Imagining
Other…
Political
Philosophy Part 2
the ‘isms of politics in
modern times
Links: Imagining
Other Index Page
Introduction
to Part 2 (pp12).
(i) a word about
political philosophy:
‘The
unexamined life is not worth living’
(a quote attributed by
Plato to Socrates, in Plato’s Dialogue the ‘Apology’).
This
quote is also given by Julian Baggini as a justification for philosophy. (See
The Guardian
Baggini
contrasts philosophy with ‘self help’:
·
‘self help’ advice tells us how to achieve various goals (be more confident, more persuasive,
and more productive) but it takes the goals themselves for granted
·
philosophy, on the other hand, gets us to
question the value of these goals, -
‘whether you’re right to want’ them. It is worth stressing immediately that
often the questioning of such goals seems surprising – but to my mind it is
just when there appears to be a consensus that we ought to watch out and be
prepared to ask awkward questions!!!
Baggini’s
distinction is an interesting and useful one, I believe, and it can be used to
explain my view of political
philosophy as well: the aim of political philosophy is to ‘examine’ politics,
and thus help us to clarify, evaluate
and justify the goals of politics. And we might say that political scientists and politicians themselves
(like ‘self-help’ gurus) are more
concerned with the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of politics: what do I want to achieve
and how do I do it, rather than ‘philosophical’ questions about the validity of
the goals… This is a controversial statement, I recognise, and it is true that
in times of political conflict there seems to be debate about the deeper
issues. However, we surely need to watch out, since most of the time most
politicians would prefer us to take the desirability of their goals (e.g. full
employment, a balanced budget, reducing the national debt, ‘peace’, ‘democracy’
etc) for granted. Political philosophers should - all the time - be asking the
awkward questions about what is meant by these terms and whether we are right
to believe in them.
Barbara Goodwin makes a
similar point: political philosophy sets out to explain, justify or
criticise the distribution of power in society
And Alan Brown on
Political Philosophy: there are two parts to this process – explaining, and
then justifying or criticising
e.g. political
philosophers take a concept such as democracy,
and ask what it means by analysing the meaning of the concepts and
arguments used by such as Hobbes – how do they work? Other concepts
property, the state, social contract etc.
A selection of concepts is given in
[pp12introductiontopart2otherconcepts] In the course of this, questions will
arise as to whether we can agree with Hobbes’s conclusions (the state needs to
be very powerful, etc). In other words, ‘justifying and criticising’ is different
to analysing. It is one thing to discuss what democracy (or equality, etc) is, and another thing to say whether you
are for it or against it.
Why do political
philosophers differ if all, especially if they all claim they are trying to get
to truth? Because different people have different values, preferences.
(ii)
In other words, political philosophers question what happens or is proposed in
politics, and they do this using the techniques of philosophy:
·
careful analysis
of the meaning of words
·
logical
reasoning.
(iii) Note: it might also
be helpful to try to distinguish philosophy from ‘ideology’ – though this is not as simple as it seems. See separate
notes.
(iv) the ‘isms of politics in modern times…
the historical context:
Given
the definition above, it follows that political philosophers will (or should!)
respond to events in politics. Thus, although philosophers are usually expected to deal with timeless or
universal ideas, the preoccupations of political
philosophers may move with the times. So, when we examine ‘modern’
political philosophy we will need to be aware of the major political events of
the last two or three centuries.
Two
‘revolutions’ dominated the eighteenth century, and are usually seen as marking
the beginning of ‘modern’ times:
·
the (scientific and) industrial revolution which
started in the 17th century, and
·
the French Revolution at the end of the 18th
(1796).
These
events had a marked effect on subsequent (19th and 20th
century) political thinking. Of course, these changes had an incredibly
significant impact on society: new social classes took shape (factory workers,
merchants and capitalists), and much political thinking was devoted to trying
to understand this change in particular.
There
are three key points I would make about the ideas of the modern world:
(a)
as
(b)
the increased democracy in
(c)
Another significant feature of political thinking was – inevitably – the
opposition between those who saw the new society in terms of progress, which was
to be welcomed (liberals and radicals), and those who opposed the changes
(conservatives), seeing them as retrograde.
(v) the ‘isms of modern
politics (for plan of this course by weeks, see below after this section). See
also: Summary of thinkers in Part 2.
[note:
the prefix pp below e.g. pp13, indicates the web page number for further notes]
1. Liberalism.
In
what is known as ‘early modern’ thinking (from the seventeenth century onwards)
the predominant idea in Europe and Britain was liberalism (pp13) – which
stressed the importance of freedom for
the individual, and consequently the need for the state to have only limited powers – mainly to ensure the
freedom of the individual citizen. John Locke, 1632 – 1704, whom we dealt with
in Part 1, is a ‘father’ of liberalism. Another key thinker, for me, who
represents ‘modern’ thinking about politics, is Adam Smith (1723 – 1790). He represents the two
sides of the liberal point of view (freedom for the individual and the need to
limit the state) but his ideas make most sense, to me, if we bring together his
thoughts about economics with his
theory of ethics. Smith is best
remembered for his stress on individual freedom in the capitalist market – but we need to understand that
he did not believe (contrary to the view of some contemporary interpreters)
that the market was the solution to everything! There are some functions that
the state needs to fulfil in supporting its citizens.
Liberalism
is a strong and influential set of ideas, and it has been ‘updated’ recently by
thinkers such as Isaiah
2. Utilitarianism.
In
a development of the liberal tradition, there was a group of thinkers who tried
to develop and apply in philosophy the ‘scientific’
aspects of then current thinking (*). They founded a school of thought we now
call utilitarianism
(pp14). This is based on the idea that (i) the only thing about human
behaviour that we can be sure of is that each of us seeks happiness (ii) we
therefore always want to know how useful anything is to us – its utility (iii)
if government is based on policies that bring the greatest happiness to the maximum number of people, only then will it
be satisfactory. The best-known examples of utilitarian thinking are Jeremy
Bentham (1748 – 1832) and JS Mill (1806 – 1873). (Marxism also, see below, took a ‘scientific’
approach).
3. Socialism .
Socialism (pp15:
Saint-Simon, Robert Owen (1771 – 1858), William Morris.. (1834 – 1896)…) was partly a
reaction to the evil side-effects of the industrial revolution, but it is worth
noting that ‘socialist’ ideas of
equality and the brotherhood of all (often inspired by Christianity) existed
before the industrial revolution (although the word was not invented until the early 19th century when
it was used by the followers of Robert Owen). McClelland (**) and other writers
give the impression of thinking that socialism was simply a reaction against
the negative impact of the industrial revolution. The ideas that belong to the
tradition of socialism, stress the equality
of all, and the dignity of labour;
the word was used to oppose the ideas of ‘economic man’ – that is, the
individual motivated purely by economic needs. Some socialists believe in the
importance of state control of the economy – others (‘libertarians’) argue that
workers can organise society without being ‘managed’ by the government.
4. Marxism and
communism.
The
search for an ‘objective’ and ‘scientific’
- that is, quantifiable - way of thinking was basic to not only utilitarianism
but also to Marxism (pp16). Marx believed that the present economic system
– capitalism – was based on contradictions and subject to constant class
conflict, since the owing class was an exploitative
class, taking from the working class the wealth it has created. Capitalism
would eventually be replaced by a ‘communist’ system in which classes were
abolished, and the state (an instrument of class rule in capitalism) would
‘wither away’. Based on the ideas of Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) and
Friedrich Engels (1820 – 1895), Marxism and communism have had an enormous
impact on the world.
Some
of the socialists who followed after Marx modified his ideas somewhat - or, in
their own terms, brought his ideas up to date. In particular, in the 19th
century, it seemed increasingly unlikely that the working class would bring
about a revolution, so social democrats
(Eduard Bernstein, 1850 – 1932, Tony Crosland 1918 – 1977) advocated a peaceful
transition to socialism. Others (e.g. Gramsci 1891 – 1937) tried to retain and
develop Marxist ideas.
(See
pp 17: Bernstein and the social
democrats, e.g. Tony Crosland, Gramsci and western Marxism,
Maoism, critical philosophy etc).
5. Anarchism.
Alongside
socialism - but now commonly seen as a more extreme (or idealistic) type of
ideology - was anarchism (pp18), which advocates the complete abolition of the state. Most anarchists have
links with socialism, communism or syndicalism – some are individualist. Most
are non-violent, believing that human nature is essentially good and we can
therefore lead satisfactory social lives without the state and its coercive
institutions. I will take Kropotkin (1842 – 1921) as an example here,
but there are many strands of anarchism! These radical socialistic and
anarchistic ideas were particularly widespread at the end of the 19th
century and the start of the 20th. They were also, we could say,
founded on the slogans ‘equality and fraternity’ of the French Revolution…
6. Conservatism.
The
reaction against the excesses of the French Revolution we saw in Part 1, with
Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797): his key idea was that that society needs to
progress slowly and naturally, and not be forced into new patterns. This belief
was developed in different ways in conservatism (pp19), although I
would say that there were no great innovations in conservative thought after
Burke, perhaps until more recent times (e.g. Michael Oakeshott 1901 - 1990).
This is not to say that conservatism (a belief in the importance of tradition) was not a significant strand
in politics. Sometimes conservatism went hand in hand with another ‘ism, one
which has for centuries been a powerful force in political thinking, but which
was strengthened in the late 19th century by the reaction against
Napoleon’s imperial ambitions, viz. nationalism.
This was represented in some aspects of the thinking of Hegel (1770 – 1831).
However, Hegel was a complex figure, and whilst some of his followers were
conservative, others (the ‘young Hegelians’) were radicals who influenced Marx.
I will take Hegel as an example of conservative thinking, though it has to be
stressed that this could be seen as a distortion.
Fairly
recently, conservatism underwent significant changes – often influenced by (the
re-discovery of) classical liberalism – and some see themselves as part of the ‘new
right’. Here, as I see it (and to stick to the device of ‘isms) neo-liberalism
and neo-conservatism
meet, for example in the ideas of such thinkers as Robert Nozick (1938 –
2002), who emphasised individual freedom as well as tradition. These ideas
were strengthened by the ‘crisis’ in western economies in the 1970s, which blew
up after a long period of stability that many attributed to state intervention
and to ‘Keynesian’ ideas – which ironically are back in fashion now!!.
7. Existentialism.
Thus,
all through the 19th and into the 20th century there were
examples of all these strands or ‘isms. (Most of them can still be found around
us in politics today, even if only held by small groups of people!). However,
from time to time a new way of thinking is developed – though again I would
argue that such new ideas never come ‘out of the blue’, but often reflect
either pre-existing ideas, or new ideas in other fields (e.g. science). Of
course new ways of thinking also nearly always reflect some change in social
conditions. For example, a strikingly new and distinctive way of thinking
developed late in the 19th and flourished early in the 20th
century, largely in reaction against the influence of religion in philosophy,
and as an attempt to bring philosophy into contact with real life, and this was
called existentialism (pp20). Existentialism also took on board the
ideas of Freud about the sub-conscious, and in doing so posed fundamental
questions about human freedom. To
represent this (perhaps strange!) way of thinking I will take Jean-Paul
Sartre (1905 – 1980) and Simone de Beauvoir (1908 – 1986).
8. Feminism.
De
Beauvoir was also a forerunner of another ‘break’ with previous ways of
thinking – that is, reacting against the exclusion of women from both
philosophical thinking and from politics, in other words: feminism (pp21). Feminism
was strengthened by the changing role of women during and after the second
world war.
9. Environmentalism.
Most
recently an awareness of the damaging impact humans are having on the natural
environment has led to some thinkers developing a philosophy that takes into
account our place in the natural world – i.e. environmentalism (pp23).
Although environmentalism is – as I see it – a social movement, and it is not
possible to identify a single philosopher (or philosophy!) behind it,
nevertheless ideas such as ‘deep ecology’ (e.g. Arne Naess 1912 - 2009)
and ‘social ecology’ (e.g. Murray Bookchin 1921 - 2006) are attempts to
combine an understanding of the natural environment with an understanding of
human life.
10. Postmodernism.
Finally,
from time to time philosophy suffers a ‘crisis of confidence’ (as I see it!) –
early in the 20th century this took the form of linguistic
positivism, and the declaration that since all argument comes down to
disagreement about the meaning of words, then philosophy is dead. With the radical
questioning of the role of philosophy in relation to modern politics, and the
argument that all pre-existing philosophies were built on the viewpoint of some
group that exercised political power in the ‘modern’ world (western nations,
men, the white races…) postmodernism (pp24) (e.g. Jacques
Derrida 1930 - 2004) argued that the ‘modern’ outlook (even the view that
there is such a thing as objective truth) needed to be superseded. As with
‘positivism’ there were some who predicted the end of philosophy when
postmodern ideas gained ground. However, I for one believe that whilst some of
the ideas in postmodernism were useful, others were a dead end, and philosophy
– including political philosophy – goes marching on.
(*)
Later a school of philosophy called positivism tried to do the same thing – to
make philosophy scientific and objective - and it nearly destroyed political
thought in the process! This was because one claim that was made was that all
philosophical disputes come down to disagreement about the meaning of words,
and if we could all agree what exactly we meant by e.g. ‘equality’, or
‘freedom’ then there would be no point in arguing about which was more
important. Fortunately for political philosophers, this idea did not go very
far!
References and Useful
(**)McClelland, J.S: A History of Political Thought
(Routledge 1996)
Haynes,
Natalie: The Ancient Guide to Modern Life (Profile Books 2012, £8.99) – shows how
many of our modern ideas come from the ancient world (though she also describes
ideas which have not caught on). Deals with the politics, religion, philosophy
and literature of ancient
Plan of ‘Political
Philosophy Part 2 – the ‘isms of modern politics’ by weeks:
1: Introduction, a note on ideology (pp12)
2: Classical Liberalism (Adam Smith) and
modern Liberalism (Rawls) (pp13)
3: Utilitarianism (Bentham and Mill) (pp14)
4: Socialism (Saint-Simon, Robert Owen,
William Morris…) (pp15)
5: Marx and Marxism (social democracy,
western Marxism, Maoism, critical philosophy… Labour Party today) (pp16, 17)
6: Anarchism (Kropotkin) (pp18)
7: Conservatism (incl Hegel, Oakeshott, New
Right, Conservative party today) (pp19)
8: Existentialism (Sartre) (pp20 )and
Feminism (de Beauvoir and others) (pp21)
9: Environmentalism and a wholistic
political philosophy (pp22)
10.
Postmodernism (Derrida and others)
(pp23).