Download File
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Slaying the Leviathan: Catholicism and the Rebirth of European Conservatism, 1920-1950 James Chappel Submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2012 © 2012 James Chappel All rights reserved ABSTRACT Slaying the Leviathan: Catholicism and the Rebirth of European Conservatism, 1920-1950 James Chappel This dissertation argues that Catholic social scientists were the key theorists and designers of the post-1945 Western European order. Between 1920 and 1950, Catholics transformed from reactionary monarchists into Christian Democrats—a transition that has yet to be convincingly explained. The answer, I argue, should be sought at the level of social thought: following a number of anthropologists and political scientists, I suggest that modern governance is related far more closely to social theory, and social science, than it is to political theory, narrowly understood. Catholics lacked a genuine political theory, but they did not lack a sociology—and it is the latter that is required to govern a modern state. Following this insight, my research uncovered the forgotten universe of Catholic social science, showing how it was produced in the interwar years and put into practice after 1945. I trace three figures as exemplars of three different regional traditions: Jacques Maritain (France), Waldemar Gurian (Germany), and Eugen Kogon (Austria). Their stories of exile, incarceration, and furious intellectual production are paradigmatic of Europe’s tragic century. Each of them began on the authoritarian right wing, suffered at the hands of Nazism, and emerged after 1945 as leading lights of the Christian Democratic culture that remade Western Europe. The dissertation traces their stories in deep context as a way to reconstruct the social-scientific, transnational imagination of interwar Catholicism. This methodology allows us to see how European Catholics, faced with interwar crisis, developed theories of economic growth and political order that were just as sophisticated as anything on offer from socialists or liberals. In the end, it was more influential as well—the European welfare state, after all, was born under Catholic auspices. The fundamental insight of Catholic social thought was that the state must devolve its authority to a complex of subsidiary and super-national institutions: families, Churches, professions, and charity organizations were to be charged with social welfare, while international institutions guarded international peace from power-hungry nation-states. In the interwar period, marked by étatiste projects of social-economic modernization, Catholics were left in the cold. World War II, however, changed everything. It did not simply alter political borders: crucially, it affected the very norms of international political and economic governance. While the state retained a great deal of political and economic power, its monopoly on sovereignty was chastened by a constellation of new institutions: the Marshall Plan, the UN, NATO, and European federalism appeared above the state, while the states themselves abjured mass nationalizations and supported subsidiary institutions (churches, families, regions) as delivers of welfare. Taking advantage of this new configuration of power, Christian Democratic parties rose to power across the continent and ensured that European reconstruction rehabilitated the nuclear family, empowered international and subsidiary institutions, and avoided large-scale nationalization of industry. In other words, the geopolitical arrangement of the late 1940s allowed Catholics, in alliance with American political-economic might, to come to power and put their social-scientific principles into practice through the creation of new social market economies. European Catholics had spent the interwar years calling for a new Christendom, organized according to social Catholic principles. My dissertation suggests that, after 1945, they found one. The research contained in this dissertation draws on research from over a dozen archives and more than seventy periodicals and newspapers. This capacious source base allows for a reconstruction of the transnational network of Catholic knowledge production across, primarily, France, Germany, and Austria, but also into Switzerland, Italy, Iberia, and the Atlantic World more broadly. This is the broadest source base in any study of modern European Catholicism, and this dissertation provides the most comprehensive study to date of Catholic political culture in twentieth- century Europe. Table of Contents Introduction 1 Part I: The Rhenish Question: Sovereignty and European Catholicism, 1920-1925 Introduction 30 Chapter 1: France: Jacques Maritain and the Despotism of the Social 40 Chapter 2: Mitteleuropa: Eugen Kogon and the Democracy of Tomorrow 66 Chapter 3: Rhineland: Waldemar Gurian and the Democratic Centuries to 92 Come Part II: Catholicism between Civil Society and the Corporate State: The Twin Birth of Personalism and Anti-Totalitarianism, 1934-7 Introduction 126 Chapter 4: Politics in the Higher Sense: Waldemar Gurian, Jacques Maritain, 145 and Civil-Society Catholicism Chapter 5: Anti-Totalitarian Authoritarianism: Dietrich von Hildebrand, 200 François Perroux, and Catholic Corporatism Part III: The Church Triumphant, 1938-1950 Chapter 6: Catholicism, Neoliberalism, and the Prehistory of the Cold 248 War, 1938-44 Chapter 7: “God Exists, Therefore You May Not Be Communist”: The 292 Rise and Fall of Left-Catholicism, 1944-50 Chapter 8: “Occupying Religion”: The Restorative Epoch and the Rise of 335 Atlantic Catholicism, 1947-50 Bibliography 397 i Acknowledgments It is customary to begin the acknowledgments by pointing out that, despite the writer’s belief that the dissertation would be a long and lonely process, it was in fact a deeply communal experience. This is true, but only to a point: writing a dissertation, as anyone would attest outside the confines of the “acknowledgments” genre, is a solitary experience, characterized more by lonely nights tapping away than convivial bull sessions. I say this not in order to diminish the assistance of others, but to point out its true significance. The aid I’ve received has been like bright stars of compassion in the dark night of dissertating. For all of it I am truly grateful. I’ll begin with the teachers that led me to history and to my topic in the first place. First and foremost I must thank Linda Gerstein, my undergraduate mentor, who brilliantly showed me that history was the royal road to the life of the mind. It could be, that is, everything that I was casting about for as an undergraduate: insight into meaning, into social practice, into human relationships, into ideas. She showed me that the past is another world, and one that is not even past. I should thank my students at Shanghai High School, who suffered through my early attempts at history lecturing as I came to the conclusion that I had a genuine love for teaching history—it was this experience that led me to graduate school. At Columbia, I have had the privilege of working in an extraordinarily dynamic and exciting place to study European history. Volker Berghahn introduced me to European historiography; Mark Mazower taught me what it is to read like a historian. Carol Gluck nursed me through the emotional crisis that is perhaps the only mandatory feature of graduate education (surely one can get out of orals somehow?). Pierre Force introduced me to political economy, and, along with Fred Neuhouser, taught me to read as a philosopher; Harry Harootunian rekindled my waning faith that history can have a political conscience (or was that a political unconscious?). Paul Hanebrink was incredibly generous with his time and expertise—this would be a completely different work without his guidance. ii I have been blessed with two superb advisers: my debt to Samuel Moyn and Susan Pedersen is incalculable. Intellectually, they molded my occasionally unyielding clay into a shape resembling a genuine historian. Professor Moyn is the most perceptive reader, of my own work as well as that of others, that I have encountered, and he has shown me, through his pedagogy and his own scholarly example, how to bring intellectual history into dialogue with other forms of history and other disciplines. Professor Pedersen, through her own example and through her near-horror at my utter ignorance of so many topics, has lit a fire under me that, I hope, never goes out. Her indelible example has shown me the frisson, however unfashionable, of dense archival work and institutional awareness (how does the electoral system of the Third Republic work?). The intellectual side is only half of the adviser’s task, and Moyn and Pedersen shined at the administrative sides as well. This may sound minor, but any graduate student will attest that it is not. Despite the popular misconception, a dissertation is not primarily an intellectual project, but an institutional and financial one: a thick network of institutions and funders is necessary to keep the dissertator in the archive. Columbia University has been a constant supporter, of course, providing enough summer funding and teaching stipends to keep me float. The German Academic Exchange Service [DAAD] sent me to Dresden for some much-needed language training, while the American Theological Librarianship Society supported my early efforts to chart the landscape of religious publishing. The Council for European Studies,