sign in sign up
<<
Home , Carl Schmitt, Michael Oakeshott

------In this paperI will examine theuse andmeaning theseof reasoning itself. Oakeshott says a good deal the about an tinomic character the of specific antinomieshe explores, andtheir conditions, though uses he differenta terminol does discuss he But not ogy. antinomies as a class, so or, speak,to example, for from the does say, outside. He not that freedom and equality are antinomic not in the sense the of antinomies does he explore, though this, and the an tinomies the of termfreedom, in the famous case Isaiah of vision of is different relativism from in simple any sense this of term. is specifically It distinct from, op and posedthe to, idea that there can bean ideological “solu the to tion” antinomies in question. Thisrelativism: not is relativisticis it not the about in question. de It nies that they can be correct doctrines. these For thinkers, ideological thinking is an error: a false escape from the ir antinomicreducibly character political of life and political thechoice. From view point of antinomists, of projects like “democratic ” presume, in contrast, that the relevant antinomies can be reconciled in theory: that the antinomies are, in the end, false ones. antinomies, and disentangle their use from misinterpre tations, as their well how as show recognition represents a critique and of alternative standard to modes political of In doing sophilosophy. I will familiar some cover ground. will aim,My however, be different:to explicate formof the ------On The The Torment of The 1 (2000). ([1975] 1991), employ an argumentative employ 1991), ([1975] Paradox , antinomies, meta-politics, democratic Hans Morgenthau, theory, ,

: Michael Oakeshott a device employed argument of and analysis thatappears in a number of thinkers, where (1956), and recently more in Chantal (1956), Mouffe’s

These thinkers exemplifyprojectof de-mythifica a core liberal counter ideological project to and ide to ology generally. A naïve reading these of thinkers treats them as relativists. this But is a misreading. The antinomic Democratic tion and de-ideologization which can be understood as a who explicitly who addresses antinomies in “The Antinomies and in 1997) Liberalism”of ([1978] Secrecy tics responsibility; of ’s claims the about ulti incompatibilitymate liberalism of and ; Hans J. and antinomy in power; love of Edward Shils,Morgenthau’s and policy, work in andlaw work theThese policy, same uses way. compare other some to antinomic cases: prominent Max Weber’s distinction between the politics conviction of and the poli politics skepticism, of individualist and collectivist think ing, rationalist and pragmatic politics, and, in the essay between pure neutralthe (1983), “TheRule of Law” ruleof mous of Oakeshott’smous of being the antinomy between the state understood asa civil association and asan enterpriseasso ciation. The antinomies between the politicsof faith and the device that is shared with several other twentieth century thinkers, which but has attention received its not much on own terms. The device involves antinomies—themost SeveralMichael of Oakeshott’s writings, including ConductHuman Keywords: featuresare rooted in the deep history institutions. of They philosophical.are contingent, not They neverthelesscon preclude ventional political to approaches theory. Weber’s distinctionWeber’s between the politics intention and of the such ambiguous politics concepts responsibility. of as Moreover, antinomic have “,” interpretations. In each these of cases, the full realizationideal one of led, in practice,consequenc to es associated with the other: in political practice, neither polar idealwas realizable without concessions the theseto But other. gether. Ingether. this discussion, the nature this of bindingis explored in detail, in large part in relation Oakeshott’s to own usages, such as his discussion the of faith relation of and skepticism, between collective goal-oriented associations and those based on contract, and between a legal regime based neutral on rules and oriented policy to one goals . Other examples might include Abstract isit given the name “antinomies.” These differ from binary oppositions contradictories or in thatthe twopoles boundare to STEPHEN TURNER Email: [email protected] http://philosophy.usf.edu/faculty/sturner/ Web: The Method of Antinomies: Oakeshott and Others Others and Oakeshott Antinomies: of Method The VOLUME 6 | ISSUE 1 + 2 2018 6 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 54 COSMOS + TAXIS

Berlin’s Two Concepts of Liberty (1958), formed a large part ensure and so that citizen responsibility of the intellectual landscape in which he wrote. Nor does he might be realized (Brettschneider 2015, np). distinguish the cases he focuses on from other binary op- positions—life and death, good and evil, eros and thanatos, This is a simple example of the procedure. It tries to iden- yin and yang, and so forth. In what follows I will attempt tify the underlying and grounding principle of democracy, to distinguish the genuine antinomies from the mere op- “the primary lens,” and derives a normative lesson from it, positions, and explain what makes these antinomies work, making this into a critical or standard-setting theory by and what is implied by their existence. In doing so I will which can be judged, and also reformed, in ac- draw from Oakeshott, especially from works such as The cordance with the principle. Politics of Faith and Scepticism (1996), where he is especial- In this case, and indeed in principlism generally, princi- ly open and plain-spoken about their sources and nature. ples are held to be in some sense both derived from “current Oakeshott was famously disinclined to talk about method. institutions” and superior to them. In this particular case, As says, “Oakeshott’s inclination was to and indeed for “democratic theory” generally, antipathy to reject methodological formulae and to rely upon a - actual democratic institutions is at the heart of the argu- sophical self-consciousness about the precise relevance of ment. Here the argument is that the ordinary machinery of the questions being asked and answered” (Minogue 1993, p. , and indeed elections themselves, fail to make viii). But he often did speak about the conditions for and the transparent the responsibilities each citizen bears, and need goals of understanding political ideas, if not in a way that to be given an institutional redesign in accordance with the readily answers the questions I have raised here, so there principle. It is only a slight irony that this kind of demo- are resources in addition to the analyses themselves with cratic theory is itself anti-democratic: the procedures and which to answer them. institutions which are being challenged by the theory were 55 themselves arrived at through democratic procedures, and PRINCIPLISM AND ITS METHOD may rightly represent enduring preferences of the people who are governed by them. Democratic decisions about We can begin by describing a methodological contrast, the nature of the democracy under which people live are which may itself have the character of an antinomy, be- not, however, sufficient for “democratic theory.” The theo- COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS tween antinomism understood as a method or meta-theo- ry tells us that the mode of democratic approval was itself ry of the political, and what we might call principlism. This not properly democratic, and therefore the actual untutored ugly term will be discarded, however, once the implications will of the people is to be ignored in favor of the design that of the “antinomist” alternative become clear. The contrast follows the principle, which in turn is derived not from the can be seen in a simple recent case, Eric Beerbohm’s In Our will of the people but from some other source. Name: The Ethics of Democracy (2012). The core of his ar- Interestingly, there is an antinomy produced by the unre- gument is that citizens are responsible for actions taken in alism of this principle. The creation and execution of policy their name. As the argument was recently summarized, requires leaders—decision-making is normally concentrat- Beerbohm ed. And it is difficult to see how a model with no leader- ship and no special concentration of responsibility in lead- takes on the important question of citizen responsi- ers would work, at least in many of the situations faced by bility for policy decisions, and demonstrates that it democracies. This points to a question and provides a sug- should be the primary lens through which we should gested answer. What, if anything, then, is the antinomy of view the problem of self-government. He convinc- “citizen responsibility”? Presumably it would be something ingly shows why many of our assumptions about rep- like leadership—or responsible leadership, the ideal pro- resentative government and institutional design are moted by Morgenthau and before him by Weber. The point mistaken. He argues that democracies should make of responsible leadership is that the leader takes responsi- transparent the responsibility that each citizen bears bility—for persuading the citizens, if necessary by decep- for policies as a result of participating in elections. tion, to support him or her in acting in the national inter- Current institutions often mask that responsibility est. And with this simple example one can begin to see what and require redesign. They should be constructed to the issue between the antinomist and the principlist is. In its pure form, “citizen responsibility” is not possible: deci-

The Method of Antinomies: Oakeshott and Others ------What are we dealing with in the case antinomies of are What is the antinomist’s falling Without motive? into ical: the antinomist assumes that the principles ideas or in question are, the on hand, one “ideal,” and the on other that they cannot both be realized fully without conflict with the other: cannot one in the actual political exam for world, maximizeple, freedom without producing as product a by inequality.some can Nor inequality, reduce one least at in the radical manner envisioned equality by understood as an ideal, without depriving their of some of people freedom. a single unifying principle rooted in a special philosophi cal method has livedonly The on. lesson learned from the Rawlsian project was that system building grounded in a single principle is a good thing. conflictsor incompatibilities in domain the principles.of resolve The temptationto the incompatibilityat level the principlesof is thus surprising. not the From view point of logic,of in any case, there is nothing inconsistent about choosing freedom equality, over the or reverse. So is why therean issue making about them in compatible the first a principlistplace? From might it view, point of be seen to be better a theory have to that can only not explain more than its rivalsalso but explain its rivals. So there are clear motives an for argument that eliminates many apparently conflicting claimsredefining by them and reducing to them fundamentala more principle. principlism,cannot she simply be provinganother prin the by ciple same means. can Nor the antinomist provide principled reasons the for claim that in a resolution prin betweenciple the antinomic sides is impossible. an But tinomic arguments nevertheless are the about relation between principles. The relation, is nothowever, philosoph it providesit the basis academic for writing which applies, re fines,generatesor alternativesto principles the proposed others.by this of Much reasoning depends definitions on and the of definitions, refinement redefinitionswhich are supposed, freedom as of replacement Pettit’s in the sense with non-interference does,of “non-domination” allow to conflictsto be eliminated.It was an ironic consequenceof neo- that aspired it identify to the transcen dental conditions knowledge, of its necessary and therefore unique presuppositions, produced, rather but than a unique list,a proliferation competing of and conflicting systems, all which of claimed identified have to “necessary” the con ditionsin question. Principlism in has the same effect: longafter period a in whichRawlsian prin ciples and philosophical methods and their application only become to passé, sway, held the same goal finding of ------

The procedure The reconcilingof conflicts by subsuming The principlist The deals withobjections obstacles, and espe themunder a principle is particularly fertile inrespect: one of proceduresof and and , boththerefore freely and democratically once. at allcontradictions disappear: in which kinda collectiveof mental fusion occurs in will which the people’s is simulta neously formed and expressed, without the impediments or at least at or possibly real, embodiment the of democratic idea in certain circumstances in which there is state, no and no machinery democracy, in of a revolutionary in event which ting them in different categories: freedom can be seen as a goodwhich must be distributed according the to principles another .of is way claim to Yet that there is a real, what the people say, but indirectly: but what the say, people talk are we longer no ing freedom about ineven the ordinarysense the of term. Another method is reconcile to justice and freedom put by of non-domination,of and then define to domination as that whichthe regard people as casesdomination. of This sal vages an democracy idea of making by freedom depend on gaged in coercion. So these facts raw need be to reconciled with the ideal rule of the by people. is way One redefine to freedom, example as for Phillip in terms Pettit does (1997), democratic theory has been focused the on troublesome freedom:idea of democracy is supposed all be of to the font good things, course of but is it also rule,a form of and en a ground and principle 1996; (Breiner Kalyvas 2008) alternatively or criticize to him having for the wrong the of theory effort Much recent of this of sort (Maley 2011). of legitimacyof and leadership and the antinomies produc it es, the standard “democratictheory” strategy is impute to a “democratic Weber to theory” which makes democratic cially with incompatible ideals, in various ways. In the liter which is alsoature concerned Weber, on with the problem even dictators need legitimacy, and are in this sense least at accountable, and their “responsible.” followers everything policies. about ideal The is an unrealizableideal- type. , in contrast, in which leaders take all the responsibility decisions, for an is not unrealizable type. But backthe to citizens in a transparent fashion, in but prac tice decision-making some will always be behalf made on citizens: of would beit impractical every for citizen knowto want minimize to these kinds decisions, of and maximize “citizen responsibility policy for decisions” such means by as feeding information the about consequences policies of sions need besions to behalf made on others, of who people by takeresponsibility these for decisions—this is the essence itself.government only of leadership,not of but mightOne VOLUME 6 | ISSUE 1 + 2 2018 6 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 56 COSMOS + TAXIS

These are banalities. Some of the ideals may be impossible which cannot be reduced to a framework based on either of to realize, but can be realized partially. But the antinomist the ideas. This is the core thought of the antinomists. But it makes a more interesting point: that the achievement of the depends on a number of other ways of thinking about these ideal requires, as a condition, in some sense, things associ- issues which have never been fully articulated, and which ated with its apparent contrary. This is not a philosophical may seem obvious, but which are perhaps worth making requirement, though in some cases it comes close to being explicit, if only to clarify how antinomism both differs from one, but a practical requirement, that holds in the particu- principlism, and what principlism looks like if we accept lar world governed by a large set of particular or local con- the existence of irreducible antinomies. tingencies, such as the world of modern European politics rather than in all possible worlds, as a genuine relation of WHAT ARE ANTINOMIES? entailment would. It involves factual conditions rather than logical ones. It is therefore a method, so to say, of political One point about such principles should be already appar- theory rooted in real political possibilities, rather than po- ent: for each principle there is not only an alternative, but litical philosophy rooted in ethical or other principles. But something more: a kind of counter-principle which trades the factual conditions in question become apparent and rel- on the absences, qualifications, or deficiencies of the prin- evant only through the lens of the conflict of ideals. ciple in question. Put a little differently, one situation of The obvious alternative conclusion—that there is a plural- argumentation involving “alternatives” would be this: we ity of irreducibly competing and conflicting principles each agree on certain premises, perhaps many, and disagree on of which has some attraction—cannot be addressed with a few—opening up the possibility that these disagreements, the methods of redefinition and assimilating to a founda- once isolated, may be open to being resolved. Antinomism tional principle. But there is a problem with this conclusion makes a different point: that there are attractions, indepen- 57 that the principlist will instantly recognize. Even acknowl- dent of one another, of each pole of the antinomy. They are edging the fact of irreducible conflict turns into a discussion in tension. The tension is a result not of some sort of con- of the grounding principle of this acknowledgement. The ceptual error, but of the real presence of attraction, either principlist will immediately assimiliate this acknowledge- the attraction of an ideal or the attraction of practical ne- ment to relativism, and conclude that relativism is self-re- cessities which cannot in the end be denied. Nevertheless, COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS futing and consequently this conclusion cannot be genuine- the two poles are bound to one another. ly rational. And one can see that the antinomist can easily This binding is difficult to explain, in part because, as we fall into this trap by providing non-relativist “grounds” for will see, it is not a binding at the level of principle, but of their position, for example as does, by in contingent fact. But there are also other relations, which effect proposing a new doctrine of agonistic liberalism, in are important for historical interpretation, and therefore which the recognition of irreconcilable conflicts is given an of understanding the principles and disentangling them implicit teleological justification, to stand alongside the te- from their counterfeits. One of these involves the ambigu- leological ends of principled, reductionist political philoso- ity of political terms and their malleability, which gives an phies. This creates its own antinomy—with the kind of pol- illusion of commonality and continuity as well as feeds the itics represented by Jürgen Habermas, in which there is a hope that a further principle can resolve the ambiguities. teleological pull toward the elimination of disagreement. Oakeshott makes the point that the term salus populi has But Mouffe falls into the temptation of justifying agnostic been appropriated for a vast range of political purposes and liberalism as “progressive”: Oakeshott famously denies that thus been given a variety of meanings. “Democracy” is not politics has a teleology, other than his comment on seeking merely ambiguous but deeply ambiguous—the home of its coherence, to which we will return. own antinomic interpretations. Similarly for “a right”: But what if principlism as a style of philosophizing is, as neo-Kantianism was, defective and inherently unable to The word “right” when preceded by the indefinite arti- achieve its goal of identifying the underlying true norma- cle enjoys a scale of meanings which ranges from one tive principles of politics? A plausible reason for thinking extreme to another, the extremes of meaning being, I this to be the case would be that there are antinomies— contend, the meanings respectively appropriate to our that there are conflicting and incompatible ideas which two styles of politics (Oakeshott 1996, p. 42). have some sort of attraction or intellectual compulsion, but

The Method of Antinomies: Oakeshott and Others ------is a slogan that 2 Fiat justitia et pereat mundus But thereBut is nothing antinomic this about choice:

Withinpolitics is it a contingent fact that the two eth The way The way the conflictsappear inpolitics, inthe activ can do no other” ([1919] 1946, p. 127) he is he pointing 127) 1946, the to p. canother” no do ([1919] limitsthe of politics responsibility,of itsnemesis, theneed conviction an of for element that from saves it the sense lessness the of politician. power And discusses when he the Christian in politics motivated and the the by love of law belief that only good of acts, good comes out is he pointing theto nemesis either of failure morally or compromising action, the moral compromise resulting from the fact that litical matters are itself, different.Politics however, is a this- worldly affair.There, the extremes ofthe ethics of intention are example barely intelligible. is the bomb-throw Weber’s inganarchist care or about, thehas who for, real hope no ization the of this-worldly political goal . of This person can only which be understood is to in other-worldly, say non-political, terms. Similarly the for extremes the of ethic consequences: of without intending realize to some idealgood, seeking but the career only the power, of power- politician “leads and is nowhere senseless.” ics conflict, and they conflict over specificonly instances politicalof decision: a politician be never faced may with this To be sure, conflict. is suchthere a thing as other-an worldly politics: this is the politics the of Grand Inquisitor, as described Carl by Schmitt, places who the salvation of his subjects’ souls any above earthly [1987] goal (Taubes 7). p. 2013, the Grand Inquisitor an is not impossible figure, limitedby a nemesis that arisesfrom hisown actions; neitheris the politician with this-worldly goals. is there Nor any de facto requirement that each partake in the character the of oth distinction, In theer. case isWeber’s it of different: when Luther quotes in hisWeber that comment “here I stand I politics—or as Oakeshott puts it,in the activity gover of nance—that the antinomies reveal themselves. differsity governance, of however, from general the case. sense,In one there is a categorical distinction between an ethic consequences of intentions. and of Intentions in one the Christian came from which vis were Weber onlyible God, to and sin was intending in contrary a way Histo will. makes sense in this tradition, because the “world” which is allowed perish to is inferior promised the to other-world God.by the But relation between this-worldly and other- worldly an is not antinomic is a choice— it merely choice: underlinesthe Weber quoting choice by Machiavelli the on Florentines their put who city their above soul in the war In the realm 126). 1946,p. the of po withthe ([1919] Pope ------

Understanding the contingent character the of an be may expected a monolithic have to politics (Oakeshott 95). 1996, p. Theseremarks raisenumber a of importantquestions. In a community whose members, engaged in ac few tivities and those the of simplest character, are not drawn in a variety directions, of the politics faith of will appropriateness. some Indeed, have a monolithic situation, was government where distracted not be tween two opposed directions activity of (Oakeshott 132). 1996, p. This was not an isolated comment. Oakeshott makes the ,was when he asked would what first he do replied: “the thing appointed one he governor, were necessary is the rectificationmeantHe of names.” that“things” could be never “straightened out” while remainedwords equivocal.observation The was,of course, immediately the to appropriate politics his of But OakeshottBut makes the further point that resolving These terms a have traceablegenealogy, which canre this Oakeshott, as the is for not case, is it and in Weber, for thingsfrom follow well-intended actions: would find we it difficult tounderstand them well-intended as ifthe intender harmsforesaw from them. there But are situations in which ics,” which courseics,” of are abstractions from commonplace ethical thinking conditioned Christianity, by that is not theyare always and everywherein conflict. general In good Oakeshott, dis be comparison may helped by Weber’s to tinction between the ethics conviction intention or of and the point these about ethics “eth responsibility. of Weber’s selves through revolutionary means. tinomies, in general and specifically those discussedby they escapable, deep? And or the contingent character of the conflicts raises question the of whether the politicalap them to proach should be alter to the contingencies them The The contingencyof these antinomic conflicts distinguish es them from disagreements, dichotomies, taxonomies, and alternatives. mere what are But the contingencies? Are more generalmore point that certain kinds of not may experience these antinomies. these conflicts and ambiguities not principleis in impos becausesible, the conflicts are contingent in the first place. veal thehow antinomic interpretations arise they and how change. VOLUME 6 | ISSUE 1 + 2 2018 6 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 58 COSMOS + TAXIS

politics is an activity in which the morally dangerous and rectly, one only needs to look around for a true exception” unpredictable means of violence is characteristic, because it (2005, p. 15). This part of the idea is simple: the nature of is characteristic of states. the general claim is revealed by the exception. A simple ex- So we have here a complex set of distinctions, including ample of this might be taken from ’s The Great both antinomies and non-antinomic classifications. This- Transformation ([1944] 2001). The general principle he in- worldly and other-worldly, theory and practice, political vokes is that capitalism dehumanized people by substitut- ideals and the governance—these are all categorical distinc- ing the cash nexus for genuine social relations, and that tions, rather than antinomies. Their use enables us to isolate only can restore them. The “exception” he ac- and identify genuine antinomies. But antinomies are not, so knowledges is this: some people will not accede to these to speak, in the Platonic eternal. They are contingent, and genuine relations voluntarily, and must be taken care of contingent in more than one way. One way is revealed by separately, as misfits. As Polanyi says, the “objector” should the phenomenon of nemesis, to which we will now turn. be offered a niche into which he can retire, the choice of a Another is the way pointed to by Oakeshott’s references to “second-best,” that leaves him a life to live. Thus will be se- Confucius and to primitive societies. Antinomies are antin- cured the right to non-conformity that is the hallmark of omies for us—people with a particular background and his- a free society. The general principle is revealed by this ex- which is present in the attractions we have for particu- ception to the principle of socialist ,3 which is be- lar ideals, which is itself a contingent fact. This contingency, lied by the existence of “objectors” (Polanyi [1944] 2001, p. which we may call a deep contingency, because it is not re- 255). Both the character of the antinomic principle and its solvable or alterable by short term or political means, needs antinomic pair are revealed by this strategy. The demand of some explanation, for understanding this kind of contin- conformism is concealed in the idea of solidarity; the need gency is central to understanding what binds the antinomic to punish or corral the non-conforming is revealed by the 59 pairs together. exigencies of the application of the idea. , commenting on Weber, dismissed his ex- BINDING AND NEMESIS amples with the comment that the political conflicts could easily be resolved by considerations of prudence and the As we have noted, Oakeshott makes an the observation that like. His thought was that issues of conflict in general could COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS many of the key terms of political discourse are ambigu- be resolved by a suitable Aristotelian hierarchy of ends in ous, and have developed conflicting meanings, or changed which these considerations could be balanced ([1953] 1965, meanings, over time. The fact that the terms are the same pp. 68-9). But Strauss’s appeal to prudential considerations binds these usages without our having to discover that they has the effect of conceding Oakeshott’s point: there are con- are bound. “Ambiguity,” however, while it is a useful term tingent situations in which an appeal to prudential consid- for understanding the history of a concept, is not precise erations is necessary to resolve a conflict between princi- enough. There is the ambiguity of the term bachelor, ap- ples. The question is whether these situations are central to plied to unmarried men and also to graduates. There is no actual political life, to the activity of governance, or are ex- antinomic conflict here—merely multiple meanings. In the ceptions which can be ignored in favor of an otherwise ap- case of “democracy,” however, the different meanings not plicable hierarchy of the good.4 only conflict, but stand in a relation to one another that is For Oakeshott, in practice conflicting ideals can be and not extricable by redefinition: the two meanings, are bound are reconciled, though not definitively: this indeed is the es- to one another in a distinctive non-accidental way. So what sence of politics. But how do these antinomies work? Why we need is an answer to the question “How are antinomic are they not just alternative value choices? This requires pairs bound to one another?” whether or not they are mul- some analysis. They are ideal-types, neither of which is ful- tiple meanings of the same term. ly realizable because it is dependent in some manner on its What makes them antinomic rather than merely typo- antinomic pair.5 The pairs are thus linked, but in conflict. logical? One answer is this: the practical exceptions one One can suppress one side of the pair, but not obliterate it. must make to the principle refer to the antinomic partner. Even the state oriented fully to substantive rather than pro- Schmitt turns this into a methodological principle: that, cedural justice, for example, cannot operate without pro- as he quotes Kierkegaard, “the exception explains the gen- cedures—Cadi justice requires the appointment of a Cadi, eral and itself. And if one wants to study the general cor- for example; the state which aspires to neutrality, similar-

The Method of Antinomies: Oakeshott and Others ------every occasion as and an in emergency, the name of theinterest” “public the or advantage” “public main tains its antinomian rule calling by the upon vast itsat command,power which (becauseis it always insufficient) isalways process in of being enlarged (Oakeshott 108). 1996, p. nemesis of The the politicsof perfectibility is that po skepticismBut has its own nemesis. is liableIt confuse to a genuine emergency with the counterfeit faith, emergencies of and discount to it. inBut doing so displaysit an insufficiency puts which the on it road the to other manner self-defeat of to which is it liable (Oakeshott 109). 1996, p. This failure and the inadequaciesreveals it is partof the the impose to engagement a single pattern activi of tya community upon is a self-defeating engagement (Oakeshott 99). 1996, p. The politicsof skepticism, its and antinomic pairof the The dispositionof scepticismto underestimate the oc casion is another facet this of defeat. Faith recognizes attend. can we But ask other about parts the of real as well: the nature deep and of contingency, the relation between ideals and the stuff whichfrom they are, as Oakeshottputs it, “extricated.” litical is always power insufficientit—precisely to achieve the confession that Polanyi makes, justifying the “neces sary” practices which was he well characteristic aware were Stalinism,of admits when he that solidarismwill be never complete. “real” which to Oakeshott and antinomists generally more a giventendency realize to an idea is limited or undone in distinctive ways; distinctive in that they arise from consid erations associated with its antinomic pair. In discussing the nemesis the of politics faith, of perfection, or lists he a number examples: of politics faith of perfectibility, or each their have own nem esis that points the to other in the pair: ------, uses the term “nem Politics of Faith

Bloodless abstraction,the grey theory, of is realma in Maxims the of sort Benjamin by quoted sound system has its roots in the extreme. as Just a mother is seen to begin liveto inthe fullnessonly whenpower her of thecircle children, her of inspired the by feeling of proximity,her closes so ideas do around to come her, life only when extremes are assembled around them 35). 2003, p. (Benjamin [1928] Sowhat istheir function inthe argument? As Walter general The is idea. the empirical,The on the oth er hand, can be all the profoundly understood more the clearly more is it seen as an extreme. The concept The “expressly The and exclusively”phrase signals the unreal in which the associates are expressly and exclusively related in terms the of recognition rules of conduct of certaina of kind, namely “.” And have what we is associateshere related expressly and exclusively in terms seeking of satisfy to p. substantive wants (1983, 124). Whatare we seeking is an alleged association mode of Strauss, however, hasStrauss, a point: the argument however, depends on esis,” whichesis,” is closer the to point: which is that in practice paradox, since the general has, definition, by no exceptions. understand works need it in see we to it these how To argu ments. Oakeshott, in tremes the of empirical that they become recognizable. atic, they but are not. This one is already in formof a the which antinomies can be reconciled. the of time, Much as noted, they can be reconciled in practice. is in It the ex Benjamin it: puts able. The alternative extreme is perhaps possible, though as willwe see, the possibility depends contingencies. on ity these of extreme cases. In practice, as Oakeshott himself says,the extreme case rulea of regime law of realiz is not repeatedly in Oakeshott’s own writings. ex a simple Take ample from Oakeshott: that bein apparent not may theordinary coursepolitics. of realistic” The not useof extreme but “conceivable examples bringto these out conflicts worthis examining.appearsIt ideals into practice, as Oakeshott himself says. the identificationof conflicts at of politicalthe level ideals ly, must belegitimate, ly, and seen be to effective in achieving substantivesome goods its participants. for These not are hard analytic truths,lessons but that result from putting VOLUME 6 | ISSUE 1 + 2 2018 6 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 60 COSMOS + TAXIS

DEEP CONTINGENCY, IDEAL-TYPES, AND THE the antinomic relations depend on contingencies, relates to DATA OF HISTORY the contingencies of the real world as well. This relationship is difficult to explain, for epistemic -rea Ideals need to be formulated for their antinomic character sons that will become obvious. The principlist regards such to be revealed. They are not necessarily apparent in the flux contingencies as mere conditions to be altered in pursuit of of ordinary political talk. The abstraction in question, be- the ideal and the elimination of the antinomy: as bumps in cause it is an imaginative enterprise, is not mechanical or the road, or eggs needing to be scrambled to make a revo- scientific. The material with which it works is our way of lutionary omelet. But the failure to realize the ideals points talking about political things, and the way that they were to the difficulty of knowing what the relevant contingen- talked of in the past. They cies are. The topic is a theme of Oakeshott in the On“ Being Conservative” (1962) where a contrast is identified between reveal themselves in our manner of speaking, and those who think that large scale change can be planned they are cogent formulations only in so far as they with predictable outcomes and those who believe the world make intelligible the current and historic distraction is complex in ways that belie our ability to predict the con- of our politics (Oakeshott 1996, p. 44). sequences of our actions, especially those involving large scale change. Our talk about politics is not merely a mass of unconnect- Some of the contingent facts that bear on antinomies, ed habits of speaking and acting, but a complex web under- and which form their conditions, are what we might call lain with purposes and with connected and conflicting pur- “shallow”: altering them is possible, and there are predict- poses. We can find different coherences or ideal-characters able risks, costs, and benefits from doing so. Deep contin- at the surface of this web. gencies, however, are those which we cannot readily alter, 61 As Oakeshott says, “The uninhibited character of each or predict the outcome of altering, and typically are unable of these two styles of politics has, then, to be extricated.” to conceptualize clearly in the first place. They exist in the Formulating them provides a kind of coherence to ordinary longue durée. It is this kind of contingency that Oakeshott talk, but “to elicit this is an imaginative rather than a logical has in mind when he says that exercise; not a purely logical exercise” (1996, p. 92). But the COSMOS + TAXIS + TAXIS COSMOS formulation is not merely a matter of providing a definition Political activity in the conditions of modern identifying a family of notions that correspond roughly to is movement within a certain field of historic possibil- what is in effect a kind of ideal-type, and indicating what ities. During this half-millennium these possibilities the pull or attraction of these ideals (or rather the under- have expanded in some directions and contracted in lying purposes and aspirations which they articulate) is. It others: what may be contemplated now is in some re- also requires revealing their character by identifying their spects a smaller and in others a larger range of activ- nemesis or the exceptions that appear as they are put into ity than it was five hundred years ago. But these con- practice. As Oakeshott explains, tractions and expansions are relatively insignificant. The range of internal movement is fundamentally un- Whenever the politics of modern Europe have moved changed (Oakeshott 1996, p. 117). decisively in the direction of either of these extremes, the shadow of the nemesis has appeared: our task is to This is not to say that rapid change is not possible: he also reconstruct from these shadowy intimations the hid- adds that “modern history may be said to have been inau- den character, or at least the hidden characteristics gurated by a peculiarly large and rapid expansion of politi- which they signify (ibid.). cal possibilities, and its course, from this point of view, has been the more and more thorough exploitation of a range of So finding the coherence of an ideal, or constructing it movement then opened up” (ibid.). This was not the aim of imaginatively out of the raw material of political speech, is the people who produced this change: their aims were not more than a matter of logic in a variety of ways. It relates to even political. Oakeshott locates a major component of the the pushback of the real world in the form of nemesis, ex- changes that allowed for the expansion of state power as the ception, and unintended consequences. But it also, because rise of which eventuates in the Reformation (Oakeshott 1993, p. 22).

The Method of Antinomies: Oakeshott and Others ------The The term“pairs” is important, shouldnot be but mis interpreted. Nothing excludes an antinomic trilemma, indeedor be any number antinomic of elements. To theantinomic, must be elements antinom however, each to ic the of other elements, that issay form to a pairwise antinomic relation with each the of other ele ments. were more lucid” ([1947]/1993, p. 97), reads like 97), p. a of lucid” more ([1947]/1993, were draftof Oakeshott’s whichprovidesclassic paper, ex actly text does mention this not Morgenthau’s lucidity. is the but most overtly his Weberian of Weber, writings was It based lectures on and Factor 1984). Turner (see theat School New which part were a special of émigré genre,in which Americanizing German scholars pre sented their views eliminating by German sources and substituting Anglo-American ones.This had a distort ing effect, but was also connections, the novel sourceof Lincolnof appropriation as example for Morgenthau’s the exemplary great leader. Let justice though be done the perish. world Oakeshott discusses this impulse enforced to conform ism length at under the heading solidarism of (1993, 89-99). pp. Strauss exempts the conflict between ethicsof inten tion and ethics consequences of from his reduction theto prudential, ground on but familiar Schmitt: for Strauss interprets the conflict itsin theological sense, as between one and this other-worldly be or worldly, tween the human and the divine, or and phi These losophy. are non-antinomic, categorical distinc tions. The The pairingWeber and Oakeshottof mightat first glance seem odd, there but is an important and some what startling textual basis this for connection. Oakeshott Scientific reviewed Man Morgenthau’s shortly writing before Politics (1946) versus Power review, The “ in Politics” ([1947-48]/1962). which comments that “This is a goodbook enoughto wish enough and better, wish to were profound it it 5. 2. 3. 4. did, might and be appropriate successful. principlism But cannotacknowledge that its own truths are contingent, or that its exceptions undermineits principles: they must be placed in a category truth below itself. NOTES 1. ------

.). Oakeshott.). himself ibid

An asymmetry between principlism and antinomism even at firsteven at sight it obviousis of that some thesegen eralizations the to refer government of and othersgovernment the to of conduct or office 14). p. (Oakeshott 1993, To abridge into conduct general principles is … a su To importantpremely political level of thinking. And This very is murky territory.The deepcontingencies that what has become the practice citizenship, of as Marshall there are situations in which principlism, in the the form of Confucian rectificationof names, which might be the same as the articulation citizenship a new concept of of match to tence of contingenttence antinomies of is that shows there are cir cumstances, contingencies, under which principles can not resolve antinomies. Antinomism acknowledges that beyond the contingencies that gives rise antinomies. to themprevents from being true antinomies. What the exis ardous is the attempt ground to these principles in some thing fundamental—to more make them than more ar ticulations our of practices, and into fundamental truths, ior theyior are or represent intended represent, to and rec to ognize the part that they play” ( acknowledges that this is a hazardous affair. hazmore But But theBut motives this might we for have kind reconstruc of tionwill vary. is One “to understandwhat forms behav of ence. Principle-seeking is, in any case, part the of political life the antinomist is concerned study. to esare in important some respectskindred. Both are ab stractions from political experience and ordinary political speech; both aim clarifying at giving or it greater it coher In passing, I earlier commented that the relation between principlism and antinomism might itself be an antinomy. There is somethingto be said for this: the approach two ANTINOMISM VS. PRINCIPLISM: PRINCIPLISM: ANTINOMISM VS. ANTINOMY? IS THIS A METHODOLOGICAL the possibility that they are indeed that deeply rooted. power waspower fundamental. because But the salience antino of mies comes and the goes, need temptation avoid we to to ascribethese antinomies human to nature, without denying be present inbe present the deep history a culture, of even more or deeply rooted. under Morgenthau, the influence late in life psychoanalysis, of argued that the and antinomy love of may becomemay salient in the future, as conditions previ for ously unrealized unconceived or antinomies, already may VOLUME 6 | ISSUE 1 + 2 2018 6 | ISSUE VOLUME

COSMOS + TAXIS 62 COSMOS + TAXIS

REFERENCES Strauss, L. [1953]1965. Natural Right and History. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Taubes, J. [1987] 2013. Carl Schmitt: Apocalyptic prophet of the Arendt, H. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of counterrevolution. In: To Carl Schmitt: Letters and Reflections. Chicago Press. Trans. Keith Tribe. New York: Columbia University Press, . 2005. The Promise of Politics, ed. Jerome Kohn. pp. 1-18. New York: Schocken Books. Turner, S. and Factor, R. 1984. Max Weber and the Dispute over Beerbohm, E. 2012. In Our Name: The Ethics of Democracy. Reason and Value. : Routledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Weber, M. [1919] 1946. Politics as a vocation. In: From Max Weber: Benjamin, W. [1928]/2003. The Origin of German Tragic Drama. Essays in Sociology. Trans. by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. Trans. John Osborne. London: Verso. New York: , pp. 77-128. , I. 1958. Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Breiner, P. 1996. Max Weber & Democratic Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Brettschneider, C. 2015. Eric Beerbohm In Our Name: The Ethics of Democracy http://dailynous.com/2015/02/10/philosophy-tag-14/ Kalyvas, A. 2008. Democracy and the Politics of the Extraordinary: Max Weber, Carl Schmitt, and . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maley, T. 2011. Democracy & the Political in Max Weber’s Thought. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Minogue, K. 1993. Introduction. In: Morality and Politics in Modern Europe: The Harvard Lectures. Ed. . New Haven & London: Yale University Press, pp. vii-xii. Morgenthau, H. 1946. Scientific Man versus Power Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 63 Mouffe, C. 2000.The Democratic Paradox. London & New York: Verso. Oakeshott, M. [1947]/1993. Scientific Politics. A Review of : Scientific Man versus Power Politics. In: Religion, Politics and the Moral Life. Ed. Timothy Fuller. New Have & London: Yale University Press, pp. 97-110.

. [1947/48]/1962. Rationalism in politics. In: Rationalism in + TAXIS COSMOS Politics and Other Essays. London: Methuen, pp. 1-36. . 1962. On being conservative. In: Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays. London: Methuen, pp. 168-196. . [1975]/1991. On Human Conduct. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . 1983. The . In: On History and Other Essays. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 119-164. . 1993. Morality and Politics in Modern Europe: The Harvard Lectures. Ed. Shirley Robin Letwin. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. . 1996. The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Scepticism. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Pettit, P. 1997. : A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Polanyi, K. [1944] 2001. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press. Schmitt, C. 2005. : Four Chapters on the Concept of . Trans. George Schwab. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shils, E. [1978]/1997. The antinomies of liberalism. In: S. Grosby (Ed.) The Virtues of Civility: Selected Essays on Liberalism, Tradition, and Society. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, pp. 123-187. . 1956. The Torment of Secrecy: The Background and Consequences of American Security Policies. Glencoe: The Free Press.

The Method of Antinomies: Oakeshott and Others