difference without giving comparable attention to civic integration, they risk weakening the sense of common membership upon which democratic societies depend.
The distinction is between diversity within a shared national framework and a form of cultural fragmentation in which communities increasingly inhabit separate social and moral worlds. The former can coexist with national cohesion. The latter creates difficulties when competing groups no longer recognise common institutions as legitimate.
The broader questions raised by Donnelly remain legitimate. What happens when substantial sections of a population cease to identify with the national community? What obligations do governments have to encourage integration? And can democratic institutions remain stable when shared civic loyalties are increasingly replaced by antagonistic group identities?
These questions apply to Australia as well as Europe. Australia has developed a distinctive national tradition shaped by British constitutional institutions, Christianity, the common law, democratic government and its own historical experience. Indigenous Australians also possess histories and cultural traditions that form an indispensable part of the nation's story. Subsequent immigration has contributed to Australian society, but the successful incorporation of newcomers has depended in part upon the continuing strength of common institutions and civic expectations.
The issue is not whether Australians must share identical ancestry or religious beliefs. They plainly do not. It is whether Australians can maintain a sufficiently strong common understanding of citizenship, law, freedom and national responsibility to sustain a coherent political community.
Here Scruton's conception of national belonging is especially valuable. For him, attachment to one's country was not necessarily an expression of hostility towards outsiders. It was a recognition that political freedom depends upon institutions sustained by mutual loyalty and a sense of shared responsibility. People are more likely to accept political decisions with which they disagree when they nevertheless regard their fellow citizens as members of the same national community.
A society without such loyalties may increasingly depend upon coercive administration to maintain order. When common moral commitments weaken, governments may attempt to compensate through additional regulation, surveillance and bureaucratic control. Yet administrative power cannot easily manufacture the trust and solidarity that historically arise through families, local communities, voluntary associations and shared institutions.
This is also why the preservation of Western civilisation cannot be reduced to support for any particular political party. Conservatism, understood philosophically, is concerned with the institutions and traditions that precede contemporary electoral contests. A political movement that speaks constantly of national identity while neglecting families, education, religious freedom, constitutional government and community life, would be defending only a superficial version of the inheritance Scruton described.
Nor can cultural renewal be achieved merely through denunciation of ideological opponents. The more demanding task is constructive: educating the young, preserving historical knowledge, strengthening families, maintaining civic institutions and recovering confidence in the intellectual and moral achievements of Western civilisation.
Christianity has an important role in this process, not simply as a historical influence but as a living religious tradition. Its teachings concerning moral responsibility, forgiveness, charity and the dignity of human beings offer resources for addressing the social fragmentation of modern life. The Christian obligation to love one's neighbour also places limits upon any nationalism that might otherwise descend into hostility or collective resentment.
This is a point sometimes overlooked in contemporary cultural conflict. Defending a civilisation does not require denying the humanity or rights of those who come from different traditions. Indeed, a commitment to freedom of conscience, equality before the law and peaceful disagreement should remain central to any credible defence of Western institutions.
There is, however, an equally important distinction between respecting other cultures and abandoning confidence in one's own. A civilisation that teaches its young that its inheritance is uniquely shameful, while discouraging serious appreciation of its achievements, risks undermining the very foundations that permit cultural openness and tolerance.
Scruton's warning therefore deserves attention. The inheritance of Western civilisation is not self-sustaining. Its institutions depend upon citizens who understand their purposes and possess sufficient attachment to preserve them. Freedom, constitutional government and civil society can be weakened through neglect as well as through deliberate attack.
Donnelly's contribution is to bring these philosophical considerations into the contemporary debate over European unrest, immigration, education and national cohesion. His interpretation of the riots may be disputed, and the specific causes of violence require careful factual investigation. Nevertheless, his broader concern about cultural confidence and the transmission of Western values cannot reasonably be dismissed simply because it challenges fashionable assumptions about identity and multiculturalism.
The ultimate question is whether Western societies still possess the confidence to regard their civilisation as something worth preserving. Such confidence need not involve historical mythology, cultural arrogance or hostility towards others. It requires only the recognition that inherited institutions and traditions contain achievements of enduring value, and that their survival depends upon deliberate effort.
A society that remembers only its failures risks becoming incapable of recognising its accomplishments. A society that regards national loyalty as inherently suspect may eventually discover that political institutions cannot survive on procedural rules alone. And a society that abandons its religious and moral inheritance without considering what might replace it risks weakening the ethical foundations upon which much of its public life has been built.
Scruton understood that civilisation is not merely a collection of economic arrangements or legal procedures. It is a living inheritance transmitted through generations, sustained by memory, loyalty, affection and moral obligation.
The defence of Western civilisation should therefore begin not with hostility towards others, but with renewed understanding of what has been inherited. Education, historical knowledge, constitutional liberty, religious tradition and civic responsibility provide the essential foundations.
Kevin Donnelly is right to direct attention beyond the immediate political and economic explanations of Europe's troubles towards the deeper problem of cultural cohesion. Whether every aspect of his diagnosis is accepted or not, the philosophical challenge remains.
Western civilisation cannot be preserved by people who neither understand its inheritance nor believe that it deserves to endure. Its future depends upon recovering the knowledge, confidence and moral responsibility necessary to transmit that inheritance to succeeding generations.
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/10/22/riots-in-france-are-an-attack-on-western-civilisation/
https://spectator.com/article/france-is-a-warning-our-civilisation-is-not-immortal/