Stoicism: An Antidote to the Modern Society?
In a Western world dominated by sentimentality, could it be time to consider the merits of a stoic approach to decision-making?
In recent decades, the Western world, and specifically the United Kingdom and the United States, seems to have fallen into the grip of a societal divide—and it’s chaotic. The key issue, as can be seen in the numerous political campaign trails on both sides of the pond, as well as in Europe, falls firmly on the head of immigration. Specifically, illegal immigration.
On one side of the fence, populists look to tackle the issue head-on by appealing to the working class, promising to reaffirm national borders, scrutinise the existing legal stances on immigration, and address the incentivisation element of the Western welfare systems. On the other hand, pluralists—those who believe that society should be composed of different individuals and groups—choose to approach the scenario from a different perspective, one of sentimentality, self-ascribed guilt, and supposed compassion (read: potentially just virtue signalling in our very tribal world).
Personally, from a British perspective and as The Weekly Polemic’s mission statement probably indicates, I tend to lean towards the populist take on immigration: the mindset of observing the rule of law, maintaining border security and deporting individuals who fail to do so seems to be a purely logical solution. While refugees of war-torn regions should certainly be supported by nations with the capability to provide, it is most important that only genuine refugees are given asylum and sanctity, and it is also crucial that this privilege of care is given by the countries closest to the host nations of fleeing populations. That is my response to the overall question but especially to the specific rebuttal that I regularly hear from the increasingly noisy proponents of pluralism in the West: ‘Refuge is a universal human right, and it’s our job to provide it.’
To the claim that fleeing mothers and children who travel the channel between France and the United Kingdom in an attempt to find safe shores should be given asylum… Well, the United Kingdom is, to some extent, a safe place. (Though violent crime is on the rise.) And, yes, these are the most vulnerable in society; however, France, as a leading member of the European Union, is just as safe as Great Britain—these two nations are cut from the same cloth with a shared history and equal levels of cultural and ethnic diversity. For asylum seekers, France should be a suitable place for temporary refuge. Not that refugees who are truly eligible for said status need to travel so far across the European continent to find safe haven, I should say; unfortunately, many of them fail their applications before jumping to the final stop before the mighty Atlantic.
A final comment on this: according to the Home Office, of the 1,000 ‘small boats’ detected arriving in the United Kingdom in the year ending June 2023, averaging 44 people per boat, 87% of the individuals arriving on British shores were male. (To be clear: 87% are not women with children.) The Home Office also confirmed that almost half of the arrivals were two nationalities: Albanians (26%) and Afghans (21%).
I think it’s important to be mindful of the facts and figures provided by the government and leading institutions that monitor the movement of migrants. It can only be described as a faux pas to look at the world through a lens of emotion and sentimentality; it doesn’t take much research into the matter to see that something isn’t quite right. The figures above should paint that picture very clearly.
So, in light of the tumultuous debates, I thought I’d share some thoughts for those who can’t seem to maintain a semblance of emotional order when it comes to the matter of immigration. From a philosophical perspective, I might add. But I’ll keep it brief as I’ve already prattled on long enough.
The philosophy most needed in Western politics today is one that served the Roman Empire until the 4th century AD/CE before Christianity became the official religion of Rome: Stoicism. In agreement with Gibbons’ unpopular theory, I believe that the introduction of Christianity as the faith of the Roman Republic redirected wealth from affairs of state to the church and led many wealthy individuals to monasticism, leading to a reduction in support for the empire and its development and its eventual fall. Had Stoic tradition remained prevalent within the empire, I reckon the Romans would have continued exercising their well-documented self-control and allowed logic and reason to win out over emotions—enabling them to continue their Alexandrian-esque expansion.
As the title of this piece suggests, I believe that Stoic philosophy offers a unique perspective that could serve as an antidote to the emotional quagmire surrounding illegal immigration today. (And many of the prevalent topics driving political division, really.) Rooted in ancient Greek philosophy, Stoicism provides a framework for ethical decision-making and personal development that, when applied to the challenges we now face, may offer a path towards a more reasoned and balanced approach.
1. Acceptance of the Present Moment:
In a world grappling with the complexities of illegal immigration, Stoicism provides a refreshing perspective by urging individuals to confront the reality of the present moment. This tenet encourages acknowledging the existing state of affairs without succumbing to the emotional tumult that often surrounds the issue. By understanding the limitations of personal influence on global migration patterns, individuals can redirect their focus and energy towards meaningful actions within their immediate spheres.
2. Rational Analysis of Circumstances:
Stoicism underscores the importance of rationality in decision-making, particularly relevant in the context of the immigration discourse. This principle advocates for a careful and unbiased analysis of the multifaceted factors contributing to illegal immigration. Rather than being swayed solely by emotional appeals, a Stoic mindset promotes a nuanced evaluation of economic, social, and geopolitical factors driving migration. This approach fosters a more informed and balanced perspective, steering individuals away from polarising rhetoric.
3. Differentiating Between Concern and Control:
In the realm of illegal immigration, Stoicism encourages individuals to discern between areas of genuine concern and elements beyond their control. While expressing valid concerns about the issue, this tenet highlights the importance of recognising personal limitations in influencing broader geopolitical trends. Such a perspective nurtures a sense of personal responsibility without succumbing to the overwhelming anxiety often associated with societal issues, fostering a more constructive and measured approach.
4. Virtue as the Ultimate Good:
Stoicism introduces the concept that virtue, or moral excellence, should be the guiding force in decision-making. Applied to the immigration debate, this principle advocates for decisions rooted in ethical conduct rather than fleeting emotions. By prioritising virtue, individuals contribute to a more principled and humane discourse surrounding immigration. This approach focuses on the well-being of all individuals involved, transcending emotional reactions and fostering a thoughtful and compassionate response.
5. Community and Cosmopolitanism:
Stoicism champions cosmopolitanism, deriving from kosmopolitēs (‘citizen of the world’) in Greek: the idea that the cosmos itself is a polis (city-state in ancient Greece) and that all people, regardless of their personal beliefs and political affiliations, belong to a single, ideal community.
Do as Socrates did, never replying to the question of where he was from with, "I am Athenian," or "I am from Corinth," but always, "I am a citizen of the world."
─ Epictetus, Discourses, I, 9.1
Without getting into the nitty-gritty of the cosmopolis, a glance at the history books gives a vivid image of Rome’s adoption of this Stoic belief. The empire, which embraced citizens from the Atlantic coast of north-western Britannia to Mesopotamia in Asia Minor (now Iraq in the Middle East) and Egypt to the south, was expansive and accepting of various creeds, cultures, and religions; the empire, often glorified only for its prowess on the military stage, was, in fact, very tolerant towards foreign influences.
However, there was one crucial element to the Roman cosmopolis. It was a true example of multiculturalism: though Rome ruled over the entire dominion, the traditions and beliefs of each nation were respected and not replaced. The rule was that natives could keep their culture as long as they also got involved in public celebrations of the Roman deities. In other words, Rome, in true cosmopolitan fashion, did not override the culture of the nation that it took under its banner.
When it comes to immigration today, this is a most important consideration: While historical examples of multiculturalism were demonstrably successful, they seldom involved the cohesion of different ethnicities (note: ‘ethnicity’ does not only mean complexion) within city limits. Rather, individuals maintained their own cultures and traditions in their native lands. Those who moved to other regions tended to adopt the culture of the new land rather than preaching their own.
As is often the case with history, I’d say that there’s a lesson to be learnt here. By embracing a cosmopolitan mindset, Western populations can cultivate empathy and understanding towards those seeking refuge, but they can also hold certain expectations when it comes to governance of the situation. It’s not about sowing divisive narratives, which is what the Left often likes to claim; most importantly, it’s about contributing to the creation of a more compassionate and inclusive society that recognises the shared humanity and needs of individuals on both sides of the fence—native and immigrant.
If we can successfully apply these Stoic principles—and many others—to the contemporary challenges of illegal immigration, individuals will have the opportunity to shift the discourse from one driven by emotion and division to one guided by reason, compassion, and ethical considerations. Stoicism, with its emphasis on personal responsibility and rational analysis, provides a potential antidote to the polarised narratives that often surround this complex societal issue and a route to a Western world in harmony.