1. First off, I call your attention to Carl’s fine statement in the thread. It’s the outline of the big book of Carlism that would be the equivalent of the big book of Ralphism (Hancockism) that appeared not so long ago. Carl needs to turn that into a separate post.
2. Next, I want to thank Ken Masugi for his evangelical efforts in getting Straussians dogmatic and undogmatic to read this blog. The headline in featuring the post below on Facebook was something like “Tom West vs. Peter Lawler et al [Tom's dogmatic Straussians].” I like the postmodern irony, as well as the plausible implication that guys like me were seduced by Strauss into believing Locke is an atheistic individualist. It’s that Locke, I’ve said in the past, that Americans haven’t been able to keep in the Locke-box.
3. Is Dogmatic Straussian an oxymoron or redundant? Well, Straussians are all for philosophy, which puts truth over reigning convention or prejudice. But Straussians also tend to say that all real political communities are caves–or even caves beneath caves (how deep is that!?), and that means that all political communities are formed by dogmas that they mistake for truth.
4. So I also read in one of Ken’s Facebook posts that Harry Jaffa said the only way to fight a dogma is with a bigger dogma. That was in the context of suggesting that we conservatives or we Republicans are having our clocks cleaned these days by Obama’s progressive dogma because we don’t have an adequate counter-dogma. Now a better way of saying “dogma” might be “public philosophy,” a teaching that’s partly true but not as true as those who buy it think it is. It’s in this context that we have our wars over Founderism, Progressivism, and so forth.
5. I’m not, of course, denying the sensible idea that there’s a difference between public philosophy and philosophy simply. And it goes without saying that political battles over principle are typically based on sharp distinctions–on neon highlighting–that blur out some when you get perfectly empirical about things. Strauss’ neon highlighting of the distinction between esoteric and exoteric teachings–and the corresponding sharp distinction between philosophers and nonphilosophers–even falls into this category of public philosophy.
6. I think it really is true that Pat Deneen could be viewed as a perfectly dogmatic Straussian when it comes to Locke and modernity’s three waves. But that’s probably not fair at all. Here’s one reason: The view of Locke as atheistic individualist wasn’t discovered and/or invented by Strauss. You find it, for example, in the work of the neglected American Catholic thinkers John Courtney Murray and Orestes Brownson. The Canadian George Grant had that view of Locke (see his great essay on America and ROE v. WADE) largely because he had already bought the view (from Strauss, Heidegger, and Kojeve) that modernity=technology and America=modernity. That’s basically the view of Alasdair MacIntyre too (who owes little to nothing to Strauss, Heidegger, and Kojeve–but a lot to Nietzsche). Brownson and Murray differ from Deneen, MacIntyre, and Grant in not saying America=Locke=technology. So someone might even say that they might employ the dogmatic view of Locke in order to free America from the Locke=technology=manipulative atheism box. Deneen’s immediate source for the Founding=Locke=THE FEDERALIST=individualistic techno-nihilism is what Paul Seaton astutely called the anti-Founderism of his brilliant and wonderful teacher Carey McWilliams. By turning Carey’s interpretation into an “ism,” Paul suggests that his presentation of THE FEDERALIST is quite selective, which it is. That’s not to say that Carey doesn’t often succeed in highlighting stuff about THE FEDERALIST that its partisans would rather slight.
7. I don’t deny for a moment that Tom West’s view of Locke is based on what he believes Locke actually thinks after astute and meticulous study. But it really is true that Locke has to be saved from anti-nature or “technology” for the three waves theory to work even as dogma. The view that the Founders were too stupid to be “esoteric” Lockeans doesn’t work–it certainly wouldn’t work for the really deep Madison and Franklin. Zuckert’s Cartesian Locke, after all, seems too close to Hegel and even Heideggerian anti-biologism, which is to say it’s also a very astute and plausible Locke. I will even say, for now, I like Zuckert’s Locke better, insofar that it can be understood to be an heretical or nonrelational version of the Christian idea of the person. The older I get–and against the nerve of Strauss’s dogma–I think more and more of Locke as a mixture of good and evil implicit in the idea of Christian heretic.
January 27th, 2013 | 5:47 pm
I think the historical point should be made that many Thomists and Catholic thinkers were against Locke and his American students not because of his anthropology, but simply because his conclusions led in a pro-Democratic, anti-monarchial direction. They threw Locke in the “Modern” and destructive category for that reason well before Strauss did. Orestes Brownson, John Courtney Murray, and Jacques Maritain were really exceptional in that they gave Democracy a chance, although Murray and Brownson also recognized the setbacks to Lockeanism that you mention.
With regard to Deneen adopting a dogmatic Straussian view of Locke, there was an interesting letter to the editor published in the November issue of “First Things” which accused him of just that, and further accused Strauss of pushing Locke scholarship in the wrong direction. The writer was Paul Sigmund, an Aquinas (and Locke) scholar who isn’t really coming from a Straussian background (I think that makes his comments even more interesting):
“Deneen offers no hint of the Locke of God-given natural rights, limited government, and religious and political freedom—the Locke who profoundly influenced the Founding Fathers. The argument that Locke was a covert Hobbesian was first made in the early fifties by Leo Strauss in Natural Right and History. Unfortunately for Strauss, his book was soon followed by the publication of the English translation of Locke’s
Essays on the Law of Nature, which drew heavily from Cicero and the scholastic tradition. Strauss’ argument was further undermined when a critic noted that his proof-text quotation from Locke’s description of the state of nature as “a state of
perfect freedom to order their actions . . . as they think fit” had omitted his important qualification “within the bounds of the law of nature.”
I didn’t think Deneen’s reply really answered Sigmund’s points. Also, Fred Miller (another non-Straussian) accused Strauss of the same thing in his book “Nature, Justice, and Rights in Aristotle’s Politics.”
January 27th, 2013 | 5:53 pm
All good points. Sigmund goes too far in the other direction, but still…
January 27th, 2013 | 5:58 pm
I don’t believe I ever used “dogmatic” in my description of Straussians. Also, the context of what Jaffa about dogmas was that you couldn’t beat a dogma with a stigma, you needed a bigger dogma. This for now….
January 27th, 2013 | 6:16 pm
Should have said bigger dogma. Should have said that it was actually Tom who called Lawler et al. dogmatic Straussians–it was in the title of the post and not Ken’s own words. SO I have made corrections and am now issuing an apology.
January 27th, 2013 | 6:24 pm
Dr. Barry Cooper, a Voegelinian of the first order, has published excerpts from his most recent book here,
http://voegelinview.com/all-Current-Articles/the-methods-of-voegelin-strauss-and-arendt-pt-2.html
An interesting analysis of the methodologies of these scholars, an exchange of criticisms, in part of a “post constitutional” period in ancient history, and a defense of Strauss’s scholorship against ‘vulgarians.’
January 27th, 2013 | 6:36 pm
Nothing is needed more for the general scholarly public–as opposed to the refined and enlarged minds that read this blog–than a defense of Strauss’s scholarship against the vulgarians, which include many or most conservative scholars. (Actually lots of them ain’t vulgar, but they think that Strauss or Straussians somehow are.)
January 27th, 2013 | 7:01 pm
No apology necessary–maybe I should have used “dogmatic Straussian”! Or maybe this should have been “primitive,” “fundamentalist,” “paleo,” or “ur-” instead.
January 27th, 2013 | 7:13 pm
Paleo-Straussians vs. Neo-Straussians. This is cooler than going by regions of the country. Paleo- might refer to first generation, such as Walter Berns, more than me. I’m sure I deserve heretical Straussian or even recovering Straussian. Pangle-ites or, in Ralph’s nice phrase, “high Straussians” might distinguish between dogmatic Straussians and themselves. But for Tom, the high Straussians are dogmatic in their own way.
January 27th, 2013 | 8:32 pm
As fledgling student of political thought, there are certain categories that I am a bit uncertain of – so I am hoping for a bit of clarification: East Coast Straussians are those who more closely follow Strauss’s thinking (such as Bloom and Jaffa), while West allow for more departure?
I also ask because, having just read Bloom’s “Shakespeare’s Politics,” I am currently working through Bloom’s claim that a Straussian reading, as opposed to one of a New Critic (generally speaking), would be more accurate in discerning the plays’ meaning or pedagogical purpose – a bit jarring considering my background in literature is New Critic-influenced. So how far ought one pursue Strauss/Straussian readings of thinkers? Or would Strauss rather have one adopt a Socratic skepticism even towards his (Strauss’s) own judgments?
January 28th, 2013 | 8:00 am
Colin Brown, drop the categories and run for the exit!
On a related note, I think I can dream up an entire theory of “vulgar” centered around categories, complete with a trickle down theory of IP/trademark! “vulgar” in this sense is just “unsophisticated”, and potentially I think Locke even has something to say about it. But so does the 9th circuit, the D.C. circuit, judge easterbrook, the federal rules of evidence et al. There is an almost infinite history and tradition of vulgarity, and it is not like to be sated in a single sitting.
In any case I suppose you are less vulgar. Perhaps Ashland’s political science dep. had Straussians but we never actually read Strauss. I must confess that at Ashland I read a whole lot of Locke, more than the law should ever allow. But the worse part is that I supplemented my views with a rather antagonistic continental philosophy prof who taught aristotle, marx, Strauss+Kierkegard. I am so dumb I actually fell into consumer confusion concerning Strauss. The prof simply photocopied the Strauss and never emphasized the “David”.
With all the theological claims Lawler makes sometimes I think he has actually read David Strauss. In fact to say that this “The older I get–and against the nerve of Strauss’s dogma–I think more and more of Locke as a mixture of good and evil implicit in the idea of Christian heretic.”
Well without saying more that could be David Strauss(according to Marx). What will happen to you if I “invent” Davidian Strauss’s? It doesn’t help Lawler’s cause that he wrote Christian Dogma.
Also some additional historical complications: Riddle me this theoreticians. Assume for a second the Straussian confusion (a predicate of the Vulgarian espistemology).
Now lets take John Locke. As it turns out he can be Hegelianized or made the House or State philosopher not of Britain, but of the Earl of Shaftesbury. Hegel is the agent, Germany the principal= Locke is the agent, the Earl of Shaftsebury is the principal. Somewhat brittish, if you want you can call agent/principal master/slave dialectic. (It works for Vulgarians) Also I am not sure that the original intent of the the category “vulgarians” isn’t a class term rooted in Continental political philosophy. That is you might have high(master) straussianism/ vulgarian(slave) straussianism.
So after we Hegelianize Locke by bringing in the Earl of Shaftesbury, he becomes the state philosopher of this household and the Whig party. His views on education if actualized might have shaped the heirs of Shaftesbury.
Then we get back to a fight between the heirs of Shaftesbury and Strauss(david). As it turns out whatever aitheist uber-enlightment Locke was supposed to trickle down and structure the 7th earl of shafesbury wasn’t present and to the extent that David Strauss claimed the Life of Jesus was mere copyright, this provoked Shaftesbury to declare of Strauss: “the most pestilential book ever vomited out of the jaws of hell.”
Of course for the continuation of the Lockeian hypothesis, if we for example made the mistake of equating John Locke with a defense of Lochner, we might quickly discover that it was in fact Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury who essentially “invented” progressivism or at least decided to limit the alienation of labot in the Ten Hours Act of 1833!
Personally as a Vulgarian I like to cut off the chain of causation whenever possible, but I find that the more you let the chain run, the stronger the case for Vulgarianism becomes, that is at some point you are just talking Locke “brand/servicemark”. A large part of reconciling contradictions according to the Vulgarians(no one else will claim the term so I think I might have a monopoly) is simply to show consistency in the thinking of an author with himself, such that there is some Unitary Locke in the first place! But being kind to the non-vulgarians who seek after “legacy”(because they are so rich they have transcended simple material desires?)is there a Unitary House Locke that continued thru the Whig party and the Shaftesbury’s? So the 7th Earl and his potentially anti-Lochner progressivism…Locke or no Locke?
January 28th, 2013 | 9:15 am
Very nice to see this blog finally returning to its Poulosian origins with an upsurge of speciously highfalutin’ Straussian gobbledegook. Chunter on, boys.
January 28th, 2013 | 9:19 am
HT, Don’t worry. I plan to to talk about GIRLS and DOWNTON ABBEY before the day is over. I think “speciously highfalutin’” is a little redundant, though.
January 28th, 2013 | 9:57 am
Yeah, but you gotta love “Poulosian!”
January 28th, 2013 | 3:05 pm
Responding to Peter:
What I mean by the “dogmatic Straussian” view of Locke is the view that natural rights = “personal autonomy” (Peter’s expression), and that this equation is at the root of Locke’s thinking. For pedagogical purposes (if I am right), Strauss appears to embrace this view at the end of chap. 5 of Natural Right and History. If “personal autonomy” is the essence of Locke, then any limitations on personal autonomy is inconsistent with the basic Lockean principle. Such limitations would include government promotion of moderation, fortitude, justice, wisdom, duties to spouse, children, etc., and government limitations on the vices opposed to these virtues and duties.
This leads Peter, Carl, and Sara to view the founding as an amalgam of partially incompatible traditions (natural rights, Protestantism, common law, English constitution, etc.).
Responding to Carl and Sara on the founding:
Carl in particular speaks of the founding as animated not merely by natural rights or (as I would add) natural law, but rather by “family-values natural rights” or “prudential natural rights.” Carl speaks as if “natural rights” are in one box and “family values” and “prudence” in another. The founders, he implies, took “natural rights” out of box number 1 (Peter’s “Locke box”) and blended them with Christianity and other traditions from the other box(es).
Or, as Sara says, Lockean natural rights are “mixed with other considerations and ‘traditions’” in the founding.
Alan Gibson, whose book Carl mentioned in an earlier post, argues that this “amalgam” thesis is now the dominant paradigm among the best scholars of the founding.
I am saying that this “amalgam” approach is based on a misunderstanding of the founders’ understanding of the law of nature and natural rights. That misunderstanding often stems from a prior misunderstanding of Locke’s political theory. If I am right about Locke, there is not some sort of “family values natural rights” or “prudential natural rights” at work in Locke. Instead, Locke is arguing on the basis of the law of nature itself that human beings have both rights and duties. The duties of parents and children to each other belong to the law of nature. There is no “amalgam” or “mixing” at work if “family values” or “prudence” belong to the theory itself.
Even if I am wrong about Locke, the founders saw things similarly to the view I am attributing to Locke. Everyone in the founding era thought of the virtues endorsed in their official documents as necessary in a polity that is capable of securing the natural rights of its members. These virtues, as listed in the very first document approved by the 1774 Continental Congress (Suffolk Resolves), include “valor,” “fortitude,” “wisdom,” and “justice”–in sum, “that virtue which [will have] preserved them free and happy”–if they (the colonists) live up to their “sacred obligations.” In other words, these are the virtues indispensable to securing liberty, the purpose of the social compact. Several state constitutions make the connection between virtue and securing rights explicit, e.g., Virginia 1776: “no free government … can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue.” Locke anticipates the point when he says in Letter on Toleration that there are certain “good morals that are necessary to the preservation of civil society,” implying that it is a duty of government to promote them.
No amalgam, or mixing of natural rights with prudence or “family values,” is required. The logic of securing rights leads straight to the virtues necessary to preserve society.
This approach also leads to government support of Christianity, not because it is the true religion (although many founders thought it is), but because Christianity supports the virtues of a free people. (Northwest Ordinance, 1787: “religion … [is] necessary to good government.”) Again, there is no “amalgam” at work here because religion is of interest to government only insofar as it promotes the end of civil society, justice (=security of natural rights).
January 28th, 2013 | 3:15 pm
True, Carl, but it’s perilously close to ‘Pelosian’!
January 28th, 2013 | 6:54 pm
Tom, as you might expect, I’m feeling okay about standing with Peter, Sara, Alan Gibson, and to some extent M. Zuckert on the amalgam approach for the Founders.
I’m frankly not capable of talking Locke at the level of Peter, Sara, IK, and yourself.
But here’s the way to get past that debate: somebody, maybe it’s you, needs to become the synthesis of Locke/Aristotle (and maybe Christianity, too?) for our time.
Needs to say what Locke should have said more clearly. Especially, as it turns out, on the sexual and bio-tech issues. This new Lockean-Aristotelian political philosopher would of course also incorporate the best in contemporary anthropology–broadly considered–, in the manner of Chantal Delsol’s or Roger Masters’ work.
So long as it’s a coherent position that gives us what Locke meant to say or should have said more obviously, then we would, in a sense, know the actual blueprint guiding the intuitions of Peter’s “building better than they knew” Founders (so long as those intuitions were more natural than deriving from revealed Christian mystery). Your real Locke, and Peter’s qualified-by-the-Founders Locke could then be the same guy! Or gal.
And yet of course, how that philosopher would handle any esoteric v. exoteric meanings of their teaching would depend on whether he or she judges our political philosophic need as lining up with the truth.
Or does this “Lockerstotle” already exist?
January 28th, 2013 | 9:00 pm
Or perhaps more aptly “Frankenphilosopher”.
January 29th, 2013 | 9:08 am
It seems to me that most Straussians in very admirable and ingenious ways try to be Lockerstotle. Tom W. is the most ingenious–his view is that the real Locke IS Lockerstotle. We all know that he can’t be completely wrong, insofar as all great or even good thinkers are better or more sensibly fair-and-balanced than the ideology that flows from their “public philosophy.” The trouble I have with Lockerstotle, of course, is that it is based on the proposition that the two alternatives are ANCIENT and MODERN, while dismissing “the Christian” as a deeply independent and truthfully beneficial contribution to thought. At this point we can return to what even or especially Mr. Zuckert says about what Locke learned about who we are from the Bible.
January 29th, 2013 | 3:51 pm
I find the Lockerstotle is rather unlikely. I perfer Tom West’s earlier argument (what he was pushing when I went to UD at end of the 80s) that the Founders–or most of them–misunderstood Locke and did not see Locke to be as so alien to the view of classical right they understood from Aristotle, Cicero, et al.
Also this new Lockerstotle view leeds to the creation of a Hobbestotle (and you will here Tom West lately over the past five years–since I heard him in his 08 Claremount/APSA paper–be suggesting that Hobbes has been likewise been misunderstood).
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact