The Leviathan and the Contours of Conservative Imagination: The Role of Thomas Hobbes in the Works of Schmitt, Strauss and Oakeshott By R. Omur Birler, MA A thesis submitted to The Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy Department of Political Science Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario Canada © by R. Omur Birler, 2007 Library and Bibliotheque et 1*1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-36777-3 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-36777-3 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Nnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non­ sur support microforme, papier, electronique commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation. reproduced without the author's permission. In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne Privacy Act some supporting sur la protection de la vie privee, forms may have been removed quelques formulaires secondaires from this thesis. ont ete enleves de cette these. While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires in the document page count, aient inclus dans la pagination, their removal does not represent il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. any loss of content from the thesis. Canada ABSTRACT The purpose of this thesis is to explore the role of Thomas Hobbes in the literature of contemporary conservative thought, in particular, in the works of Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss and Michael Oakeshott. There are two broad arguments that shape the main concerns of the dissertation. First, conservatism can not be considered as a homogeneous intellectual movement which positions itself as the defender of Western civilization against an assault launched any number of modern thinkers: liberal, socialists, Marxists, positivists, and/or relativists. Rather, I argue that conservative thought, which illustrates great variety across time and across national borders, has a more complex relationship with those schools of thought that goes beyond mere rejection of them. At times conservatism is inspired, shaped or remained within the boundaries of the thinkers that it is critical of. Nonetheless, despite the remarkable heterogeneity of conservative thought, there is one distinctive principle of conservatism and this constitutes my second and main argument: This fundamental principle expresses a conviction of the radical intellectual imperfection of the human individual, as contrasted with the historically accumulated political wisdom of the community, as embodied in its customs and institutions. In analyzing this complex and heterogenous nature of conservative thought the works of Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, and Michael Oakeshott provide a rich field of study. Central to such an inquiry are two main arguments: First, the nature of human knowledge is the preoccupying question shaping the works of these three thinkers. Second, in providing an answer to this question, Schmitt, Strauss and Oakeshott-who indicate profound differences in the way they understand the political- share a common ii assumption that understands human nature as both morally and intellectually imperfect. Notwithstanding the intense discrepancies among their understanding of the modern world and its current problems, Schmitt, Strauss and Oakeshott are outstanding examples of reflection on these points. What brings these three thinkers together is a remarkable concern for the 'evil' in human nature, which was prominently manifested in the famous work of Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. In other words, it is a well-known myth, the myth of modern state that constitutes the common ground of Schmitt, Strauss, and Oakeshott and their criticisms of modern world. in ACKNOWLEGEMENTS I would like to thank all my committee members for their support and contribution to the present study. Without their guidance this thesis could have hardly been completed. I should also express my deepest gratitude to Professor Waller R. Newell and Professor Alan Hunt. This thesis has been written on the road. In different countries and in different cities many friends bigheartedly welcomed me and my books. I wish to thank to Pam and Vince, the members of Ottawa Unofficial Breakfast Reading Club, for their endless support and trust in this study. I own a special debt of gratitude to Biilent. Without him I could never complete this study away from Ottawa. In Toronto, I had a second home thanks to Banu. I am grateful to her for the spirit and motivation she gave me over the years of our long friendship. I am indebted to Giilbanu for providing me a personal inter- library loan service. Murat, who coincidently got involved in this process of dissertation writing, was the most pleasant surprise of this study. His common sense and invaluable advices have improved not only this thesis, but my life in Ankara as well. In Istanbul, Dogo was a great support. Things I have learnt from our long conversations had always a positive contribution to my work; even if they were distantly related to the subject of political philosophy. §afak was a great host and a study-mate. I cannot thank him enough for opening up his house and bearing with the most stressful times of my study. Although this thesis was written on the road, it was Cagla, and not the road per se, that made me realize that intellectual creation is itself a travel. The only considerable achievement of this research, therefore, is to learn that we choose paths and then we forego them. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER I: Carl Schmitt 11 Part I: Introduction 11 Part II: Political Theology 14 Part III: Legal Theory 36 Part IV: The Political 54 CHAPTER II: Schmitt's Leviathan 67 Part I: Introduction 67 Part II: Hobbes as a Political Ground 71 Part III: Hobbes as a Moral Ground 80 Part IV: Strauss's Critique of Schmitt 88 CHAPTER III: Leo Strauss 92 Parti: Introduction 92 Part II: Jewish Thought 95 Part III: Ancient Thought 118 Part IV: Modern Thought 140 CHAPTER IV: Strauss's Leviathan 154 Parti: Introduction 154 Part II: Hobbes as a Political Ground 158 Part II: Hobbes as a Moral Ground 166 Part IV: Oakeshott on Dr. Leo Strauss 170 CHAPTER V: Michael Oakeshott 174 V Part I: Introduction Part II: Experience 178 Part III: Rationalism and Tradition 188 Part IV: Civil Associations 211 CHAPTER VI: Oakeshott's Leviathan 225 Part I: Introduction 225 Part II: Hobbes as a Political Ground 230 Part III: Hobbes as a Moral Ground 236 CONCLUSION 244 BIBLIOGRAPHY 250 INTRODUCTION This dissertation is an analysis of one of the most challenging accounts of modernity, i.e., conservatism. There are two broad arguments that shape the main concerns of the dissertation. First, conservatism cannot be considered as a homogeneous intellectual movement which positions itself as the defender of Western civilization against an assault launched any number of modern thinkers: liberals, socialists, Marxists, positivists, relativists, or nihilists. Rather, I argue that conservative thought, which illustrates great variety across time and across national borders, has a more complex relationship that goes beyond mere rejection of those schools of thought. Secondly, despite the remarkable heterogeneity of conservative thought, I will argue that there is still one distinctive principle of conservatism: a conviction of the radical intellectual imperfection of the human individual, in contrast with the historically accumulated political wisdom of the community, embodied in its customs and institutions. Conservatism has always been a popular issue in academic circles. Many important studies have been published on the relationship between the contemporary development of conservative politics and its historical and theoretical roots. However, one prevalent characteristic of these studies has been to situate what they examine as the representative of conservatism in direct opposition to other schools of political thought, such as liberalism or Marxism. While such analyses bring valuable insights to the grounded contradictions between conservatism and different schools of thought, they may suffer from an over-concentration on oppositions, and thus may fail to provide any relational examination of conservatism within a wider matrix of the history of political thought. 1 Furthermore, it appears that the term conservatism has become a common label for a wide variety of political thinking ranging from fundamentalism to populism, from libertarianism to fascism, and to any political orthodoxy. This situation clearly makes any attempt to compose a commentary on conservatism very complicated and presents important problems to people who wish to engage seriously in a dialogue with conservatives. Therefore, it should be the primary task of any study on conservatism to acquire a clearer and more nuanced sense of what is distinctive about conservatism and how conservatives differ from each other with respect to their principal interests. Taking these two major concerns as the boundaries of my research, I intend to provide an account of conservative thought in the works of three figures, Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, and Michael Oakeshott.