Canadi anJ our nal of Pol i t i cal andSoci al Theor y / Revue canadi enne de t heor i e

pol i t i que et s oci al e, Vol .

3,
No.
3
( Fal l / Aut omne,
1979) .
SORELANDTHESOCI AL
UNCERTAI NTYPRI NCI PLE
J ohnL. St anl ey
Ri char d Ver non, Commi t ment and change; Geor ges Sor el and t he i dea of
r evol ut i on, es s ay and t r ans l at i ons , Buf f al o and Tor ont o: Uni ver s i t y of Tor ont o
Pr es s , 1979, pp.
vi i i , 148
.
I n a l et t er t o Benedet t o Cr oce, Geor ges Sor el compl ai ned bi t t er l y t hat t he
wor ks of Pr oudhon wer e vi r t ual l y unobt ai nabl e i n t he Par i s books hops . Sevent y
year s l at er , i t i s nowqui t e di f f i cul t t o obt ai n mos t of Sor el ' s wor ks , and t he man
whoi s cr edi t edwi t h bei ngPr oudhon' s i nt el l ect ual s ucces s or has nows har ed t he
s ame f at e. Of Sor el ' s vas t wor k, onl y t wo books , Ref l ect i ons on Vi ol ence and an
out l andi s hl y pr i ced Swi s s r epr i nt of Le Sys t eme hi s t or i que de Renan r emai n i n
pr i nt i nFr ance
. '
Why Sor el has f ai l ed t o become a
pr ophet
i n hi s own
count r y whi l e s t i l l
popul ar el s ewher e -es peci al l y i nI t al y -
i s pr obl emat i c .
A
par t i al expl anat i on
may l i e i n t he r eadi nes s of I t al i an Eur o-Mar xi s t s
t o engage i n modes of s el f -
cr i t i ci s mt hat echo Sor el i an t hemes
-t hemes t hat t he Fr ench Mar xi s t s , t i ed t o
t he l ackl us t er PCF, t end t o avoi d. Anot her expl anat i on
l i es pos s i bl y i n Sor el ' s
at t ack on t he Car t es i an t r adi t i on of pol i t i cal di s cour s e
. I ndeed t he member s of
t he Fr ench l i t er ar y es t abl i s hment mi ght wel l t r eat wi t h
di s dai n a
f i gur e
who,
i n
hi s owni deol ogi cal i t i ner ar y mus t i nevi t abl y r emi nd t hem
of
t hei r
ownf as hi on-
cons ci ous nes s and of f end t hem as t he gadf l y of
Eur opean i deol ogi cal
movement s , as or t of count er -cycl i cal t r endy.
NowRi char d Ver non has publ i s hed an excel l ent es s ay whi ch,
t oget her wi t h
appended t r ans l at i ons , goes a l ong way t o hel p r es t or e
r es pect
f or
Sor el ' s
wr i t i ngs , and whi ch under s cor es t he i mpor t anceof Sor el f or
Mar xi s t s andf or al l
s oci al t heor i s t s . Ver non' s t heme i s i ns pi r ed by a pas s age i n
Sor el ' s book on
Renan whi ch di s t i ngui s hes bet ween t wo mut ual l y
excl us i ve t ypes of hi s t or i cal
anal ys i s . On t he one hand, accor di ng t o Sor el , hi s t or i ans
may s eek t o r ecover
t he exper i ences of act or s s t ep-by-s t ep . I n s uch a cas e,
t hey
concer n
t hems el ves
wi t h t he emer gence of t he f ut ur e, expl ai ni ng t he or i gi n
of event s by means of
an exact knowl edge
of t he menwho occupi ed t he s cene at t he t i me. On t he
ot her
hand, hi s t or i ans may adopt a r at her di f f er ent t echni que and at t empt t o
r ecover t he s i gni f i cance of event s i n
t er ms of l at er out come r at her t han ex-
83
JOHNL. STANLEY
per i enci ng themi nter nal l y . I n thi s cas e, the
hi s tor i an vi ews the pas t as a
cons ol i dated mas s whos e gener al appear ance can be
outl i ned s chemati cal l y . z
The f i r s t method, whi ch Sor el cal l s the "ps ychol ogi cal
concepti on, " deal s
wi th human
moti vati ons ; i t "cor r es ponds to the i ns ti ncts . " The s econd
ap-
pr oach Sor el cal l s "s ci enti f i c . "
I t al one can make s ens e of the hi s tor i cal pr oces s
at a compr ehens i ve l evel by i nter pr eti ng change
i n f i nal i s ti c ter ms , but whos e
end l i es i n the pr es ent, never the f utur e . I t l ooks
at hi s tor y "r etr os pecti vel y" as
an aver agi ng
out of phenomena, r egar di ng themi n ter ms
of thei r r el ati ons
whi l e
i gnor i ng thei r caus es and or i gi ns . The tas k of s ci enti f i c
hi s tor y i s to r educe
hi s tor y to a
compr ehens i ve or der .
The thes i s of Pr of es s or Ver non' s
s eventy- page es s ay i s that by
def i ni ng
hi s tor i cal s tudi es i n thes e two ways , Sor el has
tr ans f or med compl etel y the way
i n whi ch the s oci al obs er ver can deal wi th
Mar xi an categor i es s uch as f al s e
cons ci ous nes s
and the meani ng of r evol uti onar y pr acti ce.
Ver non makes cl ear
that the f i r s t, or
ps ychol ogi cal , mode of vi ewi ng hi s tor y i s
l i kel y to be that of
the par ti ci pant hi ms el f ; onl y the actor
can account f or the f or ces that i mpel
hi m, hi s moti ves , hi s i mages and hi s myths .
And i t i s pr eci s el y thes e s enti ments
and thei r
or i gi ns that ar e outs i de the pur vi ewof s ci enti f i c
knowl edge. That i s
why Sor el cr i ti ci z ed Renan' s pos i ti vi s ti c
debunki ng of Chr i s ti ani ty whi ch
tended to expl ai n "s ci enti f i cal l y" the caus es
of Bi bl i cal mi r acl es as acci dents
al l
the
whi l e combi ni ng thes e expl anati ons wi th a
vague s ympathy f or r el i gi ous
exper i ence. To Sor el , "as l ong as hi s tor y
i s exami ned f r omthe caus al per -
s pecti ve, i t i s i mpos s i bl e to as k what r eal
f acts coul d have gi ven bi r th to the
i l l us i on of a mi r acl e. " 3 As Ver non s ays , and Sor el
i mpl i es , Renan cannot
concer n
hi ms el f as a s ci enti s t wi th the moti ve f or ces that
br i ng about acti on
becaus e he was not a
par ti ci pant . The s el f - cons ci ous nes s of the
hi s tor i cal pr oces s
i s f undamental l y
di f f er ent f r omthe r ef l ecti ve knowl edge of the
hi s tor i an who
j udges events expos t
f acto. Whi l e the s ci enti f i c modeof anal ys i s ,
bar r i ng s ome
extr aor di nar y
coi nci dence, wi l l as s i gn meani ngs to acti on that
di f f er f r omthe
meani ng as s i gned
by the actor to hi ms el f , the l atter cannot
pos s i bl y pr edi ct the
cons equences
of al l hi s acti ons .
Sor el
has i n f act r epl aced the Mar xi an concept of
total i ty wi thwhat mi ght be
cal l ed a
"s oci al uncer tai nty pr i nci pl e . " Sor el was not
content s i mpl y to s epar ate
the vi ews of
par ti ci pants f r omthos e of obs er ver s ,
but gener al i z ed thi s
s epar ati on
i nto a methodol ogy wher eby cer tai n
matter s ar e excl uded f r om
cons i der ati on when other s ar e tr eated. Sor el cal l ed
thi s method "di r empti on"
whi ch Ver non qui te r eas onabl y tr ans l ates as
"abs tr acti on . " One s et of
r el ati ons hi ps mus t be i s ol ated f r omthe total i ty
i n or der f or the di s ti ncti venes s
of thes e r el ati ons to be made known. But
once thi s abs tr acti on has been per -
f or med, one cannot pos s i bl y r eas s embl e
the br oken uni ty . As Ver non
expl ai ns
i t, havi ng i gnor ed cer tai n
r el ati ons hi ps i n or der to gr as p other s , one
cannot
r ei ns er t the cons tr ucti on i nto the
total mi l i eu wi thout di s tor ti ng
the
84
SORELANDTHE
SOCI ALUNCERTAI NTYPRI NCI PLE
r el at i onshi p bet ween t he t wo. We can under st and t he
mot i ves of t he subj ect i n
hi s act i ons or we can under st and t he out comes of
event s by di ssol vi ng t he
subj ect s i nt o t he t ot al i t y, "but t her e i s a l ogi cal gap
bet ween t hese t wo f or ms of
knowl edge, f or one posi t s as r eal what t he ot her
di scount s .
"4
I n separ at i ng t he i nt er nal
and ext er nal per spect i ves on r evol ut i on, Sor el
abandoned
t he Mar xi an at t empt t o compr ehend syst emat i cal l y bot h at once . I n
Ver non' s
t er ms, such an at t empt r est s on a ci r cul ar ar gument whi ch pr oj ect s t he
downf al l of capi t al i smat l east i n par t because of t he exi st ence
of t he soci al i st
al t er nat i ve i t sel f , and whi ch i n
t ur n j ust i f i es soci al i sm by t he i mmi nent
downf al l of capi t al i sm.
To assume t hat t he pr ol et ar i at ( or t he soci al i st par t y) i s
t he chi ef
i nst r ument of r evol ut i onar y change, as t heor et i ci ans do,
i s
t o ar gue
t hat t he i nt ent of t he par t i sans i s i dent i cal t o t hei r hi st or i cal si gni f i cance ; i t
i s,
t o use Sor el ' s t er mi nol ogy, an at t empt ski l l f ul l y
t o
f ashi on
a hypot het i cal cause
accor di ng t o t he ef f ect t hat we must expl ai n.
s
To i nsi st t hat t he pr ol et ar i at
whi ch
makes t he wor l d shal l al so i nher i t i t i s t o suppose t hat we can knowwhat
we cannot know. Such a vi ewr el i es on t he not i on of a uni ver sal cl ass t hat
has
not yet become uni ver sal or on t he concept of a r evol ut i onar y par t y
whose
at t r i but es ar e si mpl yposi t edwi t h no basi s as yet i n f act .
I n Ver non' s
under st andi ng, Sor el ' s l ogi c l eads t o t he vi ewt hat t he pr ol et ar i at
i s si mpl y anot her i nt er est gr oup, and t hat t he r evol ut i on conduct ed i n
i t s name
scar cel y di f f er s f r omot her r evol ut i ons
. I ndeed Sor el deni ed t he not i on of t he
uni ver sal cl ass and r epl aced i t wi t h l ocal
al l egi ances and par ochi al concer ns : t he
r eal and act ual medi at i ng f or ces
of hi st or i cal act i on. "As much as any
soci ol ogi cal f or mul a can exi st , "
he sai d, "we can see t hat i f capi t al i st soci et y
was char act er i zed by t he
advance t owar d uni t y, t he pr esent wor ker s' movement
t ends t owar d l ocal
di vi si on
. "
I n such a vi ew, t he i dea of a f i nal and uni f i ed end
i s r epl aced by a f eder al i st
soci al i smt hat i s put i n t he pr esent -t hat i s, i n t he
ever yday l i ves of t he par t i ci pant s
: "We come t o under st and t hat soci al
quest i ons ar e not r esol ved
by t he sci ence of cer t ai n schol ar s and t hr ough t he
abl e t act i cs of par t y chi ef s,
but t hey ar e r esol ved ever y day i nsof ar as t he
mor al i t y of t he wor ker s i ncr eases
.
The
ol d aut hor i t ar i an f or mul ae of st at e
soci al i smar e t emper ed because t he sent i ment of
sel f -gover nment i s devel oped
i n
t he masses ; i ndeed whoever says f eder al i sm
al so says l i ber al i sm, t he
l i mi t at i on
of aut hor i t y t hr ough publ i c opi ni on and t he
bal anci ng of power s . " 6
As Ver non
says, t he bel i ef syst ems t hat go t o make up
t hese sent i ment s of
sel f -gover nment
andt he i nst i t ut i ons out of whi ch t hey ar i se al so account f or
t he
soci al myt hs t hat devel op i n
t he soci et y. I n Sor el ' s vi ewt he gap bet ween t hi s
par ochi al i smand
what Fer nand Pel l out i er cal l ed t he "concr et e uni t y of t he
wor ki ng cl ass" 7 i s
br i dged when Mar xi sm i t sel f i s seen as a myt h
whose
pr edi ct i ons can nowbe saf el y i gnor ed
. That i s t o say Mar xi smbecomes i n-
t el l i gi bl e when we r eal i ze
t hat i t ar t i cul at es a psychol ogi cal r at her t han a
sci ent i f i c appr oach t o hi st or y. Fur t her mor e,
as l ong as we r egar d t he separ at i on
8 5
JOHNL. STANLEY
bet ween t hese t wo out l ooks
as met hodol ogi cal l y sound,
many of t he more
cont roversi al
aspect s of Sorel ' s t heory of soci al
myt h aremadereasonabl e.
Thus,
Sorel ' s underst andi ng
of t he soci al myt h as "secure
f romref ut at i on" -t hat i t
i s onl y "t he myt h as a whol e
t hat count s" -does not
mean some monst rous
f asci st l i e; i t means onl y t hat
any at t empt t o ref ut e or debunk
t he myt h
sci ent i f i cal l y i s as
mi sgui ded and f ut i l e as
Renan' s at t empt s t o expl ai n
away
earl y Chri st i an
eschat ol ogy by unmaski ng i t s
ori gi ns t o bel i evers . Thi s does
not
mean t he consequences of
t hat eschat ol ogy cannot be
j udged or t hat i t i s
i mpossi bl e t o eval uat e t he
resul t s of t he myt h of t he
general st ri ke -an
eval uat i on Sorel speci f i cal l y cal l s
f or ; i t means t hat such j udgement s
can onl y be
made ext ernal t o and af t er t hei r expressi ons
have been made and
t hat t hei r
ori gi ns
are i mpossi bl et o exami nesci ent i f i cal l y
;
t hey
remai n "myst eri ous . "
I n ot her
words Sorel separat es t he sci ent i f i c t heori st
f romt he i mmedi at e
pol i t i cal process
and argues f or a di vi si on of l abor
bet ween t heori st and act or
.
Thus, accordi ng
t o Vernon, Sorel i s mi srepresent ed
whenhe i s seen as si mpl y a
t heori st of "engagement , "
of t he superi ori t y of
act i ng over t hi nki ng or of
I
' vi ol ence" f or i t s
own sake. As Vernon sees i t , Sorel ,
i n denyi ng hol i st i c
knowl edge, i s argui ng t hat i t i s
t he t ask of t he t heori st qui t e l i t eral l y
t o ref l ect
on vi ol ence as an obj ect
of knowl edge. The t heori st i s pl aced
roughl y i n t he
same cat egory as
t he t heori st of Manchest er economi cs
vi s-a-vi s t he en-
t repreneur who, unconsci ous
of t he consequences of hi s
day-t o-day deci si ons,
i gnores t hef ormal cat egori es of
economi cs .
Si nce t hi s l i mi t at i on does not
mean unempl oyment f or t he t heori st ,
merel y
demot i on, i t i s
rat her curi ous f or Vernon t o
argue t hat , al t hough Sorel never
at t acked i t , t he
not i on of f al se consci ousness i s
"necessari l y rul ed out " i n hi s
syst em. e But Sorel
mount ed a conf essedl y Marxi an-st yl e
unmaski ng of t hef al se
consci ousness of t he
"i l l usi ons of progress . -9 Surel y
t he i dea of f al se con-
sci ousness,
appl i ed ret rospect i vel y t o cert ai n
concept s, does not vani sh
i n
Sorel ' s
f ramework; i t i s si mpl y conf i ned t o t he
ki nd of i deas t hat ari se f romt he
cont empl at i ve
st ance -bourgeoi s i deol ogi es
such as progress l ocat ed i n t he
rat i onal i st
t radi t i on t hat are amenabl e t o a
debunki ng process f romwhi ch t he
st rongl y
hel d myt hs of act i ng
revol ut i onari es are i mmune. Sorel
expl i ci t l y
sal vaged ( di rempt ed) t he
Marxi an concept of i deol ogi cal
unmaski ng -t he
met hodol ogi cal correl at e of
f al se consci ousness -f romMarx' s
ot her t enet s .
But t hi s obj ect i on hardl y
vi t i at es Prof essor Vernon' s t hesi s . On
t he cont rary,
as Vernon not es, t he
met hodol ogi cal ref ormwhi ch Sorel
at t empt s t o est abl i sh
has as i t s i nt ended
consequence t he rat her ef f ect i ve
unmaski ng of t he f al se
consci ousness of t he
Marxi st i nt el l ect ual s t hemsel ves .
Marxi st i deol ogy -
especi al l y t hat of t he
French and German soci al democrat i c
part i es of Sorel ' s
t i me
-
i s, among ot her
t hi ngs, an i deol ogy j ust i f yi ng t he
rul e of pet i t
bourgeoi s i nt el l ect ual s and decl asses
; i t i s l ess an i deol ogy of t he
workers t han a
def ense
f or t he rul e of t he
phi l osopher cl ass, t he uni versi t y cl ass
whose ut opi as
sl i de easi l y i nt oref orms
bol st eri ng t hepresent syst em.
86
SORELANDTHESOCI ALUNCERTAI NTY
PRI NCI PLE
Vernon s t at es t hi s i n a rat her i nt eres t i ng way: i n argui ng as he does f or a
phi l os ophi e des bras rat her t hana phi l os opbi edes t et es , Sorel real l y revers es t he
age- ol d not i on, adopt ed by phi l os ophers and pol i t i ci ans f romcl as s i cal t i mes ,
t hat t he end i s pre- es t abl i s hed byt he obj ect at whi ch t he act or ai ms ,
and t hat
t he operat i ons he perf orms f i gure s i mpl y as means by whi ch t he model
gui di ng
hi mi s gi ven mat eri al f orm. I ns pi red by Hannah Arendt ' s expos i t i on of
t hi s
probl em, Vernon s t at es t hat i n s uch a cas e, t he not i on of
maki ng
has been
s ubs t i t ut ed f or t hat of act i ng. The pol i t i cal part y or prof es s i onal revol ut i onary
s et s out t o make a revol ut i on as a carpent er woul d cons t ruct a chai r
. I n
bot h
cas es , a
cert ai n vi ol ence t o t he rawmat eri al s i s neces s ary, and t hi s vi ol ence i s
ef f ect uat ed by
a uni f i ed humanwi l l . I ns of ar as Sorel real i zes t he i nadequacy of
t he i dea of maki ng appl i ed t o a
revol ut i on he i s a cri t i c of vi ol ence, an enemyof
t he pre- Marxi an cul t of t hewi l l and of t he "engagement "
of phi l os ophers .
The di f f i cul t y, however, as Vernon real i zes , i s t hat Sorel does
not al ways
di s pens e wi t h t he model of maki ng becaus e s uch a model i ns pi res Sorel i n hi s
ownl i mi t ed vers i on of t he uni t y of t heory and pract i ce. Thi s l eads t o t he
mos t
probl emat i c as pect of Vernon' s t hes i s . Vernon cl ai ms t hat not
onl y
di d
Sorel
s eparat e t heory f rompract i ce, and hence rej ect Marx' s not i on t hat t he act of
unders t andi ng i s i dent i cal wi t h t he act of overt urni ng, but t hat Sorel had
"come t o t he concl us i on t hat Marx had qui t e wrongl y t reat ed cons ci ous nes s as
an
epi phenomenon. " For Vernon, Sorel was "not f ami l i ar wi t h t he doct ri ne of
t he ' uni t y of t heory and
pract i ce' i n i t s Marxi s t s ens e, or even wi t h t hos e of
Marx' s wri t i ngs f romwhi ch
t he not i on
can
be deri ved.
"'
But what
i s
t he "Marxi s t s ens e" of t he uni t y of t heory and pract i ce? At t hi s
poi nt i t i s neces s ary t o
di s t i ngui s h bet ween Sorel ' s i nt erpret at i on of Marx and
hi s accept ance or rej ect i on of
vari ous pos i t i ons t aken by Marx. I t hi nk i t f ai r t o
s ay t hat Sorel di d not vi ew
Marx as regardi ng cons ci ous nes s as a mere
epi phenomen - or at l eas t t hat he di d
not cons i s t ent l y i nt erpret Marx i n t hi s
way. Si nce he does adopt t he pos i t i on as cri bed
t o hi mby Prof es s or Vernon,
Sorel mus t
argue,
as
he does , t hat Marx' s "Hegel i an bi as es " l ed hi mt o l ook
f orward t o t he day when s oci al t rans f ormat i ons "wi l l res ul t hencef ort h f rom
i deol ogi cal
caus es
. "" I n a paper pres ent ed t o t he Soci et e f ranf ai s e de
phi l os ophi e i n 1902, Sorel cl as hed wi t h s ome of t he l umi nari es of French i n-
t el l ect ual
l i f e
on j us t t hi s poi nt . Sorel as s ert ed
t hat Marxi s ms ought a "t i ght
s ol i dari t y bet ween t heory
and pract i ce, " and ci t ed t he edi t or of t he French
edi t i on of t he Communi s t Mani f es t o, Charl es Andl er, t o t he ef f ect t hat t here i s
t rut h "onl y i n t he s ynt hes i s of t heory and pract i ce. "
, 2
I ndeed, El i e Hal evy,
es pous i ng t he more ol d- f as hi oned i nt erpret at i on of hi s t ori cal mat eri al i s mi n
whi ch t hought i s part of a s upers t ruct ure, accus ed Sorel of "a ki nd of t reas on"
t o Marxi s t t hought f or i mpl yi ng a reci proci t y of act i on bet weent heel ement s i n
ques t i onwhi ch Marx t hought i rreconci l abl e.
8
7
JOHNL. STANLEY
Theprobl emf or Sorel andf or Vernon i s t hat Marx was not cons i s t ent i n hi s
vi ews ont hef unct i on of t heory i n revol ut i ons . Vernonquot es Marxt o t heef f ect
t hat "phi l os ophy f i nds i t s mat eri al weapons
i n t he prol et ari at , andt he l at t er i t s
i nt el l ect ual weapons
i n phi l os ophy. "
But Sorel was
acut el y aware of t he am-
bi gui t y of Marx' s pos i t i ons i n t hi s res pect . Thus at onepoi nt he can
as s i mi l at e
Marx t o Pl at o' s phi l os opher ki ng, whi l e on t he ot her handhe repeat edl y
ex-
pres s ed hi s awarenes s t hat Marx, i n hi s cons t ant oppos i t i on t o ut opi ani s m, was
al s os ens i t i ve t o t he hazards of predi ct i ng t he f ut ure. Thus Sorel quot es Marx as
s ayi ng t hat t he met hodof expos i t i on di f f ers f romt he met hodof act i on.
I n f act i n our day ot her probl ems are encount ered wi t h regard t o t hi s
ques t i on. I n t he Economi c andPhi l os ophi cal Manus cri pt s s oci al i s mi s gi ven t he
f ormof a "crude communi s m" i n whi ch prol et ari ans are cons ci ous of
t hem-
s el ves onl y as members of a cert ai n cl as s andnot as emanci pat ed i ndi vi dual s -
andwhos econs ci ous nes s cannot bes ai d t o be as uni f i ed andas "t ot al " as t hat
of t he phi l os opher, Marx. Evencont emporary Marxi s t s are f ar f romagreement
as t o what cons t i t ut es t hi s uni t y; Vernonf i nds a roughparal l el bet ween Sorel ' s
debat e wi t h t he ort hodox Marxi s t s and t hat of t he s t ruct ural i s t s wi t h t he
phenomenol ogi s t s of our day. 1 3
The ques t i on remai ns as t o howSorel i nt egrat ed hi s unders t andi ng of Marx
wi t hhi s ownunders t andi ng of t heuni t y of t heory andpract i ce. Vernon i s aware
t hat , l i ke Marx, Sorel i mbues hi s own t heori es wi t h a doct ri ne bas ed on
"maki ng. "
He
not es t hat Sorel adopt ed a f ormof praxi s whenhe adopt ed t he
"Vi coi an" not i on t hat man knows what he makes . As Vernon s t at es i t ,
' `manual work" f or Sorel "repres ent ed what was
concret el y rat i onal i n human
s oci et y - t he ext ens i on of t he made at t he expens e of t he
gi ven, and t he
progres s i ve cons t ruct i on of an art i f i ci al andhencei nt el l i gi bl e mi l i eu . " 1 4 Sorel
regarded t hi s not i on as t he epi s t emol ogi cal bas i s of t he uni t y of t heory and
pract i ce and i t i s here t hat onef i nds acruci al l i nk wi t hMarxi s m. Sorel expres s ed
t he rel at i ons hi p bet ween t heory and pract i ce i n hi s col l oquy wi t h
Hal evy,
s ayi ng t hat he "unders t ood s uch a uni oni n t he s ens e t hat i s gi ven
t o i t i n t he
s o- cal l ed appl i ed s ci ences ; t hat i s t o s ay t hat t heory andpract i ce are appl i ed t o a
s i ngl e group of phenomena. The hi s t ori cal i nt erpret at i on of
Marx and Engel s
s houl d s erve t o cl ari f y t heworkers ' movement
whi chwi t hout i t woul d devel op
i n a purel y haphazard, empi ri cal way. They havet ri ed t o
j us t i f y t he movement
i n provi ng t hat i t can end and t hat t he prol et ari at
can accompl i s h t hi s
revol ut i onary mi s s i on
whi ch
was ,
i n t hei r vi ew, t he bas i s of al l prol et ari an
act i on. I t i s a mat t er of
cl ari f yi ng a s oci al act i vi t y, j us t as a phys i cal t heory
cl ari f i es ani ndus t ri al pract i ce. " 1 5
I ndeed, Sorel s ees s i mi l ari t i es i n t he ki nds of
t heory t hat are requi red of bot h t he
i ndus t ri al pract i t i oner and t he Marxi s t -
s yndi cal i s t . Jus t as s ci ence i s unabl et o predi ct
howas t eamengi newi l l devel op
a hundred years f rom
now
( t o us e
Sorel ' s exampl e) , f or Marxi s t s , "res earch
appl i es no l onger t o what s oci et y
wi l l be, but t o what t he prol et ari at can ac-
88
SOREL
ANDTHE
SOCI AL
UNCERTAI NTYPRI NCI PLE
compl i sh i n
t he pr esent cl ass st r uggl e.
" 16
I n bot h soci al sci ence and t echnol ogy,
as Sor el says t o
Hal evy
apr opos of
Mar xi sm,
" a t heor y f ounded
i n pr act i ce i s
essent i al l y a r ul e of pr udence
whi ch pr ovi des man t he means of knowi ng t he
danger s encount er ed i n hi s pat h. " Sor el t hi nks t hat
Mar x
want s t o
make
a
r evol ut i on i n whi ch " t he end i s nar r owl y det er mi ned by pr act i cal concer ns, "
andi n t hi s Sor el i s i n subst ant i al agr eement .
I ndeed, i n some Sor el i an wr i t i ngs t her e appear s t o be a r esembl ance not onl y
t o t he Mar xi an t heor y of pr act i ce but t o t he at t empt t o t r anscend al i enat i on, of
whi ch t he di vi si on of l abor bet ween phi l osopher and pr act i t i oner i s an
exampl e. As Sor el says, " t he ol d dual i smof mi nd and body, head and hand,
on whi ch t he ol d economy was based, i s t endi ng t o di sappear . . . . The i dea i s
bor n of act i on and
r et ur ns
t o
act i on under pai n of f ai l ur e f or t he act or . Al l t hat
woul d
r emai n i n
t he domai n of
pur e specul at i on and whi ch
i s
not t r ansl at ed
i nt o any pr act i cal r esul t seemed t o . . . r esul t i n t he i nt el l ect ual amput at i on of
man .
Subj ect t o t he
har sh
l awof
wor k, man
i s i ncapabl e
of f r eei ng hi msel f t o
l i ve as a pur e spi r i t . " ' 7
What i s not i n common wi t h Mar x however , and t he poi nt at
whi ch
Sor el
appear s t o us as bot h anachr oni st i c and st r i ki ngl y or i gi nal , i s Sor el ' s accept ance
of t hi s " har sh l awof wor k" and i t s di ssoci at i on f r oma hi st or i cal t el os . By
accept i ng t he pr esent i ndust r i al syst em, Sor el deni es t hat t he ki nd of al i enat i on
t hat
Mar x
descr i bed as
havi ng
exi st ed
i n hi s
day had
sur vi ved unt i l hi s own
t i me . But
i n
so
doi ng,
Sor el di d not ar gue t hat i t was possi bl e
t o at t ai n t he
t r anscendence of al i enat i on envi si oned by
Mar x. I n
Sor el ' s
wr i t i ngs, t he
al i enat ed i ndust r i al r el at i ons of
ear l y
capi t al i smhave been r epl aced by an
i ndust r i al syst emt hat has al r eady cr eat ed newdi mensi ons i n
human
cr eat i vi t y .
The ol d aut omat i smi s nowa t hi ng of t he
past
. But t hi s
syst emi s
t he r esul t of a
conver gence of many sci ent i f i c endeavor s whose pl ur al i t y cannot
be
t r an-
scended t hr ough t he Mar xi an f or mul a t hat " i n t he l ong r un t her e wi l l be onl y
one sci ence" - t he ki ndof pr edi ct i on t hat Sor el r epeat edl y i nsi st s i s i mpossi bl e
t o make.
Sor el r eal i zed t hat even among t he nat ur al sci ences t he pl ur al i t y of met hods
was such t hat a uni f i ed sci ence was i mpossi bl e t o f or esee . Unt i l about 1894,
Sor el t ook t he vi ew t hat machi nes ar e l i ke geomet r i c ver i f i cat i ons of change
wr ought upon mat t er . Af t er 1895, he r eal i zed t hat suchan anal ogy was vi t i at ed
by a f undament al er r or , t hat of assumi ng t hat sci ence i s appl i ed per f ect l y t o
nat ur e. He r eal i zed t hat t he wor l d cannot
be
t ur ned
i nt o
an i mmense
l abor at or y pr eci sel y because hi s uncer t ai nt y pr i nci pl e whi ch l i mi t s i n-
vest i gat i ons i n soci al mat t er s oper at es, al bei t i n a gener al and
ver y
di f f er ent
way, i n t he physi cal wor l d. The const r uct i on of l abor at or y model s, a means
whi ch l i nks maki ng and knowi ng, al so ef f ect s an i sol at i on of t he exper i ment
f r omt he wor l d.
89
JOHNL
. STANLEY
TheFeuer bachi an uni t y of nat ur e t hat
had f or Mar x been al i enat ed under
t he capi t al i s t s ys t em Sor el
r egar ded as f r agment ed bot h by t he
s ci ent i f i c
pr ocedur es t hems el ves and by t he
manuf act ur i ng pr oces s es t hat
pr oceeded
f r omt hem. I f t hi s hadnot been t he
cas e, Sor el woul dhavef ol l owed
Engel s i n
f or es eei ng t he
r epl acement of t he al l - encompas s i ng
wor l d of Lapl aci an phys i cs
wi t h an
equal l y al l - encompas s i ng s oci al i s t l abor at or y- wor ks hop
. But i ns t ead
Sor el endedby s epar at i ng
" ar t i f i ci al " and" nat ur al " nat ur e; t hat i s , he
madea
di s t i nct i on bet ween nat ur e
wr ought by men and nat ur e whi ch i s
l ef t un-
t ouched. I n t hi s ar t i f i ci al
mi l i eu
of
t he l abor at or y andwor ks hop, mat t er
cannot
avoi d bei ng al i enat ed f r om t he r es t of
nat ur e by homof aber or by t he
l abor at or y s ci ent i s t i n t he cr eat i on of hi s
meas ur ement s and cont r ol s ; f ur -
t her mor e, t he
i nves t i gat i on of phenomena of ar t i f i ci al
nat ur e cl ouds t he i n-
ves t i gat i ons of ot her
ki nds
of
phenomena.
' s
Ar t i f i ci al nat ur e r es embl es a
ki nd of di r empt i on whi chcannot be
as s i mi l at ed
back
i nt o t he mai n body of nat ur e.
I ndeed, as Ver non not es , Sor el
depi ct s t he
i nvent i on
of newdevi ces as a s on of war f ar e
bet ween t he t wo r eal ms : " t hemor e
s ci ent i f i c t hat
pr oduct i on becomes , t he bet t er we
under s t and t hat our des t i ny i s
t o l abor wi t hout a t r uce
and t hus t o anni hi l at e t he dr eams
of par adi s i acal
happi nes s t hat
t he ol d s oci al i s t s hadt aken as
l egi t i mat e ant i ci pat i ons .
" 19
Wi t h
t hi s pes s i mi s t i c
vi ewi n mi nd, i t i s s ur pr i s i ng t o
f i nd Ver non s ayi ng t hat
f or
Sor el " t he hi s t or y of
t echnol ogy, hi t her t o a s acr ed
t hr ead i n an ot her wi s e
pr of anehi s t or y, woul d
becomet hewhol eof hi s t or y.
" 2
Sur el y by ar gui ng t hat
" we wi l l never be abl e
compl et el y t o s ubj ect
phenomena t o mat hemat i cal
l aws , "
Sor el i s onl y af f i r mi ng what
Ver non has s ai dof hi mel s ewher e,
t hat i t i s
i mpos s i bl et o r educeal l of hi s t or y t o
amadet hi ng; t hat t he pr oces s
of maki ng
i t s el f
i s a di r empt i on f or whos e
r ui nat i on nat ur al nat ur e " never ceas es
wor ki ng
wi t h
a cr af t y s l ownes s .
" 21
I ndeed,
Sor el ' s over whel mi ng
dr ead of al mos t
i nevi t abl e decadence, t het r i umph
of our own nat ur al nat ur e, t he
i ncl i nat i on t o
pas s i vi t y ands l ot h, woul dpr ecl ude
any s ucht echnol ogi cal t ot al i t y
.
Si nce t hi s per pet ual ant agoni s m
bet ween ar t i f i ci al and
nat ur al nat ur e
r equi r es agonal s t r i vi ng agai ns t
nat ur al nat ur e, i ncl udi ng
our own s l ot h,
t hr ough an ever mor e ar dent
s el f - over comi ng, t he poet i c
s pi r i t , as Ver non
not es ,
and not Mar x' s r at i onal one,
becomes t he s ol vent of
pr axi s ; t hi s i s why
s oci al
poet r y i ncl udi ng t he s oci al poet r y
of t he gener al s t r i ke l ooms s o
l ar ge i n
Sor el ' s vi s i on
.
I t i s
poet r y t hat i s or i ent ed
t owar ds pr oj ect s f or t he f ut ur e
andas
s uchr epr es ent s
a r eal mof f r eedom; whi l e
r at i onal t hought , whet her
i n s ci ence
or phi l os ophy,
r epr es ent s acl os ed and
det er mi neds ys t em. Si nce pur e
s ci encei n
Sor el ' s
vi ew
i s
det er mi ni s t i c, t o r el y on i t i s
t o i nvi t e s t agnat i on
i n s ci ence as
wel l as i n s oci et y
. To excl ude t he poet i c
s pi r i t al t oget her f r om
s ci ent i f i c un-
der t aki ngs
woul d bet o l aps e i nt o t he
pas s i ve t er r ai n of nat ur al
nat ur e. Bei ng
" pur el y
i nt el l ect ual , s ci ent i f i c knowl edge
pr es ent s i t s el f t o us as
s omet hi ng
al i en t o
our per s on . . . . Weat t r i but e t o
i t a det er mi nant f or ce on
our wi l l and
wes ubmi t weakl y t o i t s t yr anny. "
22
90
SORELANDTHESOCI AL
UNCERTAI NTYPRI NCI PLE
Par adoxi cal l y
f or Sor el , t hi s det er mi ni smi s an adver sar y of sci ence
f or i t
al ways ends
i n af f i r mi ng t he power l essness of our cr eat i ve f or ces . Sor el
was
awar e of
Mar x' s di st i nct i on bet ween man and t he soci al ani mal s
wher ei n man
al one possesses
a pr econcei ved pl an pr i or t o bui l di ng somet hi ng
. The
Ber gsoni an depar t ur e
f r omMar x l i es i n Sor el ' s vi ewt hat such a pl an i t sel f does
not br eak t he ci r cl e of
det er mi ni sm. Thi s i s t he r eason t hat Sor el shar pl y
di st i ngui shes bet ween engi neer s who
f ol l ow sci ent i f i c r out i nes and i nvent or s
who do not . Sor el ar gues t hat t he i nvent i on of devi ces
pr ecedes r at her t han,
f ol l ows t he devel opment of sci ent i f i c t heor y . Fut ur e cr eat i ons of sci ence ar e
t he
pur vi ew of
pr act i cal men such as i nvent or s or ar t i st s who see i n t heor i es
onl y
i nst r ument s dest i ned t o est abl i sh cer t ai n
qual i t at i ve det er mi nat i ons t hat have
al r eady been const r uct ed t hr ough empi r i cal
i nvest i gat i ons . Such men never
r eason by appl yi ng sci ent i f i c t heor i es : "The ar chi t ect
combi nes al l hi s pi eces
bef or e
ver i f yi ng t hei r st abi l i t y ; t hi s ver i f i cat i on i s ver y usef ul
;
but i t
comes at
t he end as a cont r i but or y means of sci ence .
"z3
Hence t her e i s a bi t mor e t o Sor el ' s vi ewof i ndust r y t han
t he demand t hat
wor ker s mai nt ai n or der wi t h vi gor as Ver non put s i t . z
4
For i n or der t o cr eat e
somet hi ng i n sci ence or i n soci et y, one must br eak t he chai n of
det er mi ni smby
an act i on i nf or med by poet i c sent i ment s . As Sor el says
"poet i c f i ct i ons ar e
st r onger
t han sci ent i f i c ones . " They r epr esent "t he abi l i t y t o subst i t ut e an
i magi nar y
wor l d f or sci ent i f i c t r ut hs whi ch we popul at e wi t h pl ast i c cr eat i ons
and
whi ch we per cei ve wi t h much gr eat er cl ar i t y t han t he mat er i al wor l d. I t i s
t hese i dol s t hat penet r at e our wi l l and ar e t he si st er s of our soul
. " The
same
poet i c vi si on t hat
i nspi r es t he syndi cal i st bel i ever i n t he i nevi t abi l i t y of t he
gener al st r i ke, or assur es
t he Mar xi st t hat hi s cause i s cer t ai n t o t r i umph,
pr oduces
i n t he hear t of t he i nvent or t he mor al cer t i t ude of t he r i ght ness of hi s
t ask. "I f
man
l oses
somet hi ng of hi s conf i dence i n sci ent i f i c cer t i t ude, he l oses
much of hi s
mor al cer t i t ude at t he same t i me . " 25 Thi s cer t i t ude i s mor e poet i c
t hanr at i onal
.
Under such a syst em, "t he
r ul es of pr udence" t hat Sor el ment i ons become
t he r at i onal si de of
pr axi s, and as Ver non not es Mar x sees r at i onal t heor y as
goi ng f ar beyond such r ul es .
I ndeed i n hi s depar t ur e f r omr at i onal i smand hi s
i nser t i on of t he poet i c spi r i t
i n t he sci ent i f i c pr ocess i t sel f , Sor el i s among ot her
t hi ngs ar gui ng f or what Wi l l i amJ ames cal l ed a pr el i mi nar y f ai t h i n sci ence . I n
f act t her e ar e,
as Sor el hi msel f l at er came t o r eal i ze, consi der abl e af f i ni t i es be-
t ween Sor el ' s vi ew of t he poet i c spi r i t and Wi l l i amJ ames' s pr agmat i c vi ewof
r el i gi on. I t i s unf or t unat e t hat Ver non does not ment i on pr agmat i smbecause
much of hi s under st andi ng of Sor el i s si mi l ar t o Wi l l i amJ ames' s di st i nct i on be-
t ween "r el i gi ous pr opensi t i es" and t hei r "phi l osophi cal si gni f i cance . " What
J ames cal l s t he "exi st ent i al j udgement " of
r el i gi on as opposed t o our
"spi r i t ual j udgement " of i t s val ue
ar e cl ose t o Sor el ' s separ at i on of myt hi cal
f r omr et r ospect i ve knowl edge .
91
JOHNL. STANLEY
Sor el ar gued t hat t he s oci al myt h i s "an expr es s i on of t he
wi l l . " Si mi l ar l y,
f or James "bel i ef s ar e r ul es of act i on . . . . I f t her e wer e any par t of t hought t hat
made
no di f f er ence i n t hought ' s pr act i cal cons equences , t hen t hat par t woul d
be no pr oper el ement of t he t hought ' s
s i gni f i cance
.
To devel op a t hought ' s
meani ng we need t her ef or e onl y det er mi ne what conduct i t i s f i t t ed
t o
pr oduce.
"26
For James t he t r ut h i s what i s advant ageous
i nour or der of t hought , and t he
s ucces s of a doct r i ne i s mor e i mpor t ant t han i t s
i nner
coher ence .
For Sor el
whet her bel i ef s ar e bas ed onbad t heol ogy "i s much l es s
i mpor t ant t han t he
f act t hat t hey pos s es s t he poet i cal power of myt hs . "
27
For James t her e i s a
het er ogenei t y bet weent he ends r eal i zed and t he means gi ven. For Sor el "even
i f t he onl y r es ul t of t he
myt h
wer e
t o r ender t he s oci al i s t i dea mor e her oi c, i t
woul dont hat account al one be l ooked uponas
havi ng i ncal cul abl e val ue. "
28
Year s ago Ber t r and Rus s el l ar guedt hat Mar x' s vi ewof t he
uni t yof t heor yand
pr act i ce was es s ent i al l y pr agmat i c i n nat ur e. The mer i t of Ver non' s es s ay i s
t o
s how how Sor el ' s own pl ur al i s t i c under s t andi ng of knowl edge, an
un-
der s t andi ng t hat i s cl os e t o James ' s ,
di f f er s f r omMar x' s i dea of a uni f i ed
s ci ence. For t hi s r eas onal one, - even apar t f r omi t s
manys ugges t i ve i ns i ght s
t oo
numer ous t o ment i on her e - I woul d r ecommend Ver non' s expos i t i onof
Sor el ' s t heor y t o
al l s er i ous s chol ar s of moder n s oci al t hought . I n hi s es s ay,
Ver non has
hi t upon what i s per haps Sor el ' s mos t endur i ng cont r i but i on t o
moder n
s oci al s ci ence. The f i f t y pages of excer pt s f r omSor el ' s wr i t i ngs ar e
al l
excel l ent l y t r ans l at ed and
i ncl ude a compl et e t r ans l at i on of t he i mpor t ant
pr ef ace t o Pel l out i er ' s Hi s t oi r e as wel l as
l ar ge excer pt s f r ompr ef aces t o
Mer l i no' s For mer et es s ences du s oci al i s me and t o
hi s own 1905 edi t i on of
L' Aveni r s oci al i s t e des s yndi cat e.
Pol i t i cal Sci ence
Uni ver s i t yof Cal i f or ni a,
Ri ver s i de
SORELANDTHESOCI ALUNCERTAI NTYPRI NCI PLE
1 .

Geor ges
Sor el , Ref l exi ons sur l a vi ol ence, Pa r i s : Ma r cel Ri vi &e, 1 972, 8t h edn. or i gi na l l y
publ i shed i n 1 906 i n Mouvement Soci a l i st e; Le Syst eme h: : r t or i que deRena n, Geneva : Sl a t ki n
Repr i nt s,
1 975
or i gi na l l y publ i shed i n 1 904- 5. Al so a va i l a bl e i s Sor el ' s i nt r oduct i on t o Fer
na ndPel l out i er ' s Hi st oi r e des bour ses du t r a va i l , Pa r i s : Gor den &Br ea ch, 1 971 , whi ch Ver non
ha s t r a nsl a t ed.
2 .

LeSyst eme hi st or i que de Rena n, pp.
5- 6
.
3 .

I bi d. , p.
3 7.
Not es
4 .

Ri cha r dVer non,
Commi t ment a ndCha nge; Geor ges Sor el a ndt he i dea of r evol ut i on, essa y
a ndt r a nsl a t i ons, Buf f a l o a ndTor ont o: Uni ver si t y of Tor ont o Pr ess, 1 979, p. 42.
5 .

Ver non, Commi t ment , p. 52, compa r eLesyst emehi r t or i que, p. 8 .
6.

Sor el ,
"Les di ssensi ons de l a soci a l - democr a t i e a l l ema nde a pr opos des ecr i t s de M. Ber n-
st ei n, " La Revue Pol i t i que et Pa r l ement a i r e, J ul y, 1 900, p.
63 .
Sor el uses t he Engl i sh wor d
"sel f - gover nment . "
7 .

Sor el , " I nt r oduct i on t o Pel l out i er , "
t r a nsl a t edi n Ver non, Commi t ment , p. 1 09 .
8.

Ver non, Commi t ment , p.
1 5 .
9 .

Sor el , The I l l usi ons
of Pr ogr ess, Ber kel ey : Uni ver si t y of Ca l i f or ni a Pr ess, 1 969. See p. 1 52,
wher e Sor el st a t es t ha t "one of t he t a sks of cont empor a r y soci a l i smi s t o demol i sh t hi s
super st r uct ur e of convent i ona l l i es a nd t o dest r oy t he pr est i ge st i l l a ccor ded t o t he
' met a physi cs' of t he men who vul ga r i ze t he vul ga r i za t i on
of t he ei ght eent h cent ur y . Thi s i s
wha t I t r y t o do whenever possi bl e i n t hi s wor k . "
1 0 .

Ver non, Commi t ment , pp.
58
a nd 1 0.
1 1 .

J ohn L. St a nl ey, edi t or , Fr omGeor ges Sor el , NewYor k : Oxf or d, 1 976,
p.
241 .
1 2 .

Bul l et i n de l a Soci i t eFr a nf a i se de Phdoscphi e, Ma y 1 902, pp. 91 - 92 . Pa r t of Ha l evy' s
cr i t i que
of Sor el i s r epr i nt edi n The Er a of Tyr a nni es, NewYor k:
NewYor k Uni ver si t y Pr ess, 1 969.
1 3 .

Ver non, Commi t ment , p. 1 4.
1 4,

I bi d. , p . 21 .
1 5 .

Bul l et i n de l a Soci i t eFr onya i se de Phi l osophi e, p . 1 1 0 .
1 6.

See t he "Pr ef a ce" t o Ant oni o La br i ol a ' s Essa i s sur l a concept i on ma t i r i a l i st e de
Phi st oi r e,
Pa r i s : Gi a r d et Br i Ll r e, 1 897. Pa r t l y t r a nsl a t ed i n La br i ol a ' s Soci a l i sma nd Phi l osophy,
Chi ca go: Ker r , 1 91 1 , p . 1 84.
1 7 .

Sor el , "La va l eur soci a l e de f a r t , " Revue de met a physi que et de mor a l e, 1 901 .
1 8.

"Cr i t i que
de I ' Evol ut i onCr ca t t i ce, " Mouvement Soci a l i st e, 1 907, p. 482.
1 9 .

Fr omGeor ges Sor el , p. 3 69 n .
3 3 .
20.

Ver non, Commi t ment , p. 21 .
93
21
.

From
Georges Sorel , p. 290 .
JOHNL
. STANLEY
22.

Sorel , ' ` La sci ence et l a moral e, " Quest i ons de moral e,
Pari s
:
Al can, 1900, p.
7 .
23.

I bi d, p. 4.
24.

Vernon, Commi t ment , p. 57 .
25.

Sorel , "La sci ence et l a moral e, " pp. 7 and 2.
26.

Wi l l i amJames, The Vari et i es of Rel i gi ous Experi ence, NewYork: Ment or, 1958,
338- 39.
27 .

Sorel , Del ' Ut i l i t edupragmat arme, Pari s : Ri vi pre, 1928, p. 75, n.
28.

Ri f l exi onssurl avi ol ence,
5t hedn. p. 202.
pp. 22- 23,
Canadi anJ ournal of
Pol i t i cal andSoci al Theory/ Revue canadi enne de t heori e
pol i t i que et s oci al e, Vol 3, No. 3 ( Fal l / Aut omne, 1979) .
RECONSTRUCTINGTHETRADITIONS:
QUENTIN
SKINNER' S HISTORIANS' HISTORY
OF POLITICAL
THOUGHT
J . G. A. Pocock
Quent i n Ski nner,
The Foundat i ons of Modern Pol i t i cal Thought :
Vol ume
One, TheRenai s s ance; Vol ume Two, The Age
ofRef ormat i on,
Cambri dge Uni vers i t y Pres s , 1978, pp. xxi v
+305, vi +405, cl ot h
$29
. 50, paper $9 . 50each.
Thes e vol umes have been keenl y awai t ed, andwi l l
doubt l es s be t he occas i on
of a good deal of cont rovers y. The aut hor' s met hodol ogi cal wri t i ngs
( ci t ed at I,
286- 7) have madehi macent ral f i gure i n what
has been cal l ed "t he newhi s t ory
of pol i t i cal t hought ", and
t hough i t s houl d not be t oo readi l y i nf erred t hat he
has wri t t en t hi s l ong- range s t udy
of s everal cent uri es ( c . 1250- 1600) wi t h t he
i nt ent i on of exhi bi t i ng al l hi s
met hods i n pract i ce, i t i s cert ai n t o be read wi t h
an eye - not al ways f ri endl y -
t o s eei ngwhat t hes e have achi eved.
In t he pref ace Ski nner
des cri bes hi s approach t o t he s t udy of t ext s and s ays
t hat "i f i t were pract i s ed wi t h
s ucces s , i t mi ght begi n t o gi ve us a hi s t ory of
pol i t i cal t heory wi t h agenui nel y hi s t ori cal
charact er" ( I, xi ) . Ont he j acket t hi s
becomes : "The work as pi res , i n t hi s
s ens e, t o gi ve t he f i rs t genui nel y hi s t ori cal
account of t he pol i t i cal t hought
of t he peri od" : and, readers and revi ewers
bei ng what t hey are, we may s oonf i nd
ours el ves s uppos i ng t hat i t cl ai ms t o be
t he f i rs t genui nel y hi s t ori cal account
of t he hi s t ory of pol i t i cal t hought or
t heory ( t erms , by t he way, whi ch ought not
t o be us ed as i f t hey were i n-
t erchangeabl e) . Such a cl ai mwoul d
be greet ed wi t h i ndi gnat i on, and t here i s
probabl y goi ng t o be i ndi gnat i on
anyway; s o i t i s des i rabl e t o be as cl ear as
pos s i bl e i n unders t andi ng exact l y what Ski nner
i s cl ai mi ng. He cert ai nl y does
not as s ert t hat no one bef ore hi m
has wri t t en "genui nel y hi s t ori cal " hi s t ory of
pol i t i cal t hought . He i s s eeki ng t o
es t abl i s h, and t o pract i s e, a met hod whi ch
wi l l as s ure us t hat what we are get t i ng
i s hi s t ory of pol i t i cal t hought wri t t en i na
manner ri gorous l y conf i ned t o t he
di s ci pl i ne of hi s t ory; an as s urance whi ch
even t he
great hi s t ori ans ( Fi ggi s , Mai t l and, Wool f and
Las ki ) who preceded
hi mdi d not
al ways provi de. There are l egi t i mat e non- hi s t ori cal ,
and perhaps
t rans hi s t ori cal ,
approaches t o t he s t udy of pol i t i cal t hought ; but
t hes e caus e
95
J . G. A. POCOCK
conf usi on
when t hey i nt r ude t hemsel ves upon t he
wr i t i ng of hi st or y. Ski nner i s
cl ai mi ng t hat i t i s
necessar y, and possi bl e, t o del i mi t a
met hod whi ch wi l l
r equi r e t he hi st or i an t o wr i t e
hi st or y and t he non- hi st or i an t o
pr act i se hi s/ her
act i vi t y at a di st ance.
What i s i t t hat i s f r equent l y
unhi st or i cal about wor ks whi ch
cl ai m t o be
hi st or i es
of pol i t i cal t hought ? The answer depends
upon a car ef ul di st i nct i on
bet ween
what i s mer el y not hi st or i cal and what i s
f al sel y hi st or i cal . Ar eader -
l et us cal l
hi m/ her " pol i t i cal t heor i st " or " phi l osopher "
- may r ead a t ext
f r omt hepast and f i nd t hat
i t suggest s many t r ai ns of t hought
wor t hpur sui ng
as par t of t hedi sci pl i ne of
pol i t i cal t heor y or phi l osophy. To pur sue
t hemi s a
whol l y l egi t i mat e act i vi t y ; i t does not
i nval i dat e, and i s not i nval i dat ed by,
t he
hi st or i an' s
act i vi t y of seeki ng t o est abl i sh what
t r ai ns of t hought wer e
bei ng
pur sued - or what ot her
i nt el l ect ual or l i ngui st i c per f or mances
engaged i n -
by t heaut hor who wr ot et het ext , or by
per sons whor ead andr esponded
t o i t i n
hi s t i me or t her eaf t er . Shoul d t he hi st or i an
suggest t hat t he t hought s
whi ch
i nt er est t he
phi l osopher had no exi st encei n t he
aut hor ' s t i me, or even at any
moment
i n hi st or y pr ecedi ng t he phi l osopher ' s
own, t he l at t er may
l egi t i mat el y
r epl y ( 1) t hat he/ shei s r eadi ng t het ext at t hi s
moment and not at
any ot her
; ( 2) t hat he/ she i s usi ng i t as a st eppi ng- st one
t o t he t hi nki ng of
t hought s whi ch ( a) ar et he phi l osopher ' s
r at her t han t he aut hor ' s, ( b)
ar enot
i mmedi at el y dependent , f or t hei r t r ut h or
even t hei r meani ng, on t he con-
di t i ons obt ai ni ng at any hi st or i cal moment .
At t hi s st aget het heor i st or phi l osopher i s
mer el y t hi nki ng non- hi st or i cal l y,
i n t hesenset hat
he/ shei s usi ng t het ext f or pur poses and
i n ways whi chcan be
sat i sf act or i l y
di st i ngui shed f r omt hose of t he hi st or i an
. Ther e can be - and
t her e has been
- no obj ect i on t o t hi s . What cannot be
l egi t i mi sed, but i s f or
sever al r easons ver y
di f f i cul t t o avoi d, i s t hat he/ she shoul d
pr oceed as i f i n-
t er pr et at i ons of t he
t ext so const r uct ed coul d be made t he
f oundat i ons of
hi st or i cal i nt er pr et at i on
: as i f meani ngs di scover ed by
non- hi st or i cal means and
f or non- hi st or i cal
pur poses coul d be t r eat ed as meani ngs
bor ne by t het ext , or
i nt ended by i t s
aut hor , i n hi st or y; and as i f hi st or i es of
pol i t i cal t hought coul d
beconst r uct ed
i n t er ms of t hebei ng and becomi ng of
meani ngs and i nt ent i ons
so di scover ed.
Oncet hi s happens we pass f r om
non- hi st or y t o pseudo- hi st or y,
or at best t o t he
const r uct i on of i deal hi st or i es or hi st or i cal
myt hs . Howt hi s
happens was l at el y
shown by J ohn G. Gunnel l i n hi s
admi r abl e st udy of " t he
myt hof t hegr eat
t r adi t i on" ( Gunnel l , 1979) , t hough
i n t he end he was not
wi l l i ng t o ext r i cat e
hi msel f f r omt heact i vi t y hest udi ed.
" Hi st or y" const r uct ed
i n t hi s
way has no pl ace i n t hewr i t i ng of
hi st or i ans, but i t has a mar ked t en-
dency t o ar i se
when t heor i st s or phi l osopher s wr i t ehi st or y.
Ski nner and ot her s
havebeen
l abour i ng t o el i mi nat e suchpseudo- hi st or y
and haveconcl uded t hat
t he pr i me
necessi t y i s t o est abl i sh a met hod
of wr i t i ng hi st or y of
pol i t i cal
t hought whi ch shal l cont ai n no st at ement s
not const r uct ed and
exami ned by
96
QUENTI NSKI NNERANDHI STORY
hi st or i ans usi ng hi st or i cal means f or hi st or i cal
pur poses .
Ther e
must be a
separ at i on of f unct i ons
;
t he
t heor i st or
phi l osopher
must be asked t o accept
separ at e but equal st at us,
and abst ai n
f r om
t he pr act i ce of hi st or y i f he/ she i s
unwi l l i ng
t o accept i t s di sci pl i ne.
Wi t h t he hi st or i ci st phi l osopher or t heor i st , who want s t o di scl ai mt he di sci -
pl i ne of hi st or y wi t h one hand whi l e wr i t i ng pseudo- hi st or y wi t h t he ot her ,
t her e i s not hi ng t o be done - not hi ng, at
l east ,
t hat
has not been done
many
t i mes al r eady. Amor e subt l y
i nt r act abl e pr obl emar i ses, however - and I
suspect t hi s wi l l
soon be evi dent
i n
t he r esponses t o Ski nner ' s book - wi t h
t heor i st s and phi l osopher s
who, whi l e anxi ous t o avoi d t he per pet uat i on of
pseudo- hi st or y, ar e i nt ent upon usi ng t ext s f r omt he past f or l egi t i mat el y non-
hi st or i cal pur poses i n t he pr esent . Thi s i s t he pr obl emof i nf or mat i on. Such a
t heor i st t oo easi l y appear s as one who
al r eady
knows enough
hi st or y
f or hi s/ her
pur poses, and
i s
t hr own
i nt o conf usi on by t he weal t h of newi nf or mat i on whi ch
t he hi st or i an conveys unbi dden t o col l eagues i n ot her di sci pl i nes . Thi s appear s
bot h as i mpover i shi ng - because i t seems t o chal l enge,
by
r emovi ng t hem
f r omhi st or i cal r eal i t y, many f ami l i ar i nt er pr et at i ons whi ch t he
t heor i st has
gr own accust omed t o usi ng - and as embar r assi ngl y r i ch, because i t compel s
awar eness of many new meani ngs bor ne, and ef f ect s exer t ed, by t ext s i n
hi st or y, whi ch t he t heor i st has not hear d of bef or e and does not yet knowhow
t o expl oi t f or non- hi st or i cal
pur poses .
The
t heor i st
wi l l
nowbe t empt ed t o
condemn
such
i nf or mat i on
as t heor et i cal l y and ( however wr ongl y) hi st or i cal l y
" i nsi gni f i cant "
( Shkl ar ,
1978) , and i t i s t o be f ear ed t hat we shal l soon be
r eadi ng at t acks on Ski nner si mi l ar l y i nspi r ed. Thi s seems a pi t y, si nce t he
hi st or i ans' i nf or mat i on
was not i nt ended t o embar r ass t he t heor i st ; but i t i s an
aspect of r eal i t y, and t he t heor i st shoul d not st and aghast , compl ai ni ng of
bei ng t ol d t r ut hs whi ch he/ she does not knowhowt o use. Such pr obl ems i n
communi cat i on, however , ar e har d t o avoi d when a r i gor ous separ at i on i s made
bet ween t wo modes of enqui r y i nt o t he same f i el d. I t i s evi dence of our un-
der l yi ng hi st or i ci sm
t hat t he t heor i st shoul d be di smayed by bei ng i nf or med
t hat he/ she i s not a hi st or i an, af t er i nsi st i ng al l al ong t hat he/ she
i s
not
.
Meanwhi l e Ski nner , under at t ack f r om
t heor i st s and phi l osopher s who wi l l
accusehi mof excessi ve er udi t i on, must expect t o f ace t he scr ut i ny of hi s f el l ow
hi st or i ans, who wi l l need t o assur e t hemsel ves t hat he i s not i mpover i shi ng t he
compl ex r eal i t i es of hi st or y f or t he sake of t heor et i cal or phi l osophi cal cl ar i t y .
Her e t her e ar i se a new' set of pr obl ems, and t o i nvest i gat e t hese we must
consi der j ust what a r i gor ousl y hi st or i cal exegesi s must ent ai l and howSki nner
has car r i ed i t out .
I n t he same pr ef ace he t el l s us t hat t he met hod he advocat es " enabl es us t o
char act er i se
what t hei r aut hor s wer e
doi ng
i n wr i t i ng" t hese t ext s ( I , xi i i ) . The
hi st or y of pol i t i cal t hought i s hi st oi r e evenement i el l e; i t consi st s of act i ons
per f or med by i ndi vi dual s i n cont ext s whi ch
r ender t hem
i nt el l i gi bl e,
and a
97
J. G. A. POCOCK
' `genui nel y hi st or i cal " hi st or y
must concent r at e upon uncover i ng
t hese act i ons
as per f or med by
i ndi vi dual s . Typi cal l y, t he
i ndi vi dual whose act i on must be
st udi ed i s t he aut hor ,
t hough we may al so f i nd our sel ves
st udyi ng t he act i on of
some
i ndi vi dual i n r eadi ng,
under st andi ng ( or mi sunder st andi ng)
and
r espondi ng
t o t he aut hor ' s per f or mance.
I n ei t her case, however , our at t ent i on
wi l l be f ocussed
upon t hought as ( or i n) act i on
; and t he act of t he agent ' s
consci ousness whi ch we
desi r e t o under st and wi l l t ypi cal l y
( t hough not i n-
var i abl y) be an act of ut t er ance,
ar t i cul at i on, ver bal i sat i on
i n scr i pt or pr i nt .
The Put ney Debat es, when a
shor t hand- wr i t er happenedt o be
pr esent , pr ovi de
al most t he onl y case of a maj or
document of pol i t i cal t hought
not t he pr oduct
of
a consci ous act of l i t er ar y cr eat i on
on some aut hor ' s par t . Ther e i s
a r eal sense
i n
whi ch
" t he
hi st or y of pol i t i cal t hought " i s
comi ngt o be a convent i onal t er m
f or what i s
r eal l y a hi st or y of
i nt el l ect ual - ver bal - l i t er ar y- t ypogr aphi cal per -
f or mances .
The hi st or i an' s ai mi s
t o r ecover t he act i on ; whet her t he
act i on behi nd t he
t ext , or t he t ext as
act i on,
i s
a pr obl emi n her meneut i cal
and l i t er ar y t heor y;
and t he di vi si on bet ween hi st or i an
and t heor i st r ecur s when we see
t hat t he
t heor i st may ext r act meani ngs and i mpl i cat i ons
f r omt he t ext wi t hout needi ng
t o ask whet her t hese ever f or med par t
of t he act i ons of hi st or i cal
i ndi vi dual s .
The hi st or i an i s concer ned excl usi vel y
wi t h t hose i mpl i cat i ons whi ch
he/ she can
showwer e i nt ended or under st ood by
i ndi vi dual s at some poi nt or
ot her i n t he
hi st or y
bei ng st udi ed; and t hough t hese
i mpl i cat i ons may i n pr i nci pl e be as
numer ous
and di ver se as t hose whi ch t he
t heor i st , phi l osopher or cr i t i c ext r act s
f r omt he t ext , t hey
ar e not necessar i l y coi nci dent wi t h
t hem. The hi st or i an
must hol d t o t hi s
di st i nct i on as a ci t y t o i t s wal l s, because i t
i s t he onl y
saf eguar d agai nst t he
const r uct i on of hi st or i cal myt h, pseudo- hi st or y
and i deal
hi st or y. Even shoul dt he
hi st or i an engage i n t he const r uct i on of some
i deal t ype
of pol i t i cal t heor y as
havi ng hi st or i cal exi st ence, i t wi l l be
wi t h a vi ew t o
er ect i ng hypot heses
concer ni ng t he act i ons,
per f or mances and t hought s of
agent s i n hi st or y.
But act i ons
ar e per f or med i n cont ext s whi ch gi ve
t hemmeani ng; evi nement s
t ake pl ace
i n
moyenne
dur ee; and t he cont ext
whi ch gi ves meani ng t o an act of
pol i t i cal and
t heor et i cal ut t er ance may be def i ned
bot h as " pol i t i cal " and as
" l i ngui st i c" . Ski nner r ehear ses t he si t uat i on
wi t h whi ch hi s own and
ot her s'
wr i t i ngs
have f ami l i ar i sed st udent s : i t consi st s
( I , xi - xi i i ) of ( 1) an agent ,
( 2) a
pol i t i cal phenomenon on whi ch he
desi r es t o comment , ( 3)
an exi st i ng
st r uct ur e of l anguage whi ch const r ai ns
hi s capaci t y t o comment ,
( 4) hi s speech
act
or per f or mance whi ch may r esul t
i n modi f i cat i on of ( 2) or ( 3) or
bot h. The
hi st or y t o be wr i t t en
nowconsi st s of bot h i vi nement and moyenne
dur ee, bot h
par ol e
andl angue; of t he i nt el l ect ual and
ver bal act s of t heor i st s as
agent s, and
of
t he dur abl e l anguage- st r uct ur es ( or
par adi gms) wi t hi n
whi ch and upon
whi ch t hey ar e per f or med. I t
wi l l
be
not i ced t hat t hi s i s t o st r ess
t he l i ngui st i c
98
QUENTI NSKI NNERANDHI STORY
cont ext pr i or t o st r essi ng t he pol i t i cal or t he soci al .
" I t wi l l now be evi dent " , says Ski nner ( I , xi i i ) , " why I wi sh t o mai nt ai n
t hat , i f t he hi st or y of pol i t i cal t hought wer e t o be wr i t t en essent i al l y as a hi st or y
of
i deol ogi es, one out come mi ght be a cl ear er under st andi ng of t he l i nks
bet ween
t heor y and pr act i ce" . " Theor y" i s t o denot e under st andi ng of t he
l i ngui st i c cont ext wi t hi n whi ch an act i on must be speci f i ed
i f
i t i s t o be
per -
f or med; and t he agent as t heor i st f i nds
hi msel f
obl i ged
t o expl or e t he l anguage
i n whi ch he i s t o ver bal i se t he act i on whi ch as pr act i t i oner he desi r es
t o per -
f or m. But t he wor d " i deol ogy" i s commonl y empl oyed t o i nt i mat e some
r el at i on bet ween ( 1) concept ual and ver bal st r uct ur es and ( 2) soci al exper i ence
and r eal i t y vi ewed i n consi der abl e dept h and
compl exi t y . That does not seem
t o be qui t e how Ski nner i s usi ng i t her e.
The account whi ch he has j ust gi ven us
seems t o conf i ne i t t o ( 1) t he agent ,
( 2)
some act i on he desi r es
t o per f or m,
( 3)
t he l anguage or l anguages avai l abl e t o hi mi n whi ch t he act i on may be
ex-
pr essed ; and i f t hat i s i ndeed al l , t hen " i deol ogy"
may
be
a pol i t i cal but has
not become a cul t ur al or soci al r eal i t y, and i n f act connot es l i t t l e mor e
t han
" r het or i c" - t he empl oyment i n act i on of t he avai l abl e
r esour ces of
r ecogni sed publ i c speech . Ti me woul d be wast ed i n at t empt i ng t o
demonst r at e
t hat t hi s i s al l Ski nner t akes i t t o be; we know bet t er t han t hat . But we
can, I
t hi nk, def i ne - or per haps del i mi t - t he scope of t hi s book by sayi ng t hat i t i s
a
hi st or y of
howpubl i ci st s andt heor i st s expl or ed and expl oi t ed t he r esour ces of
l anguage avai l abl e t o t hem, but t hat i t does not concer n i t sel f ver y much wi t h
t he r easons why t hese l anguages, and not ot her s, wer e avai l abl e t o t hem.
Though Ski nner al l udes t o t he concept of ment al i t e ( I , xi i ) , he does not make
much at t empt t o depi ct ment al and ver bal st r uct ur es as exi st i ng f or a whol e
const el l at i on of soci al and cul t ur al r easons ; and one may suspect t hat hi s
concer n
wi t h
act i on as
t he cent r al hi st or i cal r eal i t y has l ed hi mt o conf i ne
hi msel f , at t i mes r at her r i gor ousl y, t o what named i ndi vi dual s di d wi t h t he
mor e
f or mal
vocabul ar i es avai l abl e t o
t hem- wi t h t he par ol e r at her t han t he
l angue . One mi ght say, i n ot her t er mi nol ogy, t hat hi s concer n i s wi t h t he ver b:
wi t h ver bumas f act umr at her t han as l ogos . ( The same, f or what i t i s wor t h,
mi ght be sai d of Hobbes, on whomSki nner wr ot e t he essays whi ch made hi m
an acknowl edged mast er . )
Al l
t hi s
can
be
ver y easi l y j ust i f i ed. Too much concer n wi t h l ogos, as we have
seen,
can l ead t o t he const r uct i on of i deal hi st or i es, i n whi ch t he pot ent i al i t i es
of
l anguage
ar e
expl or ed wi t hout r egar d t o t he act ual i t i es of hi st or y . And i f
Ski nner seems at t i mes t o be wr i t i ng wi t h Ockham' s r azor , sever el y r est r i ct i ng
t he number of l anguage- cont ext s i n whi ch i ndi vi dual s can be seen t o have
act ed, t hat ver y economy has per mi t t ed hi mt o mobi l i se and pr esent an
ast oni shi ng
number of i ndi vi dual s and
t hei r
per f or mances . Some t heor i st s
and
phi l osopher s, I have al r eady suggest ed, wi l l cer t ai nl y f i nd t he f or est t oo dense
f or t hei r met hods of sur vey ; and t hose hi st or i ans who wi l l on t he cont r ar y be
99
J. G. A
. POCOCK
awar e
of t he economi es and
aust er i t i es t hat have been pr act i sed
wi l l be wel l
advi sed t o
consi der t he book f or what i t
of f er s t hem: a dr ast i c r ear r angement ,
and at t he
same t i me an enr i chment , of
t he accept ed par adi gms used
i n
pr esent i ng t he subj ect . New
t r adi t i ons ar e pr esent ed, and
our own t r adi t i ons
ar e
al t er ed.
Vol ume I : The Renai ssance i s
a st udy of pol i t i cal
humani sm, especi al l y i n i t s
r epubl i can f or m. St ar t i ng as f ar back as
t he l at e t wel f t h and t hi r t eent h
cen-
t ur i es, i t t r aces t he gr owt h of an i deal of
l i ber t y, wher eby I t al i an ci t y r epubl i cs
af f i r med,
f i r st , t hei r pol i t i cal aut onomy as
agai nst t he Empi r e and sub-
sequent l y t he
Papacy; second, t hei r i nt er nal
char act er as communi t i es of i n-
di vi dual s l i vi ng t oget her
i n ci t i zenshi p, whi ch t hey
af f i r med par t l y as a means
of asser t i ng t he aut onomy t hey
desi r ed and par t l y as an i deal
desi r abl e f or i t s
own sake. Thi s l i ber t as, t he
r e- af f i r mat i on of a cl assi cal i deal , i s one of t he
t wo
modes
i n whi ch "l i ber t y" has been asser t ed
t hr oughout t he ear l y moder n
per i od -
t he ot her bei ng t he l egal , mor al and
economi c l i ber t y of t he i n-
di vi dual as agai nst t he encr oachment s
of power ( Hext er , 1979, pp. 293- 303) -
and i t s asser t i on we t ake t o be one of
"t he f oundat i ons of moder n
pol i t i cal
t hought " . Ski nner , however , i s not
pr i mar i l y concer ned t o expl i cat e
hi s t i t l e, or
t o
expoundi n det ai l wher ei n i t i s t hat
"moder n" di f f er s f r om"medi eval " or
f r om"anci ent " . Thi s i s i n many ways no
badt hi ng . To er ect a compl ex model
of "medi eval pol i t i cal
t hought ", i s al most i nescapabl y t o
wr i t e t he ki nd of
i deal hi st or y whi ch, as we
have seen, phi l osopher s t endt o
demandbut Ski nner
i s det er mi ned t o
avoi d; and we have enough knowl edge
by now of t he
di st or t i ons and f anat i ci sms
whi ch can ar i se when "moder ni t y"
i s t r eat ed as
i t sel f a hi st or i cal cat egor y.
Yet t her e t he wor di s i n hi s t i t l e, andwe
ar e ent i t l ed
t o ask what use i s t o bemade
of i t . Hi s answer wi l l emer ge i n due
t i me, andhas
l i t t l e t o do wi t h t he shapi ng of
hi s f i r st chapt er s or even hi s f i r st
vol ume. What
may be sai d at t hi s
st age, however , i s t hat Ski nner gi ves
an essent i al l y si mpl e
account of t he
"i deol ogy" wi t h whi ch t he I t al i an ci t i es
had t o cont end: i t was
t he cl ai mof some
Bol ognese j ur i st s t hat t he
Emper or possessed mer umi m-
per i umover
t he r egnumI t al i cum( I , 4- 8) . The
suggest i on, dear t o so many
hi st or i ans f r om
Bur ckhar dt t o Bar on, t hat t her e was a
pr e- exi st i ng cosmos of
medi eval
i deas about uni ver sal aut hor i t y,
r egnumand sacer dot i um, f r om
whi ch
t he
r epubl i cs hadt o br eak f r ee, i s not
r ender ed muchf ur t her expl i ci t .
Ther e i s
no pr edet er mi ned r equi r ement t hat t he
hi st or y of pol i t i cal i deas,
mer el y because
t hey ar e capabl e of macr ocosmi c
ext ensi on, must be shown
t aki ng pl ace i n a
cont ext of macr ocosmi c change. But
i t mi ght on t he ot her
handbe
ar gued, f i r st , t hat t he cont ext i n whi ch a
l i ngui st i c act i on t akes pl ace i s
not
i nher ent l y l i mi t ed t o t hat whi ch i s necessar y
t o make i t i nt el l i gi bl e as an
QUENTI NSKI NNERAND
HI STORY
act i on
;
secondl y, t hat
t he way i n whi ch
we
have seen Ski nner usi ng t he wor d
"i deol ogy" i s
a l i t t l e i ncl i ned t o suggest t hat i t i s so l i mi t ed. One of t he
char act er i st i cs t hat l eads me t o descr i be t hi s as a ver y "Cambr i dge" book i s i t s
det er mi nat i on t o oper at e f r omphenomena, not f r ommodel s . Ski nner does not
begi n by er ect i ng a macr ocosmt o showwhat t hought was l i ke when i t was
"medi eval " and not yet "moder n", or t o gener al i se about t he concept ual
condi t i ons under whi ch r epubl i can i deol ogy was r equi r ed t o devel op -as i s
done,
f or
exampl e,
i n
t he
f i r st
t hr ee chapt er s of
The Machi avel l i an Moment .
He est abl i shes a r el at i vel y
si mpl e
and mi cr ocosmi c "moment ",
i n whi ch
t he
"i deol ogi cal " need was t o r ebut t he Emper or ' s cl ai m ( and af t er hi mt he
Pope' s) t o i mper i umi n I t al y, and pr oceeds t o expl or e t he ways i n whi ch t hi s
r ebut t al was made and t o consi der t hei r consequences . He nowpur sues modes
of t hought i n act i on, and t hei r exi st ence has consequences whi ch soon br i ng
hi mt o escape f r omt he i ni t i al cont ext . The l at t er , i t i s t r ue, does not
expl ai n
ei t her t he exi st ence or t he consequences of t he l anguages of t hought i n whi ch
i t s needs wer e met ; and t her e may be a pr i ce t o be pai d f or Ski nner ' s deci si on t o
use mi cr oscope
f i r st
and t el escope second.
For
t he pr esent ,
however ,
we ar e
consi der i ng hi s r het or i c, t he st r at egy of exposi t i on whi ch he has chosen i n or der
t o mobi l i se hi s mat er i al .
The cl ai ms of t he r epubl i cs wer e put f or war d i n t wo l anguages : t he one
r het or i cal , t he ot her schol ast i c and j ur i st i c . Though not new-Ski nner i s
f ol l owi ng Kr i st el l er ( 1961) , Gar i n ( 1965) , Bar on ( 1966) and ot her s -t hi s i s i n
many ways t he cent r al and cr uci al asser t i on of t he whol e book. I t needs t o be
st r essed t hat t he r het or i cal and schol ast i c modes of "pol i t i cal t hought " di f f er
i n r egar d t o t hei r l i ngui st i c, even mor e t han of t hei r concept ual , st r uct ur e. The
mer e pr esence of r het or i c ensur es t hat "t he hi st or y of pol i t i cal t hought " t ends
t o become a "hi st or y of pol i t i cal speech" ; t he r het or i ci ans wer e not mer el y
sayi ng di f f er ent t hi ngs f r omt he schol ast i cs, or sayi ng t hemi n a di f f er ent way,
but cl ai mi ng t o modi f y, and act ual l y modi f yi ng by t hei r pr esence, t he r ol e of
speech i n pol i t i cal l i f e . Not al l r het or i ci ans wer e r epubl i cans, but ever y r epubl i c
needed t o advance t he cl ai ms of r het or i c . Long bef or e t he gr eat humani st s of
t he quat t r ocent o,
Boncompagno
da Si ena, J ohn of Vi t er bo and Br unet t o Lat i ni
( al l
f i gur es
of t he t hi r t eent h cent ur y) wer e decl ar i ng t hat vi r t ues must be ac-
t ual i sed i n
act i ons and expr essed
i n
speech, and t hat t he r epubl i c or
communi t y
of ci t i zens
was
t he onl y pol i t i cal f or mi n whi ch
speech, act i on and vi r t ue wer e
possi bl e.
Ci cer o was t he mast er anci ent of t he r het or i ci ans ; Ar i st ot l e of t he schol ast i cs ;
J ust i ni an ( per haps) of t he j ur i st s . I n expoundi ng t he second, or schol ast i c-
j ur i st , mode of r epubl i can asser t i on, Ski nner st r esses howt he t hi r t eent h-
cent ur y r evi val of pol l s val ues i n t he cour se of t he r enai ssance of Ar i st ot el i an
st udi es j oi ned f or ces, on t he one hand, wi t h t he af f i r mat i on of Roman ci vi c
act i on bei ng car r i ed out by t he r het or i ci ans and, ont he ot her , assi st ed t he j ur i st
J. G. A
. POCOCK
Bar t ol us of Saxof er r at o
( i n t he spel l i ng he pr ef er s) i n decl ar i ng t hat a r epubl i c
mi ght cl ai mde f act o t o
exer ci se t he i mper i umot her wi se bel ongi ng t o t he
Emper or , and so t o be . ci bi pr i nceps.
The i deol ogi cal st r at egi es of t he f our t eent h
cent ur y ensur ed
t hat when t he schol ast i c Mar si gl i o of
Padua af f i r med a si mi l ar
doct r i ne, he was ar gui ng
f or t he i ndependence of muni ci pal
aut hor i t y f r om
papal cont r ol , and so usi ng a r epubl i can
ar gument t o t he t empor ar y
pr of i t of
t he Emper or . The r epubl i c whi ch was
. ci bi pr i nceps and t he ki ng who was
i mper at or i n
r egno r uo, however , wer e t o be t he ul t i mat e
benef i ci ar i es of t hi s
r evi val of a l ocal secul ar
aut onomy; or r at her , what t he
r epubl i cs of t he
Renai ssance began t he ki ngs of t he
Age of Ref or mat i on cont i nued, and
what
ki ngs began
mi l i t ant Pr ot est ant associ at i ons wer e
t o cont i nue i n cl ai mi ng t o
r esi st even
ki ngs t hemsel ves . Thi s st or y has been t ol d
bef or e, but Ski nner i s t o
t el l i t i n newl anguage
and wi t h newi nsi ght s .
We have nowbef or e us t he
i mage of a r epubl i can i deol ogy par t
r het or i cal
and par t j ur i st i c, i nt er act i ng wi t h
an ant i - papal i deol ogy par t j ur i st i c
and par t
schol ast i c
. I t i s f r omt he l at t er t hat
Ski nner i s t o dr awt he mai n connect i ng
t hr ead
of hi s ent i r e pat t er n ; t he concept
of a " r adi cal schol ast i ci sm" ,
or i gi nat i ng i n t he vi a moder naof
Wi l l i amof Ockham, car r i ed on by Mar si gho
of Padua, conci l i ar i st s such as Jean
Ger son and Sor bonne t heor i st s such as
John
Mai r and Jacques
Al mai n, t o t he ul t i mat e benef i t of Lut her ans,
Cal vi ni st s,
Angl i cans and monar chomachs .
Bef or e we pur sue t hi s pat t er n,
however , we
must consi der t hat Vol ume
I
i s
pr i nci pal l y concer ned wi t h an I t al i an
r epubl i can
ci vi c humani smwhi ch was r het or i cal
r at her t han schol ast i c, Ci cer oni an
and
St oi c r at her
t han Ar i st ot el i an . I t i s at t hi s poi nt t hat we
have moved deci si vel y
away
f r omt he t r adi t i onal or gani sat i on of t he
hi st or y of pol i t i cal t hought as a
hi st or y of
pol i t i cal phi l osophi es ; f or r het or i c,
t hough i t may convey many
messages
per t ai ni ng t o t heor y and phi l osophy, i s by
i t s nat ur e di st i nct f r om
ei t her . We
must r eal i se, al so, t hat t he subj ect - mat t er
of r het or i cal l y- based
pol i t i cal t hought i s
f r equent l y sui gener i c, and r emot e
f r omt he j ur i st i c and
schol ast i c pat t er n of
i deas so easy t o associ at e wi t h
f or mal phi l osophy. The
r het or i ci an' s
concer n was wi t h mor al i t y and st yl e,
wi t h vi r t ue as speech i n
act i on ; what he
t ook up f r omt he t r adi t i ons of t he
pol i s, t her ef or e, was t he i dea
of vi r t ue as
expr essed i n ci vi c act i ons and i n t he
r el at i onshi ps obt ai ni ng bet ween
ci t i zens .
Hi s i deal Roman, Ci cer o, was an or at or
and not a j ur i st , and t he gr eat
t r adi t i on of i deas about i us and
i mper i um- - t he t r ue l egacy of Rome
i n
pol i t i cal t hought - he l ef t l ar gel y
i n t he hands of t he j ur i st and
hi s al l y t he
schol ast i c . Thi s gr eat di vi si on i n t he
Lat i n l egacy per si st ed i n bot h
medi eval and
neo- cl assi ci st t hi nki ng, and a
consequence i s t hat r epubl i can
humani sm, wi t h
i t s st r ess upon vi r t ue, cor r upt i on
and l i ber t y i n t he sense of
par t i ci pat i on, i s
concept ual l y and l i ngui st i cal l y
di scont i nuous wi t h t he j ur i st i cal l y- based
modes
of t hought and speech
whi ch
st r ess
r i ght , aut hor i t y and l i ber t y
i n t he sense of
i mmuni t y. Fr ancesco
Gui cci ar di ni was a doct or of l aws, but
one woul d har dl y
102
QUENTI NSKI NNERAND
HI STORY
guess i t f romhi s wri t i ngs on ci t i zenshi p
andact i on.
Ski nner seems t o produce onl y
one t heori st at home i n bot h t he republ i can
andt he
j uri st i c vocabul ari es : Mari o Sal amoni o ( I , 148- 52; 11, 131- 34) , a Roman
pat ri ci an wi t h Fl orent i ne pol i t i cal experi ence. He shows t hat rhet ori cal and
schol ast i c ( Ci ceroni an and Bart ol i st ) modes of republ i can expressi on ran
paral l el , but not t hat t hey converged; he i s not anxi ous ( 1, 149)
t o t ake up t he
possi bi l i t y t hat Savonarol a
used an apocal ypt i c vocabul ary t o l i nk ci t i zenshi p
wi t h grace. He i s, however,
abl e t o expl oi t t hi s di chot omy so as t o cl ari f y i n a
most val uabl e manner
our underst andi ng of t he European response t o
Machi avel l i .
Ant i - Machi avel l i sm, i t t urns out , was pri nci pal l y a schol ast i c
creat i on,
t he work of I t al i an and Spani sh Domi ni cans and especi al l y Spani sh
J esui t s ( t he Huguenot ant i - Machi avel l i smof I nnocent
Gent i l l et was a mi nor
af f ai r, l ocal andchauvi ni st i c) . Readi ng
Machi avel l i i n a schol ast i c cont ext , t hey
were abl e t o at t ri but e t o hi m
a syst emat i cal l y normat i ve doct ri ne of ragi one di
. rt at o whi ch he had never cal l ed by t hat name, andwhi ch
exi st ed more t o be
at t acked t han t o be adopt ed ( I , 248- 51) ; and t he
J esui t revi vers of Thomi sm
were abl e t o bracket a "Machi avel l i an" heresy t hat domi ni on
was f oundedi n
necessi t y wi t h an "Ockhami st " and "Lut heran"
heresy t hat i t was f oundedi n
t he di rect commandof God ( I I ,
143,
171- 2) .
I t cannot be cal l ed i l l egi t i mat e t o
read Machi avel l i i n a schol ast i c cont ext ,
andyet we have t o recal l t hat he had
never
addressed hi msel f t o t hat cont ext or used t he words at t ri but ed t o hi m
when hi s speech was t ransl at ed i nt o t hat vocabul ary. The schol ast i cs,
af t er
al l ,
were heresy- hunt ers and i nqui si t ors, and t he essence of t he i nqui si t or' s
art i s
showi ng t hat you meant what you di d not i nt end, and
must have i nt ended
what you di d not say. I n t he school of Leo St rauss t he
domi ni canes have f ound
t hei r modern successors ; but t hey are not t he onl y
st udent s of
pol i t i cal
t hought
t o proceed by t reat i ng as phi l osophy t hat whi ch
was never spoken as such . I t i s
hardf or even t he most resol ut e t o avoi d t hi s .
There
i s a
vi t al l y
i mport ant di f f erence bet ween t he rhet ori cal and t he
j uri st i c
modes of at t ri but i ng
l i bert y and aut onomy t o t he l ocal communi t y. The one
i s
republ i can; t he ot her
i s bet t er descri bed as popul i st . The one assert s t he moral
cent ral i t y
of t he rel at i ons among ci t i zens, and
i s concerned wi t h vi rt ue,
equal i t y, part i ci pat i on
and t hei r corrupt i ons . The ot her empl oys t he compl ex
vocabul ary of Roman l aw
t o el aborat e t he i dea t hat t he popul ss i s capabl e of
generat i ng i mperi umand
conf erri ng i t upon pri nces andmagi st rat es : t hat t he
peopl e are under
God t he ori gi n of al l j ust power . But t he
cl assi cal republ i c
does not rest upon a grant of i mperi um,
and t he l ex regi a set s up pri nci pat es
and monarchi es rat her t han
republ i cs . We have consequent l y a very l ong
j ourney t o make, t hrough modes of t hought essent i al l y
magi st eri al and
monarchi c
-
i n
whi ch t he popul ar ori gi n of power ei t her does or
does not
modi f y t he i mperi umof
t he rul er - bef ore we reach t he era of Rousseau and
Madi son, when t he concept s of
republ i can andrepresent at i ve government l ay
10
3
J. G. A. POCOCK
so cl ose t oget her
t hat i t was necessar y t o cl ar i f y
t hei r r el at i onshi p ; andi n much
of t hat j our ney t he cl assi cal r epubl i c pl ays
no vi si bl e r ol e what ever .
Per haps t hi s i s whyJ . H. Bur ns f ound
The Machi avel l i an Moment "an oddl y
unconvi nci ng
book" ( Bur ns, 1977) andJ . H. Hext er
was t r oubl ed by i t s r ef usal
t o
expl or e t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t wo
concept s of l i ber t y ( Hext er , 1979) .
I n
t he
l i ght of Ski nner ' s par adi gm-t he
dual i t y of t he r het or i cal -r epubl i can
and
t he
schol ast i c-j ur i st i c modes -i t can be seen as
a t unnel hi st or y, a mi ni ng
of
t he r epubl i can seam
f r omMachi avel l i t o Madi son
whi ch opens up no l at er al
gal l er i es i nt o t he
al t er nat i ve mode . I f so, i t s r el at i on
t o The Foundat i ons of
Moder n Pol i t i cal Thought i s
compl ement ar y ; f or Ski nner ' s second
vol ume i s a
t unnel dr i ven t hr ough t he schol ast i c
and popul i st seamt o
appr oxi mat el y t he
year 1600. But because he st eadf ast l y
r ef uses t o set f oot i n t he
sevent eent h
cent ur y,
he does not r each t he poi nt wher e t he seams
begi n agai n t o conver ge
and
r epubl i can i deas ar e t aken up out si de I t al y
( Fi nk, 1945
;
Robbi ns, 1959 ;
Vent ur i ,
1971) ; and hi s account of t he r epubl i can
t r adi t i on ends wi t h i t
suspended
l i ke Mahomet ' s cof f i n. A chapt er
headed "The Sur vi val of
Republ i can Val ues"
concl udes wi t h a sect i on headed "The
Endof Republ i can
Li ber t y" . We hear of Paol o Par ut a
( I , 142) but not of Paol o Sar pi ; of
Tr ai ano
Boccal i ni
( 1, 168, 188-9) but not of Sci pi one
Ammi r at o or Vi r gi l i o Mal vezzi ;
t her e i s, i n shor t , l ess
about Venet i an t hi nki ng ( Bouwsma,
1968) , or Taci t ean
( Levy, 1967 ; Schel l hase,
1976; McKenzi e, 1979) , t han t her e woul d
have been
had Ski nner chosen t o
car r y hi s st or y past 1600. Thi s undoubt edl y
does
somet hi ng t o t he bal ance of t he book
andt he oper at i on of i t s par adi gm; t o see
what , we
must expl or e Vol ume I I : The Age of t he
Ref or mat i on.
The i nvest i gat i on of humani st
t hought out si de t he i deol ogy of
ci t y
r epubl i cani sm( whi ch never
became f ul l y est abl i shed i n Ant wer p,
Nur embur g
or Ber ne) i s act ual l y
cont ai ned i n t he l ast t hr ee chapt er s of Vol ume
I , headed
"The Nor t her n
Renai ssance" . Her e a cl assi cal r het or i c of
publ i c mor al i t y, wi t h
Er asmus r at her t han
Pet r ar ch ( or Machi avel l i ) as i t s r ul i ng spi r i t ,
i s seen maki ng
i t s way on r oyal and
i mper i al gr ound. I nst ead of I l Pr i nci pe
andt he Di al ogo del
Reggi ment o
di Fi r enze, we have The Book Named
t he Gover nor and t he
Di al ogue of
Counsel ; i nst ead of t r eat i ses on t he vi ver e
ci vi l e and i t s vi r t u, we
have l i t er at ur e
desi gned t o t each a newcogni t i on of val ues
t o pr i nces and t he
cour t i er s and
cl er i cs who desi r e t o be t hei r
counsel l or s . The counsel l or i s
obedi ent t o est abl i shed
and Chr i st i an aut hor i t y, and we
expect t o hear l ess
about t he mor al
ambi gui t i es of act i on; onl y as t he t heor i st of
r agi one di st at o
does Machi avel l i
f i nd much pl ace i n t he wor l d of
t he ki ngs . But nor t her n
humani smi s
not wi t hout i t s cr i t i cal and subver si ve
possi bi l i t i es . Ragi one di
st at o i s
di scussed( 1, 248-255 ; 11, 171-3) :
Mont ai gne t hi nks st oi c obedi ence, and
104
QUENTI NSKI NNERAND
HI STORY
Bodi n accept ance of t he
sover ei gn, t he onl y r emedy t o t he power of For t une ( I I ,
278- 9, 292- 3) . Ther e i s t he
wi t her i ng phi l ol ogi cal anal ysi s of Roman l aw, i n
whi ch l egal humani sm( Kel l ey, 1970)
succeeds i n al t er i ng t he whol e per cept i on
of l aw' s pl ace i n soci et y andhi st or y ( I , 201- 08) .
The ant i - schol ast i ci smand ant i -
monast i ci smof t he Er asmi ans l ays an egg f or Lut her t o hat ch
. Fi nal l y, t he
vocabul ar y of nor t her n humani sm, even at i t s most convent i onal , seems
vast l y
t o enhance
t he counsel l or ' s capaci t y t o r ecogni se, ver bal i se and per haps act
upon t he pr ocesses
t aki ng pl ace i n cour t , chur ch and soci et y. Though ci t i zen
and counsel l or seemver y
di f f er ent t hi ngs, Ar t hur B. Fer guson can use ( and
Ski nner ci t e) t he t i t l e The Ar t i cul at e Ci t i zen
andt he Engl i sh Renai ssance; and
Vol ume I concl udes wi t h a st udy of t he desper at el y
r adi cal Ut opi a of t he deepl y
conser vat i ve Mor e.
But i nf act nor t her n humani smpl ays onl y anauxi l i ar y r ol e i n t he
i nt er pl ay of
pol i t i cal vocabul ar i es whi ch makes up t he t r ue subj ect of t hi s book
. Vol ume I I
has f or pl ot t he i mpact of Ref or mat i on upona wor l d of
schol ast i cs and j ur i st s .
Her e we must become especi al l y awar e of t he ex- I . - - - e economy
whi ch Ski nner
di spl ays i n sel ect i ng t he cont ext s i n whi ch t he event s of
hi s hi st or y ar e t o t ake
pl ace
.
The expansi on of t he i dea of counsel occur r ed i n a uni ver se of
exi st i ng
i deas
about ki ngshi p and l aw, r egnumet sacer dot i um, and we
mi ght
expect
t o
f i nd some gener al
exposi t i on of t he vocabul ar y of l at e medi eval monar chy,
desi gned t o t el l us what cont ext s nor t her n
humani smhad t o penet r at e and
modi f y. Yet on t he whol e Ski nner avoi ds
doi ng t hi s . Per haps he wi shed - and
we mi ght sympat hi se - t o avoi d t he i deal hi st or y
l i kel y t o ar i se f r omany
conf r ont at i on of "medi eval " and "moder n"
.
But
i n Fr ance, Engl and, Ger -
many, Spai n, Geneva and Scot l and - hi s
hor i zon
does
not ext end east t o
Pol and or Hungar y - t he humani smof counsel
encount er ed power f ul and
i di osyncr at i c nat i onal and r egi onal
soci et i es, possessi ng i nst i t ut i ons and
speaki ng l anguages of t hei r own; and t hi s i s a
poi nt at whi ch Ski nner ' s con-
cept i on of "i deol ogy"
mi ght
have been
deepened and cl ar i f i ed. I f he had
expl or ed t hese r egi onal t r adi t i ons, he
mi ght have suppl i ed a hi st or i cal
geogr aphy of
pol i t i cal t hought , showi ng why i t devel opedi n di f f er ent ways and
t ook shape i n some r egi ons and not i n ot her s ; but on t he whol e he has not
pur suedt hi s oppor t uni t y. The cour se of event s i n t he si xt eent h cent ur y obl i ges
hi mt o spend so much t i me i n Fr ance t hat humani st s and l egi st s ar e t o be seen
debat i ng t hei r ki ngdom' s st r uct ur e and i t s hi st or y ( I I , 259- 75, 309- 18) ; t he
schol ast i c J ohn Mai r wr i t es a Hi st or y of Gr eat er Br i t ai n; andwe hear
somet hi ng
of t he hi st or i ogr aphy of t he Angl i can Chur ch est abl i shed by Bal e and Foxe
( I I ,
489, 99- 100, 107- 8) . Yet i t comes as somet hi ng of a shock t o r eal i se t hat Si r
J ohn For t escue appear s onl y ( I I , 54- 6) as one who used t he i di osyncr asy of
Engl i sh cust omar y l awt o suggest t hat
ci vi l and canon l awhad no pl ace i n t hat
r eal m. That he was t he aut hor of a doct r i ne of ki ngshi p r egal e et pol i t i cum, of
cr uci al i mpor t ance i n al l El i zabet han and St uar t const i t ut i onal debat e, i s never
ment i oned at al l .
105
J . G. A. POCOCK
Wemust
under stand, however , the del i ber ate auster i ty wi th
whi ch these
vol umes, f or al l thei r r i chness of
detai l , ar epl anned. Thei r sustai ned
i ntenti on
i s to di sti ngui sh
between the r hetor i cal , schol asti c
and j ur i sti c tr adi ti ons of
pol i ti cal thought, and
to study thei nter acti ons between
them. Thesetr adi ti ons
wer e
hel d i n common by al l of Lati n
Chr i stendom, a cul tur al ar ea
i n whi ch
humani sts, schol asti cs, ci vi l i ans -
and soon wemust add Pr otestant
and
Counter -Ref or mati on i deol ogues -
consti tuted a ser i es of f r eel y ci r cul ati ng
i ntel l ectual
communi ti es. I t has ther ef or ebeen possi bl e
to pl an thi s bookon a
"Eur opean " scal e,
sel ecti ng "Lati n" r ather than
"nati onal " contexts i n whi ch
thepr i nci pal styl es of
thought may beshown i n acti on
. Shoul d wei nsi st upon
thethesi s that thi s was an age
i n whi ch theuni ver seof Lati n
Chr i stendombr oke
apar t to f or ma di ver si ty of
nati on-states, weshoul d mer el y be
aski ng f or a
hi stor y
of pol i ti cal thought wr i tten upon an
al ter nati vepatter n. Ski nner has
not
set out
to map and expl or e the
cul tur al di ver si ty of ear l y-moder n
pol i ti cal
thought i n
al l i ts r i chness of textur e, so much as
to per suadeus to r evi sethe
par adi gms whi ch have
been gover ni ng our under standi ng
of i ts hi stor y . Hi s
enter pr i sei s hi ghl y
pr ogr ammati c, and i s conducted by means
of an extr emel y
r i gor ous sel ecti on of texts
and contexts. Theweal th of detai l
cannot bl i nd us to
thi s, or al ter thef act
that thenoti on of "i deol ogy" i s at
ti mes heavi l y attr acted
towar ds thenoti onof
"par adi gm" .
Vol umeI I : TheAgeof Ref or mati on di spl ays Ski nner at
the hei ght of hi s
power s, or gani si ng amost
compl ex pi ctur ewi thmaster l y
ski l l . I ts chosen theme
i s
ther el ati on between Luther ani sm
and Cal vi ni smon theone
hand, and on
theother that
"r adi cal schol asti ci sm" whi ch was
menti oned ear l i er and now
emer ges as the
gui di ng thr ead that Ski nner uses
to or gani sethehi stor y of
ear l y
moder n pol i ti cal
thought . Thi s i s a l ar gecl ai mand -
though Fi ggi s, Laski and
other s ar e
acknowl edged as pr edecessor s ( I I ,
123n) -a di stur bi ng i nnovati on
i n theestabl i shed
wi sdom; ther est of thebook and
ther est of thi s essay wi l l be
devoted to
vi ndi cati ng i t . Wher ethevi a anti qua
of Thomas Aqui nas uphel d
the
har mony between natur al r eason and
God' s wi l l , thevi a moder natr aceabl e
f r omDuns
Scotus thr ough Wi l l i amof
Ockham, and hi s conci l i ar i st and
Sor bonni st successor s, deni ed thecapaci ty
of human r eason to or gani se
i tsel f to
a l evel
wher er eal i ty and mor al i ty
coul d appear as anythi ng except
the i m-
penetr abl e wi l l and command of
God. I n pol i ti cal ter ms, thi s
meant that
communi ty and author i ty,
whi ch appear ed i n the vi a
anti qua as thenatur al
outcomeof r i ght r eason, needi ng
nodi vi neacti on to br i ng them
i nto exi stence,
seemed to thoseupon thevi a
moder na thenecessar y consequences
of human
si n, enj oi ned upon men by
di vi necommand whi ch the
l i mi tati ons of thei r
bei ng l ef t themi ncapabl eof
f ul l y compr ehendi ng. Ci vi l
author i ty was r ooted
i n necessi ty and was ther ef or e
par tl y myster i ous; and thedi r ect
command of
God
whi ch establ i shed i t had been
gi venonl y onceand had not been
r ei ter ated
i n thecaseof eccl esi asti cal
author i ty . TheChur ch was ther ef or e
excl uded f r om
106
QUENTI NSKI NNERANDHI STORY
c i vi l aut hor i t y and c onf i ned t o s pi r i t ual f unc t i ons , whi l e s ec ul ar pr i nc es and
magi s t r at es ac qui r ed s ome par t of t he di vi ne aut hor i t y di s pl ayed by j udges and
ki ngs i n I s r ael . I n t er ms of Hel l eni c pol i t i c al phi l os ophy, t he vi a moder na was a
l i t t l e l es s Ar i s t ot el i an t han i t was St oi c , s i nc e t he l at t er s c hool hadt ended t o
f i nd t he or i gi ns of
pol i t i c al
s oc i et y
i n di s c over ed nec es s i t y r at her t han i nnat e
r at i onal i t y .
Oc khami s t and nomi nal i s t t hi nki ng pl ayed i t s par t
i n pr epar i ng t he s pi r i t ual
c r i s i s whi c h c onvi nc ed Lut her t hat onl y f ai t h i n God' s unbi dden gr ac e c oul d
c onnec t t he bel i ever t o hi s s al vat i on; andf r omt hi s c r i s i s Lut her emer ged wi t h
t he c onvi c t i on t hat t he aut hor i t y of t he c i vi l magi s t r at e was di r ec t l y or dai nedby
God as a means t o
t he puni s hment of human s i n, s o t hat event he t yr annous
r ul er
mi ght i n
no
c i r c ums t anc es
be r es i s t ed
or di s obeyed. But c onc i l i ar i s t s of t he
vi a moder na -s uc h as J ean Ger s on, whos e t eac hi ng was c ar r i ed on at Par i s by
Mai r and Al mai n -whi l e c onc ur r i ng i n t he vi ew t hat c i vi l s oc i et y, s i nc e i t
c oul d not be t he c r eat i on of nat ur al r eas on, mus t have ar i s en as a c ons equenc e
of s i n, haddevel oped a vi ewof i t s or i gi n f ar mor e s ec ul ar , ant hr opoc ent r i c and
evenpopul i s t . I n or der t o c ont r ol evi l -doer s , t he peopl e hadi nc or por at ed i t s el f
as a c ommuni t y andc onf er r edi mper i umont he magi s t r at e; andwher e Thomas
Aqui nas hel d t hat i n s o doi ng i t had es t abl i s hed an aut hor i t y of a ki nd not
pr evi ous l y exi s t i ng and s o c oul d not bi nd t he magi s t r at e i n i t s exer c i s e, t he
r adi c al s c hol as t i c s af f i r med t hat t he peopl e c oul d gi ve not hi ng whi c h was not i n
i t al r eady, ands o r et ai nedaut hor i t y over t he magi s t r at e whomi t c r eat ed. What
t he r adi c al s had af f i r med of t he Chur c h i n t hei r at t empt t o r ender t he Pope
s ubj ec t t o c onc i l i ar aut hor i t y, t hey di d not hes i t at e t o r e-af f i r mof c i vi l s oc i et y ;
but what t he s ec ul ar r ul er l os t by f i ndi ng hi ms el f t he peopl e' s c r eat ur e was at
f i r s t mor e t han made up by f i ndi ng hi ms el f wi el di ng an aut hor i t y whi c h God
had not c onf er r ed on Pope or bi s hop . The advent of Pr ot es t ant i s m, however ,
was t o s et hi mnewpr obl ems .
I t i s t he popul i s t c omponent i n r adi c al s c hol as t i c t hought whi c h Ski nner
c ont ends was t he means of c onver t i ng t he Pr ot es t ant bel i ef i n non-r es i s t anc e
i nt o an i deol ogy of r evol ut i on. Whent he Lut her ans of Ger many ( l ong bef or e
t her e wer e any Cal vi ni s t s t o j oi nt he debat e) r el uc t ant l y made up t hei r mi nds t o
j us t i f y r es i s t i ng t he Emper or , t hey got ar ound t he Paul i ne i nj unc t i on t o obey
t he hi gher power s or dai ned of God by poi nt i ng out t hat power was i n f ac t
di s t r i but ed wi del y and di ver s el y among men, s o t hat one magi s t r at e mi ght
per haps r es i s t anot her who was behavi ng unj us t l y . Ther e wer e t wo di r ec t i ons
whi c h t hi s ar gument c oul d t ake. One, f avour ed by a gr oup of j ur i s t s ar ound
Phi l i p of Hes s e ( I I , 195-96) , was s i mpl y Bar t ol i s t ; i t s ought means of s howi ng
how t he i nf er i or magi s t r at e mi ght be s ai d t o hol d an i mper i um not i m-
medi at el y dependent
on t he
Emper or .
Not even
among
t he
out s poken
r es i s t ant s of Nur ember g do we s eemt o f i nd Ger manr epubl i c ans who hel d t hat
t hei r c i t y was s i bi pr i nc eps ; but t hr ough t he door mar ked " i nf er i or magi s t r at e"
107
J. G. A
. POCOCK
a l l ki nds of const i t ut i ona l i smcoul d ent er i nt o
Pr ot est a nt r esi st a nce t heor y. Not
onl y Roma nl a w
( I I , 124- 28) but f euda l a ndcust oma r y l a wof ma ny
va r i et i es ( I I ,
129- 30) coul d be empl oyed i n def ence
of t he r i ght s of i nf er i or ma gi st r a t es,
t hough si nce t he Engl i sh "a nci ent
const i t ut i on" does not i n f a ct exempl i f y t he
uni on of const i t ut i ona l i smwi t h r esi st a nce t heor y,
I ma y be per mi t t ed t o sound
a wa r ni ng a ga i nst
i t s ment i on i n t hi s cont ext ( Ski nner i s ca ut i ous
i n doi ng so;
I I ,
311) . I n Fr a nce,
wher e t he ki ng' s a ut hor i t y wa s a ni ma t edl y
di scussed i n
r el a t i on t o bot h Roma n a nd cust oma r y
l a w, a nd neo- Ba r t ol i st j ur i spr udence
t ended t o ma ke hi mi mper a t or i n r egno suo whi l e
denyi ng i mper i umt o i n-
f er i or
ma gi st r a t es, const i t ut i ona l i sm, l ega l huma ni sma nd
Huguenot r esi st a nce
t heor y ent er ed upon a
memor a bl y compl ex deba t e ( Chur ch,
1941 ; De
Ca pr a r i i s, 1950; Kel l ey,
1970) . Thi s i s t he cont ext i n whi ch Ski nner set s
uphi s
ma i n a na l ysi s of Bodi n ( I I ,
284- 301) .
But t he pr escr i pt i ve a nd hi st or i ca l sea r ch
a f t er t he or i gi ns of ma gi st er i a l
a ut hor i t y woul d not of i t sel f gi ve r i se t o a ny t heor y
of popul i sm. I t wa s a gr oup
of Sa xon j ur i st s
( 11,
197- 99)
i n t he f i r st Lut her a n deba t e a bout
t he j ust i f i ca t i on
of r esi st a nce
who pr opounded wha t Ski nner descr i bes a s
t he "pr i va t e l a w"
t hesi s . Thi s cont a i ned
t he expl osi ve i mpl i ca t i on t ha t shoul d a
ma gi st r a t e
beha ve
unj ust l y, he mi ght be r esi st ed a nd
sl a i n
by
a pr i va t e i ndi vi dua l of no
ma gi st er i a l a ut hor i t y a t a l l , si nce he ha d
f or f ei t ed t i t l e t o be t r ea t ed a s a nyt hi ng
mor e t ha n
such a n i ndi vi dua l hi msel f . Her e wa s t he ger m
of a l l f ut ur e deba t e
a bout
di ssol ut i on of gover nment , st a t e of na t ur e
a nd soci a l cont r a ct ; but
Ski nner woul d ha ve us l ook t o t he pr evi ous hi st or y
of r a di ca l schol a st i c t hought .
The i mpl i ca t i on
t ha t ci vi l soci et y coul d be r educed t o t he
r el a t i ons obt a i ni ng
bet ween i ndi vi dua l s bef or e
t he const i t ut i on of a ut hor i t y wa s r ea di l y
i nt el l i gi bl e
i n t er ms of t he per cept i on
- mor e St oi c t ha n Ar i st ot el i a n, mor e
Ockha mi st
t ha nThomi st - t ha t i t ha d a r i sen
when i ndi vi dua l s i ncor por a t ed
t hemsel ves a s
a peopl e i n r esponse t o t he
necessi t i es of exi st ence; a nd i t pr esent ed
t he pr ocess
wher eby "t he power s t ha t be
a r e or da i ned of God" a s one i n whi ch t he
peopl e
t ook pa r t a t t he f ounda t i on of
ci vi l soci et y. Lut her a n a nd Ca l vi ni st
t heor i st s of
r esi st a nce di spl a yed a ver y
under st a nda bl e r el uct a nce i n
a dopt i ng t hi s
a r gument r a t her
t ha n t he mor e conser va t i ve a l t er na t i ve
a dva nced by t he
Hessi a ns ; but a s i t
ma de i t s wa y i nt o a ccept ed speech,
bot h t he a ut hor i t y of
i nf er i or ma gi st r a t es, a nd
t he hi st or i c or i gi ns of i nst i t ut i ons
whi ch t he new
const i t ut i ona l
a nt i qua r i a ns wer e seeki ng out , coul d i ncr ea si ngl y
be pr esent ed a s
ena ct ed by popul a r
el ect i on. We begi n t o see why
Hot ma n' s Fr a ncoga l l i a i s a n
essa y i n popul i st hi st or y,
whi l e a n Engl i sh pa negyr i c upon
t he i mmemor i a l
a nt i qui t y of cust omi s not .
As t he Hessi a n
a nd Sa xon modes of a r gument
mer ge, t he a dvoca cy of
r esi st a nce pa sses
f r omLut her a n t o Ca l vi ni st ha nds .
Ca l vi n' s t heor y of ephor s -
whi ch he
a cqui r ed f r omCi cer o, Mel a ncht hon a nd
Zwi ngl i ( I I , 231- 32) - i s one
move i n t he
pa t t er n, si nce ephor s a r e not mer e
i nf er i or ma gi st r a t es, but
108
QUENTINSKINNERANDHISTORY
popul ar es magi st r at us whose r i ght of r esi st ance maybe r et ai ned byt he popul ar
assembl i es, or assembl i es
of est at es, i n whi ch t hey wer e el ect ed . Ski nner ,
however , i s
emphat i c t hat t her e i s not hi ng par t i cul ar l y or i gi nal about t he i deas
put f or war d by t he Cal vi ni st s ; at best , t hey
wer e onl y compl et i ng what t he
Ockhami st s and Lut her ans had begun bef or e t hem
. The near est we come t o a
di st i nct i vel y Cal vi ni st cont r i but i on i s i n t he doct r i ne of
covenant , wher eby a
peopl e under t ake wi t h God t hat t hey wi l l mai nt ai n t r ue r el i gi on and t he
st r uct ur e of
magi st r acy t hat i t i mpl i es ( II, 236- 38) . But , says Ski nner , a
covenant maybe t he sour ce of a
dut y
t o r esi st
( chapt er
7,
at l ar ge) ; i t can never
be t he sour ce of a r i ght t o do so, and our pr obl em i s t o t r ace
t he pr ocess
wher eby not onl y r esi st ance, but t he r evol ut i onar y r econst i t ut i on of
gover n-
ment , became a r i ght est abl i shed i n t he peopl e at t he ver y f oundat i on of ci vi l
soci et y. To under st and
t hi s ( whi ch i s t he busi ness of hi s ni nt h and l ast chapt er )
we must under st and howt he not i ons of
magi st r acy, l aw, hi st or y and covenant
i t sel f came t o be per vaded bypopul i st doct r i nes
of soci al or i gi n whi chwer e i n
ever ycase of
r adi cal - schol ast i c f oundat i on. The pr ocess i s compl et ed byMor nay
( t aken at
1 1 ,
305,
n.
3, t o be
t he aut hor of t he Def ence of Li ber t y agai nst
Tyr ant s) i n whoma
compl ex
pat t er n of
bot hcovenant s and cont r act s becomes
t he subst ance
of a doct r i ne whi ch appear s t o gr ound t he whol e st r uct ur e of
aut hor i t y
i n ci vi l soci et y upon a ser i es of act s of i nst i t ut i on byt he peopl e ( II,
325- 37) . Fr omMor naywe l ook ahead t o
Locke, char act er i sed ( f ol l owi ng Dunn,
1 969) as aut hor of "t he cl assi cal t ext of r adi cal
Cal vi ni st pol i t i cs" ( II,
239) -
a
j udgment whi ch must r ai se pr obl ems f or t hose concer ned
wi t h hi s
pl ace
i n a
Whi g cont ext .
Par t of Ski nner ' s i nt ent i on i n advanci ng t hi s
i nt er pr et at i on i s t o cal l i n
quest i on "t he sor t of Weber i an anal ysi s of
Cal vi ni sm
as
a r evol ut i onar y
i deol ogywhi chhas r ecent l y come t o be so wi del yaccept ed"
( II, 322- 23)
.
Ther e
coul d be no bet t er i l l ust r at i on of t he gap whi chexi st s bet ween
Ski nner ' s own
use of "i deol ogy" at
I,
xi i i , and t he sense
i n whi ch
he uses
i t her e . Weber
( 1 958) , Tawney ( 1 929) , Hi l l ( 1 964) , Wal zer ( 1 966) and Geor ge
( 1 961 ) al l
pr oceeded by asser t i ng t he exi st ence of a Cal vi ni st or Pur i t an ment al i t e, ex-
pl ai ni ng i t as "i deol ogy" on Mar xi st or Weber i an pr emi ses,
and pr esent i ng i t
as a pl ausi bl e sour ce of t he pol i t i cal i deas pr opounded byt hose sai d
t o possess
i t . For Ski nner , wi t h hi s f i er cel y exact eye f or pol i t i cal t hought as evenement ,
t hi s i s unnecessar y. To speak
of
"i deol ogy"
i s t o asser t no mor e t han t he
pr esence of a pol i t i cal at t or
who
needs
t o say somet hi ng, and of a var i et y of
l anguages avai l abl e t o hi mi n whi ch t hi ngs may be sai d. And t hi s means not
onl y t hat Ski nner ' s met hodol ogy i s as Ockhami st as hi s hi st or y, and t hat he i s
t el l i ng us t hat ment al i t es
and i deol ogi es non r unt mul t i pl i canda pr aet er
necessi t at em; i t means al so t hat t he pur sui t of l anguages i s not t he same en-
t er pr i se as t he pur sui t of ment al i t i s, and mayl ead t o t he di scover yi n hi st or i cal
r eal i t y of i mpor t ant and oper at i ve modes of t hought and speech whi char e not
1 09
J. G. A. POCOCK
coi nci dent wi t h what i s of t en meant by "i deol ogi es " . We
may di s mi s s f rom
cons i derat i on t hos e who regard
i t as a moral and i deol ogi cal of f ence t hat one i s
not engaged i n t he purs ui t of i deol ogy
( As hcraf t ,
1975 ;
Wood, 1976) ; but i t i s
not cont es t ed t hat a ment al i t i may be es t abl i s hed as a
hi s t ori cal real i t y and an
act of pol i t i cal s peech
s hown t o be part of i t s conf i gurat i on . We may
t hen s et
about j uxt apos i ng t hi s way of
l ooki ng at t he act wi t h Ski nner' s ; but he
wi l l
i ns i s t on t he aut onomy of hi s approach, and
perhaps of t he ot her as wel l .
Ski nner has ret urned t o t he pos i t i on of Fi ggi s ( 1923) , who hel d
t hat t here was
a hi gh road "f romGers on t o Grot i us ", and of Las ki ( 1936) and
Oakl ey ( 1962)
who hel d t hat t here was
anot her "f rom( t he Counci l of ) Cons t ance t o
( t he
Revol ut i on of ) 1688"
( I I ,
123,
n . 1) . Not Thomas Aqui nas ( t o s ay not hi ng of
t he Devi l ) but Wi l l i amof Ockhamwas
t he f i rs t Whi g. There i s a s uperb
chapt er . on "The Revi val of Thomi s m", whi ch
demons t rat es t hat t he
res t orat i on of
t he nat ural - l awt heory of s oci et y was a maj es t i c act of
i nt el l ect ual
react i on by Spani s hJes ui t s ,
des i rous i n t he name of t he Count er- Ref ormat i on
of ref ut i ng Ockham, Lut her,
Machi avel l i and Eras mus i n a s i ngl e aut o daraxon
( even Sepul veda, i t t urns out ,
was rej ect ed l es s becaus e he deni ed t he humani t y
of t he I ndi ans t han becaus e he s eemed t o s ugges t
t hat domi ni on mi ght be
f ounded
i n
grace ;
11, 168) . James I and t he Angl i cans were wrong i n s uppos i ng
t hat Jes ui t s and Puri t ans
were al l i ed agai ns t t hem; Mari ana' s j us t i f i cat i on
of
res i s t ance i s aborrowi ng
of conci l i ari s t i deas ot herwi s e repudi at ed ( I I , 346- 47) .
An i mport ant s t ep
i n
t he
devel opment of a t heory of res i s t ance as a
ri ght
i s
s ai d t o have been t he adopt i on f romGers on of
t he doct ri ne of s ubj ect i ve ri ght
( 11, 116- 117) . l ur or ri ght coul d i nhere onl y i n t he i ndi vi dual ,
who exerci s ed i t
as an unl i mi t ed pot es t as over a t hi ng, s o t hat i t coul d not pos s i bl y
f ormt he
bas i s
of a rul er' s i mperi umover ares publ i ca. Here i s t he ori gi n of
al l propert y
t heory and pos s es s i ve i ndi vi dual i s m, but we obs erve ( I I ,
328- 29) t hat i t di d not
s t em
f romt he need t o vi ndi cat e t he pri vat e owners hi p of goods s o
much as
f romt he need of a f ormal def i ni t i on of t he rol e of i mperi um; t he
i ndi vi dual
mus t be propri et or i f he was t o ret ai n pos s es s i on of t he
ri ght s whi ch he
del egat ed t o t he magi s t rat e . At t hi s poi nt t he s t udent
t rai ned i n cont emporary
neo- Ari s t ot el i ani s mmay det ect t hat cruci al t rans i t i on
f rom"cl as s i c nat ural
l aw" t o "modern nat ural ri ght " whi ch he has
been
t aught
t o cons i der t he key
t o t he hi s t oryof pol i t i cal phi l os ophy; and he may not e t hat
vi aant i quaand vi a
modernawere oppos ed i n t he s i xt eent h cent ury over
t hi s very ques t i on. But a
doct ri ne deri ved f romt he vi a moderna
cannot have been f ounded by t hos e
f i endi s h "moderns " and "t eachers of
evi l " , Machi avel l i and Hobbes - even
t hough Hobbes had much t o do wi t h i t s
l at er growt h, i t t ook a s chol as t i c
t rai ni ng t o make one s uppos e t hat
Machi avel l i ever heard of i t . Vi a moderna
was as s chol as t i c as vi a ant i qua, and as
anci ent ; bot h ori gi nat ed i n t he
t hi r-
t eent h- cent ury revi val of Ari s t ot l e, and
i t was t he l at t er whi ch had t o be revi ved
at t he Counci l of Trent . The
di f f erence bet ween t hem, f urt hermore, was
t hat
QUENTI N
SKI NNERAND
HI STORY
t he "anci ent " hel d Greek phi l osophy t o be i n accord wi t h Chri st i an revel at i on,
whereas t he "modern" di d not ; and i t f ol l ows t hat f or bot h t he hi st ori cal
moment separat i ng "ant i qui t y" and "moderni t y" was t hat of Chri st ' s i n-
carnat i on, when t he Ol d Lawhad come t o an end ( I I , 150) . The vi a moderna,
l i ke t he devot i o moderna, hel d t hat f ai t h had deci si vel y superseded
phi l osophy; and t he t went i et h- cent ury l egendof t he "great t radi t i on" and t he
"modern" conspi racy agai nst i t ( Gunnel l ,
1979)
i s a hi st ori cal myt h desi gned
t o carry
on t he warf are of Ari st ot el i an
phi l osophy
agai nst bot h
sci ence
and
f ai t h.
Ski nner concl udes wi t h a di squi si t i on on "t he acqui si t i on of t he modern
concept of t he St at e" ( 11, 349) , wi t h whi ch "as an omni present yet i mpersonal
power, we may be sai d t o ent er t he modern worl d: t he modern t heory of t he
St at e remai ns t o be const ruct ed, but i t s f oundat i ons are
now
compl et e"
( I I ,
358; expl i ci t l i ber) . Thi s i s t he sumof what he has t o say t o us concerni ng t he
t ransi t i on t o "t he modern worl d", and si nce
I
have prai sed
hi s
book as not
overmuch concerned wi t h t hi s mode of present at i on, i t woul d be ungraci ous t o
cavi l at t he end. The Concl usi on consi st s l argel y of semant i cs, i n
whi ch
t he
si xt eent h- cent ury use of st at us, st at o, et at , "est at e", and "st at e" i s sai d t o
have changed i n ways whi ch reveal t he emergence of "t he modern concept " .
Perhaps t hey do, t hough i t woul d be easy t o al l ege count er- exampl es i n whi ch
non- modern usages persi st ed. Amore general cri t i ci smwoul d be t hat t hi s i s an
odd way t o end a bookwhose secondvol ume has been devot edt o t he growt h of
t heori es of resi st ance and revol ut i on. I n Mornay and Buchanan, t he t heori st s
wi t h whomt he bookessent i al l y concl udes, wemi ght be sai d t o have somet hi ng
much more l i ke a "modern concept i on" of ci vi l soci et y: a compl ex of act i vi t i es
ori gi nat ed by a peopl e, generat i ng and conf erri ng t he aut hori t y whi ch t hey
bot h necessi t at e and l i mi t . One can
see
how"ci vi l soci et y" i n t hi s
sense
mi ght
be sai d t o ent ai l t he exi st ence of "t he st at e" i n t he sense i n whi ch Ski nner i s
usi ng t he word; but i t mi ght have been bet t er t o l et t he book end i n t he
di al ect i c bet weent he t wo.
To say so, however, ent ai l s a f urt her i ngrat i t ude : t he book ends t oo soon.
There i s need of a f urt her vol ume, carryi ng t he st ory f orward anot her hundred
years, and i f Ski nner wi l l not wri t e i t someone el se wi l l have t o . I n t he cent ury
separat i ng Mornay and Buchanan f romLocke and Puf endorf , republ i can
humani smunderwent i t s nort hern revi val ; rel i gi ous and ci vi l t heori es of
resi st ance and aut hori t y were convul sed and rest at ed ; doct ri nes of nat ural l aw
and i us gent i umadvanced and expanded; and t he word "modern" began t o
be used i n i t s modernsense. Agreat deal of t hi s happenedi n Engl and, and i t i s
not ewort hy t hat Ski nner' s account of Engl i sh pol i t i cal t hought breaks of f about
1560. We are
not syst emat i cal l y i nt roduced t o Hooker, and t hough we meet
Suarez, Bel l armi ne and Mari ana, t he J esui t adversari es of J ames 1, we hear
not hi ng of t he works of t hat academi cal l y sound monarch hi msel f . The reason
J . G. A
. POCOCK
i s pl ai n : t her e
i s no deal i ng wi t h J ames or Hooker
wi t hout ent er i ng t he
mammot h cave of Pur i t an
s t udi es , f r omwhi ch one coul d not hope t o
emer ge
f or at l eas t a hundr ed year s . I t may al s o
be i nf er r ed, f r omSki nner ' s ci t at i on of
t he f or t hcomi ng books of Ri char d Tuck and
J ames Tul l y ( bot h 1977) , as wel l as
f r om
Duncan For bes ' s r ecent s t udy of Hume
( 1976) , t hat Cambr i dge
s chol ar s hi p
has i n s t or e f or us a mas s i ve r evi val of an
i nt er pr et at i on of t he
s event eent h
cent ur y f r om a vi ewpoi nt s t r es s i ng j ur i s pr udence
and t he
r es ur gence of i us gent i um,
whi ch For bes has pi t t ed agai ns t ci vi c humani s mas
a
key t ot he Scot t i s h
Enl i ght enment . Ther e i s t hen no danger of s t ar vat i on,
and i t
woul d be chur l i s h t o compl ai n t hat
Ski nner has l ef t us much t o do. The
par adi gms
ar e upheaved, and t he wor kgoes
f or war d .
Hi s t or y
J ohns Hopki ns Uni ver s i t y
Wor ks Ci t ed
As hcr af t , Ri char d ( 1975) : "On t he
Pr obl emof Met hodol ogy and t he Nat ur e
of Pol i t i cal
Theor y", Pol i t i cal Theor y, 3, 1,
pp
. 5- 23 .
Bar on, Hans ( 1966) : The
Cr i s i s of t he Ear l y I t al i an Renai s s ance
( Pr i ncet on) .
Bouws ma, Wi l l i amJ . ( 1968)
: Veni ce andt he Def ens e of Eur opean
Li ber t y : Renai s s ance
Val ues i n t he Age of t he
Count er - Ref or mat i on ( Ber kel ey) .
Bur ns , J . H. ( 1977) : Revi ewof
The Machi avel l i an Moment i n Engl i s h
Hi s t or i cal Revi ew,
92, p.
137.
Chur ch, Wi l l i amF. ( 1941) :
Cons t i t ut i onal Thought i n Si xt eent h- Cent ur y
Fr ance
( Cambr i dge, Mas s . ) .
De
Capr ar i i s , Vi t t or i o ( 1959) : Pr opaganda e
pens i er o pol i t i co i n Fr anci a dur ant e l e
guer r e
di r el i gi one, 1559- 1572 ( Napl es ) .
Dunn, J ohn
( 1969) : The Pol i t i cal Thought of J ohn
Locke ( Cambr i dge) .
Fer gus on,
Ar t hur B. ( 1965) : The Ar t i cul at e
Ci t i zen and t he Engl i s h Renai s s ance
( Dur ham,
N. C. ) .
Fi ggi s , J . N
. ( 1923, 1960) : Fr omGer s on t o
Gr ot i us ( Cambr i dge, NewYor k)
.
Fi nk,
Z.
S .
( 1945)
:
The Cl as s i cal Republ i cans :
An Es s ay i n t he Recover y of a
Pat t er n of
Thought i n Sevent eent h- Cent ur y Engl and
( Evans t on) .
For bes , Duncan ( 1976) :
Hume' s Phi l os ophi cal Pol i t i cs ( Cambr i dge) .
Gar i n, Eugeni o ( 1965) : I t al i an
Humani s m: Phi l os ophy andCi vi cLi f e i n
t he Renai s s ance
( Oxf or d) .
Geor ge, C. H. and Kat har i ne
( 1961) : The Pr ot es t ant Mi nd of
t he Engl i s h Ref or mat i on
( Pr i ncet on) .
QUENTI NSKI NNERANDHI STORY
Gunnel l ,
J ohn
G. ( 1979) :
Pol i t i cal Theor y: Tr adi t i on andI nt er pr et at i on ( Cambr i dge,
Mass. ) .
Hext er , J . H. ( 1979) : On
Hi st or i ans ( Cambr i dge, Mass. ) .
Hi l l , Chr i st opher ( 1964) : Soci et y andPur i t ani smi n
Pr e- Revol ut i onar y Engl and ( New
Yor k) .
Kel l ey, Donal d R. ( 1970) : The Foundat i ons of Moder n Hi st or i cal Schol ar shi p ( New
Yor k) .
Kr i st el l er , Paul O.
( 1961) :
Renai ssance
Thought : The Cl assi c, Schol ast i c and
Humani st i c St r ai ns ( New
Yor k) .
Laski , Har ol d J . ( 1936) : " Pol i t i cal Theor y
i n
t he
Lat er Mi ddl e Ages" , i n The Cam-
br i dgeMedi eval Hi st or y, vol . 8.
Levy,
F. J .
( 1967)
:
Tudor Hi st or i cal Thought ( San Mar i no) .
McKenzi e, Li onel A. ( 1979) : " The Gui cci ar di ni an Pr i nce" , Ph. D. di sser t at i on,
J ohns
Hopki ns Uni vesi t y.
Oakl ey, Fr anci s ( 1962) : " Ont he Road fr omConst ance t o 1688: The Pol i t i cal Thought
ofJ ohn
Maj or
andGeor geBuchanan" , TheJ our nal ofBr i t i sh St udi es, 2 ( 1962) .
Pocock,
J
. G. A
.
( 1975) :
The Machi avel l i an Moment : Fl or ent i ne Pol i t i cal Thought and
t heAt l ant i c Republ i can Tr adi t i on ( Pr i ncet on)
.
Robbi ns, Car ol i ne ( 1959) : The
Ei ght eent h- Cent ur y Commonweal t hman ( Cambr i dge,
Mass. ) .
Schel l hase, Kennet hC. ( 1976) : Taci t us i n Renai sance Pol i t i cal Thought
( Chi cago) .
Shkl ar , J udi t h N. ( 1978) : Revi ew of The Pol i t i cal Wor ks of J ames
Har r i ngt on i n
Pol i t i cal Theor y, 6, 4, pp . 558- 61 .
Tawney, R. H.
( 1929) : Rel i gi on andt heRi se
of
Capi t al i sm( London) .
Tuck, Ri char d
( 1977) :
" Nat ur al Ri ght s Theor i es befor e Locke" , Ph. D. di sser t at i on,
Cambr i dgeUni ver si t y.
Tul l y, J ames H. ( 1977) : " J ohn Locke' s Wr i t i ngs on Pr oper t y i n t hei r 17t h cent ur y
I nt el l ect ual Cont ext " , Ph. D. di sser t at i on, Cambr i dgeUni ver si t y.
Vent ur i , Fr anco ( 1971) : Ut opi a andRefor mi n t heEnl i ght enment ( Cambr i dge) .
Wal zer , Mi chael ( 1966) : The Revol ut i on of t he Sai nt s : ASt udy i n t he Or i gi ns of
Radi cal Pol i t i cs ( Cambr i dge, Mass. ) .
Weber , Max ( 1958) : The Pr ot est ant Et hi c andt he Spi r i t of Capi t al i sm, t r ansl at ed by
Tal cot t Par sons ( NewYor k) .
Wood,
Neal
R. ( 1976) : fi nal
sent ence
onl y of r evi ewof The Machi avel l i an Moment i n
Pol i t i cal Theor y, 4, 1, p. 104.
Canadi anJ ournal of Pol i t i cal andSoci al Theory/ Revue canadi enne de t heori e
pol i t i queet soci de, Vol .
3,
No.
3 ( F al l /
Aut omne,
1979) .
CONSCIOUSNESS ANDTHEWORLD
KenReshaur
F red R. Dal l mayr andThomas A. McCart hy, eds. , Underst andi ng
and
Soci al Inqui ry, Sout h Bend and London: Uni versi t y of Not re Dame
Press,
1977, pp.
i i i ,
365,
$20. 35 cl ot h.
The
rol e and
si gni f i cance
of
i nt erpret i ve underst andi ng as t he f undament al
cat egory f or t he anal ysi s of soci al phenomena i s t he pri mary concern of t hi s
col l ect i on of essays . Underst andi ng, or verst ehen, has been t he subj ect of con-
t roversy at l east si nce t he t i me of MaxWeber . Hi s di st i nct i on bet ween val ue-
mot i vat ed act i on and react i ve behavi or presupposed t hat cul t ural real i t y, t he
product of i ndi vi dual choi ces andpurposes, was not suscept i bl e t o cogni t i ve ap-
propri at i on i n t erms of general concept s and l aws . Rat her, t he syst emat i c st udy
of soci al i nt eract i on must t ake i t s beari ngs f romt he poi nt of vi ewof t he act ors
who are possessedof val ues and goal s . However, Weber was not al ways cl ear on
t he rel at i onshi p bet ween t hose aspect s of soci al real i t y amenabl e t o adequat e
concept ual i zat i on
i n t erms
of
causal anal ysi s and t hose whi ch requi re i nt erpre-
t i ve underst andi ng. Consequent l y, t he
meani ng
of verst ehen has been subj ect
t o a vari et y of i nt erpret at i ons . It i s t hi s di versi t y of meani ng
whi ch
t he present
vol ume i l l ust rat es .
Schol ars of a posi t i vi st persuasi onpercei ve verst ehen as a heuri st i c devi ce. Ac-
cordi ngl y, i t i s grant ed t he ext ra- sci ent i f i c f unct i on of hypot hesi s generat i on
and l ocat ed wi t hi n t he cont ext of di scovery. It i s a
vehi cl e
by
whi ch t he soci al
sci ent i st can
ut i l i ze empat hy
t o
acqui re i nsi ght
i nt o
t he spri ngs of act i on whi l e
l eavi ng
t he expl anat ory concept s
unaf f ect ed
.
One response
t o
t hi s posi t i on
i s associ at edwi t h
t he
wri t i ngs of t he l at er Wi t t -
genst ei n
; Pet er Wi nch
i s
t he most not abl e represent at i ve of t hi s approach. He
argues t hat pri nci pl es and rul es are generat edi n t he course of pract i cal act i vi t i es
and i mpart t o t hese act i vi t i es i nt el l i gi bi l i t y and coherence. These i nt er-
subj ect i ve convent i ons are t aken f or grant ed by a heuri st i c i nt erpret at i on of
verst ehen whi ch i s t hereby gui l t y of beggi ng t he quest i on as t o whet her or not
l i f e- f orms are commensurabl e. Moreover, st andards of rat i onal i t y, whi l e appar-
ent l y t he same across cul t ures, must be underst ood i n t erms of "t he poi nt of
t heact i vi t y" t o whi ch t hey are appl i ed. In t hi s vi ew, i t i s qui t e possi bl e t hat t he
i ndi ces of rat i onal i t y pecul i ar t o t he l ogi c of west ern sci ence may be
CONSCIOUSNESSANDTHEWORLD
meani ngl ess ( and t her ef or e nei t her i n
compet i t i on nor conf l i ct ) when com-
par edwi t h t hose of
magi c or r el i gi on. For exampl e, t he concept of consi st ency
may
be sat i sf i ed
i n
qui t e di f f er ent ways, al t hough appar ent l y empl oyed wi t h
r ef er ence t o t he "same" phenomena, by pr act i t i oner s of sci ence and of magi c.
Anot her r esponse t o t he posi t i vi st posi t i on i s t o cl ai m
t hat soci al r eal i t y -
pr act i ces and act i ons - i s
per meat ed wi t h i nt er - subj ect i ve and common
meani ngs
.
The
exi st ence of t hese meani ngs t est i f i es t o t he pr esence of pr i or i n-
t er pr et at i on and goal s whi ch may be i mpl i ci t or t he r esul t of t heor et i cal r ef l ex-
i vi t y . Expl anat i on i n t er ms of t est abi l i t y and t he subsumpt i on
of par t i cul ar s
under gener al , uni ver sal l aws mi sses t hi s si nce
i t does not t ap t he val ue- sat ur -
at ed di mensi on of t he expl anat or y ent er pr i se
i t sel f
.
Int er pr et i ve under st andi ng,
t her ef or e, cannot
be di vor ced f r omt he r eal i t y t o whi ch i t i s sal i ent ; r at her , i t i s
a const i t uent
component , gener at or and modi f i er of t hat r eal i t y .
The
cr i t i cs of posi t i vi smhave a f undament al obj ect i on t o def i ni ng i nt er pr e-
t i ve under st andi ng i n t er ms of empat hy. It i s t hat al l knowl edge, whet her i n
sci ence or t he
humani t i es, must assume t he phenomenon of meani ngf ul ness
under l yi ng
i nt er - subj ect i vi t y . To deny t hi s cl ai m, t hey ar gue, i s t o opt f or an
obj ect i f yi ng
met hodi cal sol i psi smwhi ch r ef uses t o acknowl edge t hat t he var i et y
of symbol i sms i n
whi ch communi cat i on occur s do not car r y wi t hi n t hemsel ves
t he cat al yst of meani ng but must , l i ke a speaker , r el y upon a l i st ener ,
a
r eci pi ent , f or t he act i vat i on of t hei r pot ent i al .
Knowl edge i s pl ur al i st i c . Ther e i s
no necessar y or sel f - evi dent r eason why t r ut h
or meani ng must t ake t he f or mof
expl anat i on r at her t han under st andi ng. If
t he goal of t he knower i s t echni cal
mast er y and cont r ol , expl anat i on
may be t he pr ef er r ed modal i t y of cogni t i on.
But t her e ar e ot her goal s whi ch
ar t i cul at e wi t h and r equi r e ot her
met hodol ogi es .
Whi l e t he cont r i but or s t o t hi s col l ect i on
ar e di st i ngui shed and abl e
spokesmen f or si gni f i cant per spect i ves on t he phi l osophy
of t he soci al sci ences,
i t i s r egr et t abl e t hat sel ect i ons f r omt he wr i t i ngs of Huber t
Dr eyf us and Mi chael
Pol anyi ar e absent . The per vasi ve and ubi qui t ous t heme i s t he
r el at i onshi p be-
t ween t he obser ver and act or on t he one hand, and
ext er nal r eal i t y on t he
ot her
.
Under l yi ngt hi s, one can det ect t he at t r act i on exer t ed
by t he pr ospect of
f i ndi ng cer t ai nt y i n t er ms of a met hodol ogi cal f or mal i smwhi ch
deni es a r ol e t o
under st andi ng, or an i deal i smwhi ch assi gns so st r ong a r ol e t o consci ousness
as
t o ecl i pse t he
i nt r usi ve t endenci es of a wor l d di st i ngui shed by pl ur al i t y . Var i ous
aut hor s,
not abl y Tayl or , Apel and Haber mas at t empt t o avoi d t hi s di chot omy,
but t hei r
ef f or t s coul dhave had amor e sal ut ar y ef f ect i f r ei nf or ced
by t he
ki nds
of consi der at i ons
adduced by Dr eyf us and Pol anyi . Thi s i s especi al l y t he
case
wi t h r ef er ence
t o t he vi ews advanced by t hose of neo- posi t i vi st per suasi on.
These cont r i but or s see t he
r econst r uct ed l ogi c of sci ence as pr ovi di ng a f or mal
ki nd
of cer t ai n knowl edge. In t hei r vi ew, t her e
i s no si gni f i cant met hodol ogi cal
di st i nct i on - at l east as f ar as t he goal of a pr ot ocol of
ver i f i cat i on i s concer ned
KENRESHA
UR
-bet ween expl anat i on andunder st andi ng. To under st and i s t o be abl et o gi ve
an
expl anat i on -i n pr act i ce
or
i n pr i nci pl e
-
whi ch conf or ms t o t he r equi r e-
ment s of t he hypot het i co-deduct i ve met hod. Nowt hi s i s a
def ensi bl ebut qui t e
nar r owconcept i on of expl anat i on whi ch, i n i t s i mpl i ci t cl ai mt hat sci encehol ds
a mor t gage on t hi s t er m, appear s t o i gnor e what J ohn Yol t on has cal l ed
syst emi c
expl anat i on i n bot h
i t s
l ogi cal and epi st emol ogi cal di mensi ons. The
f ol l owi ng comment s by Yol t on ar e wor t hy of not e:
I n or der t o ext r act t he l ogi c of expl anat i on f r omt he
l ogi c of sci ent i f i c expl anat i on, we need t o emphasi se t he
cont ext ual or syst emi c aspect of under st andi ng and ex-
pl ai ni ng. Expl anat i on must go onwi t hi n some par t i cul ar
or der syst em, such t hat t he f act t o be expl ai ned can be
shown
t o
st and i n def i ni t e r el at i on t o ot her member s of
t hesyst em. '
Regar di ng t he epi st emol ogi cal di mensi on, hesays :
Af ur t her anal ysi s of t hecl ai ms of t hi s paper woul dhave
t o showhowsyst emi c expl anat i on ar i ses out of and i s
gr oundedi n r ecogni t i on andper cept ual pr ocesses . Such an
anal ysi s
woul d
const i t ut e t he epi st emol ogy
of expl anat i on.
The r esul t of t hi s l i ne of t hought i s,
I
t hi nk, t he separ at i on
of
expl anat i on
f r omt he
empi r i cal
cont ext of
sci ence
. z
I t i s pr eci sel y t hi s concer n whi ch i s pr omi nent i n t he wor k of Dr eyf us and
Pol anyi . Dr eyf us, i n a 1967 ar t i cl e, advances t he cl ai mt hat i nt el l i genceandun-
der st andi ng ar e dependent upon embodi ment . 3 I n hi s l at er , f ul l -scal e
exami nat i on andr ef ut at i on of cer t ai n cl ai ms of schol ar s i n t hef i el ds of ar t i f i ci al
i nt el l i gence and cogni t i ve si mul at i on, he shows howt he si t uat i on -t hat i s,
t he wor l d, of whi ch one may be consci ous andhave exper i ence -i s a f unct i on
of human needs. 4 These needs ar e not knowni ndependent l y of t he cont ext i n
whi ch t hey become avai l abl e t o consci ousness . Si mi l ar l y, t he set t i ng i n whi ch
t hey acqui r e a det er mi nat e conf i gur at i on i s not r ecogni z ed as bei ng r esponsi ve
or non-r esponsi ve accor di ng t o a r ul e-gover ned pr ot ocol ; t he pr oj ect of
devel opi ng a f or mal i smwhi ch obvi at es pr obl ems ar i si ng f r omi nt er -subj ect i vi t y
and t he i nt er -dependence of expl anat i on and under st andi ng
has not
been
successf ul . To quot eDr eyf us :
Game pl ayi ng, l anguage t r ansl at i on, pr obl emsol vi ng,
CONSCIOUSNESSANDTHEWORLD
and pat t er n
r ecogni t i on, eachdepends on speci f i c f or ms of
human "i nf or mat i on
pr ocessi ng, " whi ch ar e i nt ur n based
on t he human
wayof bei ng i n t he wor l d. Andt hi s wayof
bei ng-
i n- a- si t uat i on t ur ns out t o be unpr ogr ammabl e i n
pr i nci pl e
usi ng pr esent l yconcei vabl e t echni ques. s
Mi chael Pol anyi , i n a ser i es of wr i t i ngs f r om 1946
t o 1975, devel oped and
r ef i ned hi s cl ai mt hat t he st r uct ur e of knowi ng
exhi bi t s a st r i ki ng si mi l ar i t y t o
t he st r uct ur e of per cept i on, r ecogni t i on
and cr eat i on . b He i s best known i n t hi s
r espect f or hi s
concept s of t aci t knowi ng and per sonal knowl edge
. ?
Whi l e
Dr eyf us
and Pol anyi agr ee on most ont ol ogi cal and epi st emol ogi cal
i ssues
r el at i ng
t o t he cogni t i ve si gni f i cance of embodi ment , I shoul d l i ke
t o suggest
t hat an ext r emel y f r ui t f ul ar ea of i nqui r y mi ght
be f ound i n t hat aspect of
Pol anyi ' s cont r i but i on whi ch
i s chal l enged by Dr eyf us . e Pol anyi , when anal ys-
i ng t he ways i n whi ch pr act i cal act i vi t i es
ar e conduct ed, r ef er s t o hi dden r ul es
whi ch ar e t aci t l y f ol l owed by t he act or . 9 Thi s
suggest s t hat , i n pr i nci pl e, i t i s
possi bl e t o have a compl et e t heor y of
pr act i ce. Thi s possi bi l i t y i s deni ed by
Dr eyf us. He dr aws a basi c di st i nct i on
bet ween a t heor y of compet ence and a
t heor y of per f or mance. At heor y
of compet ence assumes t hat al l non- ar bi t r ar y
act i on can be under st ood or
expr essed i n t er ms of howt he act or accompl i shed
hi s pur pose. Thi s
compet ence i s expr essed i n t he f or mof r ul es. Thi s
f or mal i sm
i s equi val ent t o sayi ng
what i s t he act i on; i t i s af or mof descr i pt i on. The
most
di st i nct i ve aspect
of a t heor y of compet ence, t her ef or e, i s t hat i t
comes af t er t he
compl et i on of t he act
and does not pur por t t o expl ai n howt he act or
was
enabl ed t o successf ul l y execut e hi s
per f or mance; i t does not cl ai mt hat t he
act or
was act ual l y f ol l owi ng t he r ul es
r et r ospect i vel y seen as st r uct ur i ng t he act . A
t heor y of per f or mance, on t he
ot her hand, i s concer ned t o el uci dat e t he
pr ot ocol whi ch woul d enabl e
an act or t o r epr oduce or dupl i cat e an act i on. The
j ust i f i cat i on f or t he di st i nct i on
bet ween per f or mance and compet ence ( whi ch,
i t i s al l eged, Pol anyi i gnor es)
i s t o be f ound i n t he f or mof t wo consi der at i ons
.
Fi r st of al l , whi l e act i on may
be r et r ospect i vel y descr i bed i n r ul e- l i ke
t er ms, i t
occur s i n a si t uat i on whi ch
i s not uni ver sal l y def i ned. Thi s means t hat t her e ar e
no sel f - evi dent r ul es whi ch enabl e
act or s t o r ecogni ze t he cont ext i n whi chr ul es
ar e t o be appl i ed. Recogni t i on of t hi s
f act ent ai l s awar eness of bot h t he pr act i -
cal
capaci t yof act or s t o act i n undef i ned
si t uat i ons and t he t heor et i cal di f f i cul t y
t hat
t he r equi r ement of r ul e- f ol l owi ng i n
t he pr oduct i on of act i on l eads t o t he
l ogi c
of an i nf i ni t e r egr ess: t her e must
be r ul es f or t he appl i cat i on of r ul es f or
t he
appl i cat i on of r ul es . Thi s di f f i cul t y
di sappear s, Dr eyf us bel i eves, i f we cease
assi mi l at i ng
compet ence t o per f or mance. Secondl y,
t her e i s oper at i ve an ont o-
l ogi cal assumpt i on t o t he
ef f ect t hat t he wor l d i s composed of
at omi c, di scr et e
f act s. Thi s assumpt i on enabl es t he
f or mal i st t o i gnor e t he pr obl emof i nf i ni t e
KENRESHA
UR
r ul e r egr ess si nce i t al l ows hi mt o pr ocess al l i nf or mat i on i n t he f or mof r ul es
whi ch
r equi r e
no
cont ext - del i mi t ed
i nt er pr et at i on.
Dr eyf us r ej ect s t hi s neo-
Car t esi an per spect i ve by denyi ng t he i nt el l i gi bi l i t y of a di chot omy bet ween f act
and si t uat i on .
Ther e i s one addi t i onal r espect i n whi ch t hi s vol ume does not r eal i ze i t s f ul l
pot ent i al . Thi s has t o
do
wi t h t he debat e over t he quest i on of whet her t he na-
t ur al and soci al sci ences ar e cont i nuous
or
di scr et e .
Apar t f r omconsi der at i ons
of a l ogi cal and met hodol ogi cal nat ur e, t her e i s a st r ong t endency on
t he
par t
of
t he wr i t er s t o assume t hat sci ence i s char act er i sed by uni t y or i t s l ack, r at her
t han pr ovi de ar gument s l eadi ng up t o and suppor t i ng t hei r r espect i ve concl u-
si ons . I shoul d l i ke t o suggest t hat an
adequat e ont ol ogy must come t o t er ms
wi t h t he vi ew t hat man i s a pl ayf ul as wel l as r easoni ng bei ng. To deny or
negl ect t he symbi ot i c
r el at i onshi p
bet ween
r at i onal and pl ayf ul human capaci -
t i es i s t o r el egat e r eason t o an i nst r ument al r ol e whi l e t r ansf or mi ng t he cr eat i ve,
expl or at or y aspect of pl ayf ul ness i nt o an addi ct i ve f asci nat i on wi t h t he
f ol l owi ng of expl i ci t r ul es . Manki nd' s pr edi sposi t i on t o engage i n pl ay as a
medi umof sel f - expr essi on and sel f - pr esent at i on has been asser t ed i n a var i et y
of pl aces . However , I want t o consi der an i mpl i cat i on of onl y one aspect of t hi s
compl ex concept . To concept ual i ze cer t ai n aspect s of human act i vi t y as
pr ompt ed and per meat ed by an ur ge and capaci t y f or pl ay, i s t o acknowl edge
t he var i ous degr ees of i ndet er mi nacy i nvol ved i n t he sat i sf act i on of needs and
want s and t he r eal i zat i on of pur poses whi ch may have a mor e or l ess expl i ci t
gr adi ent of def i ni t i on. Expr essed ot her wi se, t he not i on t hat al l act i on i s r ul e-
gover ned or t hat , i n pr i nci pl e, al l act i vi t y i s suscept i bl e t o descr i pt i on and ex-
pl anat i on -
af t er
i t occur s i f not bef or e - i n t er ms of r ul e- obser vi ng
behavi our ,
becomes
unt enabl e once cer t ai n hi t her t o unexami ned pr esupposi -
t i ons
ar e made
expl i ci t . For
exampl e, t he r ul e- f ol l owi ng
post ul at e assumes t hat
a
vi abl e equat i on can
be
dr awn
bet ween
cont ext ual r egul ar i t y and t aci t or
expl i ci t
r ul e- obser vance . But i t i s, at best , pr obl emat i c
t o concept ual i ze act i on
i n t er ms of
an
i deal model , goal or pur pose. As wel l , such an or i ent at i on
assumes
an exi st ent i al as wel l
as
an anal yt i c di chot omy bet ween means and end
whi l e pr esupposi ng
t hat an expl i ci t , pr eci se
and
exhaust i ve
speci f i cat i on of t he
end
i s possi bl e .
Thi s
i s t ant amount t o
bel i evi ng
t hat
we exper i ence ext er nal
r eal i t y and
t hen
endowi t wi t h si gni f i cance . The mor e adequat e vi ew i s, of
cour se, t o avoi d t he epi st emol ogi cal car i cat ur es pr esent ed by bot h r eal i smand
i deal i smand see t he act or and hi s cont ext as r eci pr ocal l y and j oi nt l y i nvol ved i n
t he pr oj ect
of
def i ni t i on.
Si mi l ar l y, t r ut hand meani ng appear t o be di chot omous, and ar t i cul at e wi t h
sci ence and soci al sci ence r espect i vel y, i f one assumes t hat human embodi ment
i n r espect of t he physi cal envi r onment i s necessar i l y st at i c, whi l e vi r a vi s t he
cul t ur al envi r onment i t i s i nf i ni t el y mal l eabl e . However , t o t he ext ent t hat men
cease t o be cr eat ur es of t he ear t h - subj ect t o t he i nvar i ant const r ai nt s of
CONSCI OUSNESS
ANDTHE
WORLD
nat ur e -andbecome cr eat ur es of t he wor l d, modi f yi ng t hei r physi cal
cont ext
by "act i ng i nt o nat ur e, " t he di st i nct i on bet ween
physi cal
and soci al sci ence
becomes l ess vi abl e. On t he ot her hand, i n as much as men l ose t he capaci t y t o
act , and behave i nst ead, wi t h t he concomi t ant homogeni zat i on of cul t ur e, so
t he uni ver sal possi bi l i t i es of soci al sci ence ar e enhanced
.
The
cont ent i on t hat sci ence i s char act er i zed byuni t y r at her t han di scont i n-
ui t y can be suppor t ed by addi t i onal ont ol ogi cal and epi st emol ogi cal consi der -
at i ons . The ont ol ogy of t he physi cal and soci al sci ences, i t i s somet i mes
cl ai med, i s asymmet r i cal wi t h r espect t o t he const i t ut i on of phenomena. The
wor l d of physi cal r eal i t y i s aut onomous : i t exi st s i r r espect i ve of our wi shes or
act i ons ; i t i s t hat wi t h whi ch i t i s necessar y t hat we come t o
t er ms
.
The soci al
wor l d, by cont r ast , i s gener at ed t hr ough human act i vi t y; t he speci f i c cont our s
and nuances of soci al phenomena ar e t he r esul t of human i nt er act i on. The
quest i on as t o whet her t hi s di st i nct i on i s vi abl e, I shal l consi der shor t l y. For
now, i t i s necessar y t onot e t hat t hi s di f f er ence shoul d not obscur e an i mpor t ant
di mensi on of cont i nui t y bet ween nat ur e andsoci et y whi ch consi st s i n t he f act
t hat bot h ar e exper i enced as envi r onment s suscept i bl e t o use andmodi f i cat i on
i n such ways as t o f aci l i t at e t he cr eat i on andr eal i zat i on of human needs, want s
andpur poses . That i s t o say t hat nat ur e, al ong wi t h t he r egul ar i t i es i t exhi bi t s,
const r ai ns human opt i ons whi l e at t he same t i me i t makes possi bl e t he cont i nu-
at i on of l i f e. Men br eat he unai ded
by ar t i f i ce, r eckon
wi t h
t he f or ce of gr avi t y,
der i ve t he l i ght t o see f r omt he sun. Exampl es
of capaci t i es made possi bl e, and
cont r ai nt s whi ch
must be
t aken
i nt o account due t o t he st r uct ur e of our nat ur al
envi r onment , coul d be mul t i pl i ed wi t hout l i mi t ; t he coi nci dence of f r eedom
wi t h
necessi t y
i n
t er ms of nat ur al par amet er s
whi ch
def i ne t he human speci es i s
ver y evi dent . Not so appar ent i s t he possi bi l i t y t hat i t coul d have been
ot her wi se. For i nst ance,
we have no r eason t o bel i eve t hat oxygen woul d not
exi st wer e our physi ol ogy r adi cal l y di f f er ent . Nor ar e t her e gr ounds f or
bel i evi ng t hat t he sun woul d l eave t he sky i f
we wer e not possessed of t he
capaci t y f or vi si on. Or , t o make t he same poi nt anot her way, t he wor l d of
nat ur e may possess i nnumer abl e st r uct ur es and char act er i st i cs of whi ch
we
ar e
not awar e andwhi ch we cannot even i magi ne si mpl y because t hey do not ar -
t i cul at e wi t h t he st r uct ur e of our nat ur e. For exampl e, i f we wer e bei ngs not
endowedwi t h audi t or y andvi sual abi l i t i es, t he f i el ds of physi cal sci ence whi ch
deal wi t h l i ght and sound woul d be absent -and meani ngl ess . Thi s ver y
el ement ar y but f r equent l y unnot i ced phenomenon seems t o be i ndi cat ed even
by
our l i ngui st i c
habi t of
usi ng
synonymousl y or i nt er changeabl y t he t er ms
"physi cal "
and "nat ur al " when r ef er r i ng t o sci ence . So-cal l ed "har d" sci ence
deal s wi t h t he physi cal wor l d; but what i s i nt ended by t hi s usage i s t he wor l d
whi ch appear s "nat ur al " t o
us
not
because,
i n
some basi c sense, i t i s sel f -
evi dent but because i t i s t he wor l d wi t h whi ch our "nat ur e, " as a speci es, ar -
t i cul at es . I n shor t , t he ver y bei ng of t he physi cal wor l d i s t est i f i ed t o by our
KENRESHAUR
senses pr i or t o our bei ng abl e t o speak of i t . But t hi s bei ng, of whi ch we ar e
awar e at a non- cogni t i ve l evel , maybe i nel uct abl y par t i al , dependent upon t he
st r uct ur e
of
our bei ng, whi ch pr ohi bi t s t he possi bi l i t y of maki ng cont act wi t h
t he st r uct ur e of nat ur e as a whol e. To speak of nat ur e as a whol e i s t o suggest
t hat i t enj oys an i nt er nal , compr ehensi ve equi l i br i umandcoher ence . One i m-
pl i cat i on of such a vi ewi s t hat aspect s of physi cal r eal i t y
-
i ncl udi ng anyt hat
mayexi st of whi ch we ar e necessar i l y i gnor ant due t o our psycho- physi cal con-
st i t ut i on - maybe i nt er r el at edi n unant i ci pat ed anduni magi nabl e ways .
I f t he above i s not , l i t er al l y speaki ng, i ncr edi bl e, t he same can be sai d t o
appl yt o soci et y. The i nst i t ut i ons, pr act i ces and "common meani ngs" char ac-
t er i st i c of a soci et y ar e i ndi cat i ve of human capaci t i es andpot ent i al i t i es ; t hey
r ef l ect t he i nt er est s and abi l i t i es of t he member s of a soci et y. Whi l e i t i s t r ue
t hat t hey ar e t he r esul t of human i nt er act i on - t hat t hey ar e cr eat ed - i t
woul d be mi sl eadi ng t o suppose t hat t hey have det er mi nat e aut hor s . Ever y
per son i s bor n i nt o an i nt r i cat e mat r i x of l i f e- r out i nes whi ch maybe mor e or
l ess r esi st ant t o
modi f i cat i on
or r i pe
f or change
.
For
most
i ndi vi dual s t he
i mpact of t hei r l i ves on t hei r soci et y wi l l be negl i gi bl e ; f or t he out st andi ngf ew,
t hei r cr eat i ve or dest r uct i ve act s
make sense
onl y i f
account i s t aken of t he
mat r i x
t hey
at t empt
t o
t r anscend. I n
t he most basi c sense,
however , soci al
phenomena,
however
var i abl e,
t est i f y t o uni ver sal pr opensi t i es of t he human
speci es . Al t er nat i vel y expr essed, t he soci al i s no l ess "nat ur al "
t han nat ur e .
Consi der , f or exampl e, t he f act t hat ever ysoci et y of whi ch we have
knowl edge
has gener at ed var i ous modes of sel f - i nt er pr et at i on, whet her magi c or
myt h,
hi st or y or phi l osophy. Mor eover , al t hough t her e ar e si gni f i cant emphases and
di f f er ences, al l soci et i es exhi bi t t he capaci t y f or devel opi ng and appr eci at i ng
wor ks of
ar t
as wel l as f or copi ng wi t h t he i mper at i ve t o sat i sf y t he l ess ambi g-
uous needs such
as sust enance
andr epr oduct i on .
The concl usi on t o be dr awn, t hen, i s t hat sel ect i on of pr obl ems f or st udy i s
not di st i nct f r omt he const i t ut i on
of
pr obl ems, even t hough i t mayseemt o be
t he case . For exampl e, i n t he case of physi cal sci ence t her e ar e phenomena
whi ch ar e as t hey ar e and coul d not be ot her wi se, at l east i nsof ar as human
act i ons af f ect i ng t hemar e concer ned. The ear t h, t he physi cal wor l d, i s t her e f or
t he sci ent i st t o expl or e and anal yze ; i t i s r ef r act or y, t her eby pr ovi di ng a con-
st ant check on hi s i magi nat i on by means of t he char act er i st i cs
and st r uct ur e
pecul i ar t o
i t .
At t he same
t i me
i t
may
be
r eadi l y acknowl edged t hat t he
t heor i es
gener at ed
andl aws der i ved f r omt he st udyof nat ur e have not pr ovi ded
compl et e andper f ect knowl edge of physi cal r eal i t y andt he pr ocesses
char act er -
i st i c of i t , si nce t he f i t bet ween concept ual i zat i on
and
dat a
does not make
possi bl e er r or - f r ee t est i ng and appl i cat i on
-
t her eby
l eadi ng t o anomal i es
whi ch
pr eci pi t at e
sci ent i f i c
change. Coul d
peopl e
const i t ut e phenomena ot her
t han t he ones t hey
do?
Coul d peopl e sel ect
pr obl ems ot her t han t he ones t hey
do?
Ar e
di f f er ences
i n t he medi a of sel f - expr essi on t hat ar e const i t ut ed,
120
CONSCIOUSNESSANDTHEWORLD
si gni f i cant ? Or i s i t si mpl y a mat t er of conveni ence -andon a cont i nuumof
sophi st i cat i on def i ned i n t erms of si mpl i ci t y, consi st ency, comprehensi veness
-whi ch i n t urn i s dependent on a concept of rat i onal i t y andef f ect i veness? If
t hi s i s t he case, t hen al l medi a are a vari et y of response t o uni versal i ssues and
probl ems and i n bot h nat ural and soci al sci ence t he degrees of f reedomare
boundedby const rai nt s i ndi cat i ve of bot h human andext ernal gi vens . The con-
cl usi on
i s,
t hen, t hat nat ural
sci ence i s
not t he model nor
i s
soci al sci ence . They
f ace si mi l ar probl ems andare prompt edand account ed
f or
by
f ormal l y si mi l ar
rel at i onshi ps of peopl e andphenomena .
In
t erms of epi st emol ogi cal consi derat i ons, t he concept s empl oyedby bot h
physi cal andsoci al sci ence do not correspond i n a di rect , unmedi at edf ashi on t o
t he real i t y t hey are desi gned t o grasp. Phenomena are concept ual l y const i t ut ed
i n bot h cases ; i deal i zat i on t akes pl ace i n bot h i nst ances
; and
t he
st rongest
cl ai m
t o
be
made
i s
t hat t he
t heori es generat ed
i n
each
f i el d
have a beari ng on t he
real i t y appropri at e t o t hat f i el d. Anot her, and more f ashi onabl e, al t hough
f requent l y ambi guous way of maki ng t he same poi nt , i s t o say t hat bot h
sci ences empl oy paradi gms t o rel at e observat i on t o
t heory .
To acknowl edge t he
presence androl e of
paradi gms
i n sci ent i f i c act i vi t y i s t o
endorse a number of proposi t i ons whi ch i ncl ude
but are by no means exhaust ed
by
t he f ol l owi ng .
F i rst , physi cal sci ence does not deal wi t h uni nt erpret ed,
unambi guous part i cl es of mat t er . Asi de f romt he consi derat i on t hat "mat t er"
i s, i t sel f , a probl emat i c concept whi ch requi res a t heoret i cal mat ri x t o enabl e
speci f i cat i on, t he charact eri st i cs of any physi cal dat a bear a symbi ot i c rel at i on-
shi p t o t he probl emi n t erms of whi ch concept ual i zat i on t akes pl ace. Thi s ac-
t i vi t y on t he part of t he sci ent i st bot h presupposes and makes possi bl e t he
pract i ce of hi s prof essi onal rol e. Thi s rol e, i n t urn, i s predi cat ed on a pre-
sci ent i f i c,
cul t ure-dependent underst andi ng of t he physi cal envi ronment as
wel l as on hi s membershi p i n
a sci ent i f i c communi t y whi ch suppl i es hi mwi t h
cat egori es of di scri mi nat i on whi ch
may be modi f i ed as a resul t of hi s act i on.
Second, soci al sci ence assumes and
requi res t hat t he sci ent i st be abl e t o un-
derst and t he awareness possessed by soci al act ors of t hei r envi ronment
. What i s
somet i mes cal l ed t he nat ural at t i t ude or f i rst -l evel concept ual ori ent at i on of
soci al act ors, cannot be reduced t o a behavi ouri st i c account
of movement
i n
t erms of overt act s wi t hout a subst ant i al skewi ng and reduct i on
of
meani ng .
Theref ore, i n order t o secure t he vi abi l i t y of concept s appropri at e t o soci al
sci ence, t hese concept s must , i n pri nci pl e, be expl i cabl e i n t erms meani ngf ul
t o
t he act ors t hemsel ves . Thi rd, i n bot h physi cal and soci al sci ence, t he concept s
of t rut h and proof must be seen t o have an i nt ra-t heoret i c st at us : t hey are
obj ect i ve andhavemeani ng andappl i cat i on onl y i nsof ar as t hey are underst ood
i n t he same way. In short ,
l aws must be i nt erpret ed; rul es requi re appl i cat i on ;
and t he correct procedure t o f ol l owi n ei t her
case i s not sel f -evi dent . Dat a
compl et el y i ndependent of t he sci ent i st -act or, whi ch
are di scret e, det ermi nat e
andunambi guous do not exi st ; or , i f t hey do, t hey ar e t hat of whi ch we cannot
speak.
1 .

J ohn Yol t on, "Expl anat i on, " The Br i t i shJ our nal f or t he Phi l osophy of Sci ence, Vol . 1 0, No.
37, p. 205 .
He cont i nues, "not deduci bi l i t y, but i nt el l i gi bi l i t y const i t ut es t he basi c f eat ur e of
t he l ogi c of expl anat i on. Under st andi ng and
i nt el l i gi bi l i t y ar e t he basi c cont r ol s oper at i ve i n
ever y cont ext . Test abi l i t y anddeduci bi l i t y ar e t he speci f i c cont r ol s
i n t he physi cal sci ences, t he
i deal s f or many i nt he soci al sci ences. Whent he cont r ol s of t est abi l i t y and deduci bi l i t y
ar e set
asi de f or t he mor e gener i c f or mof expl anat i on, we do not r et r eat i nt o some vague common
denomi nat or shar ed by ear l y per cept ual r esponses, myt hi c, and met aphysi cal const r uct i ons .
Under st andi ng i s si mi l ar i n al l of t hese cont ext s but each cont ext has i t s own char act er i st i c
f or m
of
under st andi ng. The f i nal vi ndi cat i on of my cl ai mf or a gener i c expl anat i onpr esent i n
al l t hese di ver se modes of appr ehensi onwoul dhave t o make adet ai l edanal ysi s of t he speci f i c
f eat ur es of each f or mof under st andi ng. Acr i t i que of under st andi ng i s a necessar y compl e-
ment t oananal ysi s of expl anat i on" ( pp. 207- 8) .
2.

I bi d. , p. 1 95 .
3 .

Hubet t Dr eyf us, "Why Comput er s
Must Have Bodi es i n Or der t o be I nt el l i gent , " The
Revi ewof Met aphysi cs,
Vol . 21 , No. 1 , pp. 1 3- 22 .
4.

Huber t Dr eyf us, What Comput er s Can' t Do, NewYor k: Har per andRow, 1 972.
5 .

I bi d. , pp.
21 4- 1 5
.
KENRESHAUR
Not es
Pol i t i cal St udi es
Uni ver si t y of Mani t oba
6 .

The most speci f i cal l y pol i t i cal wor k by
Pol anyi
i s a
col l ect i on of essays cal l ed The Logi c of
Li ber t y, London
: Rout l edge, 1 951 . Ot her shor t essays, publ i shed separ at el y, i ncl ude The
Magi c of Mar xi smand The Next
St age
of
Hi st or y, Manchest er : Speci al Suppl ement t o t he
Bul l et i n of t he Commi t t ee on Sci ence and Fr eedom, 1 956 ; Beyond Ni hi l i sm, London:
Cambr i dge Uni ver si t y
Pr ess, 1 960 ; and The Republ i c of Sci ence : I t s Pol i t i cal andEconomi c
Theor y, Chi cago: Roosevel t Uni ver si t y Publ i cat i on, 1 962. Pol anyi ' s f i r st at t empt t o r el at e
phi l osophy of sci ence
t o phi l osophy of cul t ur e i s Sci ence, Fai t h andSoci et y, London: Oxf or d
Uni ver si t y Pr ess, 1 946 ; Chi cago ; Uni ver si t y of Chi cago Pr ess, 1 964. The best i nt r oduct i on t o
hi s at t empt t opl ace hi s vi ewof sci ence wi t hi n al ar ger cul t ur al set t i ng i s The St udy of Man,
Chi cago: Uni ver si t y of Chi cago Pr ess, 1 959. Pol anyi ' s maj or wor k on phi l osophy of sci ence i s
Per sonal Knowl edge, Chi cago: Uni ver si t y of Chi cago Pr ess, 1 958. Hi s l at est , post humous
wor k, i n col l abor at i on wi t h Har r y Pr osch i s Meani ng, Chi cago: Uni ver si t y of Chi cago
Pr ess,
1 975
.
7 .

Fi r st , i t i s necessar y t o di st i ngui sh bet ween expl i ci t and t aci t modes of knowi ng. Expl i ci t
knowl edge i s t hat ki nd of i nf or mat i onand awar eness
whi ch
i s suscept i bl e
t o i nt er - subj ect i ve
t r ansmi ssi on i n l uci d pr oposi t i onal f or m. Per haps t he best i l l ust r at i on of t hi s
ki nd of
knowl edge i s t hat f ound i n
mat hemat i cal f or mul ae . The t aci t mode of knowi ng, ont he ot her
hand r el i es uponexampl e andi mi t at i ve
ef f or t i n whi ch cl ues ar e. t r ansmi t t edf r omone per son
t o anot her
.
These
cl ues may be ei t her subl i mi nal or subsi di ar y i n nat ur e ; t hey cannot be f ocal .
1 22
8 .

Dr eyf us, What Computer s
Can' t Do, pp. 236- 37; "Why Computer s Must Have
Bodi es i n
Or der to be I ntel l i gent, " pp. 28- 29.
9
.
CONSCI OUSNESSAND
THEWORLD
For exampl e,
i n the exer ci se of a sk i l l such as danci ng or typi ng, i f we f ocus our
attenti on on
our
f eet or f i nger s we compl etel y par al yze and negate the compr ehensi ve
j oi nt per f or mance
whi chwe seek to attai n.
pol anyi has r ef er r ed to a ver y si gni f i cant
aspect of taci t k nowi ng, i ts unspeci f i abi l i ty, as
"k nowi ng mor e than we can tel l . "
That i s, we k nowtaci tl y mor e than we can ar ti cul ate or
mak e expl i ci t
.
Expl i ci t
k nowl edge i s dependent on taci t k nowi ng f or i ts i ntel l i gi bi l i ty
. The ac-
qui si ti on of
expl i ci t k nowl edge i nvol ves apr ocess of i nf er enti al r easoni ng i n whi ch
twoter ms
ar e
to be f ound: pr emi sses and concl usi ons . I n thi s r espect i t
i s
si mi l ar
to taci t k nowi ng, whi ch
al so has two ter ms : the pr oxi mal and the di stal . Ther e obtai ns
di ssi mi l ar i ty, however , by
vi r tue of the f act that expl i ci t r easoni ng i s car r i ed
out accor di ng to f or mal r ul es of i nf er ence -
dr awi ng whi l e i n taci t k nowi ng, whi chl eads f r omthe pr oxi mal
to the di stal ter mby r el yi ng
on the f or mer f or attendi ng to the l atter -
thus establ i shi ng the l atter as the meani ng of the
f or mer - no f or mal i zed oper ati on i s i nvol ved
but r ather a pr ocess of unspeci f i abl e i ntegr a-
ti on str i vi ng to ar r i ve at acoher ent
per f or mance or under standi ng . Mor eover , due to the
str uctur e of taci t k nowi ng, the di stal ter m
cannot be detached f r omi ts pr oxi mal ter mas can a
concl usi on f r omi ts pr emi sses
.
Taci t and expl i ci t k nowl edge
can al so be contr asted i n ter ms of r ef utabi l i ty and i r r ever si bi l -
i ty . Si nce the str uctur e
of expl i ci t k nowl edge al l ows us to r epeat i ndef i ni tel y the
pr ocess by
whi ch a concl usi on
i s der i ved f r omi ts pr emi sses, an expl i ci t i nf er ence can
be r ef uted by
adduci ng newevi dence whi chtends to
cast doubt oni ts tenabi l i ty . Not so wi th thi ngs taci tl y
k nown si nce our under standi ng tends to r each
concl usi ons or achi eve asati sf actor y i ntegr ati on
of the par ti cul ar s i n i gnor ance of the steps
i nvol ved. Li k ewi se, the pr ocess of ar r i vi ng at ex-
pl i ci t k nowl edge i s r ever si bl e; the pr ocess of taci t
under standi ng i s l ar gel y i r r ever si bl e .
Expl i ci t k nowl edge i s dependent upon
a taci t matr i x f or i ts i ntel l i gi bi l i ty i n the sense that
to be meani ngf ul an expl i ci t statement
r equi r es ataci t co- ef f i ci ent . An i l l ustr ati on of thi s
dependence of expl i ci t on
taci t k nowl edge i s pr ovi ded by aconsi der ati on of the tr anspar ency
of l anguage
symbol s - of wor ds . Awor d, by i tsel f , l ack s meani ng . A
demonstr ati on of thi s
f act
may be had by r ef er r i ng toan exper i ence whi ch
ever yone has had at some ti me, namel y
by
r epeti ti on wi thi n the context of di sattenti on to the phenomenon
whi chi t denotes . I f we
r epeat a wor d, f or exampl e, "chai r , " over twenty or
mor e ti mes i n successi on whi l e f ocussi ng
sol el y onthe muscul ar movements necessar y to pr oduce
the sound of thewor d, the wor d l oses
al l meani ng. Thi s occur s because, tobe meani ngf ul ,
wor ds must be tr anspar ent, i . e . f ocal at-
tenti on
must be on that whi chthe wor d denotes r ather than
the wor d i tsel f . We coul d mak e
the
same poi nt i n the f ol l owi ng ter ms : whenwe acqui r e f ocal
k nowl edge of awor d quawor d,
we ther eby acqui r e
expl i ci t k nowl edge of i t and l ose our under standi ng of i t
as asymbol or
si gn.
pol anyi , Per sonal Knowl edge, p.
53.
Canadi anJ ournal of Pol i t i cal andSoci al Theory/ Revue canadi enne
de t hi ori e
pol i t i que et s oci al e, Vol
. 3,
No. 3 ( Fal l /
Aut omne,
1979) .
OF LEVIATHAN
REPUBLICS
Al ki s Kont os
Frank M. Col eman, Hobbes
andAmeri ca: Expl ori ng t he Cons t i t ut i onal
Foundat i ons , Uni vers i t y of Toront o Pres s , 1977, pp.
i x,
159,
$12. 50
cl ot h.
Ameri ca, i n whos e i mperi al s hadows Canada' s
i dent i t y has f ai l ed t o
crys t al l i z e i s ,
i n t hi s cri t i cal s t udy, expos ed as Hobbes i an
i n s t ruct ure and
ment al i t y.
Ameri ca coul d be s aved f romhers el f , i f onl y t hrough an
al t erat i on
i n i dent i t y. Achanged,
non- Levi at han, Ameri ca coul d meana t ot al l y di f f erent
f at e f or Canada.
Hi s t ory' s mi l d i rony i s accent uat ed by t he f act t hat Hobbes
and
Ameri ca i s wri t t en by an Ameri can pol i t i cal s ci ent i s t ,
who has been i n-
f l uenced by
t he t hought of t he l eadi ng Canadi an pol i t i cal
t heori s t , C. B.
Macphers on
andhas beenpubl i s hed i nt hi s count ry.
Thi s i s a genui nel y i conocl as t i c work. Wi t hout ever
l aps i ng i nt o f anat i ci s m
andhumorl es s
f eroci t y, i t of f ers a s ys t emat i c, i nt el l i gent andengagi ng t hes i s .
Prof es s or Col eman' s
work of f ers an i nt erpret at i on of Ameri can
cons t i t ut i onal
t hought and of t he predi cament of modern
l i beral i s m. It s cent ral i dea i s t hat
"t he cons t i t uent pri nci pl es of pol i t i cal as s oci at i on
i n Hobbes ' s phi l os ophy and
i n Ameri can l i f e are t he s ame. Hobbes
devel ops a phi l os ophy of con-
s t i t ut i onal i s mwhi ch i s i n keepi ng
wi t h t he act ual dai l y conduct of Ameri can
pol i t i cs " . Thus Hobbes i s decl ared
t he "t rue ances t or of cons t i t ut i onal l i beral
democracy, " as wel l as "t he
parent s ource of t he modern Ameri can concept
of
t he pol i t i cal proces s " ( p. 3) .
Thi s unort hodox and provocat i ve decl arat i on s et s
t he s t age f or Prof es s or
Col eman' s t heme whi ch he el aborat es ands ubs t ant i at es
wi t h s ound
s chol ars hi p, l uci d, i ngeni ous argument at i on
.
At
t he out s et
Prof es s or
Col eman s t at es hi s unders t andi ngof what a
cons t i t ut i onal phi l os ophy
i s
and does . He def i nes i t as "an i mperi al pol i t i cal
i deol ogy s hapi ng t he
cons ci ous nes s
of a whol e peopl e t hrough t hei r nat i onal i nheri t ance" ( p.
6) .
What
ani mat es , mends and s us t ai ns i ns t i t ut i ons i s Col eman' s
concern. He
f ocus s es
onl y on t hos e s oci al s t ruct ures and i deas
whi ch pul s at e wi t h l i f e. The
aut hor
warns us agai ns t an i mmut abl e, t i mel es s i mage of
cons t i t ut i onal i s m. He
t el l s us t hat "t he i di omof expres s i on of a
cons t i t ut i onal phi l os ophy wi l l change
over t i me, whi l e t he bas i c phi l os ophy remai ns
t he s ame i n t erms of i t s con-
t rol l i ng i deas " ( p. 7) . He exhi bi t s great awarenes s
of apparent changes whi ch
124
OFLE117ATHAN
REPUBLI CS
onl y hi de t he subst ant i ve cont i nui t y . I n a t r ul y phi l osophi c f ashi on, Pr of essor
Col eman seeks t he subst ant i ve and essent i al and r emai ns i mmune t o t he l ur e of
mer e appear ance . He i nvest i gat es cr i t i cal l y pr evai l i ng vi ews, whi ch ar e cont r ar y
t o hi s own. He r ej ect s t he myt ho- i deol ogi cal per spect i ves whi ch i n t hei r hol l ow
mor al i smi gnor e t he most gl ar i ng aspect s of our empi r i cal r eal i t y . He al so
r ej ect s t he st er i l i t y of pur e empi r i ci sm, wi t h i t s assumpt i on t hat f act s can
aut omat i cal l y
di scl ose
t hei r
t r ut h
.
Pr of essor Col eman
cor r ect l y
cal l s
f or
and
empl oys successf ul l y a cr eat i ve, cr i t i cal synt hesi s of t he empi r i cal and t he
t heor et i cal . Nei t her mi nd nor mat t er al one can suf f i ce. The f i r st , i n i sol at i on
becomes unr eal . Thesecond i s j ust i ner t .
Pr of essor Col eman
r egi st er s
hi s
st r ong di ssat i sf act i on wi t h
t he
t wo
pr evai l i ng
t r adi t i ons of i nt er pr et at i on
r egar di ng
const i t ut i onal
phi l osophy
and t he
Amer i can pol i t i cal exper i ence. The f i r st consi st s of r ef or mi st i nt er pr et at i ons of
Amer i can const i t ut i onal i sm. Thi s body of t hought er r s, accor di ng t o Pr of essor
Col eman, i n i t s i nt er pr et at i on of t he nat i onal pol i t i cal exper i ence and i t f ai l s t o
come t o t er ms wi t h t he meani ng of i t s oper at i ve r eal i t i es . I t i s a myt hi c per -
spect i ve det ached f r omact ual i t y . The second i s t hat of empi r i cal - pl ur al i sm.
Pr of essor Col eman f i r ml y bel i eves t hat t hi s school , t hough a gr eat advance over
t he f i r st , al so f ai l s t o di vul ge t he t r ue char act er of t he Amer i can pol i t i cal ex-
per i ence. Never t hel ess he f i nds t he pl ur al i st s accur at e i n t he mai n. Thei r
descr i pt i ve anal ysi s di scl oses t he t r ut h, par t i al l y . Thei r anal ysi s i s usef ul i n
speci f yi ng t he wor ki ng ar r angement s of Amer i can pol i t i cal i nst i t ut i ons . But
t hi s t ype of anal ysi s wi t hout a pr oper t heor et i cal , cr i t i cal per spect i ve, r emai ns
t r uncat ed. The t heor et i cal l i mi t at i on of t he pl ur al i st s f or ces t hemt o per cei ve
and accept as nat ur al what i s i n r eal i t y "an i nt ent i onal l y cr eat ed pol i t i cal
syst em" ( p. 32) .
I t i s t hi s pl ur al i st i nt er pr et at i on t hat pr ovi des t he aut hor wi t h an account of
t he basi c oper at i ve r eal i t i es of t he Amer i can pol i t i cal pr ocess : namel y, r ut hl ess
i ndi vi dual i sm, t r ansact i onal r el at i ons, conf l i ct - management , and a mer el y
pol i ci ng sover ei gn. "The pur pose of Amer i can pol i t i cal i nst i t ut i ons i s t he
management of soci al conf l i ct ; t hi s pur pose i s oper at i onal i zed i n a pol i t i cal
pr ocess
i nvol vi ng
bar gai ni ng and negot i at i on bet ween i ndependent l y si t uat ed
pol i t i cal
act or s" ( p .
32) .
The por t r ayal
of
Amer i can
pol i t i cal l i f e capt ur ed i n t he pl ur al i st l i t er at ur e i s
f ound, on subst ant i ve i ssues, t o have
an ext r aor di nar y
af f i ni t y
wi t h t he
Feder al i st paper s, par t i cul ar l y wi t h
Madi son' s t hought on i nst i t ut i onal
management of soci al conf l i ct ( pp. 10- 15)
.
Pr of essor
Col eman i s car ef ul t o show
t hat f or mal di f f er ences do exi st . For exampl e t he pl ur al i st s
speak of a "gr oup"
r at her t han an i ndi vi dual appr oach. But Pr of essor Col eman f or cef ul l y shows
t hat t he
"gr oup"
r emai ns
hi ghl y pr i vat i zed. No di sagr eement i s f ound be-
t ween Madi son and t he pl ur al i st posi t i on
on t he goal s and modus oper andi of
conf l i ct - management . Pr of essor Col eman f i nds di sagr eement
bet ween t hem
12
5
ALKI SKONTOS
onl y r egar di ng appl i cat i on. "Wher eas Madi son r el i ed
upon
i nst i t ut i onal
conf l i ct and
bal ance, t he pl ur al i st anal ysi s cent er s at t ent i on on t he composi t i on
of soci al f or ces" ( p. 15) . No subst ant i ve di f f er ence exi st s bet ween t he
Feder al i st s and t he pl ur al i st s, accor di ng t o Pr of essor Col eman.
Hi s descr i pt i ve def i ni t i on of t he
oper at i onal r eal i t i es of Amer i can pol i t i cal
l i f e al l ows Pr of essor Col eman t o i ni t i at e hi s cr uci al anal ysi s of t hei r pol i t i cal
i mpl i cat i ons . Thi s const i t ut es one of t he most power f ul and exci t i ng segment s
of _Col eman' s t heme. Hi s ver di ct i s f r i ght eni ngl y accur at e. "The soci al f ai l ur es
of Amer i can pol i t i cal i nst i t ut i ons ar e not l i ke
an
over si ght , cor r ect ed af t er
a
second
l ook,
but ar e a per manent bl i ndness f i xed i n t he nat ur e of t he i n-
st i t ut i ons and t he soci al phi l osophy used t o desi gn t hem" ( p. 17) . These soci al
f ai l ur es const i t ut e ar eas whi ch ar e not an obj ect of deci si on by t he sover ei gn:
conur bat i on, st r uct ur al unempl oyment , ener gy management and pol l ut i on,
cr i mi nal r eci di vi sm. Bet ween sent i ment al r ef or ms and i ndi f f er ence t her e exi st s
t he need f or f undament al st r uct ur al changes. Col eman' s cr i t i cal comment ar y
and anal ysi s go f ur t her
.
They capt ur e t he basi c physi ognomy of t he
Amer i can
body pol i t i c i n i t s most unat t r act i ve char act er i st i cs . Tur moi l and ant agoni sm
ar e basi c t o t he Amer i can pol i t i cal l i f e: unat t endedsoci al pr obl ems, pr opensi t y
t owar d vi ol ence, pr oneness t o pet t y cor r upt i on. Col eman expl or es t hem
met i cul ousl y, r el ent l essl y.
Af t er a det ai l ed t r eat ment of t he oper at i ve r eal i t i es and t hei r i nevi t abl e
negat i ve consequences Pr of essor Col eman under t akes t he f ul l demyt ho-
l ogi zat i on of Amer i can pol i t i cs
.
Onl y i n l i ght
of
a vi ci ous and ugl y r eal i t y
can
we per cei ve t he myopi c myt hol ogy of t he r ef or mi st i nt er pr et at i ons of Amer i can
const i t ut i onal i sm. I have ment i oned al r eady Col eman' s mai n obj ect i on t o t hi s
modeof i nt er pr et at i on. I na mor e syst emat i c f ashi on he r ef ut es t he myt hof t he
sover ei gnt y of t he peopl e, wi t hJ ames MacGr egor Bur ns as i t s maj or pr oponent ,
andt he myt hof t he nat ur al l awt r adi t i on, pr omul gat ed by Ar t hur Hol combe.
Myt hs, accor di ng t o Pr of essor Col eman, have as t hei r mai n f unct i on t he
conceal ment of r eal i t y f r omt he publ i c and t he myt h maker s ( p . 37) . They
const i t ut e a gr and, col l ect i ve deni al . They pr et end t o beaut i f y and. ennobl e
wi t hout t ouchi ng t he i nner cor e of an i nt ol er abl e r eal i t y.
Havi ng exposed t he myt hs sur r oundi ng
Amer i can const i t ut i onal i sm,
Pr of essor Col eman t ur ns t o t he or i gi ns and meani ng of t he oper at i ve r eal i t i es of
Amer i ca
.
The
pol i t i cal
phi l osopher who
pr ovi des and
i l l umi nat es t he meani ng
of Amer i can pol i t i cal l i f e i s Hobbes, accor di ng t o Pr of essor Col eman. I n a
syst emat i c and pr eci se i nt er pr et at i on of Hobbes, Pr of essor Col eman est abl i shes
t hat : 1 . "Hobbes' s r egar d f or t he monar chy was not i nspi r ed by f eudal t i es, but
by t he consi der at i on t hat t he of f i ce of t he monar chy pr ovi ded an ext er nal
f r amewor k of or der wi t hi n whi cht he commer ci al i nt er est of t he mi ddl e cl ass
coul d be pur sued" ( p. 57) ; 2 . Hobbes "sought t o cl ear away t he doct r i nes of
cl assi cal t r adi t i on whi chst ood i n t he way of r ecogni t i on of t he i ndi vi dual as t he
126
OFLEhI ATHANREPUBLI CS
sol e sour ce of r i ght " ( p. 58) ;
3 .
Hobbes, t hr ough hi s
r ej ect i on of t he
t r adi t i onal , hi er ar chi cal per spect i ves of t hi ngs pol i t i cal , manages t o r est r i ct
" t he pur pose of pol i t i cal i nst i t ut i ons t o t he sat i sf act i on of t he mor t al needs of
mor t al men and l ays t he f oundat i ons of t he moder n t heor y of gover nment
by
consent of t he gover ned" ( p . 62) . Hobbes' s achi evement i s t hat he r epl aced
cl assi cal const i t ut i onal
t heor y wi t h a phi l osophy of const i t ut i onal i sm ap-
pr opr i at e t o t he t emper of commer ci al Pr ot est ant i sm.
The t r eat ment of
Hobbes as a l i ber al democr at r est s on t he f ol l owi ng
gr ounds :
Fi r st , Hobbes i s a l i ber al because he t r aces t he sour ce of
gover nment t o t he consent of t he gover ned, t aken one by
one
. Second, he i s a democr at because he asser t s t hat men
ar e equal and have equal r i ght s i n t he covenant
r el at i onshi p . Thi r d, hi s doct r i nes of i nal i enabl e r i ght s and
a r i ght of r esi st ance showt hat t he sover ei gn must uphol d,
not i nvade, t he r i ght s of bour geoi s men. Four t h,
Hobbes' s
pol i t i cal t hought cr eat es pol i t i cal i nst i t ut i ons conf or mi ng
t o t he pat t er n
and pur pose of pol i t i cs i n a l i ber al
democr acy . ( p.
75)
Pr of essor Col eman succeeds i n showi ng t hat " t he obj ect of Hobbes' s
pol i t i cal t heor y i s t o encour age commer ci al Pr ot est ant s, wear y of conf l i ct and
hopef ul of comf or t abl e pr eser vat i on, t o negot i at e t hei r di f f er ences r at her t han
f i ght
t hemout " ( p. 94) . Cogni zant of ot her i nt er pr et at i ons of Hobbes' s
pol i t i cal t heor y, Pr of essor Col eman i nt el l i gent l y and per suasi vel y ar gues hi s
posi t i on showi ng t he
val i di t y of
hi s
cl ai m. For Col eman
t he cent r al di l emma of
Hobbesi an pol i t i cs i s t hat t he
sover ei gn cannot r esol ve t he condi t i ons whi ch
gi ve r i se t o
conf l i ct i n soci et y . These condi t i ons
ar e i r r emedi abl e
because t hey l i e i n t he pr i vat e and ut t er l y di scr et e needs of
man hi msel f . Whi l e publ i c aut hor i t y per f or ms an essent i al
ser vi ce i n f i nal l y set t l i ng conf l i ct s of pr i vat e r i ght , i t can do
no mor e t han mai nt ai n a modi cumof ci vi l or der . Thus t he
sover ei gn i s depr i ved of an adequat e i deal of ci vi l i zat i on i n
t er ms of whi cht he member s of soci et y may be or gani zed .
Segment s of publ i c or der may r el apse i nt o t he st at e of
nat ur e wi t hno
i dent i f i abl e sense of l oss on t he par t of
bour geoi s men. ( pp. 98- 9)
12 7
ALKI SKONTOS
Thi s i s t he
essence and consequence of Hobbes . Thi s i s
t he r eal i t y of
Amer i ca. Hobbes as t he mast er
anal yst and advocat e of moder n egoi sm, t hat
pr of ound and haunt i ng at omi sm
whi ch can never be consol i dat ed i nt o a
genui ne
human communi t y, i s i n t hi s st udy t he
f ount ai n- head of Amer i can
const i t ut i onal t heor y .
Whi l e Pr of essor Col eman sees
Hobbes as t he t r ue ancest or whose
i deas have
been
t r ansf or medwi t hout l osi ng
t hei r essent i al char act er , he al so acknowl edges
t hat Locke pl ayed a si gni f i cant
and cr uci al r ol e i n t he t r ansf or mat i on
-
f ol l owed by
Madi son andot her s .
The Lockean
connect i on her al ds, i n Pr of essor
Col eman' s vi ew, a cr uci al shi f t
i n Hobbes' s t heor y
whi ch t ends t o obscur e t he ami t y
bet ween Hobbes and
Locke. That bot h ar e bour geoi s
t hi nker s no sensi bl e schol ar woul d deny
. What
i s novel wi t h Locke, accor di ng t o Col eman,
i s t hat hi s "sover ei gn i s
t r ansmi t t ed
i nt o a soci al no l ess t han a pol i t i cal st r uct ur e" ( p.
100) . Thus "a subst ant i al
nar r owi ng of
t he cl ai ms of moder n egoi smoccur s wi t h
Locke' s exagger at ed and
monot onous
emphasi s on t he r i ght s of pr oper t y
appr opr i at i on" ( p. 101) .
Though i t i s t r ue, wi t hi n t he
spi r i t of Pr of essor Col eman' s t heme,
t hat Locke
achi eved t he met amor phosi s
of Hobbes' s Levi at han - f r oma pur e,
naked,
and,
of consequence, st er i l e pol i t i cal st r uct ur e
i nt o a soci al one - t her e ar e
f undament al
di f f er ences bet ween Hobbes and
Locke
.
Col eman t ends t o pr esent
t hem
on an evol ut i onar y hi st or i cal cont i nuum,
wher eas I bel i eve Locke was
f ul l y cogni zant
of Hobbes' s vi ews and t hought he was
chal l engi ng t hem. The
i nt ensel y
at omi st i c, egoi st i c el ement exi st s i n bot h. But
Locke had a concept of
soci al sol i dar i t y and
cl ass f or mat i on, t ot al l y absent i n Hobbes .
Nat ur al l awi s f or
Locke no mer e r het or i c ; i t i s an
i ndi spensabl e cl ass r at i onal i zat i on
. Hobbes
coul d not even concei ve of
such possi bi l i t y . The Hobbesi an j ungl e of
t he st at e
of nat ur e i s al i en t o Locke,
not wi t hst andi ng t he const ant r eal i t y of
soci al
conf l i ct andvi ol ence .
The emphasi s pl aced by
Pr of essor Col eman on t he soci al
di mensi on pr esent
i n Locke' s t hought i s accur at e
andver y i mpor t ant . My cl ai mi s t hat a
syst emat i c
el abor at i on of Locke' s
soci al and pol i t i cal t hought
woul d r eveal i nher ent
phi l osophi cal cont r adi ct i ons
not because he i s a cr ypt o- Hobbesi an
but r at her
because he t r i ed t o di spr ove
Hobbes' s absol ut e at omi smf r oman at omi st i c f i r st
pr i nci pl e. I t i s
Locke' s i nadequat e phi l osophi c r i gor and
hi s pol i t i cal com-
mi t ment t o a cl ass
di f f er ent i at ed soci et y t hat def eat
hi s ant i - Hobbesi an i n-
t ent i on . Ful l accept ance
of Hobbes' s vi ews woul d
under mi ne t he gl or i f i cat i on
of t he pr oper t i ed
cl ass, so pr eci ous t o Locke . I t i s
t hei r bour geoi s ment al i t y t hat
uni f i es, pol i t i cal l y,
t hei r di f f er ences . Capi t al i smcement s
t hei r phi l osophi cal l y
subst ant i ve
di st ance .
Fr omt he
Lockean connect i on, Pr of essor
Col eman r et ur ns once mor e t o
Amer i can
const i t ut i onal phi l osophy vi a Madi son,
Thor eau, Cal houn, and
Sumner i n or der t o showt he f i nal st ages of
soci o- pol i t i cal st r uct ur es
whi ch t end
128
OFLET17ATHAN
REPUBLICS
t o di sgui se t hei r essent i al l y br ut al or i gi ns .
Pr of essor
Col eman' s pr i mar y
t ask has been t o t el l t he t r ut h about t he
Amer i can
pol i t y ( p. 38) -a
t r ut h t hat can enabl e a nat i on t o f i nd i t s pur pose.
Col eman' s exposed ( not r i di cul ed, mocked
or vul gar i zed) Amer i ca i s "a
nat i onal soci et y whi ch st ands uncer t ai nl y on t he edge of [ Hobbes' s]
st at e of
nat ur e" ( pp. 148-9) . Many woul d di sagr ee . If t hey do so t hey shoul d not cal l as
evi dence t he myt hol ogi zed Amer i ca nor an accur at el y descr i pt i ve por t r ayal of
soci et y t hat hi des i t s
i nner
st r uct ur e and
meani ng. To at t empt t o chal l enge
Col eman' s bi t t er t r ut h we must scr ut i ni ze t he soci al and i deol ogi cal r oot s
of t he
Amer i can pol i t y .
In
doi ng so we must be obl i ged t o agr ee wi t h Pr of essor
Col eman. We shoul d not f or get t hat f or Col eman "Hobbes di d not bel i eve,
l i ke t he l ai ssez f ai r e l i ber al s of a l at er day, t hat t he by-pr oduct of i ndi vi dual
egoi smi s t he publ i c good" ( p. 92) . For Hobbes "publ i c or der , i f i t i s t o ar i se, i s
t he pr oduct of cost l y del i ber at i on, not t he f or t ui t ous consequence of i ndi vi dual
act s of sel f -aggr andi zement " ( p. 93) . Per haps Amer i ca, havi ng yet t o shed f ul l y
her f i er ce Hobbesi an i ndi vi dual i sm, decei ves her sel f t hat she i ndeed has moved
successf ul l y i nt o t he spi r i t of l ai ssez f ai r e l i ber al i sm.
Pol i t i cal Economy
Uni ver si t y of Tor ont o
Canadi anJ our nal of Pol i t i c al andSoc i al Theor y / Revue c anadi enne de t hi or i e
pol i t i que et s oc i al e. Vol .
3,
No.
3
( Fal l / Aut omne, 1979) .
MARRIAGEFORSOCIALISM:
EMOTIONS ANDNOTIONS
F. Mec hner Bar nar d
The Let t er s of Si dney and Beat r i c e Webb, edi t ed by Nor man
Mac kenzi e, Vol . I : Appr ent i c es hi ps 1873- 1892, pp .
xx
+453 ;
Vol . II :
Par t ner s hi p 1892- 1912, pp. xv +405; Vol
. III : Pi l gr i mage 1912- 1947,
pp. xi i +482, London: Cambr i dge
Uni ver s i t y
Pr es s
and London Sc hool
of Ec onomi c s , 1978.
Nei t her Si dney nor Beat r i c e s pent muc h t i me
r eadi ng Mar x. In a s peec h i n
Mos c ow( i n 1932) Beat r i c e i ndeed ar gued - t o t he evi dent embar r as s ment
of
her audi enc e - t hat i t was pr ec i s el y bec aus e
t hey wer e not or t hodox Mar xi s t s
t hat t hey wer e s o ver y s ympat het i c t o
Sovi et Communi s m. The Fabi ans "had
never r ead Kar l Mar x . " For ,
"i f
t hey
had r ead hi mt hey woul d not have un-
der s t oodhi mand i f t hey hadunder s t ood
hi mt hey woul d not have agr eed wi t h
hi m. " ( III, 445) Al t hough Si dney admi t s
t o Shawt o havi ng bought Vol . II of
Das
Kapi t al ( i n
1885) ,
he f ear s i t was a ver y bad i nves t ment . "We
s hal l f i nd i t
ver y dul l
- i n f ac t unendur abl e . " ( I, 91) Thi s di d not s t op t he Webbs f r om
r egar di ng t hems el ves as
Soc i al i s t s nor di d i t i nhi bi t Beat r i c e f r omc al l i ng
her s el f
a Communi s t i n ol d age. Of
c our s e, bef or e Beat r i c e had met Si dney ( and f or
qui t e a whi l e af t er ) s he was
nei t her Fabi an nor Soc i al i s t , and Si dney' s own
br and of Soc i al i s mwas
c l os er t o Radi c al i s mt han t o Col l ec t i vi s m. Col l ec t i vi s t
Soc i al i s m, he
wr ot e i n 1886, was pur el y "an ac ademi c i deal
l i ke Pl at o' s
r epubl i c " and
not s omet hi ng one c an wi n vot es on; "no s uc h c hange c an
c ome
f or many c ent ur i es . . .
no t en per c ent of us ar e f i t f or a Soc i al i s t i c s t at e yet . "
( I,
102) However ,
i f Soc i al i s mappear edt o Si dney a r emot e and nebul ous
pol i t i c al
r eal i t y, i t nonet hel es s s eemi ngl y qual i f i ed emi nent l y f or
wooi ng pur pos es .
When
al l ot her pl oys pr oved di s mal l y unavai l i ng
- i nc l udi ng Keat s and
Ros et t i - Si dney i nvoked t he "s oc i al i s t c aus e" as an
i nduc ement t o mar r i age .
( I,
235)
The t heme was r ei t er at ed: "I ampr epar ed
t o s er ve your l i f e, and t o as k
not hi ng what ever i n r et ur n, s ave onl y your wor k
f or Soc i al i s m. . . " ( I, 270) It i s
not c l ear i f i t wor ked. The l et t er s pr ovi de
no c l ue as t o what i n t he end
pr evai l ed upon Beat r i c e t o c hange
her per s i s t ent and c at egor i c al "no" i nt o a
qual i f i ed "yes " ; but t he i dea of a
c ommon c aus e c onc ei vabl y di d not l eave her
qui t e c ol d, par t i c ul ar l y s i nc e s he was
gi ven ever y as s ur anc e t hat i t was s he who
13 0
MARRIAGE
FORSOCIALISM
was t o det er mi nei t s nat ur e
anddi r ect i on.
For sheer human i nt er est Vol ume
I i s cer t ai nl y t he most r eveal i ng
. Beat r i ce
descr i bes Si dney as "a r emar kabl e
l i t t l e man wi t h a huge head on a ver y
t hi n
body ; a br eadt h of f or ehead qui t e suf f i ci ent
t o account f or t he encycl opaedi c
char act er of hi s knowl edge, a J ewi sh nose,
pr omi nent eyes and mout h,
somewhat
unkempt , spect acl es, and a most bour geoi s bl ack
coat shi ny wi t h
wear ; somewhat bet ween a
London car d and a Ger man pr of essor
. " ( I,
128)
Al t hough she secr et l y agr eed
t o mar r y t he "ugl y l i t t l e man" i n May
1891,
"si mpl y because you ar e a Soci al i st and I ama
Soci al i st ", she made i t per f ect l y
cl ear t hat "i t
i s t he head onl y t hat I ammar r yi ng . " ( I, 201
and 281) In cont r ast
t o Si dney,
who kept no di ar y, Beat r i ce was possessed of a
compel l i ng need t o
r ecor d her i nner st at es
f r om adol escence t o her deat h . Pr one
t o sever e
depr essi ons and sui ci dal phant asi es,
she al t er nat ed bet ween cr avi ng
f or
compl et e i ndependence and sol i t ude
and a desper at e l ongi ng f or l ove and
r ecogni t i on . She was not goi ng t o be easy t o l i ve
wi t h . As wel l , Beat r i ce was a
beaut i f ul womanand she knew
i t .
She
knewal so t hat , compar ed t o her , Si dney
had "no soci al posi t i on and l ess
means" and t hat he was t he l ast man
her
mi l l i onai r e f at her woul d appr ove
of . The most t hat her f ami l y and ci r cl e of
f r i ends woul d say f or Si dney i s t hat he had "a
cer t ai n pushi ng abi l i t y . " ( I, 239
and 274) Whi l e she r ecogni zed t hat seen i n t hi s
l i ght and i n t he absence of any
count er vai l i ng
f eel i ngs on her par t a uni on wi t h Si dney was
anyt hi ng but a
' `good mar r i age", she coul d
not whol l y di scount hi s good poi nt s, i n par t i cul ar
t hose whi ch woul d be of val ue t o
her schol ar l y ambi t i ons. For she had t o agr ee
wi t h Si dney t hat al t hough she was good
i n i nt er vi ewi ng and di ggi ng up f act s
she was a l abor i ousl y sl owwr i t er , wher eas Si dney
had t he knack of or der i ng hi s
t hought s qui ckl y and of get t i ng t hem
down on paper as r api dl y as he coul d
ar t i cul at e t hemi n conver sat i on. So,
i n t he end, t he "Beaut y" chose t he
"Beast " ( Si dney' s way of put t i ng i t ) , pr obabl y
t o t hei r mut ual advant age and
possi bl y f or t he advancement of
"soci al i sm" . To j udge by t he l et t er s, however ,
t he Beast was deci dedl y mor e
human
t han
t he Beaut y .
Per haps t he most r emar kabl e
not i on whi ch t he cour t i ng par t ner s shar ed was
Comt e' s i dea of a
wel l - r egul at ed soci al syst emgover ned by an enl i ght ened
el i t e. Cooper at i ves wer e a most
excel l ent i nst r ument i n keepi ng i nt er est away
f r omcent r al
gover nment , t he r eal mof exper t s. ( I, 19- 20) At any r at e t hi s i s
what Beat r i ce Pot t er mai nt ai ned i n 1883, r ei t er at ed i n 1890 ( t o Si dney) , and
subst ant i al l y uphel d
t o t he end of her l i f e. Al t hough Si dney essent i al l y agr eed
wi t h her el i t i sm, he coul d not qui t e st omach her i nt el l ect ual col dness,
her
di sr egar d f or t he unf or t unat es at t he bot t omwhose sur vi val she deemed l ess
i mpor t ant t hant he cul t i vat i on of t he abl e and st r ong. ( I, 137)
Beat r i ce' s "i nt el l ect ual col dness" der i ved f r oma r easoned
convi ct i on t hat
st at e i nt er vent i on i n t he f or mof unempl oyment benef i t s or publ i c
wor ks
pr oj ect s had a demor al i zi ng ef f ect upon
t he wor ker . Shesawpr oof of t hi s i n t he
F. MECHNERBARNARD
f act t hat out of 135 Whi t echapel
men
who appl i ed t o t he Rel i ef commi t t ee
onl y
f i f t eenaccept ed t he of f er t o sweep t he st r eet s at t wo shi l l i ngs a day. Hence she
onl y gr udgi ngl y agr eed t o
t he pr i nci pl e t hat "t he r i ch must keep t he poor
al i ve" oncondi t i ont hat "t hepoor , wi t h l i ber t y t o i ncr ease, ar e
not i nj ur i ous t o
t he communi t y at l ar ge. " ( 1,
53)
Shor t l y af t er spendi ng 120 pounds ona dr ess
she coul d qui t e
cal ml y decl ar e -so sever e was her i nt el l ect ual consi st ency -
t hat whi l e t he sl ow deat h of a
hundr ed men t hr ough semi -st ar vat i on i s
"t er r i bl y sad", i t does not f ol l owf r omt hi s t hat somet hi ng must be
done t o
pr event i t .
Pr of oundl y suspi ci ous of pol i t i cal ( l et al one r evol ut i onar y) means as a
vehi cl e
of soci al change,
she coul d l i kewi se see no poi nt i n l egi sl at i ve measur es
desi gned t o
br i ng
about
a r est r uct ur i ng of pr oper t y owner shi p. The wor ker s
must f i r st l ear n t he di f f i cul t i es of
management , t he pr obl ems t hey wi l l have t o
sol ve, bef or e t hey can be expect ed t o manage and
t o sol ve t hem. "Above al l
t hey must l ear nt he absol ut e necessi t y of st r i ct ness of deal i ng,
of sel f -cont r ol ,
and of pat i ent t emper -al l qual i t i es t hey ar e def i ci ent i n . . . you
cannot i n-
t r oduce
cor por at e owner shi p unt i l you get some cor por at e f eel i ng . " ( 1, 43)
Pr esumabl y t hey coul d best
l ear n
t o gai n
t hi s f eel i ng i n t he consumer co-ops
whi ch ( i n 1889) she r egar ded as deci dedl y pr ef er abl e t o t he
"cat ast r ophi c
over t ur ni ng of t he exi st i ng or der " pr eached by t he Soci al
Democr at i c
Feder at i on
. ( 1,
68)
Not
sur pr i si ngl y,
she
put no gr eat st or e by t he Fabi ans i n t hose days : "I do
not t hi nk i t i s a mat t er of
much i nt r i nsi c i mpor t ance what happens t o i t [ t he
Fabi an Soci et y] . I t cannot be made
i nt o ` a gr eat i nst r ument of Pr ogr ess' -i t s
mat er i al i s t oo poor . " ( 1,
357)
She f ear ed t hat t he abl er member s
of t he Fabi an
Soci et y, such as
Ber nar d Shawand Gr ahamWal l as, woul d l ose i nt er est
bef or e
l ong andf el t t hat
t he r emai nder wer e not wor t h pr eser vi ng . J ust as shet hought
of mar r i age as
t he "wast epaper -basket of t he emot i ons", she sawt he
Fabi an
Soci et y of 1891 as a f ut ur e wast epaper -basket of t he
i nt el l ect .
The Ri se andFal l of Per meat i onwoul d
not
be an
i nappr opr i at e t i t l e f or t he
second vol ume
of l et t er s si nce t he hal l mar k of t he per i od i t cover s
( 1892-1912)
consi st s i n var i ousl y f at ed at t empt s t o mani pul at e
pr act i si ng pol i t i ci ans by
suppl yi ng i deas and t act i cs t oget her wi t h l unches and
di nner par t i es . Al t hough
Beat r i ce f ound i t f ar f r omeasy t o di vest
her sel f
of
her l i nger i ng "i ndi vi dual i st
ant ecedent s", she nowbegan t o vi ew
her sel f as a Soci al i st , t oo, not -
wi t hst andi ng t he f act t hat she ( l i ke Si dney)
woul d have not hi ng t o do wi t h t he
di ver se cont empor ar y Soci al i st gr oups .
Evenwhent hey abandoned t he Li ber al
Par t y ( af t er 1893) t hey r ef used t o
t r y t hei r f or t unes wi t h t he emer gi ng al l i ance
bet ween Soci al i st s and t r ade uni oni st s
t hat const i t ut ed t he newLabour par t y .
They chose, i nst ead, t o per si st
i n hi gh l evel wi r epul l i ng, per haps wi t hout
r eal i zi ng t hat t hey wer e pul l ed
mor e t han t hey wer e pul l i ng, t hat ,
f ar f r om
pr omot i ng t hei r ownschemes t hey
became t he dupes of pol i ci es whi ch wer e as
132
MARRIAGEFORSOCIALISM
removedf romLi beral i smas t hey were
f romSoci al i sm. For, by t he end of t he
cent ury,
t hei r
sal on
pol i t i cs
l anded
t hempract i cal l y i n t he camp of Tory i m-
peri al i st s . Not unt i l 1914 were t hey t o become associ at ed
wi t h t he Labour Part y
t oany seri ous ext ent .
Act ual l y, Beat ri ce was not , by vi rt ue of
f ami l y background and nat ural
i ncl i nat i on, seri ousl y at odds wi t h Tory t hi nki ng
.
Her concept i on
of col l ec-
t i vi smwas shot t hrough wi t h a prof oundl y aut hori t ari an st reak
. She enj oyed
t he company of t he Edwardi an great and movedwi t h ease among
men
of t he
st at ure of a Hal dane, Asqui t h, or Bal f our . Povert y was t hen very much t he
cent re
of cont roversy and t he Webbs were acut el y i nvol ved i n i t . They were
det ermi nedt o see
t hi ngs
go
t hei r ownway. As i t happened, Beat ri ce' s ef f ort s
as a member of t he Royal Commi ssi on
on t he Poor Lawproved a si ngul arl y
unsuccessf ul demonst rat i on of t hei r i dea of pol i t i cal permeat i on
. The
Webbs
whol l y f ai l ed t o persuade t he Li beral l eaders of t he meri t s of t hei r own com-
prehensi ve scheme f or deal i ng wi t h povert y and l ost out t o Ll oyd George and
Wi nst on Churchi l l . Permeat i on, cl earl y, was no subst i t ut e f or sol i d pol i t i cal
power ; and t hat i s preci sel y what t he Webbs sorel y l acked. Mat t ers di d not
i mprovewhent hey t urnedf rombackgroundmani pul at i on t o publ i c agi t at i on.
When,
f i nal l y,
t he passage
of
Ll oyd George' s
i nsurance bi l l put anend t o t he
Webbs'
campai gn, Beat ri ce
was
bot h di senchant ed andel at ed. Di senchant ed,
because she f ai l ed t o domi nat e, but al so because she and Si dney coul d not
persuade t hose whoshoul d knowbest , t he el i t e of soci et y, t hat t hei rs was t he
i nt ri nsi cal l y bet t er scheme. El at ed, because she coul d nowpoi nt t o t he di sast er
t hey experi enced as t el l i ng support f or her set of pri ori t i es : f i rst books, t hen, i f
Si dney st i l l i nsi st ed, pol i t i cs .
Not t hat t hey hadbeen i dl e i n t he book- product i on busi ness, f ar apart f rom
Fabi an t ract s and art i cl es t he Webbs publ i shed i n t hi s peri od The Hi st ory of
Trade Uni oni sm( 1894) , Indust ri al Democracy
( 1897) ,
Probl ems of Modern
Indust ry ( 1898) and several vol umes onEngl i sh Local Government . Thanks t o
Beat ri ce' s subst ant i al yearl y i ncome f romi nheri t ed i nvest ment s, Si dney was
abl e t o l eave t he Col oni al Of f i ce anddevot e hi msel f ent i rel y t o wri t i ng. Hewas
not sorry t o l eave hi s cl eri cal
j ob,
nor di d
he
nowevi dent l y regret t hat hi s wi f e
was a "person of st at i on andgoodconnect i on andsomeweal t h" as he seemed
t o do when he was court i ng her as one who was "bot h poor and proud. " ( 1,
205)
Books, however, were not t hei r onl y of f spri ng. 1895 sawt he f oundat i on of
t heLondonSchool of Economi cs, oneof t hei r most - remarkabl e achi evement s .
Al t hough Beat ri ce was t o Si dney a l oyal and devot ed wi f e, she never l ost
consci ousness of t he f act t hat i t was J oseph Chamberl ai n, andnot Si dney, who
had"absorbed t he whol eof
my
sexual f eel i ng, " andt hat nei t her her "physi cal
passi on" nor her "soci al ambi t i on" were st i mul at ed
by
Si dney. It di d not
t ake
many mont hs of marri agef or her t o f eel "hemmedi n"
by
mat ri mony. Among
Si dney' s ol d f ri ends, Beat ri ce part i cul arl y admi red Shaw' s "sparkl e and
133
F. MECHNER
BARNARD
f l avour " but coul d
not under st and hi s per sonal i t y .
"Del i ght f ul " as a com-
pani on, he st r uck her as t oo
much of "a bor n Phi l ander er . . .
di sl i ki ng t o be
hamper ed ei t her by passi on or by
convent i ons and t her ef or e al ways
t yi ng
hi msel f up i nt o knot s whi ch have t o be
cut bef or e he i s f r ee f or anot her ad-
vent ur e . " ( 1 1 ,
7)
Her f eel i ngs f or Wal l as wer e
qui t e di f f er ent . She f ound
hi m
a
"l oveabl e
man", f ul l of "mor al i t y and scr upul ousness",
but mi ssed a sense of
di r ect i on
i n hi m; he seemed t o her "i ncapabl e
of di r ect i ng hi s own l i f e. "
( I bi d. ) But she
coul d not hel p mi xi ng an el ement
of cont empt - or at any r at e
condescensi on -
wi t h her admi r at i on f or Si dney' s cl osest
Fabi an f r i ends . What
was l acki ng, Beat r i ce
f el t , was "a per sonal i t y of wei ght . "
( I bi d. )
As f or doct r i nal not i ons,
t he pr i nci pal i dea among t he scant
r ef er ences t o
Soci al i sm
i s t he
deni al t hat Soci al i smi s a r eady- made syst em
t hat can be
"est abl i shed" over - ni ght , by a
pol i t i cal act of wi l l or f or ce. "Theday
wi l l never
come
when Soci al i sm wi l l be ' est abl i shed'
i n any sense t hat i t was
not
est abl i shed t he
day bef or e. " ( 1 1 , 1 4) Ther e i s al so a
t wof ol d t ensi on i n Si dney' s
t hi nki ng about Soci al i smof
whi ch hepr obabl y was unawar e.
Hi s i deas seemt o
r un on a doubl e t r ack si mul t aneousl y, so
t o speak. Soci al i smi s at one
and t he
same t i me seen
as an obj ect i ve t r ut h, t he
di scover y of whi ch i s essent i al l y a
mat t er
of di si nt er est ed r esear ch and
t eachi ng ( t he i nt ended f unct i on
of t he
London
School of Economi cs) , anda met hod
of ar r i vi ng at t he t r ut h
whi ch
i s
per f ect l y known and onl y r equi r es
ski l f ul appl i cat i on. Soci al i st s ar e
t hose who
knowhow
t o di scover t he t r ut h . On t hi s
vi ew, t he f unct i on of educat i on i s
t o
make r easoni ng
men capabl e of r ecogni zi ng r eason
when i t st ar es t hem
i n t he
eye. I t di d not seem
possi bl e t o Si dney Webb t hat
hol di ng bot h not i ons may
pr ove ext r emel y pr obl emat i cal
- f or i t i nvol ves a ci r cul ar i t y
t hat i s scar cel y
escapabl e. I n ef f ect i t means
t hi s
:
Soci al i smi s a mat t er f or
i nt el l i gent peopl e.
St upi d peopl e ar e not
el i gi bl e ; i ncapabl e of bei ng educat ed,
t hey can nei t her
acqui r e nor benef i t f r om
"sci ent i f i c" knowl edge ( i . e. ,
t he met hod of i n-
t el l ect ual di scover y
t hat
i s
known t o Soci al i st s andt he
di scover y of t r ut h whi ch
i s t her eby at t ai ned) and
consequent l y bel ong t o t hose
who const i t ut i vel y ar e
beyond t he Soci al i st pal e.
The ai mi s not , as Beat r i ce
put i t , t o "or gani ze t he
unt hi nki ng per sons
i nt o soci al i st soci et i es"
[ but ] "t o make t he
t hi nki ng
per sons
soci al i st i c . " ( 1 1 , 44) The mat t er does
not end t her e i n vi ew of
t he f act
t hat t he unr eachabl e
ones do not r emai n passi ve
i n t hei r st upi di t y .
Enl i ght en-
ment does not
mer el y el ude t hem, i t i s
act i vel y r esi st ed. "Do you
r eal l y
bel i eve, " Si dney
wr i t es t o Pr of essor El y
( f r omJ ohns Hopki ns
Uni ver si t y)
i n 1 894, "t hat
t he opposi t i on [ t o Soci al i sm]
woul dcomef r omt he
except i onal l y
gi f t ed? I t seems
t o be on t he cont r ar y t hat
t hese ar e t he f i r st t o pl ace
t hei r
ser vi ces at t he
di sposal of t he Communi t y ' f or
l ove' , as wesay . . . I t i s t he
st upi d
men and
women nowl i vi ng on r ent and
i nt er est - not t he abl e
ones - who
ar e our bi t t er est
opponent s . Soci al i sm
i mpl i es
' l a.
car r i er e ouver t e aux t al ent s'
i n
t he
f ul l est sense - t he car eer of soci al
est eem. " ( 1 1 , 1 4) I t di d
not
seem
t o occur
1 3
4
MARRIAGEFORSOCIALISM
t o Si dney t hat t o s et s uch s t r i ngent per i met er s t o val i d t hought
cour t s t he
danger of s uf f ocat i ng i t al t oget her .
Anot her s our ce of t ens i on i s Si dney' s ( and Beat r i ce' s ) ambi val ence over
t he
pol i t i cal bas e of Soci al i s m i n i t s emer gence and of t he pol i t i cal cont ent of
Soci al i s m
i n i t s oper at i on . Her e I s hal l conf i ne my r emar ks t o t he ques t i on of
"bas e" ; t o t he pr obl emof
pol i t i cs wi t hi n Soci al i s mI s hal l r et ur n l at er . Kei r
Har di e, t he l eader of
t he Independent Labour Par t y, put hi s f i nger on t he pul s e
when he at t acked Webb and Shaw as "s uper i or
per s ons " who t r i ed t o be
gener al s wi t hout an ar my. On t he one hand t he Webbs pr of es s ed
a bel i ef i n
"democr acy" and on t he ot her t hey had no f ai t h i n t he "mas s es " .
It was f or
t he "Pr i es t s of Humani t y" t o poi nt t he way -Comt e' s ver s i on of t he
Pl at oni c
guar di ans . Anat ur al
ar i s t ocr acy of mer i t was t o pave t he r oad f or a Soci al i s t
or der -al t hough Beat r i ce was r el uct ant t o
i ncl ude t he Fabi ans among t hem
f or f ear t hat t hey wer e not t emper ament al l y s ui t ed t o
pr act i cal pol i t i cs , not
bei ng member s of t he t r adi t i onal r ul i ng cl as s nor
men
who had
s er ved t hei r
t i me i n l abour or gani zat i ons . ( II, 7) Thi s nat ur al
ar i s t ocr acy woul d cons i s t of
men of r ecogni zed mer i t , "t r ai ned admi ni s t r at or s ,
exper t s i n or gani s i ng men
-equi pped wi t h an Economi cs or a Soci ol ogy whi ch wi l l be s ci ent i f i c [ f or ]
"men need or gani s i ng as much as machi nes ,
or r at her , much mor e. " ( 1 1 , 1 44)
Unl i ke t he el i t es of capi t al i s t s oci et i es , t he nat ur al
ar i s t ocr acy of t he f ut ur e
woul d be i mbued wi t h "s oci al f eel i ng", not s i mpl y "of f t o make money"
and
t o s eek i ndi vi dual
advant age . ( 1 1 , 1 4) Pr es umabl y, t he not i on of a nat ur al
ar i s t ocr acy of
mer i t
was
t o f or ge' a s ynt hes i s bet ween democr acy and el i t i s m, f or
t he Webbs bel i eved
t hat , whi l e t he newl eader s woul d cer t ai nl y not or i gi nat e
f r omt he "mas s es ",
t hey woul d, at any r at e i n Engl and, compr i s e many t hat
came
f r omt he "wage-ear ni ng cl as s " . Indeed, i n a l et t er t o H. G. Wel l s ( i n
1 901 ) Si dney
emphas i s es t he gr owi ng i mpor t ance of t hi s cl as s : "I cannot hel p
t hi nki ng t hat you al t oget her under r at e t he capaci t y of t he wage-ear ni ng cl as s
t o
di f f er ent i at e i t s el f , and t he ext ent t o whi ch i t wi l l s egr egat e. "
The
"peopl e",
hegoes on, "need not be any l ar ge mas s . . . . TheEngl i s h wage-ear ni ng cl as s , f or
i ns t ance, i s r api dl y put t i ng on ' bour geoi s ' char act er i s t i cs ,
devel opi ng any
number of mar kedl y di f f er ent cl as s es and s t r at a . . . . Thes e s egr egat i ons ar e
qui ckl y comi ng t o pl ay a gr eat and i nt el l i gent par t
i n t he wor l d -t hey con-
t r i but e what i s , i n i t s way, a r eal gover ni ng cl as s .
Thi s wi l l pl ay no s mal l par t i n
t hat admi ni s t r at i on, t hat or gani zat i on of men t o whi ch
I
have r ef er r ed . "
( 1 1 , 1 44-1 45)
At t he s ame t i me, i n cont r as t t o young
Beat r i ce, Si dney at t ached l i t t l e
i mpor t ance t o t he co-oper at i ves , and, at
any
r at e
dur i ng t he per i od cover ed by
t he s econd vol ume, s howed
mi ni mal conf i dence i n or gani zed l abour as t he
bas i s f or a pol i t i cal par t y, des pi t e t he t r ade uni on t i es whi ch t he Webbs had
f or med dur i ng t hei r r es ear ch. Si mi l ar l y, t he i dea of i ndus t r i al
democr acy, i n
t er ms of wor ker s ' cont r ol , f ound no f avour i n
hi s
eyes .
"It
i s as
a ci t i zen, not as
1 35
F. MECHNERBARNARD
a br i ckl ayer or a car pent er , t hat he [ t he wor kman] shoul d cl ai mhi s r i ght t o
shar e i n t he admi ni st r at i on
of i ndust r y
and
i t s
r esul t s, "
Si dney wr ot e at t he
t ur n of t he cent ur y . " The wor kmen empl oyed on t he j ob do
not , and shoul d
not , " he added, " choose t he f or eman and t he manager , t he ar chi t ect and t he
boar d of di r ect or s . " ( 11, 121- 122) Aut hor i t y, t he Webbs mai nt ai ned, i s
essent i al , as i s
subor di nat i on . " I have no obj ect i on t o t he pr i nci pl e of
subor di nat i on
- per
se - " ,
Beat r i ce i nf or ms H
. G.
Wel l s ( i n 1904) ; " i t i s a
mat t er f or del i cat e i nvest i gat i on t he exact
condi t i ons under whi ch i t
degener at es i nt o t yr anny . " ( 11, 203) Cl ear l y, i t i s a
moot poi nt howsuccessf ul
t he Webbs wer e i n r econci l i ng democr acy and " ar i st ocr acy" , or soci al i smand
hi er ar chy, but t her e i s l i t t l e i ndi cat i on t hat t hey wer e over l y t r oubl ed by t he
t ensi on whi ch t hese i nel uct abl y ent ai l .
Dur i ng
t he per i od cover ed by
vol ume I I I ( 1912- 47) , t he Webbs di d i n f act set
out t o
expl or e
t he
di st i nct i on
bet ween
" aut hor i t y" and " t yr anny" when t hey
deci ded t o vi si t t he Sovi et Uni on and st udy Sovi et
Communi sm.
Her e
i t
i s
st r ange t hat anyone who put s as much st or e by accur at e i nf or mat i on and
sci ent i f i c met hod as t he Webbs di d shoul d pr ove so gul l i bl e and/ or i nsensi t i ve
t o t he di f f er ence bet ween f act and wi shf ul t hi nki ng. To be f ai r , t he Webbs wer e
not unawar e of t hei r bi as . They admi t t ed, mor e or l ess
openl y, t hat t hey went
t o Russi a i n t he hope of havi ng t hei r " hypot heses" conf i r med. What i s so odd
i s t hat t hey r ef used t o bel i eve t hat t hei r bi as coul d ser i ousl y
di st or t t hei r
j udgment . When ot her s r ai sed doubt s t hey ser enel y smi l ed, secur e
i n t hei r
super i or knowl edge of t he t r ue f act s . Even t he pur ges wer e conf i dent l y
ex-
pl ai ned
away
and onl y Beat r i ce' s di ar y l at er r eveal ed t he cr acks i n t hei r con-
f i dence . I f t he Webbs wer e gul l i bl e,
t hei r gul l i bi l i t y
was
wel l mat ched by t hat
of t hei r r eader s, i ncl udi ng l eadi ng academi cs and wr i t er s,
f or t he
Webbs
wer e
not al one i n r egar di ng
t hei r
st udy of Sovi et
Communi sm
as
t he most t hor ough
pi ece of i nvest i gat i on ever under t aken of t hi s " newci vi l i zat i on"
- t he
sub-
t i t l e of t he wor k. Shawand H. G. Wel l s wer e f ul l of pr ai se, and al t hough
i t
was
f or t he most par t out of dat e at i t s publ i cat i on
( i n
1935) ,
Sovi et Communi sm
was r equi r ed r eadi ng i n Oxf or d Pol i t i cs and
Economi cs cour ses f or year s af t er .
The Webbs wer e equal l y suscept i bl e t o
negat i ve bi as . Si dney, as Col oni al
Secr et ar y, was heavi l y i nvol ved
i n
t he
dr af t i ng of t he Whi t e Paper on Pal est i ne
( 1930)
t o whi ch, not sur pr i si ngl y, Zi oni st s r eact ed r at her unf avour abl y. Beat r i ce
descr i bed t he r eact i on as " a hyst er i cal J ewi sh out bur st , " whi ch st r uck her as
al l
t he mor e conf usi ng si nce she was convi nced t hat " t he J ewi sh i mmi gr ant s ar e
Sl avs or Mongol s and not Semi t es, and t he vast maj or i t y ar e not f ol l ower s of
Moses and
t he pr ophet s, but of Kar l Mar x and t he Sovi et Republ i c . " ( 111, 334-
5)
The bi as as such, t hough per haps r egr et t abl e, i s not sur pr i si ng; nor i s i t
i ncont est abl e evi dence f or ant i - Semi t i sm. Agood manyJ ews at t he
t i me wer e
not Zi oni st s, some i ndeed wer e ant i - Zi oni st s, i ncl udi ng a number of t he
Webbs' J ewi sh acquai nt ances such as Har ol d Laski . What i s
ast oni shi ng, i f not
136
MARRIAGEFOR
SOCIALISM
f r i ght eni ng, about t he af f ai r , especi al l y i f t aken t oget her wi t h t he Webbs'
"t r ut hs" about
Sovi et Russi a, i s t hat i t r ender s yet anot her pr oof
of t he
gul l i bi l i t y
of
i nt el l ect ual s and t hei r r eadi ness t o abandon cr i t i cal j udgment
i n
f avour of l oaded
opi ni on or sheer f ancy, even when, as i n t hi s case,
nei t her
t er r or nor t hr eat of
t er r or coul d be adduced as ext enuat i ng ci r cumst ances .
Act ual l y,
j udgi ng
by
t he l et t er s, t he Webbs' pr o- Sovi et and ant i - Zi oni st
bi ases wer e r ever sal s of ear l i er posi t i ons - a
f act made none t he l ess per pl exi ng
by bei ng whol l y unaccount ed f or by t he publ i shed
cor r espondence. The edi t or
at t empt s t o f i l l t he gap - at any r at e on t he Sovi et i ssue - by suggest i ng
an
under l yi ng
cont i nui t y of t hi nki ng ami dst t he appar ent di scont i nui t y . "In a
pr of ound sense, "
Mackenzi e says, "t he new- f ound Sovi et sympat hi es of t he
Webbs gr ewout of t hei r ear l i er at t i t udes . "
( III, vi i i ; emphasi s suppl i ed) Ther e
may i ndeed be a l evel of t he emot i ons, i f we go deep
enough, at whi ch t he
most
i ncongr uous i deas col l ude or conver ge. It i s per f ect l y t r ue t hat Beat r i ce
di d
l i ke t o t el l peopl e i n her ol d age t hat she had al ways sear ched f or what at l ast
t hey
had f ound i n t he Sovi et Uni on, but I wonder whet her t hi s di scl oses
a
cont i nui t y of t hi nki ng r at her t han a deep- f el t need f or r edempt i on
whi ch, i n
her agnost i ci sm,
she sought i n some secul ar cr eed . In a l ess "pr of ound sense"
i t
coul d al so be t aken as j ust
anot her mani f est at i on of her i nt ensel y mer cur i al
f eel i ngs . Be t hat as i t may, at
t he l evel of doct r i nal not i ons, as di st i nct f r omur -
emot i ons, t he edi t or ' s cont i nui t y t hesi s har bour s t wo
pot ent i al l y ser i ous
mi sconcept i ons - i n t er ms of empi r i cal l i kel i hood and
i n t er ms of i deat i onal
meani ng. For t he t hesi s woul d necessar i l y have t o
i mpl y
t hat
t he Webbs sawno
di f f er ence bet ween ( i ) t he aut hor i t y of di si nt er est ed
exper t s
-
i n whi ch t hey
bel i eved - and t he t er r or of St al i n' s secr et pol i ce ; and bet ween
( i i ) ci r -
cumscr i bed el i t i sm or "aut hor i t ar i ani sm" and
whol esal e ar bi t r ar i ness or
"t ot al i t ar i ani sm" . I must admi t I f i nd i t
di f f i cul t t o accept t hat t hei r mode of
t hi nki ng was qui t e so bl ur r ed and pr ef er t o bel i eve
t hat t hei r mi nds wer e mor e
t r oubl ed t han t hey saw
f i t t o
r eveal
.
The publ i shed l et t er s ar e r egr et t abl y
unavai l i ng i n yi el di ng a r at i onal e f or t he
Webbs' somer saul t on Sovi et
Communi sm. In 1924 Beat r i ce st i l l i nsi st s t hat
"my
husband and
I
have
al ways been agai nst t he Sovi et Syst em, and have
r egar ded i t as a r epet i t i on of Russi an
aut ocr acy based on a cr eed - a ver y
East er n concept i on . . . . My husband and
I
have
never been St at e Soci al i st s . . . we
have al ways advocat ed
muni ci pal
and
co- oper at i ve or gani sat i on as pr ef er abl e t o
nat i onal i sat i on of
any
but one or
t wo i ndust r i es
. "
( III,
207)
"The Russi an
r evol ut i on, and especi al l y
t he pr opaganda of i t i n Gr eat Br i t ai n, has been t he
gr eat est di sast er
i n t he hi st or y of t he Br i t i sh Labour movement , " Beat r i ce
obser ves
af t er t he Gener al St r i ke of 1926. ( III, 286) Even i n May 1930 Si dney
di spl ays an al most comi cal host i l i t y t owar d Communi smand ur ges Bever i dge,
t hen di r ect or of L. S. E. , i n a "ver y conf i dent i al " l et t er , t o keep hi s eye on some
t hi r t y "nat i ve" st udent s who had enr ol l ed i n t he "League agai nst
Im-
137
F. MECHNER
BARNARD
per i al i sm" , whi ch he cal l s " a mer e al i as f or a
Communi sm" and consi der s
" al most a
cr i mi nal of f ence
. "
( 111, 328) BySept ember 1931, however , Beat r i ce
i s " i ncl i ned t o back Communi sm
. " ( 111,
365- 6)
Fr omt henonshe has not hi ng
but pr ai se f or " t he amazi ng uni t y of pur pose" ,
t he " i mpr essi ve spi r i t of t he
pl ace" , " i t s
const i t ut i on" - t he most per f ect expr essi on, accor di ng t o
Beat r i ce, of t he Webbs'
Const i t ut i onof a Soci al i st Commonweal t h, sur passi ng
i t byi t s " soul " embodi ed f or Beat r i ce
i n t he " pur i t ani cal r el i gi ous or der " of
t he Russi anCommuni st Par t y. ( 111, 374, and380- 81)
. Event he si ght of peopl e
cr amped t oget her i n boxcar s f i l l s t hemwi t h
pr i de
-
cat t l e t r ucks ar e such a
wonder f ul
way
of pr ovi di ng cheap t r anspor t f or Ukr ai ni anpeasant s!
( I I I ,
377)
Ther e
i s
anot her r ever sal about whi ch t he publ i shed l et t er s ar e conspi cuousl y
si l ent
:
t he
abandonment of " per meat i on" and Si dney' s embr ace of t he
hi t her t o despi sed Labour Par t y
whi ch
he ( and
Beat r i ce) j oi ned i n1912 . J ust over
a decade l at er Si dneybecame a member
of t he f i r st Labour Gover nment . I t was
i n t he same year ( 1923) t hat Si dney coi ned t he phr ase
" i nevi t abi l i t y of
gr adual ness" wi t h whi ch t he Webbs, i f not Fabi ani smas wel l , wer e t o
become
i dent i f i ed i n t he mi nds of many who ot her wi se woul d knowl i t t l e el se about
ei t her . Appar ent l y i t was not
meant t o i mpl y gr adual i sm as a met hod of
change, but some
i nexor abl e l awl i ke comi ng t o power of Soci al i smas a r esul t of
a st eady r i se
i n
t he Labour
vot e. Al t hough t he Tor i es wona handsome vi ct or y
wi t h 413 seat s i n t he Commons, Labour
t ook manyvot es f r omt he Li ber al s .
( The l at t er shr unk t o a mer e 40) . Si dney
r et ai ned hi s seat f or t he next f i ve year s
i nwhi ch Labour was i n opposi t i on. Whi l e he pur sued
hi s pol i t i cal car eer and
at t ended t o par l i ament ar y
busi ness, Beat r i ce, st i l l t hi nki ng t hat " r esear ch
. . .
i s
mor e i mpor t ant t han
par t i ci pat i oni npol i t i cs" ( 111, 302) , pr essed onwi t h
t hei r
st udyof Engl i sh l ocal gover nment and
t he dr af t i ng of her aut obi ogr aphy.
The vol ume i s r at her meagr e
i n per sonal obser vat i ons . Har ol d Laski i s
descr i bed ( i n 1930) as " a ver y
`vi ewy' per son - al ways f l i r t i ng wi t h new
char mer s" , and Oswal d
Mosl ey, whose capaci t y f or l eader shi p Si dney
f i nds
want i ng,
i s
hai l ed byBeat r i ce as a " per f ect per son- al most t oo
per f ect f or t hi s
wi cked wor l d. "
( I I I ,
330,
340, 174) The r el at i onshi p bet ween
Si dney and
Chai mWei zmannwas st i f f and st r ai ned i nt hei r of f i ci al
communi cat i ons, but ,
accor di ng t o Beat r i ce' s di ar y ent r i es, i t was not so
or i gi nal l y. Si dney al l egedl y
st ar t ed " wi t h gr eat admi r at i onf or t heJ ewanda
cont empt f or t he Ar ab. " Onl y
as a r esul t of gr owi ng i r r i t at i onwi t h t he J ewi sh
negot i at or s di d Si dneybegi nt o
t hi nk of Wei zmann as " a cl ever devi l " who was t r yi ng
" t o exci t e t he i n-
di gnat i onof t he J ews . " ( I I I ,
335)
Bycont r ast , t he
cor r espondence wi t h G. D. H.
Col e oozes
wi t h gent l e t ol er ance and t act al t hough t her e was
l i t t l e l ove l ost on
ei t her si de . Col e
i n par t i cul ar i s knownt o have di sl i ked
t he Webbs and t he
Fabi ans qui t e
i nt ensel y- " t o be candi dI det est t hem" - but
t he t ensi onwas
mor e of a doct r i nal t hana
per sonal nat ur e. ( 111, 84)
138
MARRIAGEFOR
SOCIALISM
The l et t er s do not
enl ar ge on what f undament al l y
s epar at ed Col e' s "gui l d"
s oci al i s m ( of t he 1920' s )
f r om t he "muni ci pal "
s oci al i s m of t he Webbs .
Reduced t o es s ent i al s , i t was
a ques t i on of pol i t i cal
l egi t i macy. The Webbs
( above
al l Si dney) wi s hed t o
r et ai n t he ci t i zen as t he
ul t i mat e ar bi t er of s oci al
and
economi c deci s i ons , wher eas
Col e ( and t he ear l y Las ki )
wi s hed t o r epl ace
t he
wi l l
of
t he ( t o t hemabs t r act )
ci t i zen
by
t he ( al l egedl y
concr et e) wi l l s of
di ver s e and
di s t i nct occupat i onal gr oups ,
Des pi t e
t hei r doct r i nal di f f er ences
t hes e t wo oppos ed br ands
of Soci al i s m
s har ed a pr of ound
ambi val ence concer ni ng
t he nat ur e and r ol e of
pol i t i cs
wi t hi n t hei r vi s i ons
of a Soci al i s t s oci et y. On t he
one handt hey r ecogni zed t he
need f or t he s t at e or
"pol i t i cal communi t y" ; on t he
ot her handt hey vi r t ual l y
as s i mi l at edpol i t i cs t oadmi ni s t r at i on
. For i t woul dappear t hat
nei t her Col e nor
t he Webbs s awa bas i c di f f er ence
bet ween execut i ng a bl ue- pr i nt
and t r ans -
l at i ng s oci al
pur pos es i nt o pol i t i cal act i on. Fi ndi ng t hes e
t wo s et s of t r ans -
act i ons anal ogous , t hey coul d s ee no needf or
di s t i ngui s hi ng pol i t i cal exper t i s e
f r omadmi ni s t r at i ve exper t i s e and
admi ni s t r at i ve exper t i s e f r om
s ci ent i f i c or
t echni cal knowl edge. Gi ven
agr eement over ends - t he
accept ance of
Soci al i s m - t r ai ned admi ni s t r at or s
( f or t he Webbs ) or knowl edgeabl e
gui l ds men
( f or Col e) wer e per f ect l y capabl e of
choos i ng t he mos t ef f i ci ent or
mos t des i r abl e
means . Ther e bei ng no conf l i ct over ends ,
compet i ng par t i es can
have no r ai s on d' et r e i n a
Soci al i s t s cheme of t hi ngs . "I s ugges t
t hat when a
count r y has one domi nant
l i vi ng phi l os ophy", Beat r i ce s t at es
qui t e
cat egor i cal l y i n 1942, "pol i t i cal
pat t i es . . . wi l l be out of dat e as on t he
whol e
t hey ar e
an uns at i s f act or y way of
as cer t ai ni ng publ i c opi ni on s t i l l mor e of
l eadi ng
i t . " ( III,
455)
In s hor t , a
Soci al i s t s oci et y woul d s ee t he endof pol i t i cs
as
a s ys t emof compet i t i ve
choi ces or i deol ogi cal conf l i ct . It was not
unt i l t he
l at e
1960' s t hat t hi s
wi del y- hel d vi ewof pol i t i cs under Soci al i s m
came under
s er i ous at t ack, not f r om
opponent s of Soci al i s m, but f r omt hos e
convi nced t hat
i t s pol i t i cal appl i cat i on
r es t ed hi t her t o on whol l y mi s t aken
as s umpt i ons . It was
har dl y a mor e ext ens i ve
or i nt ens i ve r eadi ng of Mar x, however ,
t hat br ought
about t hi s di s cover y,
andwecan t her ef or e s car cel y t ake Col e
or t he Webbs t o
t as k f or not havi ng made
i t ear l i er j us t becaus e, by t hei r
own admi s s i on, t hey
hadnot s pent much
t i mer eadi ng Mar x.
Pol i t i cal Sci ence
Uni ver s i t y
of Wes t er n Ont ar i o
As one of t he cont r i but or s t o t he
Pani t ch book, The Canadi an St at e, so
gener ousl y r evi ewed by C. B. Mac-
pher son i n your Spr i ng- Summer
1979
number , I suppose I
shoul d be
gr at ef ul . I nst ead I
shoul d
l i ke
t o t ake
t hi s oppor t uni t y t o
bi t e t he hand t hat
f eeds
.
Thi s
i s a di si nt er est ed com-
pl ai nt , si nce i t has not hi ngt o dowi t h
my or any ot her cont r i but i on t o t he
Pani t ch col l ect i on, but i nst ead
has
t o
do wi t h a passi ng
obi t er di ct um
of f er ed
by Pr of essor Macpher son on
Vebl en' s r eadi ng
of Mar x
.
I n
di scussi ng Har ol d I nni s'
"sar doni c vi ew" of Mar xi st t hought ,
Pr of essor Macpher son
t r i es t o
l ay
t he
bl ame on I nni s' ear l y ment or ,
Vebl en, whose "j ej eune and
mi sl eadi ng r eadi ng
of Mar x" l ed
I nni s
t o "wr i t e Mar xof f andgo onhi s
own
way. "
I
amnot sur e what
st andar ds ar e bei ng empl oyed her e,
but by t he hi st or i cal st andar ds of ear l y
t went i et h- cent ur y Nor t h Amer i can
academi c economi cs,
Vebl en' s
r eadi ng of Mar x was by no means
"j ej eune" - i t i s r at her Mac-
pher son' s char act er i zat i on of t hi s
r eadi ng whi ch
i s
"mi sl eadi ng. "
I n 1905- 6 Vebl en publ i shed t wo
ar t i cl es on Mar x i n t he Quar t er l y
J our nal of Economi cs whi ch amount
t o a def enceof t hei nt el l ect ual sol i di t y
of Mar xi st economi cs. Vebl en un-
der st ood somet hi ng about t he
Ger man i deal i st phi l osophy out of
whi ch Mar xhad emer ged and al so un-
der st ood t hat t he mechani st i c
det er mi ni smchar act er i st i c of much of
t he cont empor ar y Eur opean soci al i st
movement was a per ver si on. . of Mar x' s
LETTERTOTHEEDI TOR
ByI nni s Out ofMar x
140
own t hought : "I t i s not t he Mar xi sm
of Mar x, " he wr ot e, "but t he
mat er i -
al i smof Dar wi n, whi ch
t he soci al i st s
of t oday
have adopt ed. " Asur vey of
academi c
l i t er at ur e i n t he Engl i sh
l anguage onMar x at t hi s t i me wi l l not
t ur n up ver y much whi ch r i val s
Vebl en' s r eadi ng. One wr i t er whose
gr asp of t he subj ect ear ned t he com-
mendat i on of none ot her t han Leni n
was O. D. Skel t on, who i n hi s
1911
book on soci al i sm ci t ed Vebl en as
11
t he most obj ect i ve and cl ear si ght ed
st udent of soci al i sm. "
Mor e i nt er est i ng evi dence comes
f r omanot her Canadi anwhopr eceded
I nni s at t he Uni ver si t y of Chi cago.
Young Wi l l i amLyonMackenzi e Ki ng
i n
1897 t ook Vebl en' s cour ses, i n-
cl udi ng one on soci al i sm. Ki ng may
not have been t he most penet r at i ng
i nt el l ect at Chi cago, but he was a
somewhat uni magi nat i ve and t hus
f ai t hf ul
not et aker
. I n
hi s t ypi cal l y
r et ent i ve manner
he kept t hese not es
i n hi s
possessi on f or t he r emai nder of
hi s l i f e, t o be bequeat hed
at l ast t o
t he Publ i c Ar chi ves of Canada. We
have t her ef or e a ki nd of snapshot of
what
Vebl en t aught
hi s
st udent s at
t he end of t he
l ast cent ur y.
Ki ng
pr onounced hi s
l ect ur es on soci al i sm
t o be "t he best I have ever
l i st ened
t o, " and whi l e t hi s mi ght
seemt o be
dubi ous pr ai se consi der i ng i t s sour ce,
Ki ng' s assi duous l ect ur e not es i n-
di cat e t hat Vebl en was di spensi ng
some i nt er est i ng i nsi ght s on t he
subj ect . On t he economi cs of Mar x,
Vebl en r at her t ook t he gr eat r evol u-
t i onar y' s si de, bot h agai nst hi s mech-
ani st i c ' Mar xi st ' f ol l ower s, and
agai nst such r evi si oni st s as
Bohm-
Bawer k whose cr i t i que of
Capi t al
Vebl en t hought qui t e i nadequat e .
Mor eover ,
Vebl en' s anal ysi s of de-
t er mi ni sm
i n Mar x was subt l e : he
poi nt ed out t hat
Mar x wr ot e of t he
r ol e of t he f ami l y
i n hi st or y, but t he
f ami l y as r ef l ect i ng t he
t ot al i t y of t he
hi st or i cal pr ocess . Fi nal l y, some
of
Vebl en' s cr i t i ci sms of Mar x wer e by no
means "j ej eune" :
he suggest ed t hat
Mar x i mpl i ci t l y vi ewed
man as
capi t al i st man- and al l pr oduct i on
as
capi t al i st pr oduct i on, t hus
l i mi t i ng
hi s capaci t y
t o t heor i ze about man i n
gener al . Thi s
cr i t i ci sm has by no
means l essened
i n r el evance i n t he
year s si nce .
My poi nt i s
not t hat Vebl en
devel oped an
out st andi ng cr i t i que of
Mar x. By t he
cur r ent st andar ds of t he
i nt er nat i onal
Mar x i ndust r y, no one
wi l l di scover new
i nsi ght s
by
r et ur -
ni ng t o Vebl en. But Macpher son' s
char act er i zat i on i s ahi st or i cal ,
a
pecul i ar f ai l i ng f or someone
of hi s i n-
t el l ect ual per suasi on .
I n any event , I nni s was
per f ect l y
capabl e of r eadi ng and
r ef l ect i ng
upon Mar x wi t h or wi t hout Vebl en' s
gui dance . That he went "hi s own
way" i s mer el y a r ef l ect i on of t he or -
i gi nal i t y of hi s i nt el l ect ual i magi n-
at i on
. I f
he
moved "cl oser t o a
Mar xi an anal ysi s"
i n hi s l ast phase,
t hi s was not mer el y
"unconsci ousl y"
but , I r at her t hi nk, acci dent al l y . And
i f t he newpol i t i cal economy i s "by
I nni s out of Mar x" t hi s i s sur el y
because t he Canadi an wor l d of t he
l at e t went i et h cent ur y seems f er t i l e
gr ound
f or
a synt hesi s
of t wo appar -
ent l y di ver gent t r adi t i ons r ecent l y
r esumed i n changi ng f or ms . That ,
af t er al l , i s what vi t al i nt el l ect ual t r a-
di t i ons ar e al l about .
Pr of essor Macpher son i s per haps
t oo modest . He hi msel f , as a l onel y
Mar xi st voi ce i n Canadi an schol ar shi p
had somet hi ng t o do wi t h t he
new
t ur n of t he I nni si an t r adi t i on. But l et
us l ay Vebl en' s ghost t o r est . He was
at best onl y a bi t pl ayer i n t he
f ami l y
hi st or y of t he newpol i t i cal economy .
Regi nal dWhi t aker
Car l et on
Uni ver si t y
Books
Recei ved/
Li vr es
r eps
Wi l l i amBar r et t , The I l l usi on of Techni que, Doubl eday, cl ot h $15
. 95, pp. 359.
Yehuda Bauer , The J ewi sh Emer gence fr om Power l essness, Uni ver si t y of
Tor ont oPr ess, cl ot h $10. 00, paper $4
. 95, pp.
89 .
Ri char d Ver non, Commi t ment and change; Geor ges Sor el and t he i dea of
r evol ut i on, Uni ver si t y of Tor ont o
Pr ess,
cl ot h$15
. 00, pp.
148.
Wal t er Benj ami n, Refl ect i ons: Essays, Aphor i sms, Aut obi ogr aphi cal Wr i t i ngs,
Har cour t , Br ace, J ovanovi ch, cl ot h $17 . 75, pp. 348.
Wi l l i amLei ss ( edi t or ) ,
Ecol ogy
ver sus Pol i t i cs i n Canada, Uni ver si t y of Tor ont o
Pr ess, cl ot h
$20
. 00, paper $7. 50, pp. 279 .
Thomas Fl anagan, Loui s `Davi d' Ri ek Pr ophet oft he NewWor l d, Uni ver si t y of
Tor ont o Pr ess, cl ot h
$15
. 00, pp.
216
.
Thomas McCar t hy, The Cr i t i cal Theor y
of
fi r gen Haber mas, M. I . T. Pr ess,
cl ot h $19 . 95, pp. 466.
Zygmunt Bauman, Her meneut i cs and Soci al Sci ence, Col umbi a Uni ver si t y
Pr ess, cl ot h $16. 00, pp. 263
.
Hayden Rober t s, Communi t y Devel opment : Lear ni ng andAct i on, Uni ver si t y
of Tor ont o
Pr ess,
cl ot h $15
. 00, paper $6. 50, pp.
201 .
Bi smar ck U. Mwansasu &Cr anfor d Pr at t ( edi t or s) , Towar ds Soci al i sm i n
Tanzani a, Uni ver si t y of Tor ont oPr ess, cl ot h$20. 00, pp. 243
.
Sher r y Tur kl e, Psychoanal yt i c Pol i t i cs, Basi c Books, cl ot h $16. 95, pp. 278.
A. P. Si monds, Kar l Mannhei m' s Soci ol ogy of Knowl edge, Oxfor d Uni ver si t y
Pr ess, cl ot h $19 . 50, pp. 205
.
Phi l Sl at er , Or i gi n and Si gni fi cance of t he Fr ankfur t School : A Mar xi st Per -
spect i ve, Rout l edge and Kegan Paul , cl ot h$19 . 50, pp. 185.
Edwar d McWhi nney, Quebec and t he Const i t ut i on; 1960- 1978, Uni ver si t y of
Tor ont o Pr ess, cl ot h $15 . 00, paper
$5 . 95, pp.
170.
Bar r i ngt on Moor e, J r . , I nj ust i ce: The Soci al Bases of Obedi ence and Revol t ,
M. E. Shar pe, I nc . , paper
$7. 95, pp.
540.
142
GordonBrock, The Provi nce of Nort hern Ont ari o, Hi ghway Book Shop, paper
$5 . 95, pp. 139 .
J ohn St uart Mi l l , An Exami nat i on of Si r Wi l l i aml l ami l t on' s Phi l osophy,
edi t ed byJ . M. Robson, i nt roduct i on by Al an Ryan, Uni versi t y of Toront o
Press, cl ot h $35. 00, pp. 625 .
Hwa Yol J ung, The Cri si s of Pol i t i cal Underst andi ng: APhenomenol ogi cal
Perspect i ve i n t he Conduct of Pol i t i cal Enqui ry, DuquesneUni versi t y Press,
cl ot h$18
. 00, pp.
256.
J ohn
M.
Magui re,
Marx' s
Theory of Pol i t i cs, Cambri dge Uni versi t y Press, cl ot h
$28. 50, pp. 251 .
P. J . Proudhon, The Pri nci pl e of Federat i on, t ransl at ed
and i nt roduced by
Ri chard Vernon, Uni versi t y of Toront o Press, cl ot h $8. 50, paper
$3 . 50,
pp. 86.
Tal cot t Parsons, Soci al Syst ems andt he Evol ut i on of Act i on Theory,
Free Press,
cl ot h$21 . 50, pp. 420.
Tal cot t Parsons, Act i on Theory andt he HumanCondi t i on, Free Press, cl ot h
$21. 50, pp. 464.
J ames Mi l l er, Hi st ory andHumanExi st ence: FromMarx t o Merl eau- Pont y,
Uni versi t yof Cal i f orni a Press, cl ot h $17 . 50, pp. 296.
J ames Dal y,
Si r Robert Fi l mer andEngl i sh Pol i t i cal Thought , Uni versi t y of
Toront o Press, cl ot h
$22
. 50, pp. 212.
BarryCooper, Merl eau- Pont y
andMarxi sm: f romt error t o ref orm, Uni versi t yof
Toront o
Press, cl ot h
$17
. 50, pp. 223.
J ohn
Dunn,
West ern Pol i t i cal Theory i n t he Face of t he Fut ure, Cambri dge
Uni versi t y Press, cl ot h $17 . 95, paper $4. 95, pp. 120 .