Update 2 :
Gene Callahan’s book on Oakeshott makes the following point about his relevance to American constitutionalism:
“Finally, as Callahan points out, since rationalism is a mistaken description of human knowledge and its relation to human activity, it is also an impossible way of acting, politically or in any other sphere. Human action, including political action, is inherently an engagement of practical reason working within a particular tradition or and attempting to follow through on some of the inchoate suggestions that the vagueness of the practice offers. The opposite of rationalism for Oakeshott is not irrationalism but authentic practical reasonableness. Thus, and contrary to many of his reading-impaired critics, his critique of rationalism is not a critique of reason but a defense of it against a false modern conception of it.”
Practical reason rather than theory? Well, that’s the thesis both of “Mobs, Messiahs and Markets” and of several pieces from a while back –
1) Minding the Crowd, LRC 2006)
2) Mr. Paul goes to Washington (LRC 2007)
The insightful English political philosopher Michael Oakeshott described the difference between the two approaches as the difference between the rules of a civil association (such as a nation) and that of an enterprise association (such as a business).
“The constitution is the governing law of the civil association called America.
On the other hand, the new laws this administration is replacing the Constitution with are different creatures. They are the regulations of the business called US Govt. Inc. US Govt. Inc. is not a nation at all, but a vast holding company with unlimited liability for its innumerable tiny shareholders and none at all for the handful of directors at the top. And with many of its most valuable assets hidden off-shore through international trade agreements.
The dangers of a change from association to enterprise are self-evident: If we already know before-hand where we want to get to, we may be tempted to hijack the laws — and logic itself — to that end.”
Leslie Marsh, who founded the Oakeshott Association in the UK, commented several times at this blog and promoted “Mobs” on his site. I read that Callahan is also a founding member.
3) “Fiat Laws, Fiat Currencies,” (DV 2007)
Update 1: Nov. 16
I see that Gene Callahan has written a piece about Oakeshott (Feb 5, 2012), published in Politics, Philosophy, Economics, Feb 2013
I recall blogging about Oakeshott as a better model for libertarians back in 2007 (see below).
ORIGINAL POST
Paul Gottfried reviews a philosopher whom I much admire, Michael Oakeshott (2013):
“Almost all these writings reveal Oakeshott’s characteristic device of combining labyrinthine phrases and multitudinous modifiers with forcefully made points that jump out from otherwise staid Victorian syntax. In reading Oakeshott one becomes aware that his style is essential to his argument. A lifelong opponent of all political enthusiasm, he writes in a way that obligates the reader to study his texts dispassionately. Indeed he has made it impossible to read his work without a certain deliberateness. Whereas he treats the state as a purely civic association without transcendent purpose, he locates the truly elevating side of human association in social and cultural arrangements. Oakeshott’s is a classical liberalism that owes little if anything to nineteenth-century economics. His own liberalism is in fact Hegelian as well as Hobbesian, though drawn not from the Hegel who spoke incautiously about political authority but from the one who described civil society as the necessary foundation of our humanity. It is surprising how much of Hegel’s discussion of consciousness and the mediatory role of civil society is woven into the frame of Oakeshott’s theoretical discussions.
It is also gratifying to see how early (in a speech to American conservatives in 1973) Oakeshott criticizes the appeals of anti-Communism and “American democracy” as the basis for a conservative movement. In fact Oakeshott despised movements of any kind, understood as an organized attempt to arouse political passions on the basis of an absolute enemy and of an at least implicit promise to reconstruct humanity.”
That was precisely my attraction to Oakeshott, whom I consider a conservative yet liberal thinker with an intriguing style. In contrast, I find the style of much Rothbardian libertarianism unattractive, even when I agree with most of its substance.
Here are some of my previous posts about Oakeshott:
1. Some grammar rules from Michael Oakeshott:
“Oakeshott differentiated between enterprise associations – which have a specific goal as their end, say, making’ x’ number of cars, and civil associations governed by procedural rules – among which, he placed the state. He would, I think, have been equally opposed to a theocracy and to a state which left no room for the religious – in any real sense.
“Oakeshott also saw the the necessity of a minimalist state for the existence of true diversity, not the diversity of enforced outcomes. In that sense, many of the problems we face now become moot once we return the state to its proper limits.”
[Lila: and that is why it doesn’t follow that the Christian acceptance of government as a necessary evil entails an embrace of the government as enforcer of a theocracy.
3 Mr. Paul goes to Washington (LRC, 2007):
QUOTE:
“The dangers of a change from association to enterprise are self-evident: If we already know before-hand where we want to get to, we may be tempted to hijack the laws — and logic itself — to that end.
But what could be wrong with that, some might ask? Aren’t freedom, democracy, and human rights “social goods” for which our laws should strive? And in countries beyond the reach of our laws, shouldn’t we impose them through our military?
But language, like logic, is slippery unless it is rooted in something deeper than either words or minds. As one commentator on Oakeshott writes:
“Words such as ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘rights’ have long histories and their meanings have shifted over time. Further, when unscrupulous operators use them to rally supporters in some great cause, such words become hazy promises of better things to come. The warm glow of anticipation may be as deceptive as the witches’ promises to Macbeth…”
Our words and our minds reach deep into our bodies in a way we don’t fully understand, except that they operate together. It is not just that the way we think affects the way we act, but the converse: The way we act affects the way we think.
If we violate our consciences, we will tend to alter our consciences after the fact. And then alter our language and our logic, as well.
To be truly rational, we need to go beyond disembodied words and logic to a reason that is rooted in our bodies, our intuitions, and our consciences — as they are inviolate in us, as individuals.”
END QUOTE
That line I wrote about “hijacking logic” is my biggest gripe with some of the more ideological writing at LRC. Too much “enthusiasm,” as my old teacher, Dr. Pocock, used to say.
Last point:
Since I’ve been so critical about Rothbardianism in this and other pieces, I should add that I do like many of the contributors to LRC.
However, since I started getting my odd feeling about Rothbard, last year sometime, I’m less interested in accepting everything said by LRC-ers uncritically….hence the barbs.