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 .