The parallel upheavals in the domains of politics, economics and social life running from the last third of the eighteenth century well into the nineteenth left a number of unresolved quandaries in their wake. Having revealed the power of a human being in shaping his own affairs, the Revolutions - both the French and the Industrial - stopped short of elucidating the relationship between the collective and the individual in an unambiguous fashion. That question constitutes one of the central intellectual legacies of Modernity at its birth.
The new ideologies represented then tentative answers to the aforementioned dilemma. I offer you then to take a closer look at the three texts assigned for this week (de Maistre, Hobhouse and Marx) to show where each of the authors - ideologues - locates the crucible of social creativity. In other words, how does each of the authors understand "agency"? What is the mainspring of historical action? In your answer you might proceed by comparing/contrasting visions represented in your texts.
De Maistre postulated a bunch of propositions in which the involvement of religious ideas had become the touchstone of a good constitution. His reasoning easily leads us to realization that he substantially trivializes the role of an ordinary human in his faculty to create reasonable laws placing him at the disposal of the inscrutable divine agencies of which the existence one cannot ascertain. It is startling how impudently he obliges us to invoke the authority of the Creator in choosing the course of action,
ReplyDeletesweeping aside the whole multitude of mundane concerns affecting the society at the moment,
instead of having recourse to the prudent contemplation of what is transpiring straight away in the atmosphere of public opinion. His entire argument is gnawed to its very core by the priests' vicious intention to hold nations in a profound awe before the sublimity of the divine forces.
He alleged that constitutions must be unwritten but an unwritten law may be easily infringed upon in a fashion discordant with the fundamental principle of civil liberty which is considered to be the first liberty by Hobhouse's framework. If we were to assume for an instant de Maistre's propositions to hold true, then, indubitably, various politically engaged groups within the state would end up with different sorts of legislations due to the inevitable variance in their spiritual tendencies. If we forced such groups to adopt one specific kind of spirituality then it should be nothing but a transgression on their personal liberty. Thus what de Maistre suggests has vague grounds to provoke a least sentiment of approval in me.
It was liberalism along with its groundbreaking ideas that turned everything on its head in all the aspects of conservative ideology. English liberalism in one way or the other cast off the shackles imposed by the hierarchical social system and 'divinity' endowing people with a diversity of political freedoms which gave rise to the aggregation of personal capital. Unlike all other ideologies liberalism employed the inside-out approach: the wellspring of social creativity was enclosed within each person's individuality and determination to obtain enough wealth to be subsequently transformed into benefit for the whole society. And the state was engaged only in impartial provision of citizens with equal conditions to help them exercise their potentials fostering a fair competetion and blurring all the distinctions amongst classes, as opposed to Marxist Socialism which so vigorously seized upon the class struggle and fastidiously planned economy.
de Maistre thought that the crimes of the Reign of Terror were the logical consequence of Enlightenment. He had a point, that any attempt to justify government on rational grounds will only lead to violence and chaos. Also, he claimed a war as necessary factor to cure nation.
ReplyDeleteHobhouse claimed that human mind is one of the most crucial kernel of human growth. He was proving the moral advantage of individual, but was not satisfied with any group, which maintained group interests in prejudice of its members. Also, he was one of the most ardent opponents of marxism.
Marx said that the mainspring of human prosperity was material production. He claimed that material production was a necessary condition, which defined society and life order. He thought that essence and basis of the human being belonged to practical lifestyle and social production.
At this time I can say that the text of Marx liked me more than de Maistre and Hobhouse, although all texts like the propaganda (and I do not like propaganda). But I was able to understand the motives of every ideological theory.
ReplyDeleteMarx urged people to work, or in other words to the material production (Only hard work can make from Ape to Man). But it seems that it is the ideal society of the future in the form of a perfect machine, and only when all gears will work perfectly (forgetting about unique) then there will be peace and prosperity.
Hobhouse contrary makes us think about the human mind and understanding of social life as a unity, but really if don not have identity we will not have the freedom. Although there seems to me the government it leads to a deadlock.
If you say a person that “it was God's will”, this person stop thinking and begins to find justification for their actions in the name of god, which in my opinion did Maistre. But his motives are clear, He wanted thereby to show that revolutionary action (in France)were correct.
I can make the conclusion that they all share one thing “revolution”. Yes revolution, not quite the revolution that has been in France, but the revolution of consciousness. The revolution is to rethink all the truth and come to a new understanding, the revolution that makes people strive for the good of a common future. I think these three texts could harmoniously combined and can give the present society.
The mainspring of history, according to Marx, is class struggle, as we already discussed it several times.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Joseph de Maistre, I believe, the Divine powers are the mainspring of history. Facts that he claims that the only one a priori written constitution (an actually working constitution) is the legislation of Moses and that men act only in relation with God (people act according to their creator’s will – their actions are creative, otherwise – destructive).
Hobhouse’s text on liberalism may not give a clear answer to a posed question, but the way that the author writes about different liberties makes me think that if Hobhouse was asked “what is the driving force of history?”, he would say that Men’s understanding of such concept as liberty and freedom is what acts as said “agency”.