[lit-ideas] Re: Charles Taylor anyone?
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:35:50 -0700
Perhaps I am reading too much into Eric's review, but it seems that Hans
Morgenthau's description of the two schools of political theory is not
unrelated:
"The history of modern political thought is the story of a contest between
two schools that differ fundamentally in their conceptions of the nature of
man, society, and politics. One believes that a rational and moral
political order, derived from universally valid abstract principles, can be
achieved here and now. It assumes the essential goodness and infinite
malleability of human nature, and blames the failure of the social order to
measure up to the rational standards on lack of knowledge and understanding,
obsolescent social institutions, or the depravity of certain isolate
individuals or groups. It trusts in education, reform, and the sporadic use
of force to remedy these defects.
"The other school believes that the world, imperfect as it is from the
rational point of view, is the result of forces inherent in human nature.
To improve the world one must work with those forces, not against them.
This being inherently a world of opposing interests and of conflict among
them, moral principles can never be fully realized, but must at best be
approximated through the ever temporary balancing of interests and the ever
precarious settlement of conflicts. This school, then, sees in a system of
checks and balances a universal principle for all pluralist societies. It
appeals to historic precedent rather than to abstract principles, and aims
at the realization of the lesser evil rather than of the absolute good."
The above is from page 3 of Politics Among Nations, The Struggle for Power
and Peace, 6th edition, 1985
Morgenthau, I'm sure, would put both the exportation of Liberal Democracy
and the exportation of Militant Islam in Category Number One. If indeed the
Bush Administration intended to export Liberal Democracy and not just
Democracy, one can see why Fukuyama would want to distance himself from it.
In calling himself a Realistic Wilsonian Fukuyama is at least giving a nod
at Morgenthau. He is implying that his true theory of The End of History
isn't in category One but in category Two. It isn't a system that is going
to be promoted by education reform or the use of force. It is in human
nature, but not as Morgenthau believes as something that "can never be fully
realized, but must at best be approximated through the every temporary
balancing of interests." Instead Fukuyama as a Kojevean Hegelian believes
that from this human nature his end of history will develop inevitably.
Fukuyama wouldn't be guilty of linking his end of history to what Taylor
describes as a "religious or nationalistic ideology," but he seems to
believe that the Bush administration has done that, stealing his term
"Neocon" in the process.
In one sense the Bush administration has not done what Fukuyama fears. It
is settling for mere Democracy in Iraq. However, the Administration (and
not just the administration) is probably hoping that Iraq's democracy will
grow into a Liberal Democracy. And in that sense a set of principles is
being, if not promoted at least, held as a presumptive ideal, putting the
Iraqi Democracy tentatively into Morgenthau's Category One.
If the Bush administration did start out with a Neocon Liberal-Democratic
ideal as something to be exported, it would seem that its ambitions for
dealing with other Middle-Eastern nations have been curtailed and that it is
moving more toward Morgentahu's category two. How else describe its
normalizing of relations with Libya days after Ahmadinejad's letter? By
normalizing relations with a nation that in no way lives up to a Democratic
ideal, let a lone a Liberal-democratic ideal, the administration is
announcing that it is willing to be Realistic. If the U.S. is willing to be
Realistic and normalize relations with Libya after it abandoned its nuclear
program, surely it will be equally Realistic if Iran should do the same.
Lawrence
_____
From: Lawrence Helm [mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 4:49 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [lit-ideas] Re: Honor? Charles Taylor anyone?
Eric,
Good review - at least a very interesting one. We won't know how good it is
until we read the book; which I take your interest as a sign that you are
intending to do. You can get the book for quite a bit less at Half.com:
http://product.half.ebay.com/Sources-of-the-Self_W0QQprZ333565QQtgZinfo
($15.50 for one in "good" condition)
And Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674824261/qid=1147736408/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2
/103-0690183-3594264?s=books
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674824261/qid=1147736408/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_
2/103-0690183-3594264?s=books&v=glance&n=283155> &v=glance&n=283155
While the review contributed to my buying to book I have one small quibble
in keeping with the Lit-ideas quibble-tradition: In regard to the last
sentence in the first paragraph, I think it should go without saying that
anything "uniquely modem" would have to arise from a "modern self."
John,
I'm not surprised that Phil Enns read this book, but why are you interested
in it?
Lawrence
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Charles Taylor anyone?
