Matthew Parris recently wrote an article for The Times (paywall) arguing for the UK to withdraw from the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees.
To make this argument he criticises the idea that we have “an equal duty on the part of all to care for all: a duty blindfolded against our particular relationship with individuals who seek our help.”
His argument:
“Real life recognises no such duty. It sees levels of obligation: first to family, then in declining order to friends, neighbours, community, country and mankind in general. We cannot offer an implicit invitation to the whole world’s oppressed but may (for instance) feel special obligations to our former servants in Afghanistan, or threatened citizens in our old empire, such as Hong Kong.”
My question is, what do we call this idea?
“Nativism” is one option, yet Wikipedia defines this as supporting the “interests of native-born” against those of immigrants. Parris is describing something more hierarchical and multi-level.
I’m surprised I don’t know what to call this, considering it’s — as I think Parris is right to argue — an idea with wide support.
I would guess this is something to do with its moral standing. The story of Western liberalism, from Paul’s letters to the French Revolution to modern human rights, is towards universalism, the idea every human is of equal value no matter where they’re born, and this idea runs counter to that. In that context, this idea can feel backward, primitive or proto-fascist. (Parris himself calls it an “animal impulse”).
And yet it still forms the basis of our politics, as revealed not by the language we use, but in how we actually govern ourselves.
Shouldn’t the name of an idea this consequential be better known?