Social Thought &Research r and Couze Venn, "Beyond Enlightenment? After the Subject of Foucault, Who Comes?," Theory, Culture &Society, Vol. 14, Nr. 3 (August 1997): 1-28. Helmut Schelsky's 3. Herbert Marcuse, "The Realm of Freedom and the Realm of Necessity: A "German' Hobbes Interpretation Reconsideration," Praxis 5, 1 (Zagreb: 1969): 24. 4. In CR&R 63ff., Marcuse connects his notion of the new sensibility with the analysis of the early Marx on the liberation of the senses; his conception is also CARL-GORAN HEIDEGREN influenced by Schiller's conception of aesthetic education. Lund University 5. For an argument parallel to mine developed through an engagement-with French feminism and poststructuralism, see Kelly Oliver, Subjectivity without Abstract Subjects (New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998). Oliver provides an ex­ tended argument that we can talk about subjectivity (and agency) without pre­ Helmut Schelsky (1912-19~4) is certainly one of the most supposing or needing.a subject, claiming that subjectivity does not necessarily importantandinfluential Germansociologists ofthepostwar­ imply a "subject" and that we are better off without such a concept. She devel­ period. He heldprofessorial chairs in sociology in the Federal ops notions of subjectivity as relational and intersubjective at its "center" and Republic for thirty tears (1948-1978): in Hamburg, Munster, contrasts varying discoursesand forms of masculine and feminine subjectivity. Bielefeld and, again, Munster. Owing to the lack of This project is parallel, I suggest, to Marcuse and the Frankfurt School, disclos­ translations Schelsky is, however, not verywellknown in the ing a surprising affinity between Critical Theory, French feminism, and English-speaking world. It's also difficult to point out one or poststructuralism. two principal writings from his hand; rather we have to do with a continuous stream ofpublications on a wide range of 6. Herbert Marcuse, "The Reification of the Proletariat," Canadian Journal of topics. 1 In this article, however, I'll focus on Schelsky's Philosophy and Social Theory, 3, 1 (Winter 1979): 21. See also Marcuse's reflec­ controversial postdoctoral thesis on Thomas Hobbes, whichhe tions on Bahro in "Protosocialism and Late Capitalism: Toward a Theoretical presented ontheeveoftheSecond WorldWar. Mydiscussion is Synthesis Based on Bahro's Analysis," in RudolfBahro: Critical Responses, ed. furthermore intended as a contribution to the much wider Ulf Wolter (Whit Plains, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 1980): 24-28. theme: German intellectuals and NationalSocialism. 7. This paperwas first presented in a panel at SPEP (Denver, 1998)in which my colleagues David Sherman and Pierre Lamarche presented the contributions of I. Adorno and Benjamin in rethinking subjectivity. See, in addition, Oliver's ac­ count of the contributions to refiguring subjectivity in poststructuralism and feminism, Ope cit.. In February 1939 Schelsky defended his postdoctoral thesis in philosophy and sociology on Hobbes at the University of 8. See,for example, R&R261f£,; "RevolutionarySubject and Self-Government,"; Konigsberg. It was planned and prepared to appear as a book in and" "Proto-Socialism," 32££. Yet there are also places in the later Marcuse where he speaks of radical or revolutionary subjectivity, the new sensibility, and new 1942, but due to war circumstances it never did. Not until a few modes of experience, and I am arguing here that while such notions of transfig­ years before his death did Schelsky decide to publish the ured subjectivity are still useful, the notion of a "revolutionary subject" should manuscript in an unchanged form. It appeared in 1981 under the be discarded. title Thomas Hobbes. Einepolitische Lebre? 9. See Georg Lukacs, History and Class Consciousness. Cambridge: MIT, 1971. In a new preface Schelsky quite openly states that at the time of writing and rewriting his thesis (1938-1940) he was in no wayan 24 ····,, ··· .,A . F··· •:m.~. Social Thought &Research .. 4! ; Helmut Scbelsky's "German" Hobbes Interpretation opponent of National Socialism. On the contrary his work on reduce scientific theories and doctrines to merely statements Hobbes was in his own view a way of summing up his about reality, but takes them to be essentially related to and experiences from the university seminars and political activity as rooted in human action. To show this relatedness and rootedness an engaged young Nazi student. At the same time he insists that is furthermore said to be "the task of philosophy in our time," serious independent scientific work in a liberal spirit was still with the reservation that " the methods of this thinking are possible. Hwe take Schelsky at his word, his thesis on Hobbes is manifold."6 Schelsky presents his intention to treat Hobbes as a and was intended as both a kind of Nazi philosophy and as a contemporary, to understand him "philosophically and scientific work in a liberal vein. politically...in the light of the forces of the present," rathe~ than treating him historically as a figure of the past. The actuality of Schelsky arrived at Leipzig as a young man in 1932 and Hobbes is seen in the fact that he was a pronounced opponent to immediately came under the spell of the "revolution from the the "System" that erected its dominion in Europe with the right" as advocated by his teachers Hans Freyer (1887-1969) and Glorious Revolution in 1688. A question of utmost importance Arnold Gehlen (1904-197(».3 Especially the latter became then becomes not what is wrong in Hobbes' doctrine, but "what Schelsky's much admired teacher and friend. Already during his is lacking there." But at the center of the presentation are, first year in Leipzig Schelsky joined the National Socialist according to Schelsky, the "truths" to be found in Hobbes Student Association and, for two years, the Storm troops (S.A.). doctrine, and the picture of a political theorist of "European He took part in the Reichsparteitagen in Niirnberg in 1933, 1934 significance." and 1935,and worked from 1933for the Amt Rosenberg. In 1934 he published asmall work on Sozialistische Lebenshaltung and one Paraphrasing Nietzsche it can be said: This isnot (only) a preface, year later defended his doctoral thesis on Theone der this is dynamite! It furthermore poses the question if Schelsky's Gemeinschaft nach Fichtes Naturrecbt von 1796. Another two work can be all the above-mentioned and still be an independent years later, in May 1937, he joined the National Socialist Party scientific work in a liberal spirit (asthe prefacefrom 1981states). and the following year the N ational Socialist Teachers Association. Schelsky worked as an assistant for Gehlen first in II. Leipzig (1934-38) and then in Konigsberg (1938-40) and for Freyer in Budapest (1940-41). From the Summer 1941 he took Well into the text Schelsky speaks of "two important keys" to the part as soldier and officer in the campaign on the Eastern front. understanding of Hobbes' political philosophy (cf. 279): on the The original preface to Thomas Hobbes. Eine politische Lehre is one handits "anthropological foundation," on the otherhandthe dated "In the field, 1941."4 fact that it addresses the "citizen" and intends to have a certain "effect" on him." I will proceed backwards and start with the The above-mentioned original preface is interesting for several latter key and from there move on to the first. reasons (cf. 13f.). It informs us that the work has its origin in a controversy between the author and Carl Schmitt over "the Hobbes' standpoint, as interpreted by Schelsky, can be German Hobbes interpretation in its opposition to the West­ summarized in the following way (cf. 321ff.): a doctrine that European interpretation."? What's specific about this "German" intends to have a formative influence on men has to orient itself Hobbes interpretation, the text also informs us, is that it doesn't by its recipients and the means to reach and act on them, must 26 27 fl' j ~..J,. Social Thought &Research Helmut Schelsley's "German"Hobbes Interpretation further take into consideration the situation at the time, and not is the opposite of a neutral retreat into an unpolitical inner space, least who the opponents are and how to counteract their it is rather the politicalization of man's whole existence. The goal influence. Hobbes' adressee is the citizen (not the ruler as is the of the state is to establish a concrete orderin the form of an "order case for Machiavelli), his intention is to develop a disposition of of values" (382)-today, Schelsky adds, we would rather talk loyalty to the state, i.e., to make the citizen freely accept the rule about a Weltanschauung-and a corresponding order of life. This he is subjected to. Hobbes' primary antagonist is the Pope as concrete order must be anchored among the citizens as habit, representing a competing claim to power, his primary means of conduct and disposition. In this wayan identity i~ established struggle are to establish a state consciousness founded not on between ruler and ruled, between state and nation. "The religion but on science. In this sense Hobbes' political democratic consent to dominion, that Hobbes' doctrine of the philosophy wants to be both a political doctrine and a political state contract presents, is at the same time a consent to the deed.8 For this reason Hobbes is furthermore said to be the domination or leading ofconsciousness [BewuBtseinsbeherrschung "precursor of a political science that only today is becoming bzw. -fiihrung]!" (427) Democracy for Hobbes means, in visible in outline" (44). Schelsky's interpretation, the recognition of state authority by the people, not the exerciseof it. In this way poweris transformed Carl Schmitt, in his book on Hobbes from 1938) diagnosed a into right, and it's no longer adequate to talk of.obedience pure "break" in Hobbes' doctrine.