

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.
12:08 Publié dans Philosophie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : bhl, bernard-henry lévy, philosophie, polémique, cornelius castoriadis, pierre vidal-naquet, france, parisianisme | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
On peut s’adonner à l’adoration de la démocratie en ces temps d’État profond et d’Europe de Bruxelles, il reste que le mot plèbe, dont elle marque la triomphe, a été balayé de tous temps par les génies de l’humanité, à commencer par Platon ou Juvénal, jusqu’à Nietzsche ou Tocqueville. On a évoqué les transformations sociétales (les chiens et les gosses qui parlent aux maîtres et aux parents, etc.) du livre VIII de la République, mais on va revenir ici à la démocratie à la grecque et à sa gestion compliquée…
Fustel de Coulanges dresse un tableau assez terrible de la progression démocratique à Athènes et dans la Grèce ancienne, où elle fut plus cruelle qu’à Athènes, parfois abominable. Mais elle est tellement fatale et inévitable – y compris la décadence qui va avec – qu’on ne va pas la dénoncer !
La Cité dans l’Histoire… Fustel écrit, dans un style proche de Tocqueville :
« Mais telle est la nature humaine que ces hommes, à mesure que leur sort s’améliorait, sentaient plus amèrement ce qu’il leur restait d’inégalité. »
La progression de la plèbe est bien sûr liée à celle de la tyrannie :
« Dans quelques villes, l’admission de la plèbe parmi les citoyens fut l’œuvre des rois ; il en fut ainsi à Rome. Dans d’autres, elle fut l’œuvre des tyrans populaires ; c’est ce qui eut lieu à Corinthe, à Sicyone, à Argos. »
Fustel ici nous fait découvrir un poète méconnu et politiquement réac, Théognis de Mégare. Le passage est passionnant, décrivant un déclin de l’humanité qui nous rappelle celui où Ortega nous explique que l’humanité moderne, comme la romaine, est devenuestupide :
« Le poète Théognis nous donne une idée assez nette de cette révolution et de ses conséquences. Il nous dit que dans Mégare, sa patrie, il y a deux sortes d’hommes. Il appelle l’une la classe des bons, ἀγαθοί; c’est, en effet, le nom qu’elle se donnait dans la plupart des villes grecques. Il appelle l’autre la classe des mauvais, κακοί; c’est encore de ce nom qu’il était d’usage de désigner la classe inférieure. Cette classe, le poète nous décrit sa condition ancienne : « elle ne connaissait autrefois ni les tribunaux ni les lois » ; c’est assez dire qu’elle n’avait pas le droit de cité. Il n’était même pas permis à ces hommes d’approcher de la ville ; « ils vivaient en dehors comme des bêtes sauvages ». Ils n’assistaient pas aux repas religieux ; ils n’avaient pas le droit de se marier dans les familles des bons. »
Théognis apparaît comme un nostalgique du temps jadis, le laudator temporis acti, façon Bonald par exemple qui écrit au lendemain de la brutale Révolution dite française (comme disait Debord, une bourgeoisie habillée… à la romaine). Il ajoute :
« Mais que tout cela est changé ! les rangs ont été bouleversés, « les mauvais ont été mis au-dessus des bons ». La justice est troublée ; les antiques lois ne sont plus, et des lois d’une nouveauté étrange les ont remplacées. La richesse est devenue l’unique objet des désirs des hommes, parce qu’elle donne la puissance. L’homme de race noble épouse la fille du riche plébéien et « le mariage confond les souches ».
Et Fustel décrit le noble destin de Théognis :
« Théognis, qui sort d’une famille aristocratique, a vainement essayé de résister au cours des choses. Condamné à l’exil, dépouillé de ses biens, il n’a plus que ses vers pour protester et pour combattre. Mais s’il n’espère pas le succès, du moins il ne doute pas de la justice de sa cause ; il accepte la défaite, mais il garde le sentiment de son droit. A ses yeux, la révolution qui s’est faite est un mal moral, un crime. Fils de l’aristocratie, il lui semble que cette révolution n’a pour elle ni la justice ni les dieux et qu’elle porte atteinte à la religion. « Les dieux, dit-il, ont quitté la terre ; nul ne les craint. La race des hommes pieux a disparu ; on n’a plus souci des Immortels. »
Puis, comme Mircéa Eliade, mais bien avant, Fustel explique que Théognis comprend qu’on oubliera même le souvenir de la nostalgie :
« Ces regrets sont inutiles, il le sait bien. S’il gémit ainsi, c’est par une sorte de devoir pieux, c’est parce qu’il a reçu des anciens « la tradition sainte », et qu’il doit la perpétuer. Mais en vain la tradition même va se flétrir, les fils des nobles vont oublier leur noblesse ; bientôt on les verra tous s’unir par le mariage aux familles plébéiennes, « ils boiront à leurs fêtes et mangeront à leur table » ; ils adopteront bientôt leurs sentiments. Au temps de Théognis, le regret est tout ce qui reste à l’aristocratie grecque, etce regret même va disparaître. »
Et comme on ne descend jamais assez bas, cette semaine j’ai découvert que ma libraire ne savait pas écrire Shakespeare, ma femme que son imprimeur de partitions ignorait qui était Mozart.
Le culte religieux, lié à l’aristocratie (la marque de l’aristocrate c’est la piété, dit Bonald) disparait donc :
« En effet, après Théognis, la noblesse ne fut plus qu’un souvenir.
Les grandes familles continuèrent à garder pieusement le culte domestique et la mémoire des ancêtres ; mais ce fut tout. Il y eut encore des hommes qui s’amusèrent à compter leurs aïeux ; mais on riait de ces hommes. On garda l’usage d’inscrire sur quelques tombes que le mort était de noble race ; mais nulle tentative ne fut faite pour relever un régime à jamais tombé. Isocrate dit avec vérité que de son temps les grandes familles d’Athènes n’existaient plus que dans leurs tombeaux (La cité antique, pp.388-389). »
Arrive la démocratie dont on oublie qu’elle fut surtout une corvée compliquée (comme dit Cochin, il faut se coucher tard pour conspirer longtemps…). Le peuple gagne peu à devenir démocrate. Il en devient esclave, explique Fustel dans des chapitres justement ignorés…
« A mesure que les révolutions suivaient leur cours et que l’on s’éloignait de l’ancien régime, le gouvernement des hommes devenait plus difficile. Il y fallait des règles plus minutieuses, des rouages plus nombreux et plus délicats. C’est ce qu’on peut voir par l’exemple du gouvernement d’Athènes. »
Ici on croirait du Tocqueville. Peut-être que la sensibilité aristocratique de nos deux grands historiens…
Mais Fustel décrit la corvée démocratique au jour le jour (pp.451-452) :
« On est étonné aussi de tout le travail que cette démocratie exigeait des hommes. C’était un gouvernement fort laborieux. Voyez à quoi se passe la vie d’un Athénien. Un jour il est appelé à l’assemblée de son dème et il a à délibérer sur les intérêts religieux ou financiers de cette petite association. Un autre jour, il est convoqué à l’assemblée de sa tribu ; il s’agit de régler une fête religieuse, ou d’examiner des dépenses, ou de faire des décrets, ou de nommer des chefs et des juges. »
Après c’est du Prévert :
« Trois fois par mois régulièrement il faut qu’il assiste à l’assemblée générale du peuple ; il n’a pas le droit d’y manquer. Or, la séance est longue ; il n’y va pas seulement pour voter : venu dès le matin, il faut qu’il reste jusqu’à une heure avancée du jour à écouter des orateurs. Il ne peut voter qu’autant qu’il a été présent dès l’ouverture de la séance et qu’il a entendu tous les discours. Ce vote est pour lui une affaire des plus sérieuses ; tantôt il s’agit de nommer ses chefs politiques et militaires, c’est-à-dire ceux à qui son intérêt et sa vie vont être confiés pour un an ; tantôt c’est un impôt à établir ou une loi à changer ; tantôt c’est sur la guerre qu’il doit voter, sachant bien qu’il aura à donner son sang ou celui d’un fils. Les intérêts individuels sont unis inséparablement à l’intérêt de l’État. L’homme ne peut être ni indifférent ni léger. »
Tout est préférable au règne des Agathoi (les « bons » de Théognis)… Fustel ajoute :
« Le devoir du citoyen ne se bornait pas à voter. Quand son tour venait, il devait être magistrat dans son dème ou dans sa tribu. Une année sur deux en moyenne, il était héliaste, c’est-à-dire juge, et il passait toute cette année-là dans les tribunaux, occupé à écouter les plaideurs et à appliquer les lois. Il n’y avait guère de citoyen qui ne fût appelé deux fois dans sa vie à faire partie du Sénat des Cinq cents ; alors, pendant une année, il siégeait chaque jour, du matin au soir, recevant les dépositions des magistrats, leur faisant rendre leurs comptes, répondant aux ambassadeurs étrangers, rédigeant les instructions des ambassadeurs athéniens, examinant toutes les affaires qui devaient être soumises au peuple et préparant tous les décrets. »
Avec sa méticulosité et sa soif de taxes et de règlements, la démocratie exige déjà un job à temps plein qui va créer une bureaucratie fonctionnarisée. Et on retombe inévitablement sur l’importance de l’argent déjà dénoncée par Théognis :
« Enfin il pouvait être magistrat de la cité, archonte, stratège, astynome, si le sort ou le suffrage le désignait. On voit que c’était une lourde charge que d’être citoyen d’un État démocratique, qu’il y avait là de quoi occuper presque toute l’existence, et qu’il restait bien peu de temps pour les travaux personnels et la vie domestique. Aussi Aristote disait-il très-justement que l’homme qui avait besoin de travailler pour vivre ne pouvait pas être citoyen. »
N’oublions que la Révolution Française accoucha de la plus formidable armée de fonctionnaires au monde, celle qui émerveillait aussi bien Taine que le pauvre Karl Marx qui inspira les totalitarismes révolutionnaires(« dans un pays comme la France, où le pouvoir exécutif dispose d’une armée de fonctionnaires de plus d’un demi-million de personnes et tient, par conséquent, constamment sous sa dépendance la plus absolue une quantité énorme d’intérêts et d’existences, où l’État enserre contrôle, réglemente, surveille et tient en tutelle la société civile… »).
On n’est pas ici pour transformer le cours de l’histoire humaine, et on s’en gardera, vu que ce désir malheureux est si souvent promis à un sort malheureux ! Mais on ne s’étonnera alors pas, etj’inviterai à découvrir l’œuvre du philosophe libertarien Hoppe à ce propos, en affirmant que le grand avènement démocratique, avec son cortège de guerres impériales-humanitaires-messianiques, de contrôles étatiques et d’inflation fiscale, marque souvent la fin d’une civilisation en fait – y compris et surtout sur le plan culturel. Que le phénomène démocratique ait débouché sur le césarisme ici, le fascisme ou le communisme là, et sur la création maintenant d’une caste mondialisée de bureaucrates belliqueux ne devra bouleverser personne.
Théognis – Elégies (Remacle.org)
Fustel – La cité dans l’histoire (classiques.uqac.ca)
Marx – Le dix-huit Brumaire
12:05 Publié dans Philosophie, Réflexions personnelles, Théorie politique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : nicolas bonnal, politologie, philosophie, philosophie politique, théorie politique, sciences politiques | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
The subtitle of the English translation of Julius Evola’s Ride the Tiger (Cavalcare la Tigre) promises that it offers “A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul.”[1] [2] As a result, one comes to the work with the expectation that it will constitute a kind of “self-help book” for Traditionalists, for “men against time.” One expects that Evola will offer moral support and perhaps even specific instructions for revolting against the modern world. Unfortunately, the subtitle proves misleading. Ride the Tiger is primarily devoted to an analysis of aspects of the present age of decline (the Kali Yuga): critiques of relativism, scientism, modern art, modern music, and of figures like Heidegger and Sartre; discussions of the decline of marriage, the relation between the sexes, drug use, and so forth. Many of the points Evola makes in this volume are made in his other works, sometimes at greater length and more lucidly.
For those seeking something like a “how to” guide for living as a Traditionalist, it is mainly the second division of the book (“In the World Where God is Dead”) that offers something, and chiefly it is to be found in Chapter Eight: “The Transcendent Dimension – ‘Life’ and ‘More than Life.’” My purpose in this essay is to piece together the miniature “survival manual” provided by Chapter Eight – some of which consists of little more than hints, conveyed in Evola’s often frustratingly opaque style. It is my view that what we find in these pages is of profound importance for anyone struggling to hold on to his sanity in the face of the decadence and dishonesty of today’s world. It is also essential reading for anyone seeking to achieve the ideal of “self-overcoming” taught by Evola – seeking, in other words, to “ride the tiger.”
The central figure of the book’s second part is unquestionably Friedrich Nietzsche, to whom Evola repeatedly refers. Evola’s attitude toward Nietzsche is critical. However, it is obvious that Nietzsche exercised a profound and positive influence on him. Indeed, virtually every recommendation Evola makes for living as a Traditionalist – in this section of the work, at least – is somehow derived from Nietzsche. This despite the fact that Nietzsche was not a Traditionalist – a fact of which Evola was well aware, and to which I shall turn later.
In the last paragraph of Chapter Seven, Evola announces that in the next chapter he will consider “a line of conduct during the reign of dissolution that is not suitable for everyone, but for a differentiated type, and especially for the heir to the man of the traditional world, who retains his roots in that world even though he finds himself devoid of any support for it in his outer existence.”[2] [3] This “line of conduct” turns out, in Chapter Eight, to be based entirely on statements made by Nietzsche. That chapter opens with a continuation of the discussion of the man who would be “heir to the man of the traditional world.” Evola writes, “What is more, the essential thing is that such a man is characterized by an existential dimension not present in the predominant human type of recent times – that is, the dimension of transcendence.”[3] [4]
Evola clearly regarded this claim as of supreme importance, since he places the entire sentence just quoted in italics. The sentence is important for two reasons. First, as it plainly asserts, it provides the key characteristic of the “differentiated type” for whom Evola writes, or for whom he prepares the ground. Second, the sentence actually provides the key point on which Evola parts company with Nietzsche: for all the profundity and inspiration Nietzsche can provide us, he does not recognize a “dimension of transcendence.” Indeed, he denigrates the very idea as a projection of “slave morality.” Our first step, therefore, must be to understand exactly what Evola means by “the dimension of transcendence.” Unfortunately, in Ride the Tiger Evola does not make this very easy. To anyone familiar with Evola’s other works, however, his meaning is clear.
“Dimension of transcendence” can be understood as having several distinct, but intimately-related meanings in Evola’s philosophy. First, the term “transcendence” simply refers to something existing apart from, or beyond the world around us. The “aristocrats of the soul” living in the Kali Yuga must live their lives in such a way that they “stand apart from” or transcend the world in which they find themselves. This is the meaning of the phrase “men against time,” which I have already used (and which derives from Savitri Devi). The “differentiated type” of which Evola writes is one who has differentiated himself from the times, and from the men who are like “sleepers” or pashu (beasts). Existing in the world in a physical sense, even playing some role (or roles) in that world, one nevertheless lives wholly apart from it at the same time, in a spiritual sense. This is the path of those who aim to “ride the tiger”: they do not separate themselves from the decay, like monks or hermits; instead they live in the midst of it, but remain uncorrupted. (This is also little different from what the Gurdjieffian tradition calls “the fourth way,” and it is the essence of the “Left-Hand Path” as described by Evola and others.)
However, there is another, deeper sense of the “dimension of transcendence.” The type of man of which Evola speaks is not simply reacting to the world in which he finds himself. This is not what his “apartness” consists in – not fundamentally. Nor does it consist in some kind of intellectual commitment to a “philosophy of Traditionalism,” as found in books by Evola and others. Rather, “transcendence” in the deepest sense refers to the Magnum Opus that is the aim of the “magic” or spiritual alchemy discussed by Evola in his most important works (chiefly Introduction to Magic and The Hermetic Tradition). “Transcendence” means the overcoming of the world and of the ego – really, of all manifestation, whether it is objective (“out there”) or subjective (“in here”). Such overcoming is the work of what is called in Vedanta the “witnessing consciousness.” Evola frequently calls this “the Self.” (For more on this teaching, see my essays “What is Odinism? [5]” in TYR, Vol. 4 [6], and “On Being and Waking” in TYR, Vol. 5, forthcoming [7].)
These different senses of “transcendence” are intertwined. It is only through the second sense of “transcendence,” of the overcoming of all manifestation, that the first sense, standing apart from the modern world, can truly be achieved. The man who is “heir to the man of the traditional world” can retain “his roots in that world” only by the achievement of a state of being that is identical to that of the “highest type” of the traditional world. That type was also “differentiated”: set apart from other men. Fundamentally, however, to be a “differentiated type” does not mean to be differentiated from others. It refers to the state of one who has actively differentiated “himself” from all else, including “the ego.” This active differentiation is the same thing as “identification” with the Self – which, for Evola, is not the dissolution of oneself in an Absolute Other, but the transmutation of “oneself” into “the Self.” Further, the metaphysical differentiation just described is the only sure and true path to the “differentiation” exhibited by the man who lives in the Kali Yuga, but stands apart from it at the same time.
Much later I will discuss how and why Nietzsche fails to understand “the dimension of transcendence,” and how it constitutes the fatal flaw in his philosophy. Recognizing this, Evola nonetheless proceeds to draw from Nietzsche a number of principles which constitute the spirit of “the overman.”[4] [8] Evola offers these as characterizing his own ideal type – with the crucial caveat that, contra Nietzsche, these principles are only truly realizable in a man who has realized in himself the “dimension of transcendence.” Basically, there are ten such principles cited by Evola, each of which he derives from statements made by Nietzsche. The passage in which these occur is highly unusual, since it consists in one long sentence (lasting more than a page), with each principle set off by semi-colons. I will now consider each of these points in turn.
1. “The power to make a law for oneself, the ‘power to refuse and not to act when one is pressed to affirmation by a prodigious force and an enormous tension.’”[5] [9] This first principle is crucial, and must be discussed at length. Earlier, in Chapter Seven (“Being Oneself”), Evola quotes Nietzsche saying, “We must liberate ourselves from morality so that we can live morally.”[6] [10] Evola correctly notes that in such statements, and in the idea of “making a law for oneself,” Nietzsche is following in the footsteps of Kant, who insisted that genuine morality is based upon autonomy – which literally means “a law to oneself.” This is contrasted by Kant to heteronomy (a term Evola also uses in this same context): morality based upon external pressures, or upon fealty to laws established independent of the subject (e.g., following the Ten Commandments, conforming to public opinion, acting so as to win the approval of others, etc.). This is the meaning of saying, “we must liberate ourselves from morality [i.e., from externally imposed moral commandments] so that we can live morally [i.e., autonomously].” In order for the subject’s standpoint to be genuinely moral, he must in a sense “legislate” the moral law for himself, and affirm it as reasonable. Indeed, for Kant, ultimately the authority of the moral law consists in our “willing” it as rational.
Of course, Nietzsche’s position is not Kant’s, though Evola is not very helpful in explaining to us what the difference consists in. He writes that Nietzsche’s notion of autonomy is “on the same lines” as Kant’s “but with the difference that the command is absolutely internal, separate from any external mover, and is not based on a hypothetical law extracted from practical reason that is valid for all and revealed to man’s conscience as such, but rather on one’s own specific being.”[7] [11] There are a good deal of confusions here – so much so that one wonders if Evola has even read Kant. For instance, Kant specifically rejects the idea of an “external mover” for morality (which is the same thing as heteronomy). Further, there is nothing “hypothetical” about Kant’s moral law, the “categorical imperative,” which he specifically defines in contrast to “hypothetical imperatives.” We may also note the vagueness of saying that “the command” must be based “on one’s specific being.”
Still, through this gloom one may detect exactly the position that Evola correctly attributes to Nietzsche. Like Kant, Nietzsche demands that the overman practice autonomy, that he give a law to himself. However, Kant held that our self-legislation simultaneously legislates for others: the law I give to myself is the law I would give to any other rational being. The overman, by contrast, legislates for himself only – or possibly for himself and the tiny number of men like him. If we recognize fundamental qualitative differences between human types, then we must consider the possibility that different rules apply to them. Fundamental to Kant’s position is the egalitarian assertion that people do not get to “play by their own rules” (indeed, for Kant the claim to be an exception to general rules, or to make an exception for oneself, is the marker of immorality). If we reject this egalitarianism, then it does indeed follow that certain special individuals get to play by their own rules.
This does not mean that for the self-proclaimed overman “anything goes.” Indeed, any individual who would interpret the foregoing as licensing arbitrary self-indulgence of whims or passions would be immediately disqualified as a potential overman. This will become crystal clear as we proceed with the rest of Evola’s “ten principles” in Chapter Eight. For the moment, simply look once more at the wording Evola borrows from Nietzsche in our first “principle”: the “power to refuse and not to act when one is pressed to affirmation by a prodigious force and an enormous tension.” To refuse what? What sort of force? What sort of tension? The claim seems vague, yet it is actually quite clear: autonomy means, fundamentally, the power to say no to whatever forces or tensions press us to affirm them or give way to them.
The “forces” in question could be internal or external: they could be the force of social and environmental circumstances; they could be the force of my own passions, habits, and inclinations. It is a great folly to think that my passions and such are “mine,” and that in following them I am “free.” Whatever creates an “enormous tension” in me and demands I give way, whether it comes from “in me” or “outside me” is precisely not mine. Only the autonomous “I” that can see this is “mine,” and only it can say no to these forces. It has “the power to refuse and not to act.” Essentially, Nietzsche and Evola are talking about self-mastery. This is the “law” that the overman – and the “differentiated type” – gives to himself. And clearly it is not “universalizable”; the overman does not and cannot expect others to follow him in this.[8] [12]
In short, this first principle asks of us that we cultivate in ourselves the power to refuse or to negate – in one fashion or other – all that which would command us. Again, this applies also to forces within me, such as passions and desires. Such refusal may not always amount to literally thwarting or annihilating forces that influence us. In some cases, this is impossible. Our “refusal” may sometimes consist only in seeing the force in question, as when I see that I am acting out of ingrained habit, even when, at that moment, I am powerless to resist. Such “seeing” already places distance between us and the force that would move us: it says, in effect, “I am not that.” As we move through Evola’s other principles, we will learn more about the exercise of this very special kind of autonomy.
2. “The natural and free asceticism moved to test its own strength by gauging ‘the power of a will according to the degree of resistance, pain, and torment that it can bear in order to turn them to its own advantage.’”[9] [13] Here we have another expression of the “autonomy” of the differentiated type. Such a man tests his own strength and will, by deliberately choosing that which is difficult. Unlike the Last Man, who has left “the regions where it is hard to live,”[10] [14] the overman/differentiated man seeks them out.
Evola writes that “from this point of view everything that existence offers in the way of evil, pain, and obstacles . . . is accepted, even desired.”[11] [15] This may be the most important of all the points that Evola makes in this chapter – and it is a principle that can serve as a lifeline for all men living in the Kali Yuga, or in any time. If we can live up to this principle, then we have made ourselves truly worthy of the mantle of “overman.” The idea is this: can I say “yes” to whatever hardship life offers me? Can I use all of life’s suffering and evils as a way to test and to transform myself? Can I forge myself in the fire of suffering? And, going a step further, can I desire hardship and suffering? It is one thing, of course, to accept some obstacle or calamity as a means to test myself. It is quite another to actively desire such things.
Here we must consider our feelings very carefully. Personally, I do not fear my own death nearly as much as the death of those close to me. And I fear my own physical incapacitation and decline more than death. Is it psychologically realistic for me to desire the death of my loved ones, or desire a crippling disease, as a way to test myself? No, it is not – and this is not what Evola and Nietzsche mean. Rather, the mental attitude in question is one where we say a great, general “yes” to all that life can bring in the way of hardship. Further, we welcome such challenges, for without them we would not grow. It is not that we desire this specific calamity or that, but we do desire, in general, to be tested. And, finally, we welcome such testing with supreme confidence: whatever life flings at me, I will overcome. In a sense, I will absorb all negativity and only grow stronger by means of it.
3. Evola next speaks of the “principle of not obeying the passions, but of holding them on a leash.” Then he quotes Nietzsche: “greatness of character does not consist in not having such passions: one must have them to the greatest degree, but held in check, and moreover doing this with simplicity, not feeling any particular satisfaction thereby.”[12] [16] This follows from the very first principle, discussed earlier. To repeat, giving free rein to our passions has nothing to do with autonomy, freedom, or mastery. Indeed, it is the primary way in which the common man finds himself controlled.
To see this, one must be able to recognize “one’s own” passions as, in reality, other. I do not choose these things, or the power they exert. What follows from this, however, is not necessarily thwarting those passions or “denying oneself.” As Evola explains in several of his works, the Left-Hand Path consists precisely in making use of that which would enslave or destroy a lesser man. We hold the passions “on a leash,” Evola says. The metaphor is appropriate. Our passions must be like well-trained dogs. Such animals are filled with passionate intensity for the chase – but their master controls them completely: at a command, they run after their prey, but only when commanded. As Nietzsche’s words suggest, the greatest man is not the man whose passions are weak. A man with weak passions finds them fairly easy to control! The superior man is one whose passions are incredibly strong – one in whom the “life force” is strong – but who holds those passions in check.
4. Nietzsche writes, “the superior man is distinguished from the inferior by his intrepidity, by his defiance of unhappiness.”[13] [17] Here too we have invaluable advice for living. The intrepid man is fearless and unwavering; he endures. But why does Nietzsche connect this with “defiance of unhappiness”? The answer is that just as the average man is a slave to the passions that sweep him away at any given time, so he is also a prisoner of his “moods.” Most men rise in the morning and find themselves in one mood or another: “today I am happy,” “today I am sad.” They accept that, in effect, some determination has been made for them, and that they are powerless in the matter. If the unhappiness endures, they have a “disease” which they look to drugs or alcohol to cure.
As with the passions, the average man “owns” his moods: “this unhappiness is mine, it is me,” he says, in effect. The superior man learns to see his moods as if they were the weather – or, better yet, as if they were minor demons besetting him: external mischief makers, to whom he has the power to say “yes” or “no.” The superior man, upon finding that he feels unhappiness, says “ah yes, there it is again.” Immediately, seeing “his” unhappiness as other – as a habit, a pattern, a kind of passing mental cloud – he refuses identification with it. And he sets about intrepidly conquering unhappiness. He will not acquiesce to it.
5. The above does not mean, however, that the superior man intrepidly sets about trying to make himself “happy.” Evola quotes Nietzsche as saying “it is a sign of regression when pleasure begins to be considered as the highest principle.”[14] [18] The superior man responds with incredulity to those who “point the way to happiness,” and respond, “But what does happiness mean to us?”[15] [19] The preoccupation with “happiness” is characteristic of the inferior modern type Nietzsche refers to as “the Last Man” (“‘We have invented happiness,’ say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth.”[16] [20]
But if we do not seek happiness, in the name of what do we “defy unhappiness”? Answer: in the name of greatness, self-mastery, self-overcoming. Kant can be of some limited help to us here as well, for he said that the aim of life should not be happiness, but making oneself worthy of happiness. Many individuals may achieve happiness (actually, the dumber one is, the greater one’s chances). But only some are worthy of happiness. The superior man is worthy of happiness, whether he has it or not. And he does not care either way. He does not even aim, really, to be worthy of happiness, but to be worthy of greatness, like Aristotle’s “great-souled man” (megalopsuchos).[17] [21]
6. According to Evola, the superior man claims the right (quoting Nietzsche) “to exceptional acts as attempts at victory over oneself and as acts of freedom . . . to assure oneself, with a sort of asceticism, a preponderance and a certitude of one’s own strength of will.”[18] [22] This point is related to the second principle, discussed earlier. The superior man is master, first and foremost, of himself. He therefore seeks opportunities to test himself in exceptional ways. Evola provides an extended discussion of one form of such self-testing in his Meditations on the Peaks: Mountain Climbing as Metaphor for the Spiritual Quest (and, of course, for Evola mountain climbing was not entirely metaphorical!). Through such opportunities, one “assures oneself” of the strength of one’s will. But there is more: through such tests, one’s will becomes even stronger.
“Asceticism” suggests self-denial. But how does such testing of the will constitute “denying oneself”? The key, of course, lies in asking “what is my self?” The self that is denied in such acts of “self-mastery” is precisely the self that seeks to hold on to life, to safety, to security, and to its ephemeral preoccupations and possessions. We “deny” this self precisely by threatening what it values most. To master it is to progressively still its voice and loosen its hold on us. It is in this fashion that a higher self – what Evola, again, calls the Self – grows in us.
7. The superior man affirms the freedom which includes “keeping the distance which separates us, being indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privations, even to life itself.”[19] [23] This mostly reaffirms points made earlier. But what is “the distance that separates us”? Here Nietzsche could be referring to hierarchy, or what he often calls “the order of rank.” He could also be referring to the well-known desire of the superior man for apartness, verging sometimes on a desire for isolation. The superior man takes himself away from others; he has little need for the company of human beings, unless they are like himself. And even then, he desires the company of such men only in small and infrequent doses. He is repulsed by crowds, and by situations that force him to feel the heat and breath and press of others. Such feelings are an infallible marker of the superior soul – but they are not a “virtue” to be cultivated. One either has such feelings, or one does not. One is either the superior type, or a “people person.”
If we consult the context in which the quote appears – an important section of Twilight of the Idols – Nietzsche offers us little help in understanding specifically what he means by “the distance that separates us.” But the surrounding context is a goldmine of reflections on the superior type, and it is surprising that Evola does not quote it more fully. Nietzsche remarks that “war educates for freedom” (a point on which Evola reflects at length in his Metaphysics of War), then writes:
For what is freedom? Having the will to responsibility for oneself. Maintaining the distance that separates us. Becoming indifferent to trouble, hardships, deprivation, even to life. Being ready to sacrifice people to one’s cause, not excluding oneself. Freedom means that the manly instincts, the instincts that celebrate war and winning, dominate other instincts, for example the instinct for “happiness.” The human being who has become free, not to mention the spirit that has become free, steps all over the contemptible sort of wellbeing dreamt of by grocers, Christians, cows, women, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free human being is a warrior.[20] [24]
The rest of the passage is well worth reading.
8. Evola tells us that the superior man rejects “the insidious confusion between discipline and enfeeblement.” The goal of discipline is not to produce weakness, but a greater strength. “He who does not dominate is weak, dissipated, inconstant.” To discipline oneself is to dominate one’s passions. As we saw in our discussion of the third principle, this does not mean stamping out the passions or denying them. Neither does it mean indulging them: the man who heedlessly indulges his passions becomes “weak, dissipated, inconstant.” Rather, the superior man learns how to control his passions and to make use of them as a means for self-transformation. It is only when the passions are mastered – when we have reached the point that we cannot be swept away by them – that we can give expression to them in such a way that they become vehicles for self-overcoming.
Evola quotes Nietzsche: “Excess is a reproach only against those who have no right to it; and almost all the passions have been brought into ill repute on account of those who were not sufficiently strong to employ them.”[21] [25] The convergence of Nietzsche’s position with Evola’s portrayal of the Left-Hand Path could not be clearer. The superior man has a right to “excess” because, unlike the common man, he is not swept away by the passions. He holds them “on a leash” (see earlier), and uses them as means to transcend the ego, and to achieve a higher state. The common man, who identifies with his passions, becomes wholly a slave to them, and is sucked dry. He gives “excess” a bad reputation.
9. Evola’s penultimate principle is in the spirit of Nietzsche, but does not quote from him. Evola writes: “To point the way of those who, free from all bonds, obeying only their own law, are unbending in obedience to it and above every human weakness.”[22] [26] The first words of this passage are somewhat ambiguous: what does Evola mean by “to point the way of those who . . .” (the original Italian – l’indicare la via di coloro che – is no more helpful). Perhaps what is meant here is simply that the superior type points the way for others. He serves as an example – or he serves as the vanguard. This is not, of course, an ideal to which just anyone can aspire. But the example of the superior man can serve to “awaken” others who have the same potential. This was, indeed, something like Nietzsche’s own literary intention: to point the way to the Overman; to awaken those whose souls are strong enough.
10. Finally, Evola tells us that the superior type is “heir to the equivocal virtus of the Renaissance despots,” and that he is “capable of generosity, quick to offer manly aid, of ‘generous virtue,’ magnanimity, and superiority to his own individuality.”[23] [27] Here Evola alludes to Nietzsche’s qualified admiration for Cesare Borgia (who Nietzsche offers as an example of what he calls the “men of prey”). The rest of the quote, however, calls to mind Aristotle’s description of the great-souled man – especially the use of the term “magnanimity,” which some translators prefer to “greatness of soul.”[24] [28] The superior man is not a beast. He is capable of such virtues as generosity and benevolence. This is because he is free from that which holds lesser men in thrall. The superior man can be generous with such things as money and possessions, for these have little or no value for him. He can be generous in overlooking the faults of others, for he expects little of them anyway. He can even be generous in forgiving his enemies – when they are safely at his feet. The superior man can do all of this because he possesses “superiority to his own individuality”: he is not bound to the pretensions of his own ego, and to the worldly goods the ego craves.
Evola’s very long sentence about the superior man now ends with the following summation:
all these are the positive elements that the man of Tradition also makes his own, but which are only comprehensible and attainable when ‘life’ is ‘more than life,’ that is, through transcendence. They are values attainable only by those in whom there is something else, and something more, than mere life.
In other words, Nietzsche presents us with a rich and inspiring portrayal of the superior man. And yet, the principles he discusses will have a positive result, and serve the “man of Tradition,” only if we turn Nietzsche on his head. Earlier in Chapter Eight, Evola writes: “Nietzsche’s solution of the problem of the meaning of life, consisting in the affirmation that this meaning does not exist outside of life, and that life in itself is meaning . . . is valid only on the presupposition of a being that has transcendence as its essential component.” (Evola places this entire statement in italics.) In other words, to put the matter quite simply, the meaning of life as life itself is only valid when a man’s life is devoted to transcendence (in the senses discussed earlier). Or we could say, somewhat more obscurely, that Nietzsche’s points are valid when man’s life transcends life.
Evola’s claim goes to the heart of his criticism of Nietzsche. A page later, he speaks of conflicting tendencies within Nietzsche’s thought. On the one hand, we have a “naturalistic exaltation of life” that runs the risk of “a surrender of being to the simple world of instincts and passions.” The danger here is that these will then assert themselves “through the will, making it their servant.”[25] [29] Nietzsche, of course, is famous for his theory of the “will to power.” But surrender to the baser impulses of ego and organism will result in those impulses hijacking will and using it for their own purposes. One then becomes a slave to instincts and passions, and the antithesis of a free, autonomous being.
On the other hand, one finds in Nietzsche “testimonies to a reaction to life that cannot arise out of life itself, but solely from a principle superior to it, as revealed in a characteristic phrase: ‘Spirit is the life that cuts through life’ (Geist ist das Leben, das selber ins Leben schneidet).” In other words, Nietzsche’s thought exhibits a fundamental contradiction – a contradiction that cannot be resolved within his thought, but only in Evola’s. One can find other tensions in Nietzsche’s thought as well. I might mention, for example, his evident preference for the values of “master morality,” and his analysis of “slave morality” as arising from hatred of life — which nevertheless co-exist with his relativism concerning values. Yet there is so much in Nietzsche that is brilliant and inspiring, we wish we could accept the whole and declare ourselves Nietzscheans. But we simply cannot. This turns out to be no problem, since Evola absorbs what is positive and useful in Nietzsche, and places it within the context of Tradition. In spite of what Nietzsche himself may say, one feels he is more at home with Tradition, than with “perspectivism.”[26] [30]
Evola’s ten “Nietzschean principles,” reframed for the “man of Tradition,” provide an inspiring guide for life in this Wolf Age. They point the way. They show us what we must become. These are ideas that challenge us to become worthy of them.
Notes
[1] [31] Julius Evola, Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul, trans. Joscelyn Godwin and Constance Fontana (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2003).
[2] [32] Evola, 46, my italics.
[3] [33] Evola, 47.
[4] [34] Übermensch; translated in Ride the Tiger as “superman.”
[5] [35] Quoting Nietzsche, Will to Power, section 778.
[6] [36] Evola, 41. Translator notes “adapted from the aphorism in Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 7, part 1, 371.”
[7] [37] Evola, 41.
[8] [38] There is a great deal more that can be said here about the difference between Kantian and Nietzschean “autonomy.” Indeed, there is an argument to be made that Kant is much closer to Nietzsche than Evola (or Nietzsche) would allow. Ultimately, one sees the stark difference between Kant and Nietzsche in the “egalitarianism” of the different formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative. How can a man who is qualitatively different and superior to others commit to following no other law than what he would will all others follow? How can he affirm the inherent “dignity” in others, who seem to have no dignity at all? Should he affirm their potential dignity, which they themselves simply do not see and may never live up to? But suppose they are so limited, constitutionally, that actualizing that “human dignity” is more or less impossible for them? Kant wants us to affirm that whatever men may actually be, they are nonetheless potentially rational, and thus they possess inherent dignity. For those of us who have seen more of the world than Königsberg, and who have soured on the dreams of Enlightenment, this rings hollow. And how can the overman be expected to adhere to the (self-willed) command to always treat others as ends in themselves, but never as means only – when the vast bulk of humanity seems hardly good for anything other than being used as means to the ends of greater men?
[9] [39] The translator’s note: “Adapted from Twilight of the Idols, ‘Skirmishes of an Untimely Man,’ sect. 38, where, however, it is ‘freedom’ that is thus gauged.” Beware: Evola sometimes alters Nietzsche’s wording.
[10] [40] Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, “Zarathustra’s Prologue,” 5.
[11] [41] Evola, 49.
[12] [42] Evola, 49. The Will to Power, sect. 928.
[13] [43] Will to Power, sect. 222.
[14] [44] Will to Power, sect. 790.
[15] [45] Will to Power, sect. 781.
[16] [46] Thus Spake Zarathustra, “Zarathustra’s Prologue,” 5.
[17] [47] Aristotle also said that the aim of human life is “happiness” (eudaimonia) – but “happiness” has a connotation here different from the familiar one.
[18] [48] Will to Power, sect. 921.
[19] [49] Twilight of the Idols, “Skirmishes of an Untimely Man,” sect. 38. Italics added by Evola.
[20] [50] See Twilight of the Idols, trans. Richard Polt (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1997), 74-75.
[21] [51] Here I have substituted the translation of Walter Kaufmann and R. G. Hollingdale for the one provided in Ride the Tiger, as it is more accurate and concise. See The Will to Power, trans. Kaufmann and Hollingdale (New York: Vintage Books, 1967), 408.
[22] [52] Evola, 49.
[23] [53] The translators of Ride the Tiger direct us here to Beyond Good and Evil, sect. 260.
[24] [54] Grandezza d’animo literally translates to “greatness of soul.”
[25] [55] Evola, 48.
[26] [56] Evola writes (p. 52), “[Nietzsche’s] case illustrates in precise terms what can, and indeed must, occur in a human type in which transcendence has awakened, yes, but who is uncentered with regard to it.”
08:07 Publié dans Philosophie, Traditions | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : tradition, julius evola, friedrich nietzsche, philosophie, éthique | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
11:54 Publié dans Philosophie, Révolution conservatrice | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : allemagne, philosophie, révolution conservatrice, oswald spengler, philosophie de l'histoire | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
Du grec holos, « entier », le holisme est un terme inventé en 1926 par le général Jan Christiaan Smuts, Premier ministre d’Afrique du Sud, pour désigner un ensemble supérieur à la somme de ses parties. L’écrivain britannique Arthur Koestler vulgarisa la notion dans Le cheval dans la locomotive (1967) et Janus (1978). L’anthropologue français Louis Dumont s’y référait déjà en 1966 dans Homo hierarchicus.
Bien connu pour son action permanente envers les plus démunis des nôtres, le pasteur Jean-Pierre Blanchard reprend à son compte le concept dans son nouvel essai L’Alternative holiste ou la grande révolte antimoderne (Dualpha, coll. « Patrimoine des héritages », préface de Patrick Gofman, 2017, 156 p., 21 €). Il y développe une thèse qui risque d’agacer tous ceux qui gardent un mur de Berlin dans leur tête.
Si le monde moderne se caractérise par le triomphe de l’individu et l’extension illimitée de ses droits considérés comme des désirs inaliénables à assouvir, l’univers traditionnel préfère accorder la primauté au collectif, au groupe, à la communauté. Certes, chacune de ces visions du monde antagonistes comporte une part de l’autre. La domination de la Modernité demeure toutefois écrasante, d’où des réactions parfois violentes. Ainsi le pasteur Blanchard voit-il dans la longue révolte des paysans mexicains entre 1911 et 1929 la première manifestation du holisme. Ensuite surgiront tour à tour les révolutions communiste, fasciste et nationale-socialiste. L’auteur insiste longuement sur le paradoxe bolchevique : le progressisme revendiqué se transforma en un conservatoire des traditions nationales et populaires. Le communisme réel est en fait un holisme contrarié par le matérialisme historique. On sait maintenant que la République populaire démocratique de Corée a une société plus communautaire, plus holiste, que cet agrégat bancal d’atomes individualistes déréglés qu’est le Canada.
Aujourd’hui, la vision holistique des rapports collectifs humains prend la forme de l’idéologie islamiste. Le choc frontal entre la modernité occidentale et cet autre holisme est brutal. L’incantation lacrymale et victimaire aux droits de l’homme, au « vivre ensemble » et à l’individu-tyran n’écartera pas la menace islamiste; elle la fortifiera au contraire. La civilisation européenne ne survivra que si elle renoue avec « la transcendance, ce retour qui combat le monde occidental bourgeois issu de la philosophie des Lumières [qui] offre de nouvelles perspectives pour l’avenir (p. 156) », un avenir holistique, communautaire et organique pour les peuples autochtones d’Europe.
Georges Feltin-Tracol
• « Chronique hebdomadaire du Village planétaire », n° 76, diffusée sur Radio-Libertés, le 27 avril 2018.
09:35 Publié dans Livre, Livre, Philosophie, Théorie politique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : livre, holisme, philosophie, philosophie politique, théorie politique, politologie, sciences politiques | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
11:22 Publié dans Actualité, Géopolitique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : hervé juvin, géopragma, politique internationale, actualité, philosophie, philosophie politique | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
In 1945, a remarkable book was published under the title On Power: The Natural History of its Growth[i] which at the time appears to have been well-received. The author, Bertrand de Jouvenel, would go on to become a founding member of the Mount Pelerin society two years later. Since then, it has not fared well, which is surprising when considering the depth and insight of the book.
The political theory of Jouvenel presented in On Power is one which provides an interpretation of human society and the role of power (especially the dominant centralizing power which is termed “Power”) as following certain imperatives dependent on the relative position of the actors in question. This conception of power is one which recognizes both the social nature of power as well as the expansionary nature of power. As Jouvenel writes:
The duality is irreducible. And it is through the interplay of these two antithetical principles that the tendency of Power is towards occupying an ever larger place in society; the various conjunctures of events beckon it on at the same time that its appetite is driving it to fresh pastures. Thus there ensues a growth of Power to which there is no limit, a growth which is fostered by more and more altruistic externals, though the motive-spring is still as always the wish to dominate.[ii]
It is at this point that we can both thank Jouvenel for the model he provides and also reject his attempts to adapt this system of insights to a defense of mixed governance in book VI.[iii] While it is necessary to acknowledge the debt from Jouvenel, it is also just as important to explain exactly how and where further developments from Jouvenel depart from him in a manner which retains the coherence of his breakthrough while rejecting his adherence to a classical liberalism that in essence is a cultural artefact of the very same power conflict he uncovered.
The model, which we can adopt without the confusion provided by Jouvenel’s political affiliation, is one that shows that Power acts both for its own expansion and security, and also as a social process for the benefit of those who come under the purview of Power. With this rough basis, we can begin to view the development of governance in a more sophisticated manner and view a process which has been concealed by modern liberal theory; concealed by precisely those elements of modernity which demand that we view humans as self-interested agents working for primarily selfish means.
One only has to review the works of the liberal tradition, such as those of Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, or Adam Smith to see that the human agent in the modern liberal tradition is one which operates on an individual basis within a moral framework that takes the human agent as an anti-social entity. It is no surprise, then, that all liberal theory takes governance as at best a necessary evil to be maintained to avoid all out conflict (Hobbes) or as something to be rejected entirely as an immoral entity (various anarchisms). All aspects of modernity are tied together by these very same shared ethical assumptions to which all their theories must accord. If, contrary to the modern liberal tradition, the human agent is not an anti-social agent acting from individually determined self-interest, but is instead a social one, then we should see the actions of the human agent being in accordance not only with the individual’s circumstance based interest, but also with the perceived interest of the society within which the individual resides. This would hold just as much for subjects as it would for rulers. The tyrannical ruler of the modern liberal mind, randomly acting out of cruelty because they are unrestrained by checks and balances, would then prove to be a fiction.
The extended model that can be derived from Jouvenel is both exceptionally simple, yet of devastating importance. It is simply that in any given political configuration if there are multiple centers of power, then conflict will occur as the centers of power seek to both secure their position and pursue expansion, which will be done with the ostensible purpose of the good of society in mind. The dominant power center will become the central Power. This dominant Power will enlarge its remit and power not by direct physical conflict (which would in effect spell outright civil war), but through means presented (and seen by both the actors in power and those who benefit) as being beneficial to society overall.
The example of the expansion of the remit of the monarchs of Europe and its transformation into the modern state is presented by Jouvenel to demonstrate this model, and the picture painted is stark and repeatedly supported by historical record. As Jouvenel makes plainly clear, “It is true, no doubt, that Power could not make this progress but for the very real services which it renders and under cover of the hopes aroused by its displays of the altruistic side of its nature.”[iv]
For example:
To raise contributions, Power must invoke the public interest. It was in this way that the Hundred Years’ War, by multiplying the occasions on which the monarchy was forced to request the cooperation of the people, accustomed them in the end, after a long succession of occasional levies, to a permanent tax, and outcome which outlived the reasons for it. It was in this way, too, that the Revolutionary Wars provided the justification for conscriptions, even though the files of 1789 disclosed a unanimous hostility to its feeble beginning under the monarchy. Conscription achieved fixation. And so it is that times of danger, when Power takes action for the general safety, are worth much to it in accretion to its armoury, and these, when the crisis has passed, it keeps.[v]
Of course, it is not only in times of public danger when Power proceeds under the name of public interest. The direction of the monarch’s competition was not only towards external power centers to which overt war was socially permissible, but also internal competitors in the form of barons and lords to whom overt war was not permissible (generally). To them, a process which can best be described as a coalition of the high and low in society was in action. As Jouvenel notes regarding Power:
The growth of its authority strikes private individuals as being not so much a continual encroachment on their liberty, as an attempt to put down various petty tyrannies to which they have been subject. It looks as though the advance of the state is a means to the advance of the individual.[vi]
Jouvenel further elaborates on this with the following: “the monarchy, through its lawyers, comes between the barons and their subjects; the purpose is to compel the former to limit themselves to the dues which are customary and to abstain from arbitrary taxation.”[vii]
The monarchy, then, engaged in this alliance with the common people due to the imperatives its relatively weak position foisted on it, and also as a means to ostensibly better govern. Monarchy was anything but a despotism which modern liberal propaganda post-enlightenment has presented it as, but rather a political structure under restraints which were genuine–a reality that we are blind to due to the shared assumptions provided by modernity, namely that we have passed from a period of darkness into the enlightenment of liberal governance. These assumptions were perpetuated by Power’s expansion.
It is here that we can move past Jouvenel and reflect further on the issue of personal liberty by refusing to be engaged in advocacy of classical liberalism, and by being aware of these assumptions of self-interest. We can then use his observation of this high-low alliance to make some startling assertions I believe are implicit in his work. The bases of these observations are provided by the following passage:
If the natural tendency of Power is to grow, and if it can extend its authority and increase its resources only at the expense of the notables, it follows that its ally for all times is the common people. The passion for absolutism is, inevitably, in conspiracy with the passion for equality.
History is one continuous proof of this; sometimes, however, as if to clarify this secular process, she concentrates it into a one-act play, such as that of the Doge Marino Falieri. So independent of the Doge were the Venetian nobility that Michel Steno could insult the Doge’s wife and escape punishment which was so derisory as to double the insult. Indeed, so far above the people’s heads was this nobility that Bertuccio Ixarello, a plebeian, was unable, in spite of his naval exploits, to obtain satisfaction for a box on the ear given by Giovanni Dandalo. According to the accepted story, Bertuccio came to the Doge and showed him the wound in his cheek from the patrician’s ring; shaming the Doge out of his inactivity, he said to him: “Let us join forces to destroy this aristocratic authority which thus perpetuates the abasement of my people and limits so narrowly your power.” The annihilation of the nobility would give to each what he wanted—to the common people equality, to Power absolutism. The attempt of Marino Falieri failed and he was put to death.
A like fate befell Jan van Barneveldt, whose case was the exact converse. In the history of the Netherlands we come across this same conflict between a prince wishing to increase his authority, in this case the Stadtholder of the House of Orange, and social authorities standing in his way, in this case the rich merchants and ship owners of Holland. William, commander-in-chief throughout thirty difficult and glorious years, was nearing the crown and had already refused it once, as did Caesar and Cromwell, when he was struck down by the hand of the assassin. Prince Maurice inherited his father’s prestige, added to it by victories of his own, and seemed about to reach the goal, when Barneveldt, having organised secretly a patrician opposition, put an end to Maurice’s ambitions by putting an end , through the conclusion of peace, to victories which were proving dangerous to the Republic. What did Maurice do then? He allied himself with the most ignorant of the preachers, who were, through fierce intolerance, the aptest to excite the passions of the lower orders: thanks to their efforts, he unleashed the mob at Barneveldt and cut off his head. This intervention by the common people enabled Maurice to execute the leader of the opposition to his own increasing power. That he did not gain the authority he sought was not due to any mistake in his choice of means, as was shown when one of his successors, William III, made himself at last master of the country by means of a popular rising, in which Jean de Witt, the Barneveldt of this period, had his throat cut.[viii]
It is a position without controversy to trace the origins of liberalism, classical liberalism, and modernity in general to Protestantism and the Reformation. If what Jouvenel outlines in the above passage and in the rest of On Power is correct, then it seems quite evident that the origins of Protestantism and its success is a result of these very same conflicts between these various power centers—something Jouvenel points to with his reference to equality being the ally of Power. It would seem that really equality and liberty are both in conspiracy with Power, for just what was the subsequent intellectual descendant of these “most ignorant preachers” but the liberal tradition proper? So, we have a conundrum. Jouvenel is writing in defense of a liberal political position which he is clearly demonstrating was propagated and favored by power actors in conflict with other power actors. The question we can ask ourselves at this juncture is: how does this accord with the accepted narrative of the development of liberalism? Because the radical implications presented by Jouvenel’s model are that this entire political and social paradigm was favored and propelled forward not by reasoned discourse and collective enlightenment, but in actuality as a result of its suitability and beneficial character in relation to the expansion of Power.
In asking such a question, the focus of our attention must therefore shift from popular considerations of liberalism as a rational discourse conducted over many centuries to which the assent of reasonable and rational agents was won, to instead a consideration of it as being the result of institutional actions. In effect, we go from the Whig theory of history, Progress etc. to one which identifies modernity as the cultural result of institutional conflict.
Luckily, a great deal of work on this new interpretation of the historical development of liberalism has actually already been done, but the authors in question, like Jouvenel, have not fully understood the implications of their observations. Some of the more striking recent examples have included William T Cavanaugh’s The Myth of Religious Violence[ix] and Larry Siedentop’s Inventing the Individual[x] which both deal with the events leading up to the development of modern liberalism and beyond. Cavanaugh in particular is quite forceful in drawing the reader’s attention to the manner in which institutional conflict preceded the development of liberalism and the Reformation and Jouvenel beckons us to go deeper into this.
Citing the examples of Baruch Spinoza,Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke,[xi] who presented religious division as the cause of the conflicts of the Thirty Years War that led to liberalism, Cavanaugh notes that this narrative is without historical basis. More modern liberal thinkers have subsequently traced the birth of liberalism to the so-called religious conflicts of this period, with Cavanaugh citing Quintin Skinner, Jeffrey Stout, Judith Shklar and John Rawls as exemplifying it.[xii] The problem, as Cavanaugh takes pains to point out, is that the institutional changes which were supposed to have been ushered in as a result of the religious conflicts actually presaged them and caused them. To make matters worse, there is no clear division line between the denominations in the conflict. To bolster his argument, he provides ample examples of conflict occurring between states with the same denominations, as well as collaboration between differing denominations (including Catholic and Protestant states). The most trenchant observation is provided by the example of the conflict between Charles V and the Papacy:
As Richard Dunn points out, “Charles V’s soldiers sacked Rome, not Wittenberg, in 1527, and when the papacy belatedly sponsored a reform program, both the Habsburgs and the Valois refused to endorse much of it, rejecting especially those Trentine decrees which encroached on their sovereign authority.” The wars of the 1520s were part of the ongoing struggle between the pope and the emperor for control over Italy and over the church in German territories.[xiii]
Cavanaugh even manages to find a wonderful quote from Pope Julius III complaining of Henry II of France’s actions: “in the end, you are more than Pope in your kingdoms…I know no reason why you should wish to become schismatic.”[xiv] Clearly, those in positions of power had no problem seeing schism as a power play.
As such, we can see clearly the role of Jouvenel’s mechanism of power employing dissenting sects in the process of power expansion. The employment of schismatic sects and the promotion of what Jouvenel called “the most ignorant of the preachers”[xv] becomes an obvious means of extending the power of the power centers in question. This observation is supported by the thesis presented by Cavanaugh that the Reformation failed in those states that were advanced in the state’s absorption of ecclesiastical power:
It is unarguably the case that the reinforcement of ecclesiastical difference in early modern Europe was largely a project of state-building elites. As G. R. Elton bluntly puts it, “The Reformation maintained itself wherever the lay power (prince or magistrates) favoured it; it could not survive wherever the authorities decided to suppress it.”[xvi]
In contrast:
Where the Reformation succeeded was in England, Scandinavia, and many German principalities, where breaking with the Catholic Church meant that the church could be used to augment the power of the civil authorities. To cite one example, King Gustav Vasa welcomed the Reformation to Sweden in 1524 by transferring the receipt of tithes from the church to the Crown. Three years later, he appropriated the entire property of the church. As William Maltby notes, accepting Lutheranism both gave princes an ideological basis for resisting the centralizing efforts of the emperor and gave them the chance to extract considerable wealth from confiscated church properties.[xvii]
As for Larry Siedentop, his work on the history of the individual constantly gropes at outlining the mechanism Jouvenel provides, which is arguably the cause of the invention of the individual that he traces. There is no reason to assume that the mechanism of using the rhetoric of individualism and equality as a means to undermine competing power centers began with the Reformation, and Siedentop confirms it did not. It appears to be a constant of human political structure. Siedentop provides a point by point history of the process of the development of the concept of the individual as being a moral development driven by Church authorities and then by secular authorities (at which point we have liberalism). Siedentop does this by continually employing an understanding of early Christian European society as being essentially corporatist, with the Church engaging in a process of breaking down this feudal structure using fundamentally anarchist conceptions of society based on the invention of the individual. Siedentop’s account is essentially Jouvenelian without realizing it. We can even catch him making the Jouvenelian observation on ancient developments leading up to the invention of the individual:
The long period of aristocratic ascendancy in Greek and Italian cities, founded on the family and its worship, had already reduced kingship to a religious role, stripping kings of political authority. The reason for this is clear enough. Kings had frequently made common cause with the lower classes. They had formed alliances with clients and the plebs, directed against the power of the aristocracy. Challenged both from without (by a class which had no family worship or gods) and from within (by clients questioning the traditional ordering of the family), the aristocracy of the cities carried through a political revolution to avoid a social revolution.[xviii]
As with Jouvenel, we can see the process of centralization and individualization as a political structure-driven phenomena without the ideological adherence to liberalism; we are not making any moral claims here, merely noting an obvious systemic mechanism. Siedentop himself goes close to doing so himself as, for example, when he notes of early Christian Rome:
However, by the end of the third century one section of the urban elites embarked on a different course for dealing with the emperor and provincial governors, a course which drew on their Christian beliefs and enabled them to become the spokesmen of the lower classes. A new rhetoric served their bid for urban leadership. It was a rhetoric founded on ‘love of the poor’. Drawing on features of the Christian self-image—the church’s social inclusiveness, the simplicity of its message, its distrust of traditional culture and its welfare role—‘love of the poor’ made possible, Brown argues, a regrouping within the urban elites. It was a rhetoric that reflected and served an alliance between upper-class Christians and the bishops of cities, who were themselves often men of culture or paideia.
This new rhetoric was put to use ‘in the never ending task of exercising control within the city and representing its needs to the outside world.[xix]
Siedentop shows that the Bishop of the European cities promoted individualism contra the secular authorities, and that this was then taken forward with what he calls the Papal Revolution. The Papacy began a series of centralizing policies resulting in the creation of a bureaucracy around the papal office, which Siedentop claims was copied by secular authorities. This process brought the Papacy into a conflict with secular authorities that would ultimately lead to the Reformation, and Siedentop himself identifies that it was driven to a large degree by the dynamics of the Church’s position within the power centers of Western Europe:
The second half of the eleventh century saw dramatic change. Determined to define and defend the church as a distinct body within Christendom, and to protect its independence, popes began to make far more ambitious claims. They began to claim legal supremacy for the papacy within the church, what within a few decades would be described as the pope’s plenitude potestatis, his plenitude of power.[xx]
The significance of all of this is made clear by the following passage which brings us back to Cavanaugh:
By the mid-fifteenth century the papacy had – relying on the centralized administration that had been created since the twelfth century – regained control over the Church. The project of reform which the church had failed to carry through did not die, however. The cause of church reform was almost immediately taken up by secular rulers who drew their own conclusions from the series of frustrated general councils and the resurgence of papal pretensions. The French king, in the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438), and the German empire, at the Diet of Mayence in 1439, introduced greater autonomy and more collegiate government into national churches. But even these national reforms championed by secular rulers were soon abandoned as a result of papal pressure and diplomacy, returning the situation in the church, at least in appearance, to one of papal absolutism.
But it was only an appearance. For the project of reform, which had eluded both the leaders of the church and secular rulers, had now taken root among the people.
Was it mere chance that the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries saw such widespread popular agitation within the church, with Pietist movements in the Netherlands and Germany fostering a distrust of clerical authority, while the Lollards in England and the Hussites in Prague openly criticized the established church hierarchy, especially the papacy? In the eyes of John Wycliffe, leader of the Lollards, the church had lost its way, preoccupied with legal supremacy and the accumulation of wealth rather than the care of souls, its proper role. Wycliffe spoke for many across Europe when he called for translation of the scriptures into popular languages, so that they could be widely read and properly understood, giving people a basis for judging the claims of the clerical establishment. The understanding of ‘authority’ was taking a dramatic turn, away from aristocracy towards democracy.[xxi]
It clearly wasn’t mere chance that this popular agitation occurred; it was clearly encouraged and allowed space by the secular rulers. It was the result of competing power centers wresting control from one another. The tool of individualizing was taken from the Church’s hands and used against it. Jouvenel implies that these preachers would have had institutional support. And in the case of John Wycliffe, he had the powerful sponsorship of John of Gaunt, the de facto king of England. This has puzzled historians greatly, but it does not puzzle us. As for Jan Hus, we have the Archbishop of Prague Zbyněk Zajíc and then King Wenceslaus IV. It seems to be a general law that all of these anti-clerical reformists were also pro-secular government and under the protection of patrons in the process of centralizing power and in chronic conflict with ecclesiastical authorities. They all ended in confiscation of Church property. Both Martin Luther and William of Ockham provide excellent additional examples.
The startling issue we now must face is that not only does Jouvenel indicate that the role of power in undermining other power centers by encouraging equality and individualism continues back in history, but it also continues forward to the present. Can it be that the history of the West and the history of liberalism is the ever increasing growth of centralizing power and not simply a moral development following reason? Was the later secularizing of this Christian project of ‘individualizing’ that is embodied in the Enlightenment successful in providing a ground from which to account for the ethical value of this development? Or is it largely a rather mindless result of power conflicts with secular authorities selecting the nearest theories, in order to provide a sheen of legitimacy for their actions?
Given this framework in mind, the fundamental issue is: at what point does this process become harmful and outright suicidal? Moreover, now being aware of this process, may we not look on the events currently occurring in our society and not identify which current iterations of this ‘individualizing’ are symptomatic of raw unnecessary conflict? Which are clearly without any reason?
We can then see that this Jouvenelian mechanism raises far-ranging and profound questions. It is neither Marxist, nor liberal, but instead concentrates on the role of power centers, or competing authorities, as being the drivers of cultural developments under their purview. The relations, imperatives, and motives of these centers then become key and from this we can begin to build a whole new political theory which is unlike any currently in existence.
It has profound applications.
[i]Bertrand de Jouvenel, On Power: Its Nature and the History of Its Growth, (USA: Beacon Press Boston, 1962).
[ii]Ibid.,119.
[iii]Ibid.,283.
[iv]Ibid.,128.
[v]Ibid.,129.
[vi]Ibid.,130.
[vii]Ibid.,167.
[viii]Ibid.,178-79.
[ix]William T. Cavanaugh,The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
[x]Larry Siedentop, Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism (Cambridge: Belknap Harvard University Press, 2014).
[xi]Cavanaugh, The Myth of Religious Violence, 124-27.
[xii]Ibid.,130.
[xiii]Ibid.,143.
[xiv]Ibid.,167.
[xv]Jouvenel, On Power, 179.
[xvi] Cavanaugh, The Myth of Religious Violence, 168.
[xvii]Ibid.,167.
[xviii]Ibid., 29.
[xix]Siedentop, Inventing the Individual, 82.
[xx]Ibid.,201.
[xxi]Ibid.,330.
11:15 Publié dans Théorie politique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : philosophie, philosophie politique, théorie politique, sciences politiques, politologie, bertrand de jouvenel, pouvoir, théorie du pouvoir | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
Ronald Beiner
Dangerous Minds: Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Return of the Far Right
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018
Ronald Beiner is a Canadian Jewish political theorist who teaches at the University of Toronto. I’ve been reading his work since the early 1990s, starting with What’s the Matter with Liberalism? (1992). I have always admired Beiner’s clear and lively writing and his ability to see straight through jargon and cant to hone in on the flaws of the positions he examines. He is also refreshingly free of Left-wing sectarianism and willing to engage with political theorists of the Right, like Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin, Michael Oakeshott, and Hans-Georg Gadamer. Thus, although I was delighted that a theorist of his caliber had decided to write a book on the contemporary far Right, I was also worried that he might, after a typically open and searching engagement with our outlook, discover some fatal flaw.
But it turns out that an honest confrontation with our movement is a bridge too far. Beiner does not even wish to engage with our ideas, much less critique them. Instead, he uses the rise of the Right simply as lurid packaging to sell his publisher a book that focuses on Nietzsche and Heidegger. (The cover is of the torchlight march at Unite the Right, which is supposed to look sinister.)
Beiner’s target is not the Right, but the Left, specifically those who think that Nietzsche and Heidegger can be profitably appropriated for Left-wing causes. To combat this view, he mounts a persuasive case that Nietzsche and Heidegger are deeply anti-liberal thinkers. Thus, although Dangerous Minds is sensationalist and dismissive in its treatment of our movement, it is nevertheless extremely useful to us. If anyone wants to understand why Nietzsche and Heidegger are so useful to the New Right, Beiner gives a clear and engaging account in a bit more than 100 pages.
Since Beiner wants to cast our movement in the worst possible light, he naturally begins with Hailgate [2]:
In the fateful fall of 2016, a far-right ideologue named Richard B. Spencer stirred up some fame for himself by exclaiming in a conference packed with his followers not far from the White House: “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!” On the face of it, this mad proclamation would appear to have nothing in common with the glorious tradition of Western philosophy.
But think again.
Beiner then quotes Spencer denouncing “fucking middle class” values and proclaiming “I love empire, I love power, I love achievement.” We even learn from a Jewish female reporter that Spencer will sometimes “get a boner” from reading about Napoleon. (Another triumph of press engagement [3].)
This is Nietzsche’s work, declares Beiner.
Beiner goes on to call Spencer a “lunatic ideologue” (p. 11) and an advocate of “virulently antiliberal, antidemocratic radicalism” (p. 12). He blames it all on a graduate seminar on Nietzsche that Spencer took at the University of Chicago. This is laying it on a bit thick, since Spencer is not offering a system of ideas. He’s just name-dropping and Nietzsche-posting to impress middlebrow journalists. Perhaps sensing this, Beiner turns his attention to a prolific author of essays and books, Alexander Dugin. Beiner easily establishes the Nietzschean and Heideggerian pedigree of Dugin’s dangerous ideas.
Naturally, at this point, I was wondering if I was next, so I flipped to the back of the book to see if my name appeared in the index. But there is no index. (This from a serious academic publisher?) So I continued to read. By the end, I was a bit relieved, and maybe a bit miffed, to receive no mention at all in Dangerous Minds. Nor is Counter-Currents mentioned by name, although it is referred to on page 12 as “One of the typically odious far-right websites” and on page 150 as “Another far-right outfit of the same ilk” as Arktos. In the first case, Beiner refers to James O’Meara’s review of Jason Jorjani’s Prometheus and Atlas [4], but he does not name O’Meara or give the url of the review. (Jorjani is, however, singled out for abuse as a “crackpot philosopher.”) In the second case, Beiner provides the url of my Heidegger commemoration [5] but does not cite the author or title. Beiner is known as a Left-wing admirer of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom. These glaring oversights might lead those of a Straussian bent to think that Beiner regards Counter-Currents, James O’Meara, me, and perhaps Collin Cleary [6], who is also noticeably omitted, to be of central importance. But of course he has plausible deniability.
Beiner zeroes in on equality as the essential issue that divides the Left and the Right:
A view of society where all individuals are fundamentally equal or a view of society where people can live meaningful lives only under the banner of fundamental hierarchy: this is an either/or, not a moral-political choice that can be submitted to compromise or splitting the difference. . . . [O]ne either sees egalitarianism as essential to the proper acknowledgement of universal human dignity, or one sees it as the destruction of what’s most human because its incompatible with human nobility rightly understood. (p. 8)
This is basically correct, but I have two caveats.
First, I think equality and liberty are genuine political values. But they are not the most important values. Individual self-actualization and the pursuit of the common good are more important than individual liberty, for instance. And justice is more important than equality, since justice requires unequal people receive unequal treatment. But even here, justice demands that unequal status and rewards be proportionate to unequal merit. By this Aristotelian view of justice, however, most forms of contemporary social and political inequality are grossly unjust.
This is why I oppose people on the Right who praise “hierarchy” as such. Not all hierarchies are just. Thus one can defend the principle of hierarchy without embracing ideas like hereditary monarchy, aristocracy, and caste, much less slavery. These are at best merely imperfect historical illustrations of the principle of hierarchy, not blueprints for the future.
Second, the notion of “universal human dignity” is simply an article of faith, like Stoic and Christian ideas of providence and liberal ideas of progress. Progress and providence are our trump cards against ultimate misfortune. They allow us to keep believing that things will work out in the end. “Dignity” is really a trump card against dehumanization: it is the assertion that no matter how botched, degraded, and corrupt a human being is, he is still a human being; he still possesses some intrinsic worth that he can use, as a measure of last resort, to gain some consideration from the rest of us. But when aliens land and discover that human beings are delicious, appeals to the universal dignity of rational beings are not going to save us. True nobility requires that we face reality and dispense with such moralistic illusions.
But that does not mean that we dispense with empathy for others. I have zero patience for people on the Right who defend slavery, colonialism, imperialism, and genocide. They are guilty of another form of providential wishful thinking, for they apparently feel themselves invulnerable to the sufferings they would cheerfully inflict on others. It does not occur to them that others could do the same to them. But nobility requires thinking and living without such illusions. You might be high and mighty today, but you are not bulletproof (which is really all Hobbes meant by equality). Empathy allows us to imagine ourselves in the positions of others. Fortune can elevate or lower us into the positions of others. And if none of us are immune to fortune, then we should create a political system in which we could morally bear to trade places with anyone, a society in which all social stations are fundamentally just. This leads to the sort of live-and-let-live ethos that is at the core of ethnonationalism as I define it.
This is why I don’t regard Alexander Dugin and Richard Spencer as contributing anything to White Nationalism, which is the advocacy of ethnic self-determination for all white peoples. Instead, they are simply apologists for Russian imperial revanchism. Spencer regards ethnonationalism as “petty,” siding with the UK against Scottish independence, the EU against Brexit, and Spain against Catalan independence. But although he opposes the UK leaving the EU, he opposes Ukraine joining it. He praises the EU as a transnational, imperial organization — but not NATO. Clearly, he is more interested in shilling for Russian geopolitical interests than in setting forth a coherent moral and political framework for white survival. I can’t blame Beiner for focusing on Dugin and Spencer, however, because they embrace all of Nietzsche’s most lurid and questionable ideas as well as his good ones.
Beiner on Nietzsche
According to Beiner’s chapter on “Reading Nietzsche in an Age of Resurgent Fascism,” the “one central, animating Nietzschean idea” is: “Western civilization is going down the toilet because of too much emphasis on truth and rationality and too much emphasis on equal human dignity” (p. 24). (This passage also illustrates the vulgar and often hysterical tone of Beiner’s polemic. Dangerous Minds has a rambling, informal, often autobiographical style that makes it read like an extended blog post. Beiner also peppers his prose with exclamation points, sometimes 4 or 5 to the page, to drive his points home. I began to worry that he would soon resort to emoticons.)
Nietzsche offers two arguments against liberalism. First, liberalism destroys the meaning of life. Second, liberalism destroys human nobility.
For Nietzsche, a meaningful life requires a normative culture as the context or “horizon” in which each individual is immersed and formed. In short, a meaningful life is rooted in ethnic identity, although Nietzsche does not put it in these terms, as he was deeply alienated from and ambivalent about his own German identity. A normative culture provides an encompassing worldview and a hierarchy of values. These need not be “true” in any metaphysical sense to provide foundations for a meaningful life. Hence the danger of modernity’s high value for truth and rationality. These horizons are always plural (there are many different cultures), and they are closed (they generate differences between insiders and outsiders, us and them; thus they are “political” in Carl Schmitt’s sense of the word).
Liberalism destroys meaning because it is cosmopolitan and egalitarian. Its cosmopolitanism opens horizons to other cultures and undermines attachment to one’s own culture. Its egalitarianism overthrows value hierarchies that make people feel bad about themselves. The result is the collapse of rootedness and meaning and the emergence of nihilism. This is why Nietzsche “regards old-fashioned nineteenth-century liberalism — to say nothing of radicalized twentieth- and twenty-first century versions — as rendering culture per se impossible” (p. 34).
Beiner doesn’t offer a very clear account of why Nietzsche thinks liberalism undermines human nobility. The short answer is that it is simply the political application of the slave revolt in morals, in which the aristocratic virtues of the ancients were transmuted into Christian and eventually liberal vices, and the vices of the enslaved and downtrodden were transmuted into virtues.
But what makes us noble in the first place? Like Hegel, Nietzsche believes that human nobility shows itself by triumphing over the fear of death and loss and doing beautiful and noble things in spite of them. Thus, human nobility is essentially connected with facing up to the tragic character of human life and finding the strength to carry on.
Liberalism, like Platonism, Stoicism, and Christianity, is anti-tragic because it is based on faith in providence, the idea that the universe is ruled by and directed toward the good — appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. Providence denies the ultimate reality of loss, finitude, and evil, blinding us to the tragic dimension of life and replacing it with the stoner mantra that “it’s all good.” It is a delusion of ultimate metaphysical invulnerability to evil and loss.
Modern liberals replace faith in providence with faith in progress, which they believe will result in the perfection of mankind and the amelioration of human suffering and evils. It is a false vision of the world that smothers the possibility of human nobility. Although Beiner has the chutzpah to suggest that maybe Nietzscheans can ennoble themselves by enduring life in the “iron cage” of modernity and learning to love the Last Man (p. 116). (Why not ennoble oneself even more by living with head-lice as well?)
The plurality of horizons also means the possibility of existential conflict and the necessity of choosing and taking responsibility for one’s choices. As Schmitt argued, however, the whole liberal ethos is to replace the government of responsible choosers — the sovereign — with the government of laws, rules, and anonymous bureaucrats.
Beiner doesn’t delve too deeply into Nietzsche’s views of nobility because he wants to hang them on Nietzsche’s praise of slavery, caste, war, and cruelty. But while it is true that these phenomena accompanied the emergence of aristocratic values — and most of what we recognize as high culture, for that matter, for the leisure that gave rise to science and culture was secured by the labor of slaves — one can legitimately ask if it is possible to bring about a rebirth of aristocratic values and high culture without first becoming barbarians again. For instance, this is the utopia offered by Social Credit, the preferred economic theory of interwar Anglophone fascists, who hoped to unleash human nobility and creativity once machines put us all out of work.
But if we cannot renew civilization without starting over from scratch, then I would gladly hit the reset button rather than allow the world to decline endlessly into detritus. Thus, on Nietzschean and Heideggerian grounds, it makes sense to try to renew the world, because if one fails, that failure might contribute to the civilizational reset that we need. Indeed, the more catastrophic the failure, the greater the chance of a fresh start. The only way we can’t win is if we don’t try.
Beiner on Heidegger
Beiner’s chapter on “Reading Heidegger in an Age of Resurgent Fascism” is less incisive than his account of Nietzsche, largely because he does not see how close Heidegger really is to Nietzsche. Beiner takes Heidegger’s question of Being at face value and finds it rather bizarre that Heidegger could think that modern civilization is going to hell because of forgetting about Being. But for Heidegger Being = meaning [7], and the modern oblivion of Being is basically the same thing that Nietzsche meant by the collapse of closed normative horizons and the rise of nihilism. Indeed, Heidegger’s concept of Dasein simply refers to man as a being situated within and defined by horizons of meaning. The occlusion of these horizons by the false individualism and cosmopolitanism of modernity leads to nihilism, a life deprived of meaning.
Heidegger thought National Socialism could bring about the spiritual renewal of the German people — and presumably any other nation that tried it — by rejecting cosmopolitanism and individualism and reaffirming the rootedness, community, and the closed horizon of the nation. He rejected National Socialism when he came to see it as just another form of modern technological nihilism. Nietzsche, of course, rejected German nationalism, but Heidegger’s thinking was truer to the implications of Nietzsche’s thinking about the closed cultural horizons that grant meaning.
Beiner is at his best in his reading of Heidegger’s “Letter on Humanism,” his post-war statement publicly inaugurating “the late Heidegger.” Beiner correctly discerns that Heidegger’s lament against the “homelessness” of modern man and his loss of Heimat (homeland) is an expression of the same fundamentally reactionary, anti-modern, anti-cosmopolitan, and pro-nationalist sentiments that led him to embrace National Socialism. Indeed, there’s good reason to think that Heidegger never changed his fundamental political philosophy at all. The only thing that changed was his evaluation of National Socialism and his adoption of a more oblique and esoteric way of speaking about politics under the repressive conditions of the Occupation and the Federal Republic. Carrying out Heidegger’s project of offering a case for a non-nihilistic, non-totalitarian form of ethnonationalism is the project of the New Right as I define it.
Heidegger and the Holocaust
Beiner, like many Jewish commentators, seems to feel that Heidegger owes him a personal apology for the Holocaust. We are told that Heidegger’s silence about the Holocaust is unforgivable. But when we point out that Heidegger did say something about the Holocaust, namely that it was a sinister application of mechanized modern mass slaughter to human beings, we are told that this view is also unforgivable, since the Holocaust somehow transcends all attempts to classify and understand it. Which would seem to require that we say nothing about it at all, but we have already learned that this is unforgivable as well.
Beiner tells the story of Rudolf Bultmann’s visit to Heidegger after the war, when he told Heidegger, “Now you must like Augustine write your retractions [Retractiones] . . . in the final analysis for the truth of your thought.” Bultmann continues: “Heidegger’s face became a stony mask. He left without saying anything further” (p. 119).
Beiner treats this as outrageous. But Heidegger’s reaction is not hard to understand. He had nothing to retract. He felt that he had done nothing wrong. He was not responsible for the war or the Holocaust. They were none of his doing or his intention. They were part and parcel of the very nihilism that he opposed. The fact that the National Socialist regime went so terribly wrong did not refute Heidegger’s basic diagnosis of the problems of modern rootlessness and nihilism but rather proved how all-pervasive they were. Nor did anything the Nazis did refute the deep truth of ethnonationalism as the political corollary of spiritually awakening from the nightmare of liberal modernity. Thus Heidegger absolutely refused to say anything about the war or the Holocaust that could be interpreted as conceding that modern liberal democracy had somehow been proven true. Instead, he continued to make essentially the same arguments as he made before the war, but in more esoteric terms by focusing on rootlessness and technology.
Bultmann was telling Heidegger to lie, to retract beliefs he believed were true, and to do it in the name of “the truth of [his] thought” when in fact the only motive could be to win the approval of the victors. But that approval was something Heidegger decided to do without. Frankly, Bultmann was making an indecent proposal, and Heidegger’s stony silence was admirably restrained.
Beiner mentions that according to Gadamer, Heidegger “was so preoccupied by modernity’s forgetfulness of Being [rootlessness, nihilism] that even the Nazi genocide ‘appeared to him as something minimal compared to the future that awaits us’” (p. 107). Here’s another unforgivable statement breaching Heidegger’s unforgivable silence. But this unforgivable statement is, unfortunately, quite prophetic. For the consummation of global technological civilization, including the erasure of borders and the destruction of roots, will lead to a genocide far vaster and more complete than the Holocaust. I refer the reader to my essays “White Extinction [8],” “White Genocide [9],” and especially “Why the Holocaust Happened, and Why It Won’t Happen Again [10].”
A New Age of Gods?
Both Nietzsche and Heidegger think that spiritual health requires unreflective belief in and commitment to a closed, normatively binding cultural horizon. Christianity, post-Socratic philosophy, and the Enlightenment, however, made self-reflection and universal truth into transcendent values. But as Nietzsche argued, this was a self-defeating move, for Christianity could not stand up to rational criticism. Reason soon escaped the control of the Church, which led to the downfall of Christianity (Nietzsche’s “death of God”), the erasure of the West’s horizon, and the rise of modern nihilism. It follows that the return to spiritual health requires the emergence of a new age of unreflective belief and commitment. Giambattista Vico called this an “Age of Gods,” the first age of a new historical cycle.
The great question is: can a new “Age of Gods” emerge within the context of our present civilization, or must the modern world perish utterly, completely liquidating the Western tradition of philosophy, science, and liberalism, so that mankind can truly believe, belong, and obey again? The new horizons and myths that we need, moreover, cannot be “chosen,” for adopting a belief system as a matter of choice is not an alternative to nihilism, it is just an expression of it. Genuine belief is not chosen. It chooses you. It does not belong to you. You belong to it.
Nietzsche believed that a new age of gods could be imposed by great philosopher-legislators who could create new myths and new tables of values. Under Nietzsche’s sway, Heidegger believed this as well, and it accounts for why he thought National Socialism could lead to a spiritual renewal of Germany. It was only later that Heidegger realized that National Socialism was not an alternative to nihilism, but an expression of it.
It was at this point that Heidegger began his great confrontation with Nietzsche in the mid-1930s. Heidegger later told Gadamer that “Nietzsche ruined me.” Nietzsche ruined Heidegger by offering him nihilism as a cure for nihilism. Nietzsche made Heidegger a Nazi. Heidegger overcame Nazism by overcoming Nietzsche.
In Heidegger’s later terminology, Nietzsche and National Socialism were both “humanistic,” premised on the idea that the human mind creates culture, whereas in fact culture creates the human mind. No genuine belief can be chosen. It has to seize us. This is one of the senses of Heidegger’s later concept of Ereignis, often translated “the event of appropriation”: the beginning of a new historical epoch seizes and enthralls us. This is the meaning of Heidegger’s later claim that “Only a god can save us now” — as opposed to a philosopher-dictator.
One could, however, read Nietzsche in a non-humanistic way, if one sees his rhapsodies to the Übermensch, the philosopher-legislator, and the coming century of global wars (yes, Nietzsche predicted that) not as a solution to modern nihilism, but as an intensification of it to the breaking point as a way of hurrying along the downfall of the modern world and inaugurating a new age of gods. (“That which is falling should also be pushed.”) If this is Nietzsche’s true view, then offering nihilism to cure nihilism is not a self-contradiction, it is just sound homeopathic medicine.
Beiner asks “are any of us really prepared to entertain the possibility of the comprehensive cancelling-out of modernity to which Heidegger in his radicalism seems committed?” (p. 105). Elsewhere he asks “. . . with what do we undertake to replace [liberal modernity]? A regime of warriors and priests? A return from Enlightenment to magic?” (p. 132). But Beiner is asking these questions from within liberal modernity, and of course from within that perspective, people are going to cling to liberalism simply out of fear. From Heidegger’s point of view, we will only have a solution when individuals can no longer pose such questions. Instead, the answers will be imposed upon us by historical forces outside our comprehension or control.
A Smug Criticism of Smugness
Beiner’s conclusion, “How to Do Theory in Politically Treacherous Times,” is, like the rest of his book, directed to Leftist academics. He makes a strong case against the smugness and complacency of contemporary political theorists, who think they can ignore the Right because we have been refuted by history: “For Rawls, Rorty, and Habermas, Nietzsche has been refuted by history and sociology. He hasn’t! He can only be refuted by a more compelling account of the human good” (p. 125). This is excellent advice, but it ill-accords with Beiner’s own supremely smug, question-begging, and dismissive tone throughout Dangerous Minds. Judging from what he does, as opposed to what he says, Beiner’s real aim is not to intellectually engage the Right, but to censor and suppress it. But if Beiner really does want to debate the philosophical foundations of the New Right, I’m game.
Should We Read Heidegger and Nietzsche?
If Nietzsche and Heidegger are so dangerous to liberal democracy, shouldn’t something be done to keep their books out of the hands of impressionable young men?
Beiner ends his discussion of Nietzsche by referring to Leo Strauss’s advice to Canadian conservative political philosopher George Grant, who was about to embark on a series of popular radio lectures on Nietzsche. Strauss viewed Nietzsche as a profoundly dangerous thinker and advised Grant not to talk about Nietzsche at all but simply refer to his “epigones” Freud and Weber. The only reason Beiner brings this up, of course, is to plant the idea that academics should drop Nietzsche from the canon. Beiner, however, strenuously denies that this is his intent in his Introduction:
Hopefully no reader of my book will draws from it the unfortunate conclusion that we should just walk away from Nietzsche and Heidegger — that is, stop reading them. [Of course reading them does not necessarily entail teaching them, especially to undergraduates.] On the contrary, I think that we need to read them in ways that make us more conscious of, more reflective about, and more self-critical of the limits of the liberal view of life and hence what defines that view of life. But if one is handling intellectually radioactive materials, one has to be much less naïve about what one is dealing with. . . . We need to open our eyes, at once intellectually, morally, and politically, to just how dangerous they are. (p. 14)
But this seems disingenuous in light of Beiner’s repeated assertion that Nietzsche and Heidegger should have censored their own ideas insofar as they are dangerous to liberal modernity:
There is a kind of insane recklessness to Nietzsche — as if nothing he could write, no matter how irresponsible, no matter how inflammatory, could possibly do any harm. All that matters is raising the stakes, and there is no such thing as raising the stakes too high. (p. 63)
One has to ask: “To whom does Beiner think Nietzsche is being irresponsible? What could his thought possibly harm?” The answer, of course, is the modern liberal democratic world, the world that Nietzsche rejects, the world that Nietzsche crafted his doctrines to destroy.
Beiner is even more blatant in his advocacy of self-censorship in Heidegger’s case:
Near the end of his life, Heidegger decided to include the Black Notebooks (including explicitly racist passages conjuring up a diabolical conspiracy on the part of “World Judaism” [sic: World Jewry]) in the official Collected Works, whereas any reasonably sane person would have burned them, or at least burned the most incriminating passages. It’s as if he either were trying to spur a revival of fascist ideology or intended to confess to the world just how grievously stained he had been by that ideology. All of this is thoroughly damning. (pp. 113–14)
Again, one must ask: “Sane by whose standards? Incriminating to whom? Damning by whose standards?” The answer, of course, is: modern liberal democrats. But Heidegger thought these people were intellectually benighted and morally corrupt. So why should be censor his thought to conform to their sensibilities? To hell with them. He was addressing himself to freer minds, to a better world, to generations yet to come.
At the beginning of his Heidegger chapter, Beiner also writes:
The question I’m raising in this chapter is whether, finding ourselves now in a political landscape where the possibility increasingly looms of Heidegger as a potential resource for the far right, it might be best for left Heideggerianism (a paradox to being with) to close up shop. (p. 67)
Since virtually everyone teaching Heidegger in academia today is a Leftist, this basically amounts to removing Heidegger from the canon. Beiner’s talk of looming possibilities and potential resources is off the mark, for Heidegger already is a resource and inspiration for the New Right, and he knows this. (Frankly, I hope Left-wing Heideggerians close up shop soon. It would be an ideal opportunity to launch the Heidegger Graduate School [11].)
It is absurd to wish that Nietzsche and Heidegger had censored their ideas to remove their challenges to the system they despised and wished to destroy. If liberals want to stop these ideas from influencing policy, they need to refute them. Demanding censorship is simply an admission that one cannot refute ideas rationally and thus must repress them. Asking one’s opponents to engage in self-censorship takes some brass. If liberals can’t refute anti-liberals like Nietzsche and Heidegger, they are just going to have to screw up their resolve and do their own censorship. This is hardly a stretch, sadly, since the suppression of dissent is second nature to modern academics. It’s really all they have left.
Indeed, if wishing aloud that Nietzsche and Heidegger had censored themselves has any practical meaning today, it is as a suggestion that political theorists and philosophers censor themselves and their syllabi, i.e., remove Nietzsche and Heidegger from the canon.
If Beiner is really arguing that Leftists should stop teaching Nietzsche and Heidegger, he apparently did not anticipate what would happen if his book fell into the hands of Rightist readers like me. For Dangerous Minds, despite its obnoxious rhetoric and smug dismissal of our movement, is a very helpful introduction to Nietzsche and Heidegger as anti-liberal thinkers. Thus I recommend it highly. And if I have anything to say about it, this book will help create a whole lot more dangerous minds, a whole new generation of Right-wing Nietzscheans and Heideggerians.
11:54 Publié dans Livre, Livre, Philosophie, Révolution conservatrice | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : philosophie, livre, martin heidegger, friedrich nietzsche | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
00:10 Publié dans Philosophie, Psychologie/psychanalyse | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : françoise bonardel, carl gustav jung, psychanalyse, gnose, philosophie | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
Ex: https://www.brusselsjournal.com
In writing not so long ago about my appropriation of the “smart classroom” (that obtrusion of entertainment-technology into the solemnity of the academic space) so as to introduce students in a “Modern Drama” course to the mid-Nineteenth Century operatic theater of Richard Wagner, I concluded with the following thought concerning today’s collegians: “Their education, even in college, once they get there, leaves them bereft of high-cultural experience. That is a pity because taste tends to become fixed in late adolescence.” I remarked that contemporary freshmen, coming from a culturally jejune public-school curriculum, hover as though on a verge, intellectually speaking. “They will never respond to esthetic greatness unless they have an opportunity to experience it”; and yet, “those opportunities shrink away to fewer and fewer every year.”
In writing about the struggles that students experienced, first in understanding and then in articulating their responses, to two challenging novels by H. G. Wells, I ended with this meditation: “Like any healthy person, the specimen college student welcomes the chance to see things from a higher perspective, but the system as it stands is designed precisely to deprive students of any higher perspective. What passes for education is a mental diet of infant pabulum and an entrenched infantilism is one of its noticeable results.”
Wagner was born in 1813, two centuries ago last year; he died in 1883, more than one hundred and thirty years ago. Wells was born in 1866; he died in 1946, nearly seventy years ago. To most college students, dates such as 1813, 1883, 1866, and 1946 are so many meaningless references, number-conglomerations about as significant from their perspective as the number-designations before the course-descriptions in the college catalogue. I was born in 1954. I can report accurately that I first read Wells, his War of the Worlds, in 1965, when I was a fourth-grader at Toland Way Elementary in Highland Park, California. I believe it was my brother, sixteen years my elder from my father’s first marriage, who recommended it. My father needed to check out the Wells omnibus from the Colorado Street branch of the Los Angeles Public Library because the institution shelved it in the adult section and I held borrowing privileges only in the children’s section. I first heard music by Wagner in 1970 or 71, when a quirky, German-born English teacher at Santa Monica High School, who went by the name of Gary Johnston, decided to enliven his summer “Myth and Folklore” course, or lighten the burden of his instruction, by providing us with mimeographed sheets of the libretto and playing for us on a portable stereo in the classroom excerpts from The Ring of the Nibelung.
The encounter with The War of the Worlds made a reader. A doctoral degree in Comparative Literature from UCLA (1990) and teaching career, such as it is, are late effects of the cause. The encounter with The Ring awakened a passionate interest in the Edda and the sagas, a curiosity for serious music, and an inclination to investigate into my mother’s Swedish ancestry, which (the last) eventuated in my first degree, a baccalaureate in Germanic and Scandinavian Languages, also from UCLA.
Other keynote events give articulation to my intellectual journey to adulthood. I omit to mention them, wishing not to bore my readers, except to say that they all have something in common with the two that I have just mentioned: Breaking into the immature consciousness, they put the child, or the adolescent, suddenly in touch with the past, with a tradition – and that bridging of temporal loci entailed the complementary experience that it lifted the initiate out of the present and thus also out of himself. The War of the Worlds is noticeably Edwardian; people take the train, ride in horse-carts, or walk; they read newspapers. Wagner’s Ring takes place in the time-before-time of myth, but its story has connections to events in the Fifth Century AD. Either way, the experience is foreign to someone whose milieu was the mid-Twentieth Century or is, as today, the incipient Twenty-First Century.
In both cases also, an older agent of transmission recommended to the younger person something that he regarded as meaningful and valuable – that the recommender implicitly (in the case of my brother) or explicitly (in the case of the eccentric English teacher) wished to preserve or conserve or pass along by making the representative of a new cohort amenably aware of it. Wells and Wagner made good gifts, intellectually; they proved themselves investments whose value has steadily increased over the years. Without such charitable gestures, every generation would begin again at the degree-zero of culture and history. Viewed in that light, contemporary education is not merely uncharitable; it is stingy and mean – its gift to the present is invariably the present, and when it mentions the past, it does so in language haughty and derisive.
I recently ran across a previous formulation of the same insight, to whose precedence and superior clarity I humbly defer. “It seems to me,” wrote philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906 - 1975) in her chapter on “The Crisis in Education” (included in her book Between Past and Present, 1961), “that conservatism, in the sense of conservation, is of the essence of the educational activity, whose task is always to cherish and protect something – the child against the world, the world against the child, the new against the old, the old against the new.” Arendt argues in a corollary to her “conservation” thesis that education functions “to preserve the world against the mortality of its creators and inhabitants,” an idea with a good Platonic pedigree. Arendt defines the teacher’s mission as the responsibility “to mediate between the old and the new, so that his very profession requires of him an extraordinary respect for the past.” At the same time, education must constitute itself as something more than “simple, unreflective perseverance.” Otherwise education becomes indoctrination, the production-line of Mandarins for the staffing of the managerial class, or mere rote learning.
A good deal of contemporary education at all levels resembles just what Arendt describes, as indoctrinators prod students to internalize the correct opinions concerning the limited range of topics while guarding them against contamination by actual knowledge and rendering them incapable of independent judgment. The mandarins receive their training in the Ivy League while the rest receive instruction in the state colleges in how to defer to the righteous decrees of the mandarinate. Ideally, as Arendt urges, education should stand aloof from politics and social pressure rather than serving them. Politics and social pressure are corrupting forces, always totalitarian in their direction, always trying to crowd out everything else that constitutes the human world, so that nothing else constitutive of that world might compete with them. Politics and social pressure, belonging as they do to the isolated present, must stand in a hostile relation to history and tradition; respecting only themselves, they invariably revolt against “respect for the past.”
When Arendt writes of “the world” she means the continuum of tradition, that lore of human trial-and-error from which wisdom derives, that forms the object of the conscious curatorship that goes by the name of high culture. It is in this sense of “the world,” as the high-cultural image-of-existence, that the most oft-quoted passage from Arendt’s essay should be understood: “Education is the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it, and by the same token save it from that ruin which except for renewal, except for the coming of the new and the young, would be inevitable. And education, too, is where we decide whether we love our children enough not to expel them from our world and leave them to their own devices, nor to strike from their hands their chance of undertaking something new, something unforeseen by us, but to prepare them in advance for the task of renewing a common world.”
One phrase in particular, the one concerning the question whether the current adult cohort will leave the members of current child-cohort “to their own devices,” has only increased in poignancy in the decades since “The Crisis of Education” first appeared. Politics and social pressure are now fully digitized and they make themselves universal through the ubiquitous “devices.” The necessary first reflection of the philosopher might well be the Cartesian formula, “I think therefore I am,” which indicates his reflective character. What then is the character of the person whose defining mental activity is not thinking, but tweeting? His character is assimilated to what I have elsewhere named post-literacy. He has become detached from the high-cultural continuum, detached also from history, whose medium is literature, and detached therefore from the possibilities of meaningful growth beyond the paltriness of youth-oriented popular entertainment. He might acquire vocational knowledge and skills, which he can apply to a job, but he will remain in his state of limitation and deprivation through the phase his merely chronological adulthood. He will suffer from a low level of verbal competency, from a restricted ability to reason, and from a concomitant vulnerability of manipulation through political propaganda and advertising.
Arendt writes of assuming responsibility for the inherited world, as the conservative or curatorial heart of education. A strikingly complementary notion occurs in the work of one of Arendt’s contemporaries who also wrote about the perils threatening education in the period of the Cold War. This writer saw in the self-styled progressive pedagogy of his day, which in his view had already begun to subvert traditional education, an essential “irresponsibility to the past and to the structure of reality in the present.” Indeed, he saw that the assumptions of this revolutionary coup-d’état in the classroom could never “serve as the foundations of culture because [they] are out of line with what is.” It was the case that “where [these assumptions] are allowed to provide foundations,” or to allege to provide foundations, “they imperil the whole structure.”
The other writer is Richard Weaver (1910 - 1963) and the lines quoted above come from the chapter on “The Gnostics of Education” in his book Visions of Order: The Cultural Crisis of Our Time (published posthumously, 1964). Arendt was a woman of the Left; Weaver was a man of the Right. That their separate and independent commentaries on the same topic, appearing in book form within three years of one another, should be so convergent and complementary is striking. What explains it? A commitment to civilization, shared across the political frontier, might be the best answer to the question. Both Arendt and Weaver, in contrast to the advocates of avant-garde pedagogy whom they criticize, see education in its conservative or curatorial role as a civilizational, rather than as a social, institution. When the high-school English teacher in Santa Monica brought his portable stereo to the classroom and invited his students to listen to Wagner, he appealed to them in the name of civilization, not in the name of society. At the time, society’s idea of music was The Beach Boys and The Rolling Stones. When I challenge students to read and appreciate Tono-Bungay by Wells, I do so in the name of civilization, not of society, whose notion of literary challenge is non-existent.
Whereas Arendt expresses concern for the direction that education takes in a world, that of the late 1950s, dominated by technocratic convictions, Weaver frankly condemns “the progressive movement in education” for being a type of “apostasy,” and its advocates and practitioners for being “attackers and saboteurs” of actual education. Beginning with the same conception of education, Weaver departs from Arendt in his diagnosis of existing educational arrangements. Among their important traits, these progressives are epistemological nihilists who “do not have faith in the existence of knowledge” and whose real aim is “the educationally illicit one of conditioning the young for political purposes.” The revolutionary educational regime is also, in Weaver’s scrutiny of it, utopian and therefore totalitarian. It proposes “to substitute a subjective wishfulness for an historical reality.” Weaver omits to quote directly from the prescriptions of the radical educators, preferring to distill them in the form of his own summary. It is easy, however, to find textual support for that summary. In John Dewey’s seminal “Pedagogic Creed” (1909), with its bizarre imitation of the Nicene Creed (Dewey [1859 - 1952] was self-declaredly atheist), the anti-intellectualism of the School of the Radiant Future becomes immediately evident.
According to Weaver, the object of progressive education “is not to teach knowledge”; it is rather, as the slogan says, to “teach students.” Dewey’s “Creed” fully supports Weaver’s characterization of progressive education just as it inaugurates the American chapter of Twentieth-Century pseudo-pedagogy. “I believe,” Dewey writes, “that we violate the child’s nature and render difficult the best ethical results, by introducing the child too abruptly to a number of special studies, of reading, writing, geography, etc., out of relation to this social life.” Never mind that “reading, writing, geography” and all that the etcetera also covers constitute Arendt’s “world,” that arduously accumulated representation of reality to which civilized people constantly refer in their negotiations in the market and in private. The world in its pre-existence must stand out of the way. Elsewhere, writes Dewey: “I believe, therefore, that the true center of correlation on the school subjects is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child’s own social activities.” The anti-literacy implicit in these formulas is quite astonishing; it is also at the root of the post-literate condition prevailing a century later.
In another formula, Dewey anticipates and justifies Twentieth-Century political indoctrination: “I believe that the image is the great instrument of instruction. What a child gets out of any subject presented to him is simply the images which he himself forms with regard to it.” Like good Chinese-Communist re-education leader, Dewey sees consciousness as “essentially motor or impulsive” and as “passive,” waiting to be remolded or, in Dewey’s unkillable phrase, “socialized.” Notice how the two formulas contradict one another. On the one hand, the child is supposed, creatively and originally, to produce the “images” through which he will learn. On the other hand, the child must submit willy-nilly to a regime of “socialization,” which implies external agency acting on a pliable object. One last quotation from the “Creed” will aid in understanding why Weaver refers to modern educators as “Gnostics,” which at first blanch is a rather odd attribution. While recalling his atheism, we let Dewey speak: “I believe that in this way the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of God.”
Yes, Dewey invoked “the prophet of the true God” and “the true kingdom of God.” How to explain such hyperboles and grotesqueries? When Weaver sought the origins of the counter-intuitive propositions that education-reformers propound, the result of his search startled him. The rhetorical temerity with which he introduces his discovery attests his surprise. Weaver’s sense that “progressive education is a wholesale apostasy, involving the abandonment of fundamental and long-held beliefs about man and the world” directed him to the examination of historical apostasies. Among these he found only one that seemed to him “of a nature and magnitude to warrant comparison” modern pedagogic Messianism: “The Gnosticism of the first and second centuries A.D.”
Weaver gleaned the basic facts about Gnosticism from various Patristic texts and from the relevant chapters of Eric Voegelin’s New Science of Politics (1952), which he footnotes. Pedagogic Messianism, like ancient Gnosis, regards Creation as botched and imperfect, with the duty falling to man, who is more Godlike than the Creator, to fulfill it. The world, as either Pedagogic Messianism or ancient Gnosis sees it, including the entire human or cultural achievement, is an affront to man from which, bearing the spark of true divinity within him, man must escape; either that or destroy it so as to create again, this time perfectly. The Gnostics’ view of “the natural blessedness of man” and their rejection of any requirement for man to be redeemed by external agency made them, as Weaver writes, “antiauthoritarian.” Weaver remarks that such a notion “has a parallel in the attempts of our ‘progressive’ educationists to base everything on psychology,” quite as Dewey did. Weaver concludes that “the progressive educationists of our time, while not Gnostics in the sense of historical descent, are Gnostics in their thinking.” Furthermore, “their gnosticism exhibits the same kind of delusion, fantasy, unreality, and unacceptable metaphysics which the Church Fathers… challenged and put an end to.”
It is possible to add to Weaver’s description of the Gnostic attitude. Gnosticism, wherever it manifests itself, is only antiauthoritarian as a starting gesture; it invariably presents itself, once it has gained lodgment in an institution, as absolutely and incontrovertibly authoritative in status. It knows what it knows (the Greek gnosis means access to knowledge not vouchsafed to others) and it tolerates as a claim to knowledge only its own claim; it regards all other claims with implacable hostility. The original Gnosticism founded itself parasitically in received tradition, which it declared false while nominating itself as true; that resentment is the substructure of all Gnosis, whether of the ancient or modern varieties, is abundantly evident. A totally antithetic resentment is moreover totally dependent on what it anathematizes or resents; it produces nothing original. By way of compensation, as St. Augustine already observed of the Manichaeans, Gnosticism orders itself in a mockery of the hierarchy that it rejects, endows itself with ranks and distinctions, and congratulates itself on its dazzling achievements. It invents a special language, impermeable to outsiders, which it marks its users as an elect – all of which describes the innumerable contemporary Schools of Education to the proverbial “T.”
The specific crisis of education that Arendt and Weaver saw in common from their noticeably different perspectives is merely an instance of a larger crisis, a crisis of civilization as a whole through which the West has been passing perhaps since the Reformation but at least since the Eighteenth Century. This crisis is a revolt of those for whom the pressure of civilization is too great to bear, for whom therefore civilization is an unbearable burden. For the ego-in-revolt even so benign a thing as literacy is unbearable so that to it (the ego) and for it, literacy (and along with it literature) must together be sacrificed. Pictures please these people so pictures they shall retain; they are pretty and the mental challenge in them disturbs no one. Only through such sacrifices, and through such recursions to culturally primitive forms, will what Dewey brazenly called “the kingdom of God” be realized. It is best to have a clear view of the phenomenon, as grim as the prospect is.
00:34 Publié dans Ecole/Education, Philosophie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : hannah arendt, richard weaver, éducation, école, philosophie, pédagogie | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
Heinrich Meier
L’auteur examine en quatre chapitres l’œuvre de Carl Schmitt, en montrant que ce qui l’unifie, c’est qu’elle constitue une «théologie politique». Toutefois, il faut se reporter à la fin de l’ouvrage pour comprendre ce qu’il faut entendre par ce terme. Dans la dernière partie du livre, l’auteur propose une rétrospective sur «la querelle de la théologie politique», qui permet de mieux comprendre le sens de cette expression utilisée dans le reste de l’ouvrage. Il y montre que si l’on interprète souvent l’expression de «théologie politique», à partir des textes mêmes de l’œuvre de Schmitt, comme «une affirmation relevant de l’histoire des concepts ou plutôt une hypothèse de la sociologie de la connaissance qui traite des «analogies de structures» entre des disciplines et des «transpositions» historiques» (p256), on restreint la portée et l’importance de ce concept que l’auteur estime central dans la pensée de Schmitt. Certes, C. Schmitt, évoquant une «théologie politique» a bien l’idée que des juristes ont transféré les concepts théologiques, comme celui de la toute-puissance de Dieu, sur le souverain temporel, dans les Temps modernes. Mais pour lui, la «théologie politique» désigne aussi, derrière cette opération de transfert, la volonté de ces juristes de répondre en chrétien à l’appel de l’histoire en «montrant le chemin à suivre pour sortir de la guerre civile confessionnelle.» Leur entreprise de sécularisation n’était pas portée par des intentions antichrétiennes, mais, bien au contraire, inspirée chrétiennement. Jean Bodin et Thomas Hobbes par exemple, que Schmitt désigne comme «ses amis», se tinrent, dans l’interprétation qu’il en donne, «solidement à la foi de leurs pères, et cela pas seulement de manière extérieure» (p261). Autrement dit, plus qu’un transfert de fait et historiquement repérable, la théologie politique désignerait pour Schmitt une attitude dans laquelle c’est à la politique de remplir une mission héritée de la religion, dans un monde qui se sécularise ou qui s’est sécularisé. La sécularisation, qui advient de fait, doit être gérée dans une intention qui demeure animée par la foi chrétienne. De là résulte entre autre que le critère du politique manifesté par la distinction entre ami et ennemi renvoie, pour l’auteur, en dernière analyse à l’opposition entre Dieu et Satan.
Dans le premier chapitre, centré sur la réflexion schmittienne sur la morale, l’auteur commence par montrer quel tableau –qui l’indigne– Schmitt dresse de son époque: un monde vivant aux pulsations de l’entreprise commerciale, rongé progressivement par la sécularisation et l’abandon de la foi, la démesure des hommes qui en «substituant à la providence les plans échafaudés par leur volonté et les calculs de leurs intérêts, pensent pouvoir créer de force un paradis terrestre dans lequel ils seraient dispensés d’avoir à décider entre le Bien et le Mal, et duquel l’épreuve décisive serait définitivement bannie.» (p15). La science elle-même n’est pour Schmitt que «l’auto-divination contre Dieu». Et Schmitt rejette ces formes d’auto-habilitation, par lesquelles l’homme prétend s’émanciper du Dieu transcendant.
Or, ce que souligne l’auteur, c’est que c’est chez Bakounine que Schmitt trouve en quelque sorte le paradigme de cette rébellion et de cette défense de la désobéissance, contre le souverain et contre Dieu. Bakounine en effet «conteste l’objet de la conviction la plus intime de Schmitt. Il attaque la révélation et nie l’existence de Dieu; il veut supprimer l’Etat et nie l’universalité revendiquée par le catholicisme romain.» (p19) ( «Dieu étant tout, le monde réel et l’homme ne sont rien. Dieu étant la vérité, la justice, le bien, le beau, la puissance et la vie, l’homme est le mensonge, l’iniquité, le mal, la laideur, l’impuissance et la mort. Dieu étant le maître, l’homme est l’esclave. Incapable de trouver par lui-même la justice, la vérité et la vie éternelle, il ne peut y arriver qu’au moyen d’une révélation divine. Mais qui dit révélation, dit révélateur, messies, prophètes, prêtres et législateurs inspirés par Dieu même; et ceux-là une fois reconnus comme les représentants de la divinité sur terre, comme les saints instituteurs de l’humanité, élus par Dieu même pour la diriger dans la voie du salut, ils doivent nécessairement exercer un pouvoir absolu. Tous les hommes leur doivent une obéissance illimitée et passive, car contre la Raison Divine il n’y a point de raison humaine, et contre la Justice de Dieu, point de justice terrestre qui tienne. Esclaves de Dieu, les hommes doivent l’être aussi de l’Eglise et de l’Etat, en tant que ce dernier est consacré par l’Eglise.» Mikhaïl Bakounine, Dieu et l’Etat). La devise «Ni Dieu ni maître» affiche le rejet de toute forme d’obéissance et détruit les fondements classiques de l’obéissance dans la culture européenne d’après Schmitt. Pour Bakounine, la croyance en Dieu est la cause de l’autorité de l’Etat et de tout le mal politique qui en procède. D’ailleurs Schmitt reprend à Bakounine l’expression de «théologie politique» que ce dernier emploie contre Mazzini. Pour Bakounine, le mal vient des forces religieuses et politiques affirmant la nécessité de l’obéissance et de la soumission de l’homme; alors que pour Schmitt – et dans une certaine tradition chrétienne – le mal provient du refus de l’obéissance et de la revendication de l’autonomie humaine.
Chez ces deux auteurs, politique et religion sont mises ensemble, dans un même camp, dans une lutte opposant le bien au mal, même si ce qui représente le bien chez l’un représente le mal chez l’autre. Pour Schmitt, dans ce combat, le bourgeois est celui qui ne pense qu’à sa sécurité et qui veut retarder le plus possible son engagement dans ce combat entre bien et mal. Ce que le bourgeois considère comme le plus important, c’est sa sécurité, sécurité physique, sécurité de ses biens, comme de ses actions, «protection contre toute ce qui pourrait perturber l’accumulation et la jouissance de ses possessions» (p22). Il relègue ainsi dans la sphère privée la religion, et se centre ainsi sur lui-même. Or contre cette illusoire sécurité, Schmitt, et c’est là une thèse importante défendue par l’auteur, met au centre de l’existence la certitude de la foi («Seule une certitude qui réduit à néant toutes les sécurités humaines peut satisfaire le besoin de sécurité de Schmitt; seule la certitude d’un pouvoir qui surpasse radicalement tous les pouvoirs dont dispose l’homme peut garantir le centre de gravité morale sans lequel on ne peut mettre un terme à l’arbitraire: la certitude du Dieu qui exige l’obéissance, qui gouverne sans restriction et qui juge en accord avec son propre droit. (…) La source unique à laquelle s’alimentent l’indignation et la polémique de Schmitt est sa résolution à défendre le sérieux de la décision morale. Pour Schmitt, cette résolution est la conséquence et l’expression de sa théologie politique» (p24).). Et c’est dans cette foi que s’origine l’exigence d’obéissance et de décision morale. Schmitt croit aussi, comme il l’affirme dans sa Théologie politique, que «la négation du péché originel détruit tout ordre social».
Chez Schmitt, derrière ce terme de «péché originel», il faut lire la nécessité pour l’homme d’avoir toujours à choisir son camp, de s’efforcer de distinguer le bien du mal («Seule une certitude qui réduit à néant toutes les sécurités humaines peut satisfaire le besoin de sécurité de Schmitt; seule la certitude d’un pouvoir qui surpasse radicalement tous les pouvoirs dont dispose l’homme peut garantir le centre de gravité morale sans lequel on ne peut mettre un terme à l’arbitraire: la certitude du Dieu qui exige l’obéissance, qui gouverne sans restriction et qui juge en accord avec son propre droit. (…) La source unique à laquelle s’alimentent l’indignation et la polémique de Schmitt est sa résolution à défendre le sérieux de la décision morale. Pour Schmitt, cette résolution est la conséquence et l’expression de sa théologie politique» (p24).). L’homme est sommé d’agir dans l’histoire en obéissant à la foi («la théologie politique place au centre cette vertu d’obéissance qui, selon le mot d’un de ses plus illustres représentants, «est dans la créature raisonnable la mère et la gardienne de toutes les vertus» (Augustin, Cité de Dieu XII, 14). Par leur ancrage dans l’obéissance absolue, les vertus morales reçoivent un caractère qui leur manquerait autrement.» (p31-32).), et il doit pour cela avant faire preuve de courage et d’humilité. L’auteur montre ainsi que loin de se réduire à la «politique pure», la pensée schmittienne investit la morale en en proposant un modèle aux contours relativement précis.
Dans chapitre II, H. Meier montre que la conception politique de C. Schmitt ne peut être entièrement détachée d’une réflexion sur la vérité et la connaissance. En effet, Schmitt écrit, dans La notion de politique, que le politique «se trouve dans un comportement commandé par l’éventualité effective d’une guerre, dans le clair discernement de la situation propre qu’elle détermine et dans la tâche de distinguer correctement l’ami et l’ennemi». Cela implique que le politique désigne un comportement, une tâche et une connaissance, comme le met en évidence l’auteur. Pour mener à bien l’exigence d’obéissance mise au jour dans le chapitre précédent, il faut une certaine connaissance. Cela semble relativement clair, mais l’auteur va plus loin et défend la thèse selon laquelle non seulement le politique exige la connaissance, mais il veut montrer que l’appréhension du politique pour Schmitt est «essentiellement connaissance de soi» (p46).
La distinction entre l’ami et l’ennemi s’appuie sur une notion existentielle de l’ennemi. L’ennemi présupposé par le concept de politique est une réalité publique et collective, et non un individu sur lequel on s’acharnerait, mu par une haine personnelle. Comme le précise H. Meier, «il n’est déterminé par aucune «abstraction normative» mais renvoie à une donnée de la «réalité existentielle» (…). Il est l’ennemi qui «doit être repoussé» dans le combat existentiel.» (p49). La figure de l’ennemi sert le critère du politique, mais chez Schmitt, selon l’auteur, elle n’est pas le fruit d’une élaboration théorique, voire idéologique, mais elle est ce en face de quoi je suis toujours amené existentiellement à prendre position et elle sert aussi à me déterminer et à me connaître moi-même, sur la base du postulat que c’est en connaissant son ennemi qu’on se connaît soi-même. Grâce à la distinction entre l’agonal et le politique, qui tous deux mettent en jeu la possibilité de ma mort et celle de l’adversaire ou de l’ennemi, mais qui s’opposent sur le sens de la guerre et la destination de l’homme ( Dans une compréhension politique du monde, l’homme ne peut réaliser pleinement sa destinée et sa vocation qu’en s’engageant entièrement et existentiellement pour l’avènement de la domination, de l’ordre et de la paix, tandis que dans la pensée agonale, ce qui compte, c’est moins le but pour lequel on combat que la façon de combattre et d’inscrire ainsi son existence dans le monde. E. Jünger, qui défend une pensée agonale écrit ainsi: «l’essentiel n’est pas ce pour quoi nous nous battons, c’est notre façon de nous battre. (…) L’esprit combattif, l’engagement de la personne, et quand ce serait pour l’idée la plus infime, pèse plus lourd que toute ratiocination sur le bien et le mal» (La guerre comme expérience intérieure).), Schmitt montre qu’il ne s’agit pas de se battre par principe et pour trouver un sens à vie, mais de lutter pour défendre une cause juste, ou mieux la Justice. Et c’est à ce titre que le politique est ce par quoi l’homme apprend à se connaître, à savoir ce qu’il veut être, ce qu’il est et ce qu’il doit être ( H. Meier développe ainsi un commentaire long et précis sur le sens d’une phrase de Theodor Däubler qui revient souvent chez Schmitt: «l’ennemi est la figure de notre propre question». Nous nous connaissons en connaissant notre ennemi et en même temps nous reconnaissons notre ennemi en celui qui nous met en question. L’ennemi, en quelque sorte, est aussi le garant de notre identité. Notre réponse à la question que l’ennemi nous pose est notre engagement existentiel-par un acte de décision – concret dans l’histoire.).
La confrontation politique apparaît comme constitutive de notre identité. A ce titre, elle ne peut pas être seulement spirituelle ou symbolique. Cette confrontation politique trouve son origine dans la foi, qui nous appelle à la décision («La foi selon laquelle le maître de l’histoire nous a assigné notre place historique et notre tâche historique, et selon laquelle nous participons à une histoire providentielle que nos seules forces humaines ne peuvent pas sonder, une telle foi confère à chacun en particulier un poids qui ne lui est accordé dans aucun autre système: l’affirmation ou la réalisation du «propre» est en elle-même élevée au rang d’une mission métaphysique. Etant donné que le plus important est «toujours déjà accompli» et ancré dans le «propre», nous nous insérons dans la totalité compréhensive qui transcende le Je précisément dans la mesure où nous retournons au «propre» et y persévérons. Nous nous souvenons de l’appel qui nous est lancé lorsque nous nous souvenons de «notre propre question»; nous nous montrons prêts à faire notre part lorsque nous engageons ma confrontation avec «l’autre, l’étranger» sur «le même plan que nous» et ce «pour conquérir notre propre mesure, notre propre limite, notre propre forme.»« (p77-78).).
Aussi les «grands sommets» de la politique sont atteints quand l’ennemi providentiel est reconnu. La politique n’atteint son intensité absolue que lorsqu’elle est combat pour la foi, et pas simple combat, guerre limitée et encadrée par le droit des gens moderne (Les croisades sont ainsi l’exemple pour C. Schmitt d’une hostilité particulièrement profonde, c’est-à-dire pour lui authentiquement politique.). C’est pour une communauté de foi, et plus particulièrement pour une communauté de croyants qui se réclame d’une vérité absolue et dernière, au-delà de la raison, que la politique peut être authentique. C’est d’abord pour défendre la foi qu’on tient pour vraie, une foi existentiellement partagée – et qui éventuellement pourrait être une foi non religieuse – que la politique authentique peut exister. C’est ainsi que Schmitt pense défendre la vraie foi catholique contre ces fausses fois qui la mettent en danger et qui sont le libéralisme et le marxisme. Ce qu’on appelle ordinairement ou quotidiennement la politique n’atteint pas l’intensité décisive des «grands sommets», mais n’en est que le reflet.
Dans le troisième chapitre, H. Meier établit l’inextricable connexion entre théologie politique, foi et révélation. Aussi la théologie politique combat-elle l’incroyance comme son ennemi existentiel. Comme le résume l’auteur: «l’hostilité est posée avec la foi en la révélation. (…) la discrimination entre l’ami et l’ennemi trouverait dans la foi en la révélation non seulement sa justification théorique, mais encore son inévitabilité pratique» (p102). Obéir sérieusement à la foi exige, pour Schmitt, d’agir dans l’histoire, ce qui suppose de choisir son camp, c’est-à-dire de distinguer l’ami de l’ennemi. Politique et théologique ont en commun la distinction entre l’ami et l’ennemi; aussi, note l’auteur, «quand le politique est caractérisé grâce à la distinction ami-ennemi comme étant «le degré extrême d’union ou de désunion» (…), alors il n’y a plus d’obstacle au passage sans heurt du politique à la théologie de la révélation. La nécessité politique de distinguer entre l’ami et l’ennemi permet désormais de remonter jusqu’à la constellation ami-ennemi de la Chute, tandis que se révèle le caractère politique de la décision théologique essentielle entre l’obéissance et la désobéissance, entre l’attachement à Dieu et la perte de la foi.» (p104). L’histoire a à voir avec l’avènement du Salut, les fins politiques et théologiques sont indissociables pour Schmitt. La décision entre Dieu et Satan est aussi bien théologique que politique, et lorsque l’ennemi providentiel est identifié comme tel, le théologique et le politique coïncident dans leur définition de l’unique ennemi. Le reste du temps, politique et théologique peuvent ne pas coïncider, dans la mesure où toute confrontation politique ne met pas en jeu la foi en la révélation et où toute décision théologique ne débouche pas nécessairement sur un conflit politique. Et si Schmitt développe une théologie politique, c’est parce que ce qui est fondamental est le théologique (qui toujours requiert la décision et l’engagement de l’homme («la foi met fin à l’incertitude. Pour la foi, seule la source de la certitude, l’origine de la vérité est décisive. La révélation promet une protection si inébranlable contre l’arbitraire humain que, face à elle, l’ignorance semble être d’une importance secondaire.» (p138).)) qui prend parfois, mais pas toujours nécessairement, la forme du politique pour sommer l’homme de se décider.
Puis l’auteur examine la critique de la conception de l’Etat dans la doctrine de Hobbes (dans Le Léviathan dans la doctrine de l’Etat de Thomas Hobbes. Sens et échec d’un symbolisme politique) qu’il étudie en trois points.
D’une part, Schmitt reproche à Hobbes d’artificialiser l’Etat, d’en faire un Léviathan, un dieu mortel à partir de postulats individualistes. En effet, ce qui donne la force au Léviathan de Hobbes, c’est une somme d’individualités, ce n’est pas quelque chose de transcendant, ou plus précisément, transcendant d’un point de vue juridique, mais pas métaphysique. A cette critique, il faut ajouter que, créé par l’homme, l’Etat n’a aucune caution divine: créateur et créature sont de même nature, ce sont des hommes. Or ces hommes, véritables individus prométhéens, font croire à l’illusion d’un nouveau dieu, né des hommes, et mortels, dont l’engendrement provient du contrat social. Et cette création à partir d’individus et non d’une communauté au sein d’un ordre voulu par Dieu, comme c’était, selon Hobbes, le cas au moyen-âge, perd par là-même sa légitimité aux yeux d’une théologie politique ( C. Schmitt écrit ainsi que: «ce contrat ne s’applique pas à une communauté déjà existante, créée par Dieu, à un ordre préexistant et naturel, comme le veut la conception médiévale, mais que l’Etat, comme ordre et communauté, est le résultat de l’intelligence humaine et de son pouvoir créateur, et qu’il ne peut naître que par le contrat en général.»).
D’autre part, Schmitt critique le geste par lequel l’Etat hobbesien est à lui-même sa propre fin. Autrement dit, cette œuvre que produisent les hommes par le contrat n’est plus au service d’une fin religieuse, d’une vérité révélée, mais, au contraire, est rendu habilité à définir quelles sont les croyances religieuses que doivent avoir les citoyens, qu’est-ce qui doit être considéré comme vrai. Enfin, Schmitt désapprouve le symbole choisi par Hobbes pour figurer l’Etat, le Léviathan.
Comme le note l’auteur, Schmitt pointe la faiblesse et la fragilité de la construction de Hobbes: «C’est un dieu qui promet aux hommes tranquillité, sécurité et ordre pour leur «existence physique ici-bas», mais qui ne sait pas atteindre leurs âmes et qui laisse insatisfaite leur aspiration la plus profonde; un homme dont l’âme artificielle repose sur une transcendance juridique et non métaphysique; un animal dont le pouvoir terrestre incomparable serait en mesure de tenir en lisière «les enfants de l’orgueil» par la peur, mais qui ne pourrait rien contre cette peur qui vient de l’au-delà et qui est inhérente à l’invisible.» (p167). Autrement dit, chez Hobbes, l’Etat peut se faire obéir par la peur de la mort, ce qui rend l’obéissance des hommes relatives à cette vie terrestre, alors que pour Schmitt, ce qui rend décisif et définitif l’engagement politique, c’est qu’il a à voir avec la fin dernière, le salut. Aussi peut-on être prêt ou décidé à mourir pour lutter contre l’ennemi, ce que nous craignons alors le plus est moins la mort violente que l’enfer post mortem. Et on comprend ainsi bien comment le libéralisme est ce qui veut éviter cet engagement, en niant la dimension proprement politique de l’existence humaine.
Dans le dernier chapitre, centré sur l’histoire comme lieu de discernement dans lequel doit toujours se décider l’homme, l’auteur montre comment morale, politique et révélation sont liées à l’histoire pour permettre une orientation concrète («Pour la théologie politique, l’histoire est le lieu de la mise à l’épreuve du jugement. C’est dans l’histoire qu’il faut distinguer entre Dieu et Satan, l’ami et l’ennemi, le Christ et l’Antéchrist. C’est en elle que l’obéissance, le courage et l’espérance doivent faire leurs preuves. Mais c’est en elle aussi qu’est porté le jugement sur la théologie politique qui se conçoit elle-même à partir de l’obéissance comme action dans l’histoire.» (p177).). L’exemple privilégié par Schmitt pour mesurer un penseur qui se décide à l’histoire dans laquelle il se fait condamné à naviguer est celui de Hobbes. En effet, pour Schmitt, Hobbes prend position, avec piété pour l’Etat moderne, dans un cadre historique précis, celui des luttes confessionnelles, et sa décision en faveur de l’Etat qui neutralise les oppositions religieuses et sécularise la vie est liée à ce contexte historique. Si pour Schmitt, l’Etat n’est plus au XXème siècle une bonne réponse politique à la situation historique, au temps de Hobbes, se déterminer en faveur de cet Etat était la bonne réponse, puisque l’Etat «trancha effectivement à un moment historique donné la querelle au sujet du droit, de la vérité et de la finalité en établissant le «calme, la sécurité et l’ordre» quand rien ne semblait plus urgent que l’établissement du «calme, de la sécurité et de l’ordre»« (p183). En revanche, une fois conçu, l’Etat comme machine ou comme appareil à garantir la sécurité, il peut tomber entre les mains du libéralisme, du bolchévisme ou du nazisme qui peuvent s’en servir pour parvenir à leur fin, d’où sa critique de l’Etat au XXème siècle.
La question que pose alors l’auteur est celle de l’engagement de Schmitt. Il montre que Schmitt dans les années 1920 et au début des années 1930 commence par soutenir le fascisme mussolinien dans lequel il voit le modèle d’un Etat qui s’efforce de maintenir l’unité nationale et la dignité de l’Etat contre le pluralisme des intérêts économiques. Il oppose ce type d’Etat au libéralisme qu’il considère comme un «système ingénieux de méthodes visant à affaiblir l’Etat» et qui tend à dissoudre en son sein le proprement politique. Il critique l’Etat de droit bourgeois et en particulier le parlementarisme ( Il écrit ainsi dans l’article «l’Etat de droit bourgeois»: «les deux principes de l’Etat de droit bourgeois que sont la liberté de l’individu et la séparation des pouvoirs, sont l’un et l’autre apolitiques. Ils ne contiennent aucune forme d’Etat, mais des méthodes pour mettre en place des entraves à l’Etat.»). Il démasque l’imposture des prétendues démocraties qui n’intègrent pas le peuple, qui ne lui permettent pas d’agir en tant que peuple ( Pour Schmitt, le peuple ne peut être que réuni et homogène (c’est-à-dire non scindé en classes distinctes ou divisé culturellement, religieusement, socialement ou «racialement»). Il estime également que seule l’acclamation permet d’exprimer la volonté du peuple, à l’opposé des méthodes libérales qu’il accuse de falsifier la volonté du peuple.) mais l’atomisent, ne serait-ce que parce qu’au moment de la décision politique, les hommes sont isolés pour voter, alors qu’ils devraient être unis: «ils décident en tant qu’individus et en secret, ils ne décident pas en tant que peuple et publiquement.» (p204). Ce qui fait que les démocraties libérales sont pour lui des démocraties sans démos, sans peuple. Schmitt veut fonder la politique sur un mythe puissant et efficace, et dans cette optique, il estime que le mythe national sur lequel se fonde le fascisme est celui qui donne le plus d’intensité à la foi et au courage (plus, par exemple, que le mythe de la lutte des classes). Ce que souligne l’auteur cependant, c’est que pour Schmitt, tout mythe est à placer sur un plan inférieur à la vérité révélée. Il s’agit donc pour le théologien politique de ne pas croire ce mythe, national ou autre, parce qu’il est éloigné de la vraie foi, mais de l’utiliser pour intensifier la dimension politique de l’existence que tend à effacer le libéralisme européen de son époque.
Comment concilier la décision de Schmitt en faveur du nazisme au printemps 1933? Pour Heinrich Meier, il faut considérer avant tout que cet engagement est fait en tant que théologien politique et non en tant que nationaliste. Il faudrait la lire comme l’essai pour sortir de deux positions antagonistes et qu’il rejette toutes les deux: le libéralisme et le communisme, tous deux adversaires du catholicisme et animés par une commune tradition visant un objectif antipolitique (L’auteur écrit ainsi: «Pendant les dix années, de 1923 à 1933, durant lesquelles Schmitt, empli d’admiration, suivit le parcours de Mussolini, sa conviction que le libéralisme et le marxisme s’accordaient sur l’essentiel ou en ce qui concerne leur «métaphysique» ne fit que se renforcer: l’héritage libéral était toujours déterminant pour le marxisme, qui «n’était qu’une mise en pratique de la pensée libérale du XIXème siècle». La réunion du libéralisme et du marxisme dans la «nouvelle croyance» du temps présent (…) disposant d’un fonds de dogmes communs et poursuivant le même objectif final antipolitique, devait faire apparaître le fascisme et le national socialisme comme les antagonismes les plus résolus.» (p212-213).). A cela s’ajoute, selon l’auteur, l’idée que le nazisme s’appuie sur la croyance au destin et à l’importance d’agir dans l’histoire. Mais peu après cette explication des raisons de l’adhésion de Schmitt au national-socialisme, l’auteur s’attache à montrer que des critiques du régime apparaissent dans ses écrits. On peut ainsi selon l’auteur lire de nombreux passages du livre sur Hobbes comme des critiques indirectes du régime nazi qui ne pouvaient pas ne pas être prises comme telles à l’époque (par exemple, des passages dans lesquels il explique que si l’Etat ne protège pas efficacement les citoyens, le devoir d’obéissance disparaît, ou des passages exposant que si un régime relègue la foi à l’intériorité, le «contre-pouvoir du mutisme et du silence croît».) Cependant, l’auteur prend également soin de distinguer d’un côté l’éloignement de Schmitt du pouvoir nazi en place et de l’autre la persistance de son antisémitisme. Ainsi le livre sur Hobbes est foncièrement antisémite – l’antisémitisme de ce livre ne serait pas qu’un fond, un langage destiné à répondre aux critères de l’époque – comme, du reste, dans de nombreux ouvrages. Et pour l’auteur cet antisémitisme a son origine dans la tradition de l’antijudaïsme chrétien, ce qui n’a pas détaché Schmitt de l’antisémitisme nazi. Au contraire, comme le souligne H. Meier, «on est bien obligé de dire que c’est l’hostilité aux «juifs» qui lie le plus durablement Schmitt au national-socialisme (…) Et il restera fidèle, même après l’effondrement du Troisième Reich, à l’antisémitisme» (p220).
Puis l’auteur s’intéresse à l’interprétation que Schmitt fait de l’histoire en mettant au cœur de cette interprétation le katechon, qu’on trouve dans la seconde lettre de Paul aux Thessaloniciens, et qu’il définit comme «la représentation d’une force qui retarde la fin et qui réprime le mal» ( Schmitt écrit ainsi dans Terre et Mer: «Je crois au katéchon; il représente pour moi la seule possibilité, en tant que chrétien, de comprendre l’histoire et de lui trouver un sens.»). Schmitt expose une vision chrétienne de l’histoire (notamment exposée dans une critique de Meaning in History de Karl Löwith) qu’il entend opposer à celle du progrès défendue par les Lumières, le libéralisme et le marxisme. La Providence ne peut être assimilée aux planifications prométhéennes humaines. La notion de katechon permet d’une part de rendre compte du retard de la parousie – et donc de l’existence perse de l’histoire ( C’est d’ailleurs dans cette perspective que Paul en parle.); d’autre part, elle «protège l’action dans l’histoire contre le découragement et le désespoir face à un processus historique, en apparence tout-puissant, qui progresse vers la fin. Enfin, elle arme à l’inverse l’action dans l’histoire contre le mépris de la politique et de l’histoire en l’assurant de la victoire promise.» (p231-232). En effet, sans le katechon, on est conduit à penser que la fin de l’histoire est imminente et que l’histoire n’a qu’une valeur négligeable.
Ainsi, l’auteur parvient à montrer efficacement comment morale, politique, vérité révélée et histoire sont liées dans la pensée schmittienne, pensée ayant son centre dans la foi catholique de Schmitt. On ne peut comprendre la genèse des concepts schmittiens et leur portée véritable qu’en ayant à l’esprit cette foi expliquant sa pensée est moins une philosophie politique – si la philosophie doit être pensée comme indépendante de la foi en la révélation – qu’une théologie politique, pour ainsi dire totale en ce qu’elle informe tous les aspects de l’existence. La tentative d’H. Meier d’expliquer et de rendre compte et de l’engagement de Schmitt dans le nazisme –sans évidemment l’excuser ou n’en faire qu’une erreur malencontreuse– par l’antagonisme que ce régime pouvait manifester à l’encontre des autres régimes (libéralisme, marxisme) qui luttaient contre le catholicisme est pertinente, d’autant qu’elle ne le disculpe pas et qu’elle prend soin de souligner son indéfendable antisémitisme. Il faut aussi reconnaître à l’auteur une connaissance extrêmement précise des textes de Schmitt, de leur contexte et des adversaires que vise ce dernier même lorsqu’ils ne sont pas nommés, ce qui contribue à la clarification de maintes argumentations de Schmitt parfois équivoques ou elliptiques.
01:56 Publié dans Actualité, Livre, Livre, Révolution conservatrice, Théorie politique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : carl schmitt, heinrich meier, livre, révolution conservatrice, catholicisme, théologie politique, théorie politique, philosophie, philosophie politique, sciences politique, politologie, allemagne | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
There are many causes given for the death of Civilisations, including environmental, moral, racial, economic, and dysgenic. However, those who reject political economy whether of the English Free Trade School or its Marxian and other socialist derivatives, give too little attention to the central role of materialism in the decline and fall of civilisations. Indeed, it can be contended that the latter is a primary cause of cultural etiolation, with other factors being symptoms of a prior culture-pathogen. For it is the way money is regarded as a culture-symbol that reflects the state of a Civilisation.
The towering genius of Western historical-philosophy, Oswald Spengler, detailed this culture-problem in his epochal Decline of the West nearly a century ago.[i]Even prior to Spengler however, the American Brooks Adams wrote a masterful study on the role of money in the decline of cultures in a no less remarkable book, The Law of Civilisation and Decay.[ii] For here, as with Spengler, we have the diagnostic method of culture-pathology and the possibilities of a cure once the cause is known.
It was for this reason that Ezra Pound, who was committed to overthrowing the money-power, enthusiastically recommended Brooks Adams’ book as essential reading.[iii]
The Law of Civilization and Decay was published in 1896; that is, several decades prior to Spengler’s Decline of the West. Like Spengler, Adams traces through the analogous epochs of Civilizations the impact these epochs have upon the Culture in its entirety, from architecture to politics, focusing on the economic influences. He shows, like Spengler, that Civilizations proceed through organic cycles. Spengler used the names of seasons to illustrate the organic character of culture-life, going through the stages of birth (Spring; Culture), youthful vigor (Summer, High Culture), maturity (Autumn, Civilization), old age and senility (Winter), with an intervening era of revival – a dramatic final bow on the world stage – ending in death due to the primacy of money over spirit.
Adams first noted the ‘law of civilization and decay’ in the differences in architecture between the city-states in Civilizations that had maintained their cultural ethos, or what Spengler referred to as the culture-cities, and those that had been founded as centers of commerce. In the commercial cities such as Venice, Genoa, Pisa and Florence, of the early Western Medieval epoch, ‘the religious idea,’ expressed elsewhere in the Gothic style (which Spengler identified as one of the purest Western – Faustian – culture forms, epitomized by the Gothic Cathedral)[iv] was not defined. Adams wrote of this, like Spengler several decades later:
Furthermore, commerce from the outset seemed antagonistic to the imagination, for a universal decay of architecture set in throughout Europe after the great commercial expansion of the thirteenth century; and the inference I drew from these facts was that the economic instinct must have chosen some other medium by which to express itself.[v]
Adams concluded that a ‘mercantile community’ would instead express itself through its type of coinage. Another primary factor, Adams concluded, was that men act through impulse and instinct, and only rationalise their actions once they have attained their aims. Characteristics, states Adams, are inherited through familial generations, but as changes occur, and the inherited characteristics become redundant in new circumstances, families fall from fame to obscurity. ‘Particularly has this been true in revolutionary epochs such as the Reformation; and families so situated have very generally become extinct.’[vi]
There is a dichotomy that utilises a stored collective energy, either impelling great achievements or dissipating that energy. This is based on two drives: fear that prompts feelings of religion, imagination, the metaphysical and priesthood; and greed that ‘dissipates energy in war and trade.’[vii] These two primary drives as we might call them today, fear and greed, equate, I believe, with the Spring/Summer and Autumn/Winter epochs of Spengler’s morphology of cultures respectively.
‘Fear’ equates with a religious instinct. This should not be seen as having negative connotations, as Marx and other materialists, rationalists and atheists would insist. Rather, it is that primal quality of feeling of cosmic awe that Spengler saw in the Spring of a High Culture, where great art and great adventures are played out to a Culture’s ‘glory to God’ or Gods. That this religious instinct is transformed into a new pseudo-religious form in the Autumn and Winter epochs of a Civilisation can be seen from the use emerging economic classes – the bourgeois – made of Puritanism and Calvinism.[viii] Such forces were at the foundation of the USA.
Adams’ theory of energy seems akin to C. G. Jung on the ‘canalisation’ of psychical energy (libido);[ix] with the two primary drives, fear and greed, in Adams’ theory, being the means by which what Jung called ‘canalisation’ manifests. In both Adams’ and Jung’s theories, instinct is at the base of this energy activation. Likewise with Spengler, instinct is at the base of the flowering of a High Culture in its Spring epoch, before ossifying into ‘reason’ in the Late or Winter epoch.
Like Spengler, Adams states that the formative stages of a High Culture, still based on ‘fear’, that is to say, the imaginative qualities, produce a culture that is ‘religious, military, artistic.’[x] Adams states that, ‘as consolidation advances, fear yields to greed, and the economic organism tends to supersede the emotional and martial.’[xi] Hence we arrive with Adams at the same place as Spengler, where money dominates at the late cultural epoch; and energy is expended on material gain at the expense of the founding spiritual ethos. Energy that is not expended is stored. Again we come to the theory similar to the libido of psychology. This surplus energy might be stored as wealth. Eventually conquest for booty or empire, still undertaken under the impress of the founding spiritual ethos, is displaced by the ‘greed’ impulse manifested as economics. Adams writes of this process:
However large may be the store of energy accumulated by conquest, a race must, sooner or later, reach the limit of its martial energy, when it must enter on the phase of economic competition. But, as the economic organism radically differs from the emotional and martial, the effect of economic competition has been, perhaps invariably, to dissipate the energy amassed by war.[xii]
The next passage by Adams is remarkably suggestive of Spengler in describing the cycles of decay:
When surplus energy has accumulated in such bulk as to preponderate over productive energy, it becomes the controlling social force. Thenceforward, capital is autocratic, and energy vents itself through those organisms best fitted to give expression to the power of capital. In this last stage of consolidation, the economic, and, perhaps, the scientific intellect is propagated, while the imagination fades, and the emotional, the martial, and the artistic types of manhood decay. When a social velocity has been attained at which the waste of energetic material is so great that the martial and imaginative stocks fail to reproduce themselves, intensifying competition appears to generate two extreme economic types, – the usurer in his most formidable aspect, and the peasant whose nervous system is best adapted to thrive on scanty nutriment. At length a point must be reached when pressure can go no further, and then, perhaps, one of two results may follow: A stationary period may supervene, which may last until ended by war, by exhaustion, or by both combined, as seems to have been the case with the Eastern Empire; or, as in the Western, disintegration may set in, the civilized population may perish, and a reversion may take place to a primitive form of organism.[xiii]
Here the primary elements of Spengler can be identified in Adams in terms of materialism giving rise to scientism or the ‘Age of Reason’ as it is called in the Western epoch, on the ruins of faith and an intuition of one’s place in the cosmos. The latter is replaced by a rootless struggle for economic existence or power, as approvingly observed by Marx in The Communist Manifesto. The intellectual replaces the priest, the banker replaces the aristocrat, and the proletarian replaces the craftsman and peasant. After the death of the Civilisation, the peasant reverts to his former existence outside of history, fellaheen as Spengler terms him in a post-civilisation, as in Egypt and India. Very close to the passage from Adams above, is the following from Spengler:
At this level, all Civilisations enter upon a stage, which lasts for centuries, of appalling depopulation. The whole pyramid of cultural man vanishes. It crumbles from the summit, first the world-cities, then the provincial forms, and finally the land itself, whose best blood has incontinently poured into the towns, merely to bolster them up awhile, at the last. Only the primitive blood remains, alive, but robbed of its strongest and most promising elements. This residue is the Fellah type.[xiv]
According to Adams, the law of civilisation and decay shows that energy is expended on economic competition to the point of culture exhaustion. The prolonged inertia that Adams refers to where the survivors of the dissipated old Civilisation exist devoid of vigour is analogous to the Fellah type described by Spengler. Both refer to the exhaustion of vigour expended for economic motives.
The evidence, however, seems to point to the conclusion that, when a highly centralized society disintegrates, under the pressure of economic competition, it is because the energy of the race has been exhausted. Consequently, the survivors of such a community lack the power necessary for renewed concentration, and must probably remain inert until supplied with fresh energetic material by the infusion of barbarian blood.[xv]
Where that fresh blood is to be found to reinvigorate a decaying West is problematic, given that culture-pathology has spread to every corner of the globe through international commerce, and is perhaps even exported as a world control mechanism to break down traditional barriers.[xvi] Spengler suggested, even in 1919, regardless of Bolshevism, that the fresh blood and new ethos might come eventually from Russia.[xvii]
As both Spengler and Adams state, the Late (Winter) epoch, i.e. the epoch in which we are now living, is based on Money and commerce, with the usurer, as Adams states, being the highest incarnation of Late Civilisation. The Late epoch makes literature, theatre, art and music, commodities like any automobile or refrigerator, as a quick turnover for profitability, and designed for quick obsolescence. Power is exercised through money, loans, international finance, and the power centres of the world are the money centres: New York and The City of London.
Money rules during the closing epoch of a Civilisation, until overthrown by an internal resurgence of authority and faith, or by invasion. Adams points out that decay soon set into Rome because the land-tiller-soldier was not equipped to deal with the rise of a mercantile elite, and the whole edifice became debt-ridden. The patrician class became money-lenders and shaped policy according to their interests. Debtors or their children often became slaves of the money-lenders. ‘The stronghold of usury lay in the fiscal system, which down to the fall of the Empire was an engine for working bankruptcy’. Although one thinks of Rome primarily as ruled by a stern martial ethos, Adams shows that at an early period ‘Romans had been bred destitute of the martial instinct’.
The Roman spiritual ethos was reasserted when the oligarchic families were overthrown by Pyrrhus, who saw Rome’s strength in her farmers. However, with Roman greatness and her imperial expansion came the conquest of populations that had already succumbed to decay, ‘and their cheap labour exterminated the husbandmen of Italy’, writes Adams. This passage from Adams cogently expresses the problem:
By conquest the countries inhabited by races of a low vitality and great tenacity of life were opened both for trade and slaving, and their cheap labour exterminated the husbandmen of Italy. Particularly after the annexation of Asia Minor this labour overran Sicily, and the cultivation of the cereals by the natives became impossible when the island had been parcelled out into great estates stocked by capitalists with eastern slaves who, at Rome, undersold all competitors. During the second century the precious metals poured into Latium in a flood, great fortunes were amassed and invested in land, and the Asiatic provinces of the Empire were swept of their men in order to make these investments pay. No data remain by which to estimate, even approximately, the size of this involuntary migration, but it must have reached enormous numbers, for sixty thousand captives were the common booty of a campaign, and after provinces were annexed they were depopulated by the publicans.[xviii]
Where there were slaves imported from the subject peoples, long since etiolated, filling an Italy whose population was being denuded, there is today an analogous process in an analogous epoch: that of immigration from the ‘third world’ into the Western states whose populations are ageing. Oligarchy constituted the core of the Empire. Nobility became defined by wealth.
Just as Spengler notes how the cities suck the country and form a proletarianised mass, Adams relates that the same process took place in Italy. Free trade with Egypt caused the destitution and proletarianisation of the Italian farmers. Does this not seem very ‘modern’, very present-day?
By 22 AD Tiberius was trying to address the matter of how to return the Romans, who had become obsessed with opulence, to a simpler life. A trade imbalance in the pursuit of luxury items from the East brought Italy to ruin, with a financial crisis culminating in 33AD. Rome to maintain any military vigour, was obliged to recruit or press gang from its Germanic subject tribes. ‘This military metamorphosis indicated the extinction of the martial type, and it extended throughout society. Rome not only failed to breed the common soldier, she also failed to produce generals’. In a passage particularly reminiscent of Spengler, Brooks Adams provides what might be regarded as a summary of the condition of Roman Civilisation:
This supremacy of the economic instinct transformed all the relations of life, the domestic as well as the military. The family ceased to be a unit, the members of which cohered from the necessity of self-defence, and became a business association. Marriage took the form of a contract, dissoluble at the will of either party, and, as it was somewhat costly, it grew rare. As with the drain of their bullion to the East, which crushed their farmers, the Romans were conscious, as Augustus said, that sterility must finally deliver their city into the hand of the barbarians. They knew this and they strove to avert their fate, and there is little in history more impressive than the impotence of the ancient civilization in its conflict with nature. About the opening of the Christian era the State addressed itself to the task. Probably in the year 4 AD, the emperor succeeded in obtaining the first legislation favouring marriage, and this enactment not proving effective, it was supplemented by the famous Leges Julia and Papia Poppsea of the year 9. In the spring, at the games, the knights demanded the repeal of these laws, and then Augustus, having called them to the Forum, made them the well-known speech, whose violence now seems incredible. Those who were single were the worst of criminals, they were murderers, they were impious, they were destroyers of their race, they resembled brigands or wild beasts. He asked the equites if they expected men to start from the ground to replace them, as in the fable; and declared in bitterness that while the government liberated slaves for the sole purpose of keeping up the number of citizens, the children of the Marcii, of the Fabii, of the Valerii, and the Julii, let their names perish from the earth.[xix]
We come now to the present, when the pre-eminent world-city is New York as a symbol of the much-heralded ‘leader of the Western world,’ the USA. Here we see in the USA not the beginning of something new and vigorous, but the outgrowth of the most decayed elements of Western Civilisation: a dichotomy of Europe’s late Enlightenment Deism, and of English Puritanism. The latter sanctioned money-making as a divine commandment, and culture as a devilish waste of time.[xx] It is an ethic that worked against the development either of an American High Culture or America as the custodian of Western High Culture. For example, at the founding Puritan American Colonies, music was excluded as a profession[xxi], while Puritan functionalism worked against the development of a significant Puritan visual art.[xxii] While, as Adams states, the Reformation of Henry VIII paved the way for the dictatorship of money,[xxiii] the impetus was given by the English Puritan Revolution of 1642-1648. Adams stated of this that but for the hostility of The City, Charles the First would never have been vanquished, and that without the help of The City, Charles the Second could scarcely have been restored.[xxiv] The establishment of the Bank of England in 1688, facilitated with the usurpation of the Throne by William III of Orange signified the subordination of the Throne to the money-lender.
Hence, the dictature of money in the West was formalized in 1688 after several centuries of conflict between tradition and money. The world money centre shifted from London to New York in recent times in the same way that it had shifted from Amsterdam to London during the 17th Century. The reasons and consequences of these historical dynamics are perhaps no better explained to the Anglophone world than by Brooks Adams’ Law of Civilization and Decay.
Notes:
[i] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West (London: Allen and Unwin, 1971).
[ii] Brooks Adams, The Law of Civilisation and Decay (London: Macmillan Company, 1896), https://archive.org/stream/lawofcivilizatio00adam#page/n6/mode/1up
[iii] Ezra Pound, (1942) A Visiting Card (London: Peter Russell, 1952), 8-9.
Pound (1944) America, Roosevelt and the Causes of the Present War (London: Peter Russell 1951), 8, 13, 16.
Pound (1944) Gold & Work (London: Peter Russell 1951), 6.
[iv] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of The West, op. cit., Vol. I, 396: ‘The character of the Faustian cathedral is that of the forest… the architectural actualising of a world-feeling…’
[v] Brooks Adams, vi.
[vi] Ibid., vii.
[vii] Ibid., ix.
[viii] Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1950).
[ix] Calvin S. Hall and Vernon J. Nordby, A Primer of Jungian Psychology (New York: New American Library, 1973), ‘Canalization of Energy’, 76-80.
[x] Brooks Adams, ix.
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Ibid., x.
[xiii] Ibid., x-xi.
[xiv] Oswald Spengler, op. cit., Vol, II, p. 105.
[xv] Brooks Adams, xi.
[xvi] Ralph Peters, ‘Constant Conflict’, Parameters, US Army War College, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/97summer/peters.htm
[xvii] Oswald Spengler, ‘The Two Faces of Russia and Germany’s Eastern Problems’, 14 February 1922, Politische Schriften, Munich, 1922.
[xviii] Brooks Adams, 12-13.
[xix] Brooks Adams, 42.
[xx] F. J. Bremer, The Puritan Experiment: New England Society from Bradford to Edwards (New York: St. Martins Press, 1976).
[xxi] R. Crawford, (ed.), America’s Musical Life: A History (New York: W. W. Norton, 2005).
[xxii] F. J. Bremer.
[xxiii] Brooks Adams, 233.
[xxiv] Brooks Adams, 292-293.
16:50 Publié dans Actualité, Histoire, Livre, Livre | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : brooks adams, livre, déclin, civilisation, philosophie, philosophie de l'histoire | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
En 2014, dans le sillage de la « Manif pour Tous », Gaultier Bès se faisait connaître par Nos limites. Pour une écologie radicale, un essai co-écrit avec Marianne Durano et Axel Nørgaard Rokvam. Le succès de cet ouvrage lui permit de lancer en compagnie de la journaliste du groupe Le Figaro, Eugénie Bastié, et de Paul Piccarreta, la revue trimestrielle d’écologie intégrale d’expression chrétienne Limite.
Au deuxième trimestre 2017, Gaultier Bès a publié Radicalisons-nous ! qui use et parfois abuse des métaphores végétales. Il a néanmoins averti que « la métaphore (“ transport ”, en grec) n’est pas un rapport d’identité, mais d’analogie (p. 27) ». Le titre est déjà un savoureux contre-pied à l’opinion médiatique ambiante qui pourchasse toute manifestation de radicalité. Pour les plumitifs stipendiés, la radicalité signifie l’extrémisme. « Tous ceux qui sortent des sentiers battus, on les disqualifie en les traitant d’extrémistes (ou d’« ultra », de “ khmers ”, d’« ayatollas », et bien sûr de “ radicaux ” (p. 13). » Pour preuve, les terroristes islamistes. Or, « l’extrémisme se pense toujours contre, en marge, aux extrémités, par rapport à un centre dont elle cherche toujours à s’éloigner. La radicalité, au contraire, se suffit à elle-même. Elle va au bout de sa propre logique (p. 114) » parce qu’elle part de la racine du sujet et/ou du diagnostic. Les militants radicaux ne sont surtout pas des dingues extrémistes bien souvent manipulés par des officines discrètes… Tout le contraire des « djihadistes [qui] sont de nulle part et de partout. Leurs places fortes sont semblables en cela aux grandes places financières, multiculturelles, cosmopolites même (p. 110) ». Les « soldats du Califat universel » sont en réalité des triples déracinés du point de vue de la géographie, de la culture et de l’histoire. L’auteur aurait pu les qualifier d’« individus unidimensionnels » au sens marcusien du terme.
Radicalité et enracinement
Dans sa préface, Jean-Pierre Raffin estime quant à lui que la radicalité « est une notion noble qui fait appel aux fondements, aux racines de notre être, de notre vie en société puisque l’être humain est un être social qui, dépourvu de liens, disparaît ou sombre dans la démence (p. 7) ». Gaultier Bès prévient aussi que « sans la profondeur de l’enracinement, la radicalité se condamne à n’agir qu’en surface et se dégrade en extrémisme. Sans la vigueur de la radicalité, l’enracinement n’est qu’un racornissement, qui, faute de lumière, conduit à l’atrophie (p. 16) ». Il se réfère beaucoup à la philosophe Simone Weil malgré une erreur sur l’année de son décès, 1943 et non 1944, en particulier à son célèbre essai sur l’Enracinement.
Il existe une évidente complémentarité entre radicalité et enracinement. Il entend « réhabiliter la notion de radicalité et montrer qu’elle n’est viable qu’à condition d’être enracinée (p. 12) ». Il insiste volontiers sur le fait que « l’enracinement […] n’est pas nostalgique, mais politique. Il ne rêve à aucune restauration, il ne fantasme aucun âge d’or, il se pense plutôt comme une force révolutionnaire, une quête de justice qui s’appuie sur une tradition non-violente. […] Ce n’est ni une réaction ni un figement, mais un mouvement spirituel, une actualisation dynamique qui s’appuie sur le passé pour mieux embrasser l’avenir (pp. 19 – 20) ». Par conséquent, il désapprouve l’expression de « Français de souche ». Il a raison. Il y a plus d’une décennie, un rédacteur de Terre et Peuple privilégiait « l’expression “ Européen de racine ” à celle d’« Européen de souche » couramment employé parmi nous, car la racine c’est vivant alors que la souche est morte (1) ».
Gaultier Bès
S’appuyer sur les racines n’implique pas un quelconque fixisme. Outre la nécessité d’éviter deux tentations, « celle du statu quo (p. 15) » et « celle de la table rase, et elle est à la mode. Le Progrès rase gratis ! (p. 15) », Gaultier Bès conçoit l’identité « comme une continuité permanente, c’est-à-dire comme une réalité à la fois durable et mouvante, évolutive et constante (p. 63) ». L’identité est comme la vie d’un homme : l’allure physique d’une même personne varie au fil de l’âge. L’identité française de 2018 n’est pas celle de 1830 et encore moins celle de 1580. Elle repose pourtant sur un socle ethnique indubitable d’origine boréenne. Gaultier Bès n’évoque pas ce patrimoine génétique et anthropologique commun. Pour lui, « les peuples ont des racines qui les rattachent et à un territoire et à une histoire, et que les nations qu’ils forment au gré des circonstances sont moins des radeaux de fortune que des “ maisons communes ” (p. 75) ». L’expression « maison commune » serait-il un clin d’œil (incongru ?) au mouvement métapolitique naguère animé par Laurent Ozon ? Gaultier Bès connaîtrait-il par ailleurs les travaux de l’excellent revue Le recours aux forêts qu’Ozon dirigea dans les années 1990 ? Cette belle revue défendait déjà l’enracinement et l’écologie réelle, étudiait Jacques Ellul et Bernard Charbonneau et se doutait que « l’enracinement sans radicalité est artificiel, la radicalité sans enracinement superficielle (p. 80) ».
Identité(s) et politique
Gaultier Bès se montre parfois sinon ambigu, pour le moins confus. Il considère que « l’identité comme le chemin le plus sûr vers l’altérité (p. 52) ». Très bien ! Mais comment concilier cette indispensable altérité quand il écrit par ailleurs que la France est une vieille nation politique, un État-nation qui s’est édifié sur un déracinement concerté des peuples, des territoires et des métiers, sur l’ethnocide des campagnes et la suppression des corporations ? Certes, « l’État-Nation n’est pas l’alpha et l’oméga de la vie politique, reconnaît-il. C’est moins, à l’instar de la laïcité, une “ valeur ” qu’un principe de gouvernement (p. 70) ». Émanation de la Modernité, l’État-nation déracine tout, y compris ces nations que sont les ethnies et les peuples. Mondialisme inassumé et partiel, il arrase les différences essentielles. Il aurait pu introduire dans sa réflexion la notion clé de terroir. Il semble l’oublier. Or, sans terroir, l’enracinement se révèle impossible. Le terroir est l’appropriation par le sang, l’égrégore communautaire, l’histoire et la culture, le sol investi par les génies de lieu. La nation dans sa fibre la plus authentique, avant de subir une évolution stato-nationale, coïncidait à « une culture enracinée dans le terroir (bodenständig Kulture) (2) ». Pourquoi dès lors vouloir opposer la nation à l’empire, cette forme politique qui met en cohérence des nations culturelles plus ou moins proches, dont il ne paraît pas saisir les implications pratiques de ces diversités mises à l’unisson ? Le modèle impérial diverge de la fallacieuse construction dite européenne. Il déplore les transferts de souveraineté stato-nationale prévues par les traités européens vers une strate européenne inexistante du fait de leur dépolitisation de ses instances. Il en résulte leur neutralisation politique (Carl Schmitt).
L’Europe n’est pas le miroir du monde, mais la consécration d’un polyculturalisme enraciné et autochtone. « La polis ne saurait se superposer au cosmos (p. 71) », et ce, malgré que « mondialisation culturelle et globalisation économique sont les deux faces d’une seule et même médaille (p. 76) ». Certes, « contre la City et son monde, précise-t-il plus loin, être radical, c’est user pleinement de son droit de cité (p. 123) ». Ce droit de cité ne présuppose-t-il pas l’établissement de limites, appelées par exemple frontières non seulement en géopolitique, mais aussi d’un point de vue juridique ? Force est de constater que Gaultier Bès n’aborde pas ce sujet brûlant. En effet, quelque soit sa nature, un État se doit d’établir des bornes tant territoriales que civiques. L’appartenance à une citoyenneté suppose une distinction radicale entre les citoyens et les autres, et justifie la préférence nationale. En bon Français, Gaultier Bès confond citoyenneté et nationalité. « La nation est une fiction ? Sans doute ! Mais elle est une fiction utile, condition d’une vie politique que soit autre chose que la chambre d’enregistrement des grandes firmes mondialisées (p. 64). » La nation comme peuple vivant n’est jamais fictive. C’est la citoyenneté qui l’est, surtout à l’heure de ces saloperies de réseaux sociaux et de matraquage télévisuel incessant, sans oublier les méfaits de la partitocratie. Le temps est venu de dissocier la nation et l’État. La première retrouve son caractère communautaire et identitaire; le second prend enfin une tournure spécifiquement politique en devenant sciemment communautariste autochtone et en promouvant un aspect authentiquement plurinational.
L’auteur aurait pu se référer à l’excellente Note sur la suppression générale des partis politiques de Simone Weil. L’État-nation meurt d’un leurre démocratique et de la malfaisance des partis politiques. Outre la politicaillerie et l’invasion de la Technique, la croyance en une illusoire « fin de l’histoire (Francis Fukuyama) » favorise le pacifisme, abolit les volontés et ricane du citoyen prêt à se sacrifier pour sa cité et les siens. Le courage a déserté le Vieux Continent. Citoyenneté et res publica demeurent pourtant des concepts hautement polémogènes. La cité n’existe qu’à travers la perception, réelle ou supposée, d’un danger plus ou moins imminent envers elle. Du coup, le paragraphe « La nation et la paix » évacue le conflit comme permanence politique et nécessité historique. La lecture d’un ouvrage méconnu de Régis Debray, Le code et le glaive (3), lui aurait été profitable dans une perspective « nationiste ».
Gaultier Bès confond aussi le tribalisme, manifestation tangible de l’hyper-modernité ultra-individualiste, du communautarisme, véritable bête noire de la doxa ordo-républicaine hexagonale. Oublie-t-il que l’Ancienne France d’avant 1789 était un agencement dynastique de communautés multiples et variées ? On ne peut mettre dans une même équivalence des démonstrations néo-tribales suscitées par le consumérisme libéral (adeptes des rave parties, vegans, féministes hystériques, gays) et l’affirmation salutaire de communautés spirituelles, ethniques, culturelles et linguistiques. Les droits à la différence charnelle et à la reconnaissance institutionnelles ne concernent que les Alsaciens, les Basques, les Bretons, les Catalans, les Corses, les Savoisiens, voire les musulmans, et nullement les fumeurs de shit, les joueurs de boules ou les fans de piercing ! Seule la renaissance de communautés organiques enracinées favoriserait un renouveau démocratique de proximité. L’auteur constate que « la politique se meurt de n’être plus qu’une grande surface où le citoyen-consommateur erre, éperdu, entre les rayons pleins de promesses et de programmes affriolants (pp. 13 – 14) ». Bref, « il nous faut repenser radicalement la politique. La remettre à sa place (p. 15) ». Comment remédier à la dépréciation du politique ? Par l’intermédiaire des AMAP, des SEL, des coopératives, des jardins partagés, du recyclage généralisé, des monnaies locales ? Toutes ces excellentes initiatives n’influent cependant qu’en marge de la « société liquide (Zygmunt Bauman) ». Le tissage des liens sociaux participe au réenracinement et au maintient de son identité, de sa liberté et de sa souveraineté. « Plus un peuple a des racines solides, plus il a de ressources pour préserver son indépendance (p. 68). » Que faire alors quand les racines s’étiolent et se sclérosent ? C’est le cas pour des Français de plus en plus hors-sol.
Affranchissement du local
Gaultier Bès fait finalement trop confiance aux racines. Il a beau distinguer « l’image végétale des “ racines [à] celle, toute minérale, des “ sources ” (p. 25) », il se méprend puisque l’essence bioculturelle de l’homme procède à la fois aux racines, aux sources et aux origines. Ces dernières sont les grandes oubliées de son propos. Ce n’est toutefois qu’en prenant acte de cette tridimensionnalité que l’enracinement sera complet. Pourtant, il prend soin de préciser que « le global n’est pas l’universel, c’est l’extension d’un local hégémonique (p. 76) ». L’avertissement fait penser à l’opuscule du Comité invisible, À nos amis. Le local « est une contraction du global (4) ». « Il y a tout à perdre à revendiquer le local contre le global, estime le Comité invisible. Le local n’est pas la rassurante alternative à la globalisation, mais son produit universel : avant que le ne soit globalisé, le lieu où j’habite était seulement mon territoire familier, je ne le connaissais pas comme “ local ”. Le local n’est que l’envers du global, son résidu, sa sécrétion, et non ce qui peut le faire éclater (5). » Outre le collectif d’ultra-gauche, Guillaume Faye s’interrogeait sur l’ambivalence du concept. « L’enracinement doit […] se vivre comme point de départ, la patrie comme base pour l’action extérieure et non comme “ logés ” à aménager. Il faut se garder de vivre l’enracinement sous sa forme “ domestique ”, qui tend aujourd’hui à prévaloir : chaque peuple “ chez soi ” pacifiquement enfermé dans ses frontières; tous folkloriquement “ enracinés ” selon une ordonnance universelle. Ce type d’enracinement convient parfaitement aux idéologues mondialistes. Il autorise la construction d’une superstructure planétaire où s’intégreraient, privés de leur sens, normés selon le même modèle, les nouveaux “ enracinés ” (6). »
En lisant Radicalisons-nous !, on a l’impression que l’enracinement des peuples du monde entier assurerait une paix universelle, ce qui est à la fois irréaliste et fort naïf. En effet, l’auteur écarte les facteurs d’imprévisibilité de l’histoire. Même si tout un chacun (re)trouverait un enracinement approprié, tensions et contentieux plus ou moins virulents persisteront.
En célébrant « la politique par la racine », sous-titre de ce bon essai qui fait la part belle aux formules bien tournées : « Pour que notre avenir soit fécond, notre présent se doit d’être profond (p. 54) » et s’achève sur un manifeste en dix points parmi lesquels « la radicalité ne croit pas au Progrès (p. 120) » et « la radicalité est la condition de toute écologie (p. 121) », Gaultier Bès ignore peut-être que l’intérêt pour les racines n’est pas nouveau. Aux élections européennes de 1999, la liste CPNT (Chasse, pêche, nature et traditions) avait pour sympathique slogan « De toute la force de nos racines ». Plus anciennement, en 1977, le Club de l’Horloge publiait Les racines du futur, un magistral travail de reconquête intellectuelle qui mentionne « le triple enracinement ». Le constat de cet essai démontre un plus grand pragmatisme que celui de Gaultier Bès. « De cet enracinement dans l’espace et le temps pourra naître une communauté de destin. La définition d’un projet collectif doit enrayer les effets pervers d’un enracinement qui pourrait favoriser l’éclosion d’une multitude d’égoïsmes locaux ou régionaux. […] La définition d’un destin commun, qui est de la compétence souveraine de l’État, la conquête collective d’une “ nouvelle frontière ” économique, sociale, scientifique voire géographique (comme la construction européenne), pourra, seule, sublimer les égoïsmes et les particularismes, dans le respect des différences et des autonomies (7). »
La récente exposition éditoriale (y compris médiatique) d’une quête des racines lui (re)donne cependant une sympathique notoriété métapolitique. Qu’elle soit fertile auprès des Albo-Européens !
Georges Feltin-Tracol
Notes
1 : Jean-Patrick Arteault, « Guerre culturelle et combat identitaire », Terre & Peuple la revue, n° 25, Équinoxe d’automne 2005, p. 18.
2 : Martin Heidegger, Lettres à sa femme Elfride. 1915 – 1970, le Seuil, 2007, lettre du 8 juillet 1918, p. 109. En matière d’enracinement et nonobstant une langue souvent hermétique et déroutante, y compris pour les germanistes, la pensée de Heidegger présente plus que jamais un atout considérable, surtout à l’heure où une cohorte de sycophantes « universitaires » ose contester l’auteur des prophétiques Cahiers noirs.
3 : Régis Debray, Le code et le glaive. Après l’Europe, la nation ?, Albin Michel – Fondation Marc-Bloch, 1999.
4 : Comité invisible, À nos amis, La fabrique éditions, 2016, p. 191.
5 : Idem, pp. 190 – 191.
6 : Guillaume Faye, Europe et modernité, Eurograf, 1985, pp. 53 – 54.
7 : Club de l’Horloge, Les racines du futur. Demain la France, Masson, 1977, p. 194. Lisons aussi Bernard Charbonneau, L’Homme en son temps et en son lieu, préface de Jean Bernard-Maugiron, RN Édition, coll. « Ars longa, vita brevia », 2017.
• Gaultier Bès, Radicalisons-nous ! La politique par la racine, préface de Jean-Pierre Raffin, Éditions Première Partie, coll. « À la limite », 2017, 127 p., 7 €.
00:35 Publié dans Définitions, Ecologie, Livre, Livre, Théorie politique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : définitions, racines, enracinement, gaultier bès, livre, philosophie, philosophie politique, théorie politique, sciences politiques, politologie | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
par Henri Levavasseur
Ex: http://metapoinfos.hautetfort.com
Nous reproduisons ci-dessous un texte d'Henri Levavasseur, cueilli sur le site de l'Institut Iliade et consacré à la réhabilitation d'une éthique de la tenue, en ces temps de relâchement et d'ensauvagement. Docteur en histoire et linguiste, l'auteur est spécialiste des cultures germaniques anciennes et de la protohistoire de l’Europe septentrionale.
Ouvert par le cataclysme de la Première Guerre Mondiale, le cycle du « sombre vingtième-siècle » a plongé l’Europe dans une crise de civilisation sans précédent, l’amenant à secréter elle-même, à travers les idéaux faisandés d’un universalisme ennemi des nations et des peuples, le poison du « grand effacement » qui menace de détruire jusqu’aux racines de son génie.
Rien, pourtant, n’est encore joué : il appartient aux jeunes Européens de ne pas se résigner et d’écrire une autre histoire, en accord avec les immenses potentialités d’une culture multimillénaire. C’est en puisant dans leur longue mémoire, en procédant au « grand ressourcement », qu’ils apprendront à se connaître eux-mêmes, à donner sens et forme à leur destin, afin de trouver les ressources morales permettant de relever les défis qui les attendent. Confrontés à la dissolution des institutions et de la cité dans le magma d’une société multiculturelle, multi-ethnique et multi-conflictuelle, cette jeunesse devra se rassembler sur son propre sol en communautés pérennes, organiques et soudées.
De telles communautés ne reposent pas seulement sur des liens de solidarité mutuelle, mais aussi sur la valeur individuelle, c’est-à-dire sur la capacité de chacun à recevoir, incarner et transmettre l’héritage commun.
Cette valeur ne se mesure pas seulement à l’aune des capacités intellectuelles et physiques, ou du talent artistique — même si ces qualités sont éminemment précieuses. Ici intervient la notion d’éthique, associée à celle de tenue, qui jouent toutes deux un rôle fondamental dans la vision européenne du monde.
Comme l’écrivait Pierre Drieu La Rochelle : « on est plus fidèle à une attitude qu’à des idées » (Gilles, 1939).
Que convient-il donc d’entendre par « éthique de la tenue » ? Quelles sont les formes spécifiques que revêt cette éthique dans l’histoire de la civilisation européenne ? Quels sont enfin les modes d’expression possibles, permettant aujourd’hui d’incarner cette éthique ?
Qu’est-ce que l’« éthique de la tenue » ?
Les dictionnaires contemporains définissent volontiers l’éthique comme une réflexion philosophique fondamentale, sur laquelle la morale établit ses normes, ses limites et ses devoirs.
Dans cette optique, le détail des prescriptions morales, fondées sur la distinction du bien et du mal, est susceptible de varier d’une société ou d’une religion à l’autre, tandis que l’éthique en appelle à la raison pour poser des principes universels, par de-là les contingences historiques et les particularismes de chaque civilisation.
Cette conception de l’éthique, propre à la tradition philosophique des Lumières, a naturellement peu à voir avec celle dont nous allons nous entretenir.
Revenons à l’origine du mot. Étymologiquement, éthique et morale renvoient, dans le monde antique, aux mêmes notions. Le mot français « morale » dérive du latin moralis, qui provient lui-même de mos, « mœurs », « coutume », « usage » — le mos majorum, « coutume ancestrale », fondant la morale du citoyen romain de l’époque classique. Le mot « éthique » trouve son origine dans le grec « ἦθος », qui présente les principales significations suivantes :
- « séjour habituel, lieux familiers, demeure » (employé au pluriel) : ἦθεα désigne dans l’Iliade les pâturages des chevaux, tout comme νομός (« part », « portion de territoire », « pâturage », qui prend ensuite le sens de « coutume, loi, usage », le verbe νέμειν, « attribuer, répartir, régler selon la coutume ») ;
- « disposition de l’âme, manière d’être, caractère » : notamment la célèbre formule d’Héraclite ἦθος ἀνθρώπῳ δαίμων (« la manière d’être, pour l’homme, est empreinte divine ») ; la joie, le courage, la noblesse sont par exemple des ἤθη, que les différents arts s’efforcent d’imiter ;
- « coutume, usage, mœurs » (cf. également la forme ἔθος, « coutume, usage ») ; dans sa Théogonie, Hésiode évoque les νόμοι et les ἦθεα des immortels, c’est-à-dire les lois et les usages des dieux. L’ethos d’un peuple trouve ses racines dans la tradition et repose donc sur une transmission.
Dans le domaine de l’art oratoire, ἦθος prend en outre un sens particulier : les Grecs distinguent en effet entre le logos, qui renvoie à la logique, le pathos, qui renvoie à la sensibilité, et l’éthos qui correspond à ce que nous nommons le « style ».
On saisit d’emblée que l’ethos ne renvoie pas chez les Grecs à une quelconque morale universelle, fondée sur l’opposition du bien et du mal : il s’agit au contraire d’un concept évoquant le caractère propre d’un être donné, en lien avec le lieu où il séjourne et la manière dont il se comporte habituellement — d’où le sens de « coutume », d’« usage », que l’on retrouve également dans le latin mos.
Le mot ἔθος est d’ailleurs étymologiquement apparenté à ἔθνος (« famille, clan, peuple »), ainsi qu’à ἔθω (« personne familière », « les siens »). Ce dernier terme, lui même apparenté au latin sodalis (« compagnon », « ami »), dérive d’une racine de indo-européenne *su̯ē̆dh- (« faire sien », « se poser soi-même »), que l’on retrouve dans le sanscrit svádhā (« pouvoir personnel », « autorité naturelle », « usage », « coutume »), le vieil-haut-allemand sito ou l’allemand Sitte, « coutume », « mœurs ».
Au sens étymologique, l’éthique désigne donc la manière d’être au monde en conformité avec l’usage, la coutume, la tradition en un lieu donné. Elle est la manière dont les êtres se tiennent face au monde, dans leur séjour habituel. On retrouve d’ailleurs ce lien entre les notions de coutume, de séjour et de tenue dans la proximité étymologique entre les termes français « habitation, habitude, habit », apparentés au latin habitus, « manière d’être ».
Très tôt, le mot « habit » est associé dans notre langue à l’idée de « maintien » de « tenue », au sens de « tenir sa place et son rang ».
Il est donc tout à fait pertinent de parler d’éthique de la tenue, dans la mesure où cette formule permet de définir une forme d’exigence tournée vers un idéal humain propre à notre civilisation, à nos mœurs, nos traditions et nos coutumes, indépendamment des formes universelles de morale, qu’elles soient d’essence religieuse ou laïque, c’est-à-dire fondées soit sur le dogme et la foi, soit sur une définition abstraite de la raison humaine, détachée de tout enracinement spécifique.
Comment définir l’éthique européenne de la tenue ? Comme toujours, à partir de l’étude des figures emblématiques que nous livre notre histoire depuis l’antiquité.
L’éthique de la tenue dans l’histoire européenne
Sans nier la valeur des exempla légués par la grande tradition classique, nous ne nous réfèrerons pas ici à telle ou telle anecdote édifiante, mais tenterons de saisir l’essence de notre tradition de manière à la fois plus générale et plus profonde, en évoquant quelques « figures archétypiques » qui dessinent les contours d’une éthique propre aux élites européennes.
Cette éthique renvoie à un certain idéal aristocratique, dont les traits principaux présentent une continuité étonnante depuis l’antiquité, en dépit des particularismes liés à tel ou tel peuple, et malgré les divers bouleversements sociaux, religieux et politiques qu’a pu connaitre l’Europe au fil des siècles.
Quatre types fondamentaux ont profondément marqué l’imaginaire européen, et constituent en quelque sorte les figures tutélaires auxquelles toute élite authentique doit se référer : le héros homérique, le citoyen romain, le chevalier médiéval, le gentilhomme.
Le héros homérique évolue dans un univers où le jugement porté sur l’homme ne repose pas sur la dualité du bien et du mal, en tant que critères moraux fondés sur la crainte de dieu, l’amour du prochain, la crainte du châtiment et l’espérance du salut éternel, mais sur la distinction du beau et du laid, de ce qui est honorable et de ce qui ne l’est pas, sur la nécessité de se montrer digne de l’estime de ses pairs, conformément à des règles de comportement fondées sur la coutume ancestrale.
L’idée de faute originelle est absente : le « bien » (ἀγαθόν, « ce qui bon ») est ce qui conforme au juste ordonnancement des choses et de l’univers (κόσμος, « ordre [de l’univers] », mais aussi « parure, ornement »). L’expression καλὸς κἀγαθός (« beau et bon »), à laquelle se conforme l’aristocratie athénienne, désigne un idéal de perfection humaine où la qualité du paraître rejoint celle de l’être : le philosophe Werner Jaeger évoque à ce propos, dans son ouvrage Paideia, consacré à la formation de l’homme grec, un « idéal chevaleresque de la personnalité humaine complète, harmonieuse d’âme et de corps, compétente au combat comme en paroles, dans la chanson comme dans l’action ».
A l’inverse, toute manifestation de démesure (ὕϐρις), chez les hommes comme chez les dieux, entraîne une catastrophe. Nous sommes ici aux antipodes de ce que le philosophe Heidegger décèle dans la modernité occidentale, à savoir la « métaphysique de l’illimité » — l’appétit du « toujours plus », auquel nous devons opposer la logique du « toujours mieux ».
Pour revenir aux textes d’Homère, « toute transgression de l’harmonie, de la mesure, de la conduite droite, se paie au prix fort, ainsi la funeste colère d’Achille, prétexte de l’Iliade. Homère ignore l’intériorisation d’une morale fondée sur la faute et la culpabilité. (…) Il met en action des vertus et leurs contraires, le courage et la lâcheté, l’honneur et la bassesse, la magnanimité et la rancune, la loyauté et la traîtrise. Il montre aussi des caractères, sans rien dissimuler de leurs contradictions, Hector et sa lucidité, Pénélope et sa féminité, Achille et sa vaillance, Ulysse et son habilité, Nestor et sa raison, Pâris et sa faiblesse, Hélène et son extrême sensualité. Les poèmes homériques ne parlent pas en formules conceptuelles ou dogmatiques. Ils donnent pourtant des réponses claires aux questions de la vie et de la mort » (D. Venner, Histoire et tradition des Européens, pp. 108–109).
Héritière du monde grec, mais aussi d’une tradition propre, fondée en grande partie sur un héritage indo-européen, la civilisation romaine nous a également légué un idéal aristocratique d’une grande valeur : celui du citoyen de l’époque classique. Ce dernier apparait constamment soucieux de sa dignitas, aussi bien personnelle que familiale. Pour la préserver, il est prêt à aller jusqu’au sacrifice de sa vie : la mort volontaire est à Rome un sort toujours préférable au déshonneur.
La dignitas s’enracine dans la virtus, non pas la vertu au sens chrétien du terme, mais la qualité qui distingue l’homme, vir : l’énergie morale, la force d’âme, la maîtrise de soi (gravitas), qui se situe au cœur de l’enseignement des Stoïciens.
Ces qualités sont indissociables de la pietas, c’est-à-dire du respect de la tradition (mos majorum), du devoir rendu aux dieux et à la famille, en particulier au père, devoirs auxquels s’ajoute le service de l’état. Avec la virtus, la clementia et la iustitia, la pietas est l’une des quatre vertus impériales reconnues à Auguste sur l’inscription du bouclier d’or (clipeus aureus) placé en son honneur dans la Curia Iulia. Comme chez les Grecs, l’idéal du citoyen romain se fonde sur l’unité de l’être et du paraître. C’est le sens de la formule de Juvénal : mens sana in corpore sano.
Scipion fait graver sur son tombeau la formule suivante « Ma vie a enrichi les vertus de ma race. J’ai engendré des enfants, j’ai cherché à égaler les exploits de mon père. J’ai mérité la louange de mes ancêtres, qui se sont réjouis de me voir né pour leur gloire. Ma dignitas a rendu fameuse ma race » (cité par D. Venner, id., p. 136).
La chevalerie médiévale reprend une partie de cet héritage, associé certes aux vertus chrétiennes, mais également au vieil idéal martial et à la conception de l’honneur répandus dans les sociétés celtiques et germaniques. Dominique Venner (id., pp. 178–179) qualifie l’éthique chevaleresque d’« éthique incarnée » : « prouesse, largesse et loyauté sont ses attributs que l’honneur résume. L’élégance de l’âme commande d’être vaillant jusqu’à la témérité ».
L’exigence de fidélité à la parole donnée pousse à tenir la foi jurée jusqu’à la mort, attitude magnifiquement exaltée dans la Chanson des Nibelungen, de telle sorte que l’idéal du sacrifice héroïque, présent dans toute la tradition épique du monde germanique, a sans doute contribué de façon décisive à l’acceptation du christianisme par les peuples du Barbaricum. Le poème saxon Heliand décrit d’ailleurs le Christ et ses disciples comme un prince germanique entourés de ses vassaux, tandis que les noces de Cana apparaissent comme un festin guerrier.
A l’époque moderne, la figure du gentilhomme représente la synthèse et l’aboutissement de ces divers héritages, à travers l’équilibre entre les talents de l’homme d’épée et de l’homme d’esprit, alliant élégance morale, distinction, courage et maîtrise de soi. Tel est l’idéal, largement partagé à travers toute l’Europe, que s’efforcent d’atteindre le Junker prussien et le gentleman britannique.
Une certaine forme de stoïcisme propre à l’homme d’action est commune aux quatre types que nous venons d’évoquer.
Est-ce à dire, cependant, que l’éthique de la tenue se trouve réservée à une élite sociale fondée exclusivement sur des règles de transmission héréditaire ? Si cette dernière a naturellement toujours joué un rôle central, il convient de rappeler l’importance d’autres formes d’institutions méritocratiques, reposant sur la notion de compagnonnage guerrier. Les concepts de noblesse et de chevalerie, par exemple, ne sont pas strictement identiques.
Comme le souligne Dominique Venner (Un samouraï d’Occident, p. 294), nos racines « ne sont pas seulement celles de l’hérédité, auxquelles on peut être infidèle, ce sont également celles de l’esprit, c’est-à-dire de la tradition qu’il appartient à chacun de se réapproprier ».
Quelles leçons concrètes la jeunesse européenne de notre temps, déterminée à s’engager sur la même voie, peut-elle toutefois recueillir de ces exemples si éloignés de notre quotidien ? En apparence, les modèles que nous venons d’évoquer semblent dépassés pour plusieurs raisons : l’environnement social, culturel et politique traditionnel, nécessaire à l’éducation d’une véritable élite, a aujourd’hui été en grande partie balayé ; la noblesse a cessé d’être une institution, d’assurer un rôle politique central et de « donner le ton » ; les valeurs dominantes sont au contraire celles de l’hédonisme individualiste et de l’égalitarisme, même si les inégalités économiques et sociales sont par ailleurs de plus en plus criantes ; la notion d’élite est largement dépréciée, ou se trouve associée à des types humains opposés à ceux de l’ancienne aristocratie européenne ; l’élitisme est même perçu comme un travers ; enfin, un grand nombre de ceux qui sont en mesure de réclamer, en tant qu’héritiers par le sang et par le nom, le patrimoine spirituel de l’ancienne aristocratie européenne, adoptent parfois des comportements assez éloignés des valeurs de leurs aïeux.
Médiocrité et vulgarité ne constituent pas nécessairement des tares nouvelles, propres à notre époque, mais elles font aujourd’hui l’objet d’une complaisance sans précédent, qui trouve son expression la plus achevée dans les « modèles » imposés aux populations sidérées par les loisirs de masse et le matraquage publicitaire : il s’agit d’une véritable inversion des canons esthétiques et éthiques. L’idéal aristocratique n’a pas nécessairement disparu, mais il ne structure plus la société.
Pourtant, chacun de nous peut encore choisir d’incarner une part de l’éthique aristocratique européenne, en la déclinant — au féminin comme au masculin — dans des situations et des engagements très divers.
Cette possibilité revêt une portée qui dépasse les seuls destins individuels. Dominique Venner le rappelle dans le Samouraï d’Occident (p. 296) : « Les ébranlements de notre temps ont des causes qui excèdent les seuls forces de la politique ou des réformes sociales. Il ne suffit pas de modifier des lois ou de remplacer un ministre par un autre pour construire de l’ordre là où sévit le chaos. Pour changer les comportements (…), il faut réformer les esprits, une tâche à toujours recommencer ».
L’éthique de la tenue est l’expression individuelle et communautaire de cette réforme des esprits, prélude au nécessaire réveil de l’Europe en dormition. Elle est une voie d’excellence, dans laquelle la jeunesse européenne doit aujourd’hui réapprendre à s’engager.
L’éthique de la tenue pour les Européens d’aujourd’hui
S’il peut paraître difficile d’établir les critères objectifs de la « tenue », chacun sait instinctivement définir ce qu’il convient de rejeter : le débraillé, la vulgarité, le laisser-aller. Ce dernier peut prendre des formes diverses : laisser-aller du corps (avachissement ou exhibition vulgaire), laisser-aller du vêtement (le modèle « united colors », universel et « unisexe »), laisser-aller du comportement et de l’attitude (manque de maîtrise de soi, oubli des règles élémentaires de la courtoisie et du savoir-vivre), laisser-aller du langage (outrance, approximation ou vulgarité), laisser-aller de l’esprit et de l’intellect (paresse intellectuelle, conformisme), laisser-aller de l’âme (perte du sens de l’honneur et de la parole donnée, de la fidélité à ses principes et à son héritage, absence de courage).
A toutes ces formes d’abandon de soi-même, il faut précisément opposer la notion de « tenue ». Celle-ci constitue une ascèse — ce qui n’implique pas nécessairement une vie « ascétique » : au-delà de son acception religieuse, passée dans le vocabulaire chrétien par l’intermédiaire du latin chrétien asceta, le mot est apparenté au grec ἄσκησις (« exercice »), qui désigne à l’origine divers types d’activités artistiques ou physiques, en particulier l’athlétisme. L’ascèse est donc avant tout une discipline.
L’éthique de la tenue se fonde en définitive sur la volonté de vivre en européen, conformément à notre tradition. Fidèle à la « longue mémoire européenne », Dominique Venner nous rappelle à ce propos que « l’esthétique fonde l’éthique » (Un samouraï d’Occident, 2013), et nous incite à nous référer à ce qu’il nomme la « triade homérique » : « la nature comme socle, l’excellence comme but, la beauté comme horizon ».
La nature comme socle, c’est non seulement respecter l’ordre naturel et ses grands équilibres, d’un point de vue aussi bien écologique qu’anthropologique (à travers la polarité du masculin et du féminin), mais également assumer et transmettre les caractères spécifiques de notre patrimoine héréditaire européen. C’est savoir s’immerger régulièrement dans la splendeur de nos paysages et s’attacher à la dimension communautaire de nos traditions à travers la célébration des fêtes calendaires traditionnelles, associées au cycle annuel.
L’excellence comme but, c’est conserver le souci de l’élégance morale, pratiquer une certaine retenue et cultiver l’exigence envers soi-même ; c’est s’efforcer à l’adéquation de la pensée et de l’action, de l’être et du paraître, tendre à se dépasser plus qu’à rechercher son « épanouissement personnel » dans une perspective strictement hédoniste, se soumettre à une discipline librement consentie plus que de revendiquer une liberté totale ; c’est se savoir « maillon d’une chaîne », servir plus que se servir, se montrer exigeant dans le choix de ses pairs tout en étant capable d’affronter la solitude ; enfin et surtout, c’est transmettre cet ensemble d’exigences par l’exemple, en ne se reniant jamais soi-même au profit de la facilité, du confort ou de la sécurité. Le plus sûr moyen d’y parvenir est de construire ce que Dominique Venner appelle notre « citadelle intérieure », par la méditation quotidienne, la lecture, mais aussi la discipline du corps (notamment à travers la pratique sportive, afin d’entretenir le sens de l’effort et le goût de l’action).
La beauté comme horizon, c’est — à défaut de pouvoir « ré-enchanter » le monde par ses seules forces lorsque les dieux paraissent l’avoir déserté — ne jamais laisser la laideur avoir prise sur soi, se soustraire autant que possible à son emprise (en se gardant de l’accoutumance aux distractions « à la mode », alliant vulgarité, bêtise et inversion des valeurs) ; c’est rechercher au contraire toutes les occasions de nourrir son esprit par la contemplation du beau ; c’est aussi manifester, à la mesure de ses moyens, ce souci de la beauté et de l’élégance jusque dans les moindres occasions du quotidien, dans les objets qui nous entourent, la décoration de notre habitat comme dans la tenue vestimentaire, en conformité avec notre esthétique européenne. Tel est le plus sûr moyen de rayonner, d’éveiller et de transmettre, aux enfants comme aux adultes. L’éthique de la tenue est aussi une esthétique : se « tenir », c’est donner forme à son existence.
Dominique Venner a résumé l’ensemble de ces préceptes dans le Samouraï d’Occident (pp. 292, 296–297) : « Dans leur diversité, les hommes n’existent que par ce qui les distingue, clans, peuples, nations, cultures, civilisations, et non par ce qu’ils ont superficiellement en commun. Seule leur animalité est universelle (…). Quelle que soit votre action, votre priorité doit être de cultiver en vous, chaque jour, comme une invocation inaugurale, une foi indestructible dans la permanence de la tradition européenne ».
L’éthique de la tenue, c’est vivre en Européen !
Henri Levavasseur (Institut Iliade, 28 février 2018)
00:36 Publié dans Philosophie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : philosophie, esthétique, tenue, style | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
09:34 Publié dans Philosophie, Théorie politique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : définitions, philosophie, philosophie politique, christianisme, chrétienté, catholicisme, théorie politique, politologie, sciences politiques | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
par Nicolas Bonnal
Ex; http://www.dedefensa.org
Tout le monde a oublié Henri Lefebvre et je pensais que finalement il vaut mieux être diabolisé, dans ce pays de Javert, de flics de la pensée, qu’oublié. Tous les bons penseurs, de gauche ou marxistes, sont oubliés quand les réactionnaires, fascistes, antisémites, nazis sont constamment rappelés à notre bonne vindicte. Se rappeler comment on parle de Céline, Barrès, Maurras ces jours-ci… même quand ils disent la même chose qu’Henri Lefebvre ou Karl Marx (oui je sais, cent millions de morts communistes, ce n’est pas comme le capitalisme, les démocraties ou les Américains qui n’ont jamais tué personne, Dresde et Hiroshima étant transmuées en couveuses par la doxa historique).
Un peu de Philippe Muray pour comprendre tout cela – cet oubli ou cette diabolisation de tout le monde :
« Ce magma, pour avoir encore une ombre de définition, ne peut plus compter que sur ses ennemis, mais il est obligé de les inventer, tant la terreur naturelle qu’il répand autour de lui a rapidement anéanti toute opposition comme toute mémoire. »
J’avais découvert Henri Lefebvre grâce à Guy Debord qui, lui, est diabolisé pour théorie de la conspiration maintenant ! Sociologue et philosophe, membre du PCF, Lefebvre a attaqué la vie quotidienne, la vie ordinaire après la Guerre, premier marxiste-communiste à prendre en compte la médiocrité de la vie moderne à la même époque qu’Henri de man (je sais, merci, fasciste-nazi-réac-technocrate vichyste etc.). Le plus fort est que Lefebvre attaque le modèle soviétique qui débouchait à la même époque sur le même style de vie un peu nul, les grands ensembles, le métro-boulot-dodo, le cinoche…
J’ai déjà évoqué Henri de Man dans mon livre sur la Fin de l’Histoire. Un bel extrait bien guénonien sans le vouloir :
« Tous les habitants de ces maisons particulières écoutaient en même temps la même retransmission. Je fus pris de cette angoisse … Aujourd'hui ce sont les informations qui jouent ce rôle par la manière dont elles sont choisies et présentées, par la répétition constante des mêmes formules et surtout par la force suggestive concentrée dans les titres et les manchettes. »
C’est dans l’ère des masses. On peut rajouter ce peu affriolant passage :
« L'expression sociologique de cette vérité est le sentiment de nullité qui s'empare de l'homme d'aujourd'hui lorsqu'il comprend quelle est sa solitude, son abandon, son impuissance en présence des forces anonymes qui poussent l'énorme machine sociale vers un but inconnu. Déracinés, déshumanisés, dispersés, les hommes de notre époque se trouvent, comme la terre dans l'univers copernicien, arrachés à leur axe et, de ce fait, privés de leur équilibre. »
Lefebvre dans un livre parfois ennuyeux et vieilli hélas (le jargon marxiste des sixties…) dénonce aussi cet avènement guénonien de l’homme du règne de la quantité. Il se moque des réactionnaires, mais il est bien obligé de penser comme eux (et eux ne seront pas oubliés, lui oui !) :
« Le pittoresque disparaît avec une rapidité qui n’alimente que trop bien les déclarations et les lamentations des réactionnaires…. »
Ici deux remarques, Herr professeur : un, le « pittoresque » comme vous dites c’est la réalité du paysage ancestral, traditionnel saboté, pollué et remplacé, ou recyclé en cuvette pour touristes sous forme de « vieille ville ». Deux, les chrétiens révoltés qui dénoncent cette involution dès le dix-neuvième ne sont pas des réacs sociologiques, pas plus que William Morris ou Chesterton ensuite.
Henri Lefebvre poursuit, cette fois magnifiquement :
« Là où les peuples se libèrent convulsivement des vieilles oppressions (nota : les oppressions coloniales n’étaient pas vieilles et furent remplacées par des oppressions bureaucratiques ou staliniennes pires encore, lisez Jacob Burckhardt), ils sacrifient certaines formes de vie qui eurent longtemps grandeur – et beauté. »
Et là il enfonce le clou (visitez les villes industrielles marxistes pour vous en convaincre :
« Les pays attardés qui avancent produisent la laideur, la platitude, la médiocrité comme un progrès. Et les pays avancés qui ont connu toutes les grandeurs de l’histoire produisent la platitude comme une inévitable prolifération. »
Les pays comme la Chine qui ont renoncé au marxisme orthodoxe aujourd’hui avec un milliard de masques sur la gueule, de l’eau polluée pour 200 millions de personnes et des tours à n’en plus finir à vingt mille du mètre. Cherchez alors le progrès depuis Marco Polo…
Matérialiste, Lefebvre évoque ensuite l’appauvrissement du quotidien, la fin des fêtes païennes-folkloriques (j’ai évoqué ce curieux retour du refoulé dans mon livre sur le folklore slave et le cinéma soviétique) et il regrette même son église enracinée d’antan (s’il voyait aujourd’hui ce que Bergoglio et les conciliaires en ont fait…). C’est la fameuse apostrophe de Lefebvre à son Eglise :
« Eglise, sainte Eglise, après avoir échappé à ton emprise, pendant longtemps je me suis demandé d’où te venait ta puissance. »
Eh oui cette magie des siècles enracinés eut la vie dure.
Je vous laisse découvrir cet auteur et ce livre car je n’ai pas la force d’en écrire plus ; lui non plus n’est pas arrivé avec le panier à solutions rempli…
Penseur du crépuscule marxiste, Lefebvre m’envoûte comme son église parfois. Comme disait le penseur grec marxiste Kostas Papaioannou, « le capitalisme c’est l’exploitation de l’homme par l’homme, et le marxisme le contraire » ! De quoi relire une petite révolte contre le monde moderne !
La révolution ? Le grand chambardement ? Sous les pavés la plage privatisée par les collègues de Cohn-Bendit ? Je laisserai conclure Henri Lefebvre :
« En 1917 comme en 1789, les révolutionnaires crurent entrer de plain-pied dans une autre monde, entièrement nouveau. Ils passaient du despotisme à la liberté, du capitalisme au communisme. A leur signal la vie allait changer comme un décor de théâtre. Aujourd’hui, nous savons que la vie n’est jamais simple. »
Et comme je disais que nos cathos réacs étaient les plus forts :
« La révolution… crée le genre d’homme qui lui sont nécessaires, elle développe cette race nouvelle, la nourrit d'abord en secret dans son sein, puis la produit au grand jour à mesure qu'elle prend des forces, la pousse, la case, la protège, lui assure la victoire sur tous les autres types sociaux. L'homme impersonnel, l’homme en soi, dont rêvaient les idéologues de 1789, est venu au monde : il se multiplie sous nos yeux, il n'y en aura bientôt plus d’autre ; c'est le rond-de-cuir incolore, juste assez instruit pour être « philosophe », juste assez actif pour être intrigant, bon à tout, parce que partout on peut obéir à un mot d'ordre, toucher un traitement et ne rien faire – fonctionnaire du gouvernement officiel - ou mieux, esclave du gouvernement officieux, de cette immense administration secrète qui a peut-être plus d'agents et noircit plus de paperasses que l'autre. »
C’était l’appel de Cochin, le vrai…
Henri Lefebvre – critique de la vie quotidienne, éditions de l’Arche
Henri de Man – L’ère des masses
René Guénon – la crise du monde moderne ; le règne de la quantité et les signes des temps
Chesterton – Orthodoxie ; hérétiques (Gutenberg.org)
Cochin – La révolution et la libre pensée
Nicolas Bonnal – Chroniques sur la fin de l’histoire ; le cinéma soviétique et le folklore slave ; Céline, le pacifiste enragé
Julius Evola – révolte contre le monde moderne
14:57 Publié dans Philosophie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : nicolas bonnal, philosophie, marxisme, henri lefebvre, vie quotidienne, philosophie politique, théorie politique, politologie, sciences politiques | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
15:08 Publié dans Philosophie, Théorie politique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : utilitarisme, philosophie politique, philosophie, théorie politique, yvan blot, politologie, sciences politiques | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
Multipolarity and polycentricity
Ex: https://www.geopolitica.ru
The very term “multipolarity” is of American (Anglo-Saxon) origin, and in the third chapter we examined similar concepts that have been developed in other countries. As various scholars have indicated, varying interpretations of multipolarity have provoked certain conceptual dilemmas. For instance, a report on long-term global trends prepared by the Zurich Center for Security Studies in 2012 noted that:
The advantage of ‘multipolarity’ is that it accounts for the ongoing diffusion of power that extends beyond uni-, bi-, or- tripolarity. But the problem with the term is that it suggests a degree of autonomy and separateness of each ‘pole’ that fails to do justice to the interconnections and complexities of a globalised world. The term also conceals that rising powers are still willing to work within the Westernshaped world economic system, at least to some extent. This is why the current state of play may be better described as ‘polycentric’. Unlike ‘multipolarity’, the notion of ‘polycentricism’ says nothing about how the different centres of power relate to each other. Just as importantly, it does not elicit connotations with the famous but ill-fated multipolar system in Europe prior to 1914 that initially provided for regular great power consultation, but eventually ended in all-out war. The prospects for stable order and effective global governance are not good today. Yet, military confrontation between the great powers is not a likely scenario either, as the emerging polycentric system is tied together in ways that render a degree of international cooperation all but indispensable.
The Swiss scholars involved in this summation approached the issue from the standpoint of reviewing security issues in a globalized world and tried to find an adequate expression for contemporary trends. However, there also exist purely technical approaches and ideological theories which employ the term “polycentric”.
The concept of “polycentricity” had been used before to describe the functioning of complex economic subjects. Accordingly, if management theories are springboards for geopolitical practice, then this model’s basic elaborations already exist. In a literal sense, the term “polycentric” suggests some kind of spatial unit with several centers. However, the term does not specify what kind of centers are in question, hence the obvious need to review various concepts and starting points before discussing polycentrism.
Four levels of this concept can be discussed in the context of political-administrative approaches. The analytical-descriptive level is needed for describing, measuring, and characterizing the current state of a spatial object by means of precisely determining how long a country or capital can be “polycentric.” Secondly, this concept can be understood in a normative sense which might help, for example, in reorganizing the spatial configuration of an object, i.e., either to promote/create polycentrism or support/utilize an existing polycentric structure. Thirdly, when it comes to spatial entities, it is necessary to specify their spatial scale, i.e., at the city level, city-region, mega-regional level, or even on the national or transnational levels. Upon closer examination, the concept of polycentrism concept thus challenges our understanding of centers in urban areas, since such can concern either their roles and functional ties (relations) or their concrete morphological forms (the structure of urban fabric). This differentiation between the functional and morphological understandings of polycentrism constitutes the fourth dimension.
In the contemporary situation which features the presence of city-states and megalopoli that can easily compete with some states in the classical understanding in the most varied criteria (number of residents and their ethnic identity, length of external borders, domestic GDP, taxes, industry, transport hubs, etc.), such an approach seems wholly appropriate for more articulated geopolitical analysis. Moreover, in the framework of federal models of state governance, polycentrism serves as a marker of complex relations between all administrative centers. Regional cooperation also fits into this model since it allows subjects to “escape” mandatory compliance with a single regulator, such as in the face of a political capital, and cooperate with other subjects (including foreign ones) within a certain space.
To some extent, the idea of polycentrism is reflected in offshore zones as well. While offshores can act as “black holes” for the economies of sovereign states, on the other hand, they can also be free economic zones removing various trade barriers clearly within the framework of the operator’s economic sovereignty.
It should also be noted that the theory of polycentrism is also well known in the form of the ideological contribution of the Italian community Palmiro Togliatti as an understanding of the relative characteristics of the working conditions facing communist parties in different countries following the de-Stalinization process in the Soviet Union in 1956. What if one were to apply such an analysis to other parties and movements? For example, in comparing Eurosceptics in the EU and the conglomerate of movements in African and Asian countries associated with Islam? Another fruitful endeavor from this perspective could be evaluating illiberal democracies and populist regimes in various parties of the world as well as monarchical regimes, a great variety of which still exist ranging from the United Kingdom’s constitutional monarchy to the hereditary autocracy of Saudi Arabia which appeared relatively recently compared to other dynastic forms of rule. Let us also note that since Togliatti the term “polycentrism” has become popular in political science, urban planning, logistics, sociology, and as an expression for unity in diversity.
In 1969, international relations and globalization expert Howard V. Perlmutter proposed the conceptual model of EPG, or Ethnocentrism-Polycentrism-Geocentrism, which he subsequently expanded with his colleague David A Heenan to include Regionalism. This model, famously known by the acronym EPRG, remains essential in international management and human resources. This theory posits that polycentrism, unlike ethnocentrism, regionalism, and geocentrism, is based on political orientation, albeit through the prism of controlling commodity-monetary flows, human resources, and labor. In this case, polycentrism can be defined as a host country’s orientation reflecting goals and objectives in relation to various management strategies and planning procedures in international operations. In this approach, polycentrism is in one way or another connected to issues of management and control.
However, insofar as forms of political control can differ, this inevitably leads to the understanding of a multiplicity of political systems and automatically rejects the monopoly of liberal parliamentarism imposed by the West as the only acceptable political system. Extending this approach, we can see that the notion of polycentrism, in addition to connoting management, is contiguous to theories of law, state governance, and administration. Canada for instance has included polycentricity in its administrative law and specifically refers to a “polycentric issue” as “one which involves a large number of interlocking and interacting interests and considerations.” For example, one of Canada’s official documents reads: “While judicial procedure is premised on a bipolar opposition of parties, interests, and factual discovery, some problems require the consideration of numerous interests simultaneously, and the promulgation of solutions which concurrently balance benefits and costs for many different parties. Where an administrative structure more closely resembles this model, courts will exercise restraint.”
Polycentric law became world-famous thanks to Professor Tom Bell who, as a student at the University of Chicago’s law faculty, wrote a book entitled Polycentric Law in which he noted that other authors use phrases such as “de-monopolized law” to describe polycentric alternatives.
Bell outlined traditional customary law (also known as consolamentum law) before the establishment of states and in accordance with the works of Friedrich A. Hayek, Bruce L. Benson, and David D. Friedman. Bell mentioned the customary law of the Anglo-Saxons, ecclesiastical law, guild law, and trade law as examples of polycentric law. On this note, he suggests that customary and statutory law have co-existed throughout history, an example being Roman law being applied to Romans throughout the Roman Empire at the same time as indigenous peoples’ legal systems remained permitted for non-Romans.
Polycentric theory has also attracted the interest of market researchers, especially public economists. Rather paradoxically, it is from none other than ideas of a polycentric market that a number of Western scholars came to the conclusion that “Polycentricity can be utilized as a conceptual framework for drawing inspiration not only from the market but also from democracy or any other complex system incorporating the simultaneous functioning of multiple centers of governance and decision making with different interests, perspectives, and values.” In our opinion, it is very important that namely these three categories - interests, perspectives, and values - were distinguished. “Interests” as a concept is related to the realist school and paradigm in international relations, while “perspectives” suggests some kind of teleology, i.e., a goal-setting actor, and “values” are associated with the core of strategic culture or what has commonly been called the “national idea,” “cultural-historical traditions”, or irrational motives in the collective behavior of a people. For a complex society inhabited by several ethnic groups and where citizens identify with several religious confessions, or where social class differences have been preserved (to some extent they continue to exist in all types of societies, including in both the US and North Korea, but are often portrayed as between professional specialization or peculiarities of local stratification), a polycentric system appears to be a natural necessity for genuinely democratic procedures. In this context, the ability of groups to resolve their own problems on the basis of options institutionally included in the mode of self-government is fundamental to the notion of polycentrism.
Only relatively recently has polycentrism come to be used as an anti-liberal or anti-capitalist platform. In 2006, following the summit of the World Social Forum in Caracas, Michael Blanding from The Nation illustrated a confrontation between “unicentrism” characterized by imperial, neo-liberal, and neo-conservative economic and political theories and institutions, and people searching for an alternative, or adherents of “polycentrism.” As a point of interest, the World Social Forum itself was held in a genuinely polycentric format as it was held not only in Venezuela, but in parallel also in Mali and Pakistan. Although the forum mainly involved left socialists, including a large Trotskyist lobby (which is characteristic of the anti-globalist movement as a whole), the overall critique of neoliberalism and transnational corporations voiced at the forum also relied on rhetoric on the rights of peoples, social responsibility, and the search for a political alternative. At the time, this was manifested in Latin America in the Bolivarian Revolution with its emphasis on indigenism, solidarity, and anti-Americanism.
It should be noted that Russia’s political establishment also not uncommonly uses the word “polycentricity” - sometimes as a synonym for multipolarity, but also as a special, more “peace-loving” trend in global politics insofar as “polarity presumes the confrontation of poles and their binary opposition.” Meanwhile, Russian scholars recognize that comparing the emerging polycentric world order to historical examples of polycentricity is difficult. Besides the aspect of deep interdependence, the polycentricity of the early 21st century possesses a number of different, important peculiarities. These differences include global asymmetry insofar as the US still boasts overwhelming superiority in a number of fields, and a multi-level character in which there exist: (1) a military-diplomatic dimension of global politics with the evolution of quickly developing giant states; (2) an economic dimension with the growing role of transnational actors; (3) global demographic shifts; (4) a specific space representing a domain of symbols, ideals, and cultural codes and their deconstructions; and (5) a geopolitical and geo-economic level.
Here it is necessary to note that the very term “polycentricity” in itself harbors some interesting connotations. Despite being translated to mean “many”, the first part (“poly-“) etymologically refers to both “pole” and “polis” (all three words are of Ancient Greek origin), and the second part presupposes the existence of centers in the context of international politics, i.e., states or a group of states which can influence the dynamic of international relations.
In his Parmenides, Martin Heidegger contributed an interesting remark in regards to the Greek term “polis”, which once again confirms the importance and necessity of serious etymological analysis. By virtue of its profundity, we shall reproduce this quote in full:
Πόλις is the πόλоς, the pole, the place around which everything appearing to the Greeks as a being turns in a peculiar way. The pole is the place around which all beings turn and precisely in such a way that in the domain of this place beings show their turning and their conditions. The pole, as this place, lets beings appear in their Being and show the totality of their condition. The pole does not produce and does not create beings in their Being, but as pole it is the abode of the unconsciousness of beings as a whole. The πόλις is the essence of the place [Ort], or, as we say, it is the settlement (Ort-schaft) of the historical dwelling of Greek humanity. Because the πόλις lets the totality of beings come in this or that way into the unconcealedness of its condition, the πόλις is therefore essentially related to the Being of beings. Between πόλις and “Being” there is a primordial relation.
Heidegger thus concludes that “polis” is not a city, state, nor a combination of the two, but the place of the history of the Greeks, the focus of their essence, and that there is a direct link between πόλις and ἀλήθεια (this Greek word is usually translated into Russian as “truth”) Thus, in order to capture polycentricity, one needs to search for the foci and distribution areas of the essence of the numerous peoples of our planet. Here we can once again mention strategic cultures and their cores.
Translated from Russian by Jafe Arnold.
Multipolarity is the best future for Europe
Iranian view on Multipolarity in the New World
South America In The Emerging Multipolar World Order
Prisoners of Friedman and Brzezinski: Neoliberal America vs. Multipolarity
18:44 Publié dans Définitions, Philosophie, Théorie politique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : leonid savin, polycentricité, multipolarité, géopolitique, philosophie, philosophie politique, théorie politique, sciences politiques, politologie, définition | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
par Juan Asensio
Ex: http://www.juanasensio.com
09:56 Publié dans Livre, Livre, Philosophie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : philosophie, philosophie politique, bernard charbonneau, livre, juan asensio | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
Ex: https://latribunadelpaisvasco.com
Suele repetirse de manera obstinada que "España no es un país filosófico". Yo mismo me he sorprendido soltando tal lugar común en las aulas. Ciertamente, la filosofía moderna, la que se cultiva desde el siglo XVII, es una filosofía que viene envuelta en banderas e idiomas nacionales. La propia concepción de la Modernidad incluye la existencia de "naciones". No tiene mucho sentido hablar de un pensador escolástico medieval en términos nacionales. El gran Santo Tomás era "italiano" en un sentido muy atenuado del término. En el siglo XIII, se era más católico que "italiano" en cuestión filosófica y teológica. En cambio, otro escolástico, muy nuestro, como lo fue el Padre Suárez (1548-1617), ya era, además de católico (vale decir, "universal"), español en el sentido más moderno del término. La filosofía moderna se desprenderá paulatinamente del latín –lengua universalista- e irá conformándose como una filosofía no escolástica, hecha bajo banderas nacionales, precisamente por medio del empleo de las grandes lenguas nacionales: el empirismo de los británicos (Locke, Berkeley, Hume), el racionalismo de los franceses (Descartes, Malebranche) o el idealismo de los alemanes (Leibniz, Kant, etc.).
El latín oficial de la Academia no desaparecerá hasta muy tarde, pero será simultaneado por las grandes lenguas vernáculas de Europa, lenguas cuya estructura y léxico darán forma específica al saber filosófico moderno de las distintas patrias, saber muy distinto ya del griego antiguo, pero siempre deudor de éste.
Y he aquí que por encima de la Filosofía española sigue actuando una suerte de "leyenda negra", que yo mismo me he creído en tiempos y que es preciso, cuando menos, matizar. Dicha leyenda dice, más o menos así: "España, pueblo de curas y soldados, es congénitamente incapaz para el pensamiento. En vez de Filosofía, floreció en ella la Teología, y de entre ésta, la más reaccionaria. Y el fanatismo de los frailes hispanos es hermano del de sus guerreros, que por no tomar la azada tomaban la espada, y regaban con sangre los campos que no sabían o no querían labrar". Sea caricatura extrema o no, esta es la idea que los propios profesores de filosofía modernos y de nuestra misma nacionalidad han ido introduciendo en las aulas, acomplejados ellos. De mis tiempos estudiantiles conocí, como tantos, esas labores de "agentes de importación" que muchos docentes de la filosofía han aprovechado. Igual que los bazares orientales nos introducen a precio de euro las más variadas baratijas fabricadas en ultramar, hundiendo nuestra propia industria, los filósofos "analíticos" nos importaban baratijas anglosajonas y wittgensteinianas. Desde Francia o desde la extinta URSS venían numerosas gangas marxistas. Desde el propio París, curia y sede de la gauche divine, venían las herejías neomarxistas y postmodernas, hermenéuticas o estructuralistas. Antes de todo eso, el propio Ortega, conocedor del alemán y de la filosofía centroeuropea, empezó su labor de agente de importación, impagable, con lo mejor de cuanto allí se hacía (idealismo, fenomenología, Spengler, vitalismo). No quiero decir que la labor de importador y traductor de filosofías extranjeras no sea necesaria, pero veo claro que lo que en tiempos de Ortega era una necesidad apremiante, a fines del siglo XX ya sólo era indicio de provincianismo y complejo hispánico de inferioridad.
Porque a fines del siglo XX España podía presumir de poseer su propia tradición filosófica. Y no lo queríamos ver. Desde sus aulas de Oviedo yo tuve el privilegio de aprender de don Gustavo Bueno que la lengua castellana era tan buena como la que más, buena para el cultivo de la filosofía. De mi maestro aprendí que había que rebajar ínfulas al predominio editorial y académico del inglés, del francés o del alemán.
España no tiene por qué resignarse a ser colonia de nadie, tampoco en Filosofía. Ahora bien, de una forma aún más explícita, otro antiguo profesor mío, cuya obra sigo atentamente, hablo de don Manuel Fernández Lorenzo, lleva ya unos años diciendo algo todavía más importante, algo que no quiere ser atendido en esta acomplejada "piel de toro". No sólo el país y la lengua común española tienen condiciones y posibilidades sobradas para hacer buena filosofía, como nos decía Bueno. Es que esa filosofía durante el siglo XX ya ha sido hecha, y ha sido hecha a la altura de las grandes filosofías sistemáticas nacionales de esta época. Fernández Lorenzo se remonta a Unamuno y su pensamiento vitalista, pero mucho más al raciovitalismo de Ortega y Gasset, como autores que inauguraron un nuevo estilo anti-escolástico (contrario al escolástico, estilo del que Jaime Balmes, en el s. XIX sería el último, pero ya muy "moderno" representante).
Tras la muerte de Ortega, la segunda mitad del siglo contó con buenas figuras académicas en el campo –menos original- de la traducción y adaptación de corrientes extranjeras. Pero la verdadera filosofía original y española de raíz, existió y brilló con luz propia. Son imponentes las obras de autores como Gustavo Bueno o Eugenio Trías. En el primer caso me consta, por la prensa y por testimonios personales, que hay mucho material inédito pero, con sólo la ingente cantidad de libros y textos publicados, ya se puede hablar de una monumental aportación a la filosofía sistemática. Su Teoría del cierre Categorial, su Ontología, su filosofía política y de la religión… darán materia de estudio y revisión para largas décadas. Frente al "ensayismo" de Unamuno y Ortega, en Bueno hallamos un portento de sistematismo filosófico si bien, como ocurre con las catedrales medievales, hay partes hipertróficas y otras de muy menguado desarrollo, a mi modesto parecer.
En el caso de Trías, y su "filosofía del límite" también contamos con una expresión del quehacer filosófico español de gran calidad, de enorme altura, aunque muy distinta de la obra buenista en formato, lenguaje y preocupaciones si la comparamos con la obra de Bueno. Triunfa el Arte y la Metáfora como recursos y temas en el pensador barcelonés, mientras que la Lógica y la Ciencia son ineludibles en el ovetense. Pero, como no hay espacio ni ocasión para analizar a estos dos gigantes, no quiero cerrar mi reflexión, sin conducir la mirada del lector hacia el tercer sistema filosófico que ahora, muy acallado por los medios, viene lanzando a la palestra hispana el profesor Fernández Lorenzo.
Uno de los nombres que él mismo ha dado a su criatura es éste: "Pensamiento Hábil". Partiendo de una interpretación heterodoxa del materialismo filosófico de Bueno, y corrigiendo el error de considerar que éste sistema filosófico gestado en Oviedo sea (y tenga que ser) un materialismo, don Manuel pone el énfasis de su sistema en la capacidad operatoria manual del sujeto. Retomando las tradiciones espiritualistas y vitalistas que hacen del "hábito" la base desde la cual erigir un sistema filosófico, pasando por la filosofía como saber estricto (Fichte, Husserl) y positivo (Comte, Schelling, Piaget), este profesor de la Universidad de Oviedo remueve los prejuicios metafísicos que todavía lastran el sistema de Bueno (escolásticos, wolffianos, marxistas) y anuncia un nuevo sistema –la Operatiología- sobre bases que parecen muy renovadoras.
Yo coincido con él en que España, pese a su tremenda decadencia moral y educativa, está viviendo una verdadera Edad de Oro filosófica. Este tipo de contradicciones ya las hemos vivido, y de resolverlas dependerá nuestra supervivencia como nación civilizada y civilizadora.
00:07 Publié dans Philosophie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : philosophie, espagne | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
par Juan Asensio
Ex: http://www.juanasensio.com
«En effet, même si elle n’est ni nécessité, ni caprice, l’histoire, pour le réactionnaire, n’est pourtant pas une dialectique de la volonté immanente, mais une aventure temporelle entre l’homme et ce qui le transcende. Ses œuvres sont des vestiges, sur le sable labouré par la lutte, du corps de l’homme et du corps de l’ange. L’histoire selon le réactionnaire est un haillon, déchiré par la liberté de l’homme, et qui flotte au vent du destin.»
10:25 Publié dans Judaica, Livre, Livre, Philosophie, Révolution conservatrice, Théorie politique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : théologie, théologie politique, philosophie, philosophie politique, révoltuion conservatrice, judaica, judaïsme, jacob taubes, carl schmitt, théorie politique, eschatologie politique, politologie, sciences politiques, allemagne | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
par Nicolas Bonnal
Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org
Fatigué des nouvelles du jour, je me remets à glaner dans tout Montaigne. Sur nos guerres protestantes, américaines, notre choc des civilisations, j’y trouve ceci :
«… je trouve mauvais ce que je vois en usage aujourd’hui, c’est-à-dire de chercher à affermir et imposer notre religion par la prospérité de nos entreprises.
Notre foi a suffisamment d’autres fondements pour qu’il ne soit pas nécessaire de fonder son autorité sur les événements. Car il y a danger quand le peuple, habitué à ces arguments plausibles et bien de son goût, voit sa foi ébranlée par des événements qui lui sont contraires et défavorables. Ainsi en est-il des guerres de religion dans lesquelles nous sommes plongés. »
Sur la société d’abondance et de consommation qui produit satiété et dépression, j’y trouve cela :
« Pensons-nous que les enfants de chœur prennent vraiment du plaisir à la musique ? La satiété la leur rend plutôt ennuyeuse. Les festins, les danses, les mascarades, les tournois réjouissent ceux qui ne les voient pas souvent, et qui désirent depuis longtemps les voir ; mais pour celui dont ils forment l’ordinaire, le goût en devient fade et même déplaisant : les femmes n’excitent plus celui qui en jouit autant qu’il veut… Celui qui n’a pas l’occasion d’avoir soif ne saurait avoir grand plaisir à boire. »
Montaigne ajoute, comme s’il pensait à nos comiques :
“Les farces des bateleurs nous amusent, mais pour eux, c’est une vraie corvée. »
La société d’abondance ? Il la définit ainsi Montaigne :
« Il n’est rien de si ennuyeux, d’aussi écœurant que l’abondance. Quel désir ne s’émousserait d’avoir trois cent femmes à sa disposition, comme le Grand Turc dans son sérail ?
Quel désir et quelle sorte de chasse pouvait bien avoir celui de ses ancêtres qui n’y allait jamais qu’avec au moins sept mille fauconniers ? »
Sur l’espionnage par l’Etat profond, Montaigne nous rappelle tout simplement que les Grands sont plus espionnés que les petits, mais qu’ils y ont pris goût (pensez à son pessimiste ami La Boétie):
« Tout le monde redoute d’être contrôlé et épié ; les grands le sont jusque dans leurs comportements et leurs pensées, le peuple estimant avoir le droit d’en juger et intérêt à le faire. »
Pensons au harcèlement de nos pauvres peoples. A son époque c’est pire :
« Et il ne m’est jamais venu à l’idée que cela puisse constituer un quelconque avantage, dans la vie d’un homme cultivé, que d’avoir une vingtaine d’observateurs quand il est sur sa chaise percée… »
Deux siècles avant Montesquieu, Montaigne dénonce les caprices de la mode :
« La façon dont nos lois tentent de régler les folles et vaines dépenses de table et de vêtements semble avoir un effet contraire à son objet. Le vrai moyen, ce serait de susciter chez les hommes le mépris de l’or et de la soie, considérés comme des choses vaines et inutiles. Au lieu de cela, nous en augmentons la considération et la valeur qu’on leur attache, ce qui est bien une façon stupide de procéder si l’on veut en dégoûter les gens. »
La mode va vite comme la télé (cf. Virgile-Ovide) :
« Il est étonnant de voir comment la coutume, dans ces choses de peu d’importance, impose si facilement et si vite son autorité. À peine avions-nous porté du drap pendant un an à la cour, pour le deuil du roi Henri II, que déjà dans l’opinion de tous, la soie était devenue si vulgaire, que si l’on en voyait quelqu’un vêtu, on le prenait aussitôt pour un bourgeois. »
La Fontaine dira que le courtisan est un ressort. Montaigne :
« Le reste de la France prend pour règle celle de la cour.
Que les rois renoncent à cette vilaine pièce de vêtement qui montre si ostensiblement nos membres intimes, à ce balourd grossissement des pourpoints qui nous fait si différents de ce que nous sommes et si incommode pour s’armer, à ces longues tresses efféminées de cheveux… »
Montaigne vit au présent perpétuel, les ridicules qu’ils dénoncent sont donc ceux de la cité grecque d’Alan Bloom et Platon :
« Dans ses Lois, Platon estime que rien n’est plus dommageable à sa cité que de permettre à la jeunesse de changer ses accoutrements, ses gestes, ses danses, ses exercices et ses chansons, en passant d’une mode à l’autre, adoptant tantôt tel jugement, tantôt tel autre, et de courir après les nouveautés, adulant leurs inventeurs. C’est ainsi en effet que les mœurs se corrompent, et que les anciennes institutions se voient dédaignées, voire méprisées. »
Oui, il n’est pas trop réformateur, Montaigne.
Parfois il divague gentiment et il nous fait rêver avec ce qu’il a lu dans sa bibliothèque digne de Borges (voyez Guénon, Règne de la Quantité, les limites de l’histoire et de la géographie) :
« On lit dans Hérodote qu’il y a des peuples chez qui les hommes dorment et veillent par demi années. Et ceux qui ont écrit la vie du sage Épiménide disent qu’il dormit cinquante-sept ans de suite. »
Bon catholique, homme raisonnable surtout, Montaigne tape sur la Réforme, rappelant que deux siècles avant la révolution on a voulu changer les noms :
« La postérité ne dira pas que notre Réforme d’aujourd’hui a été subtile et judicieuse ; car elle n’a pas seulement combattu les erreurs et les vices, et rempli le monde de dévotion, d’humilité, d’obéissance, de paix et de toutes les vertus. Elle est aussi allée jusqu’à combattre ces anciens noms de baptême tels que Charles, Louis, François, pour peupler le monde de Mathusalem, Ézéchiel, Malachie, supposés plus imprégnés par la foi ! »
Sur ce sujet lisez son disciple Rothbard et son texte sur l’idéal communisme-millénariste des protestants, en particulier des anabaptistes.
Lire Montaigne (il dénonce le rustre son temps et sa mode efféminées !), qui nourrit Pascal, Cervantès et Shakespeare, c’est retomber dans l’enfance de la sagesse de la grande civilisation européenne aujourd’hui engloutie. Une sagesse biblique un rien sceptique, héritée de Salomon, plus sympathique que celle du sinistre Francis Bacon, qui triompha avec son Atlantide scientiste et son collège d’experts en folles manipulations psychologiques, génétiques et même agronomiques (lisez-le pour ne pas rire). Montaigne a moins voulu nous prévenir contre la tradition que contre cette folle quantité de coutumes, de modes et de snobismes qui s’imposeraient dans notre monde moderne déraciné.
On le laisse nous remettre chrétiennement à notre place (apologie de Raymond Sebond) :
« Le moyen que j’utilise pour combattre cette frénésie, celui qui me semble le plus propre à cela, c’est de froisser et fouler aux pieds l’orgueil et la fierté humaine. Il faut faire sentir à ces gens-là l’inanité, la vanité, et le néant de l’homme, leur arracher des mains les faibles armes de la raison, leur faire courber la tête et mordre la poussière sous le poids de l’autorité et du respect de la majesté divine. Car c’est à elle, et à elle seule qu’appartiennent la connaissance et la sagesse… »
Voilà pour le paganisme aseptisé de nos couillons de nos manuels scolaires !
Ou bien (Essais, I, L) :
« Je ne pense pas qu’il y ait en nous autant de malheur que de frivolité, autant de méchanceté que de bêtise ; nous sommes moins remplis de mal que d’inanité, nous sommes moins malheureux que vils. »
A transmettre à Davos. Et comme on parlait du roi Salomon, on citera ses proverbes :
« La gloire de Dieu est de cacher une chose, et la gloire des rois est de sonder une chose. »
Enfin pour faire lire et relire Montaigne je prends plaisir à recommander l’édition-traduction de Guy de Pernon, que j’ai trouvée juteuse et agréable, presque autant que le légendaire texte original (ebooksgratuits.com).
11:06 Publié dans Littérature, Philosophie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : littérature, lettres, lettres françaises, littérature française, montaigne, 16ème siècle, histoire, philosophie | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
Review:
Matthew Crawford
The World Beyond Your Head
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016
Matthew Crawford is a new but powerful intellectual. His debut in the public sphere began in 2009 with his book Shop Class as Soulcraft, which was affectionately dubbed “Heidegger and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Slate [2], and positively reviewed by Francis Fukuyama [3]. Crawford’s second polemic, however, is more far-reaching, and stands to usurp his first work as a philosophical masterpiece.
The book seeks to resolve the crisis of attention in which we find ourselves. Modernity has gently but completely entrapped much of the world, not merely in advertisements and clickbait, but in automated distractions that have no care or interest in the cognitive cost that these stimuli impose on their audience. These claims on our attention make it difficult to develop a coherent thought, discern what is valuable, or build competence in a skill—all of which require periods of uninterrupted focus that our world doesn’t seem interested in allowing us. But perhaps worse than that, these distractions seem designed to create values—or even dependencies—in line with the interests of those crafting the distractions. Because the distribution of attention is a zero-sum equation, valuing what is procured for us by “choice architects” comes at the expense of other things we might otherwise value. Focusing on a social media or email notification on my phone, for instance, means that in that moment, I cannot focus on work that I get paid for, giving my daughter a bath, or paying attention to my wife. The constant stream of interruptions reduces our ability to marshal our attention effectively in the creation of an authentic self.
Crawford argues that the origins of the problem can be found in an Enlightenment idea of freedom most powerfully espoused by Immanuel Kant, which separates our will from the material world. The goal was to save human freedom from the mechanistic determinism of Thomas Hobbes by placing human autonomy on a plane of existence beyond the reach of the world. According to Kant, action must be inspired by the realm of the pure intellect, of a priori moral laws, if we are to be free agents, untarnished by mechanistic infringements upon our autonomy. This retains “free will,” and the dignity of humans as agents touched by the divine spark . . . or does it?
The book meanders through the relevant literature on perception and cognition, eventually concluding that our ability to see is inseparable from motion, and that thinking similarly contingent upon objects in our environment, including our bodies. In other words, the agency Kant was seeking to protect is not shielded by running away from the material world, but rather is expanded (to whatever degree it can be) by orienting ourselves in relationship to the world.
By way of explanation, Crawford introduces the reader to the concepts of ‘jigs’ and ‘nudges.’ Jigs are contraptions—usually ad hoc—that allow a carpenter to make cuts at exactly the same length without having to measure every individual piece. More broadly, they are ways that experts design their own environment to take some of the cognitive burden of their work, allowing them to focus on other things. The term “nudge” was coined by Cass Sunstein, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President Obama. Nudges are similar to jigs in principle, in that they accept the limitations of human attention and attempt to engineer behavior, usually by establishing default choices (in Cass Sunstein’s case, by changing the default employee 401k choice to “opt-in”). However, unlike the jig, which is organic creation and usually an indirect product of the environment itself, the nudge is the product of administrative fiat.
The efficacy of the jig and the nudge in the real-world show that this materially grounded conception of human will is not actually escaped by embracing Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. All that happens is that the reins of attention—our physical world—are presented for control to someone else.
The book takes a downright sinister turn in the exploration of the psychology of casinos. The phenomenon of the casino demonstrates the naivete—or insidiousness—of people who moralize about pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps in an environment purposely engineered to keep that from happening. The design philosophy behind casinos, and perhaps of much of social media, is essentially autistic. It affords the participant the gratification of pseudo-action, having ‘made something happen,’ and this provides a sense of comfort. But this pseudo-action happens within such a constrained system that increases in skill or experience are not relevant, and sometimes not possible. Individual growth does not result in any meaningful change in outcome. By contrast, one can be constrained by the nature of a motorcycle engine, and by accepting and learning these constraints, the individual gradually become more competent in fixing them. Being constrained by the rules of a slot-machine, however, gives the actor the feeling of power over their environment (I push a button, and the machines spins) without any possibility of meaningful improvement.
Such a design philosophy does not make people more free. By placing their “free will” beyond the reach of their material environment, we make room for all sorts of impositions on people’s ability to act in their own interests, and we may even make them vulnerable to exploitation. In the casino, this can include exploitation “to extinction.”
The book lays out a lethal criticism of the libertarian idea that “people should be allowed to make their own decisions” on this point. Our decisions are not free, and cannot be free, because absolute freedom of choice would render decision-making impossible. The defense of libertarian freedom requires us to join Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, and say of problem gamblers that “anyone who has that bent is going to lose their money anyways.”
Even a few weeks of familiarity with smart phones, video games, alcohol, sex, cigarettes, or porn is enough to know that all humans ‘have that bent’ in some capacity. The defense of libertarian freedom is, at best, a failure to understand the environmental effect of decision-making; at worst, something more nefarious.
The “freedom” that both those on the left and the right want to preserve is not a kind of “ability to do otherwise,” though people often attempt to describe it in this way. Rather, it is the kind of feeling of power that Nietzsche articulated, which Crawford captures in his description of a line-cook who feels “like a machine” when he is performing at his best.
What he seems to convey when he exults “I’m a machine,” ironically enough, is that he is caught up in a moment of savoring his own distinctly human excellence. One virtue of the extended-mind rubric is that it offers a theoretical frame for understanding a very basic, low-to-the-ground mode of human flourishing, in which we are wholly absorbed in activity that joins us to the world and to others. The cook finds pleasure in his ability to improvise; to meet the unpredictable demands of the situation, and to do so within the structure imposed by the kitchen.
This feeling of power is accomplished by tuning ourselves to our environment, and also by tuning our environment to ourselves, to create an ecology of attention that gives a feeling of coherence in our lives.
It may be less surprising to some than to others that a writer like Rebecca Newberger Goldstein [4] might take issue with Crawford’s diagnosis, particularly with his assessment of the Enlightenment. While Crawford’s argument is, as Goldstein rightfully points out, by no means a complete history of enlightenment thought, the incompleteness of his account of Spinoza and Hume is not particularly relevant to the argument. Crawford is not saying ‘the Enlightenment was bad,’ but rather ‘this particular conception of the self is wrong.’ By outward appearances, Goldstein’s fixation on the Enlightenment looks like a superficial excuse to disagree with Crawford’s account of coherent self-hood, agency, and a moral theory of attention, without actually addressing the argument itself.
In the end, Crawford’s theory of attention and the self presents a challenge to the neoliberal and libertarian conceptions of individual agency that have separated us from the legacy of those who did have our best interests at heart. It is an argument which—red herrings about the Enlightenment aside—does not appear to have a strong counterargument. If it is correct, then it poses the reader with the challenge of finding some way to ‘jig’ our collective environment in such a way that the possibility of forging a coherent self is possible. If we don’t, then we will be ‘nudged’ into accepting an autistic existence in a kind of Brave New Casino.
Given the rates of porn addiction [5] and suicide [6] that we have presently, such a future may not be very far off.
00:05 Publié dans Actualité, Livre, Livre, Philosophie, Sociologie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : matthew crawford, livre, sociologie, philosophie, travail | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
11:18 Publié dans Philosophie, Théorie politique | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : sid lukkassen, eric c. hendriks, marxisme culturel, leo strauss, philosophie, philosophie politique, politologie, sciences politiques, théorie politique | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook
19:30 Publié dans Hommages, Philosophie | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : costanzo preve, yves branca, philosophie, histoire de la philosophie | |
del.icio.us |
|
Digg |
Facebook