On the theme of passion, Nicholas Gruen has a good post on his political position at Troppo - Nicholas is a conservative liberal social democrat! I think Nicholas has done a fine job of summarising key elements of the three now current mainstream political ideologies. I’d add that support for democracy is a faultline running across all three - there can be authoritarian conservatives, liberals and social democrats. Hayek, for example, is a liberal whose attachment to democracy is pretty rudimentary, as a reading of The Constitution of Liberty makes clear.
Liberalism and Social Democracy are heirs of the Enlightenment, and both juggle the complementary but competing emphases on liberty, equality and solidarity or intersubjectivity in different ways. The “big government” identification of much Social Democratic practice often leads to the eclipse of liberty - but it need not. Though my position would be different in a perfect world, in an imperfect one I’m happy to have an ideological starting point of Social Democracy with an emphasis on non-authoritarian and participatory policy and governmental practice.
The big question that has to be asked about centrism is - can one be passionate about it? This confronted the founders of the British Social Democratic Party such as Roy Jenkins. Jenkins argued that there was a centrist majority in the country, but his dream was shattered through the electoral system that tended to polarise voters between Labour and Tory (both arguably fairly extreme in the early 80s - prompting many to believe in a centrist revival). Similarly, the influence of grassroots supporters, shifts in regional support (particularly in the South) maldistribution and the narrow electorate in primaries, and other factors have radically narrowed the space for centrism in American politics - polarising the Republican and Democratic parties to a much greater degree than used to be the case.
Is it possible to get passionate about centrist politics?
But do you need to be passionate about your politics? Or is the use of politics as part of personal therapy so pervasive that assumptions of therapy (the need to feel strong, positive emotion) are spilling over into politics?
Persistence and perspective are I think more valuable attributes to bring to politics, and far more likely to be found in centrist parties.
I am with Andrew on that!
As for Hayek’s attachment to democracy, it helps to remember that democracy is just a word and it has been taken up as a kind catchall to cover every good thing that people want in a political system. However the Achilles heel of democracy is the vote-buying motive and the classical liberal Bill Huttwas onto this earlier than most.
Hutt (and classical liberalism) fell out of favour to such an extent that Hutt commented that his books had been forgetten in his own lifetime, a process that usually was delayed until after people died.
Hayek was not enthusiastic about the possible majoritarian excesses of democracy but in this he was no different from older liberals like Mill. His proposals don’t really fall far from the liberal consensus or at least the liberal consensus of the past e.g. the need for a House of Lords to scutinise legislation. I think it’s misleading to call this ‘authoritarian’ - democracy is just a *process* and the process can lead to authoritarian *outcomes*. Hayek’s proposals were an attempt to foreclose that possibility. I think you’re coming possibly from an unsustainable position - ‘participatory’ politics possibly can lead to more authoritarian outcomes than anything Hayek proposed e.g. the use of referenda to bring back illiberal laws.
I agree with Andrew re passion. Ultimately I regard liberalism as a negative ideology and so much the better for it - liberalism is about taking the passion out of the public sphere so that it doesn’t erupt into pre-leviathan warfare by another name. This includes delegitimising the State as a prize that interest groups aim to capture. To liberals, politics is essentially an unproductive blight on civilisation and a necessary evil - the less of it the better.
Part of this process involves narrowing the scope of what people can expect to achieve from governments. As part of this process I am more pragmatic than zealots like Rafe who want to do away with substantial parts of the welfare state. I think the welfare state is here to stay and its functions can be ‘mechanised’ so that the scope for rent-seeking and vote-buying is minimised. Part of this process involves properly specifying and ‘constitutionalising’ the social insurance aspects of the welfare state e.g. in the form of a guaranteed minimum income in return for which greater flexibility is allowed in product and labour markets so that the full scope of the competitive process can be unleashed with minimum human misery.
Mark,
I am passionate about the propositions/principles put down. I’m not passionate about brands.
As a former member of the SDP in the UK, yes, it was possible to be passionate about a centrist stance when the gulf between right and left was so wide. It was a long time ago, the gulf does not seem so wide these days, either there or here.
When I’m in a bad mood I think passion is just what the media are drawn to to save them having to actually understand and communicate substance (hence their liking for the “vaudeville” of Question Time), and it is what people use to cover up for their lack of understanding or coherence in their position.
When I’m in less of a bad mood I think passion of some form or another is essential to have much chance of connecting with people about something. People get passionate about issues which is understandable and desirable (within reason), but I get apprehensive when people get passionate about their ideology.
Andrew, why not passion about an ideology? Surely an ideology is more than a dogmatic position but can rather be a set of principles involving not only a vision of a future society but also a set of criteria for judging policy?
I think that ideological passion can all too often segue into a blinkered zealotry at the extremities - Robespierre, Trotsky, Goebbels, Bronwyn Bishop….perhaps we have an instinctual wariness of unbridled political passion?
And to make matters worse, “passion” itself is something of an over-used and hence debased currency these days. “Joe is passionate about modern waste management practice” read a blurb in my local authority newsletter, about some council employee junketing in exotic, foreign waste management climes.
Every beauty contestant is “passionate” about something or other. It’s kind of become shorthand for “I’m really quite a serious, thinking kind of person with deep commitment to an understanding of an issue or issues - and stuff.” It’s a sad reflection on the age that people feel obliged to constantly make the deeply unconvincing point.
I think you have to distinguish between ideal and ideology. I’d be happy to have a drink with someone who is passionate about equal rights for women or the emancipation of the working class. I”d be wary of someone who said they were a passionate feminist or a passionate Communist. I’d be even more way of someone who said there wasn’t any difference (between ideal and ideology, I mean).
Well Rob, an ideal value can rise to a point where it is integrated within a coherent enough famework to be called an ideology, in case you were wondering.
And I don’t see what the problem is with getting passionate about an ideology, and I particularly don’t see the problem late on famous nights of solidarity, recalling great and glorious class victories and defeats, and yes, that’ll be another beer please, another matter about which I can become passionate. Nothing like a little passion around the place, although I agree with Geoff … the word should be banned from managerialists, and perhaps all television.
Unfortunately, cs, I can only respond adequately if M. Bahnisch agrees to a momentary regression to the great po/mo Troppo culture wars d’antan.
How about a distinction between passion and fanaticism?
It is ok to be passionate about anything, that is a personal manner to work out with out immediate associates.
Fanaticism is something else, it is probably the root of most evil and it can cause the road to hell to be paved with the very best of intentions.
An antidote to fanaticism could be compared with the impact of antibiotics in controlling infections diseases.
Quite good rafe. Passion is what happens to someone, and should be filed under the general heading of ‘being alive’. Passion drives learning and creativity. Fanaticism is perhaps passion taken to the point of disorder.
Ends and means are caught up here also. I am passionate about the lousy lot many people in our society get. But That passion could nevertheless coexist within a conservative, a liberal or a social democratic ideology. I don’t think John Howard cares too much about aborigines. I expect Noel Pearson thinks the same. But Pearson has at the same time argued that John Howard might be the best chance the aborigines have.
Also Mark,
I think of conservatism as a child of the enlightenment also - being born shortly after the French Revolution.
Indeed, in its more sophisticated forms one could argue that it offers itself as the one ‘post-enligtenment’ ideology of the trio - i.e. something that accepts much of the enlightenment, but injects what it considers has been forgotten in all the excitement.
Happy to be passionate about ideas, also about ideals. But if you get passionate about an ideology you are already a fanatic, or going down that path. Dangerous, and absolutely to be avoided.
So passionate liberals and social democrats or passionate conservatives are all fanatics? If anything, it’s a continuum - that’s what Rafe’s comment implies.
Nicholas, maybe, but conservatism in its classic form was an ideology developed to oppose the results of the Enlightenment - as embodied in the French revolution. Burkean conservatism, perhaps. Certainly not the continental variety which was always very statist and authoritarian and arguable developed (through a desire to appeal to the masses) into fascism in some countries.
the sort of conservatism that Nicholas was discussing in Troppo that would be compatible with modernity is a sort of ironic Oakeshottian conservatism
As Mark rightly notes, traditional European conservatism is really quite reactionary where US conservatism is just a form of liberalism where liberalism is the status quo.
Remember your Foucault. Et votre Barthes aussi [finger wagging].
When a discourse — and any ideology is a discourse — achieves broad subscription and legitimacy, it also achieves power. Once it does, its dynamic alters. The primary function of the discourse, once it senses hegemony is attainable, is no longer to provide a framework for understanding the world, or an element of it, but rather to defend and extend its legitimacy and its ability to exercise power. A power-imbued discourse will deploy both discursive and non-discursive weapons to defend itself. A discursive technique is to silence or negate voices that challenge the hegemony of the discourse. A non-discursive technique, put crudely, is to kill them. This alteration of the dynamic will usually occur where what begins as an unexceptionable ideal transmutes into an ideology, and again where the ideology becomes an orthodoxy; for example, where the ideal of equal rights for women becomes the ideology of feminism, or the emancipation of the working class becomes communism. Each transformation adds to the political power of the discourse.
Never forget that ideology is discourse, subject to its inexorable logic. For that reason, suspect and reject it. [/finger wagging]
And two quotes from the incomparable J S Mill:
And:
He’s talking about ideology; ‘heriditary creed’ as he calls it, and its subscribers.
Yes; but that refers to a pretty static notion of ideology, as it pertains in different political settings. More classically, an ideology is any set of ideas characteristic of a group or class, and it is foolish to evacuate the concept by virtue of ideologies that were translated into failed government. Certain sets of ideas will continue to be characteristic of different groups or classes, upheld with varying levels of enthusiasm, whether you recognise them or not - and the best thinklers will recognise them, and aim to correctly locate their weight.
The ideology that upholds ‘anti-ideology’, for instance, is an idea characteristically associated with dominant ideologies (that have achieved ‘common-sense’ saturation levels, and can thus brand every other ideology as ‘ideology’); and is often also associated with the petite bourgeois, whose ideology is always centred upon immediate self-interest, forged from a besieged position, threatened from above and below. So obvious is the answer always to these folk, that every divergent view can only be driven by weirdo ideology stuff. There are other interesting variants of anti-ideology ideology awake in the nation, but that’s a start example only.
CS, your second para on anti-ideology was a riposte to my positioning of Foucault? Did not understand; will study and revert.
Pretty straightfoward. I’m suggesting anti-ideology reflects a selective representation of the meaning of ‘ideology’, which in turn reflects a set of ideas characteristic of certain groups or classes, i.e. the very selectiveness in this conception is ideologically driven, and is thus self-refuting.
CS is right. Ideology has lotsa meanings and the meaning that’s geting picked on here to be used in conjunction with passionate to connotate Stalinist meltdown is being picked because our centrists (so-called) are passionate about their being at all times cool, calm and collected in their drive to achieve their political vision.
They contrast themselves with the leftist mob waving pitchforks. It’s an ideologically derived image of the bourgeoisie who know better than the plebs.
The bloke in the club with single-malt in paw is never going to appear as passionate in the class struggle as the protesters on the street trying to break thru a police line. But the hell he isn’t. He ordered the cops to line up in the first place. He means it too.
As for true centrists. They may not be that passionate. But then I’d argue they are not that relevant to the process, either. They are more commentators and observors. They have little influence on outcomes.
And your own position is not ideological? It’s not turtles all the way down?
My last was a respone to CS, not wbb’s muscular Leninism. Just wanted to make that clear. Face it, guys: the jury’s in, the verdict’s clear. You’re history’s losers. Get used to it.
Well I’m pretty familiar with the sets of ideas characteristic of my group and class, and I also know where I depart. Simply unthinkingly being absorbed into a group or class ideological cliche is something to beware of. Just a tip. On the other hand, to ignore the role of ideas would be to replicate a classic mistake in some vulgar interpretations of marx. Ideas too can act as material forces. It’s getting the relations and weights right that’s the tough part, not the legitimacy of the source.
Everyone’s position is ideological.
Marx was the one who started its life as a swear word. Originally, the word (originating in France in the 18th century) had the overtone of programmatic.
It was the Marxist contrast with “science” that gave it a bad name. What Marx did was not ideology. Apparently. Actually it was more Engels who hardened the dichotomy.
As we use it today, we do so in the shadow of Althusser who started these debates in the 60s.
Foucault avoided the word, disliking it because of its structuralist Marxist overtones.
Hegel had it right - there is something of the rational in every ideology and the trick is to dialectically sublate the negative determination in order to move to a positive overcoming of it.
But this is to stigmatise the role of emotion and irrationality in politics, which in my view is itself irrational.
I think Lukacs - as a student of Weber as well as a Hegelian Marxist - and Gramsci - ought probably to be our models if we’re going to do some serious thinking about ideology.
Whatever we do, we can’t escape it - either the concept or the manifestations of ideology in our lives.
Also, what Chris said. To be anti-ideological is to be very ideological - in this manner, the stigmatisation of alternative political programmes is masked by a position that is inscribed in “common sense” and the existing order and thus disavows its own political nature.
Mark, IMHO you should stop just citing your favourite writers and start thinking about them instead.
I do, Rob, as you’d note if you actually read what I said. My position is very close to Chris’.
There’s an argument in what I wrote. If it’d help, I’m happy to leave out any authors’ names next time.
Yes, I think Gramsci (plus whatever your personal favourite) is the best guide here. Raymond Williams has written very eloquently on the subject of hegemony, as has, I understand, Walter Benjamin (*cue Mark, make further mental reminder to self*)
I read what you said. Very arid. A string of citations does not qualify anyone as an intellectual strategist.
Rob, your being tiresome, IMHO. It is a reflex action of academics to cite and acknowledge their sources. The question is how well they integrate the ideas into their own thinking and hence truly own the ideas. Chris and Mark can’t be faulted on that score in my humble and extremely unbiassed opinion!
As Chris said, passion is just being alive. A person without passions is to be pitied. But this is not to say that all passions are admirable - to warrant admiration they need to be combined with other virtues - wisdom, kindness and so on. And whether one’s passion is directed into politics depends on circumstances. If you’re happy with the status quo you’ll more likley direct passion towards family, friends, art and sport. If on the other hand injustices beset your life or your loved ones’ lives, your passion will turn to righting political and social wrongs.
Tell me a worthy political victory - abolition of slavery, votes for women etc. - that was won without the aid of passion.
Also without the aid of ideology, James? I’m not sure that Abolitionism qualifies as such.
Hegel had it right - there is something of the rational in every ideology and the trick is to dialectically sublate the negative determination in order to move to a positive overcoming of it.
What did he/you mean by the “negative determination” of an ideology?
Eliminate the negative, accentuate the positive!
.. so there’s something of value to be mined from any and all seams of political thought? And the trick is to take from both sides and move forward - hence your centrism?
Mark is a centrist!!??!
I’m no centrist, wbb! Proud leftie.
However, I do agree with Nicholas’ point that there is something of value in each of the political traditions he discusses.
Proud of….?
Extract from the comments policy:
Rob, it seems to me that you’re coming very close to trolling. Quite often you’re just sniping at anything you don’t agree with rather than mounting a substantive argument. Please try to participate more positively.
I wanted to reply (belatedly) to Jason’s comment where he wrote:
It seems to me that you’ve admirably summed up liberalism, Jason. What I think is interesting is the question of whether the “state of nature” actually existed before liberalism came along to civilise things. To some degree this might be a myth more related to incessant internecine private warfare in feudal Europe. I think it’s one of the points of tension in liberalism - suspicion of the State but an unwillingness to do away with it altogether, for fear of what might otherwise result. If you’re still reading, I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Sorry, Mark, multi-tasking on inadequate software. I inadvertently sublated you and Rob but curiously, ended up with something less than I started with.
and to save others the trouble, sublate: in Hegelian philosophy, resolve (opposites) into a higher unity.
What, and you don’t? You’re no fun, Mark. You’re running a pretty intolerant comments policy if you think my comment was less germane than yours that immediately preceded it. (I was going to make a remark about Andrea Harris but thought better of it.)
Hello, Rob, that was a direct response to wbb! I’m just making the point that as I read it, your more recent participation in this thread is a bit snarky. You were engaging earlier. I can only call it as I see it. I accept this post gives more free reign to general discussions of ideology than most, but I’d urge you to engage.
Comments about Popper, and free trade and the rule of law, of course, are always germane.
I could say a lot, but I won’t.
Peace, brother.
Pax vobiscum, fratres et sorores!
“What I think is interesting is the question of whether the “state of nature” actually existed before liberalism came along to civilise things. To some degree this might be a myth more related to incessant internecine private warfare in feudal Europe. I think it‚Äôs one of the points of tension in liberalism - suspicion of the State but an unwillingness to do away with it altogether, for fear of what might otherwise result. If you‚Äôre still reading, I‚Äôd be interested in your thoughts. ”
Did the state of nature really exist? Well, you’re right, Rob, the literal thing is sort of a founding myth but the founding fathers of liberalism, arguably Hobbes and Locke, had as their formative experiences something close to this. As you put it, wars over religion and between sovereigns. The liberalism that they enunciated was therefore borne out of a desire to avoid such eruptions. Is there a conflict between wanting a State to resolve private disputes and fearing that the State itself could become a forum for creating new disputes. Yes to that too and this dual nature of the State has as its analogue the conflict between left-liberals who have an optimistic view of the State being able to ameliorate conflicts (including through anti-discrimination law) and right-liberals (of which libertarians are an important subset) who have a pessimistic view of the State overextending itself and leading to the road to serfdom. To some extent the liberal tradition as a whole tries to resolve this conflict through such notions and guiding principles as ‘the rule of laws, not men’ and the ideal of ‘liberal neutrality’ - in this way the conflict is resolved by trying to create a State that is a mere impersonal machinery - a matter of pressing a button with the same results regardless of who the button presser is (this is essentially why Hayek emphasises the rule of law and its alleged virtues in minimising the potential for arbitrary abuse of power so much and why Hayekian influenced liberals emphasise the importance of clear, simple, light-handed and transparent regulations). These principles themselves are difficult to implement (laws being ultimately administered by men, interpretation of a constitution shading into de facto creation of new laws) but nonetheless I think they are worthy principles to be guided by.
Thanks Jason, that’s interesting but, um, the comment was mine not Rob’s! It seems wbb has set a trend in trying to make some strange synthesis of me and Rob using the Hegelian dialectic!
oh right, sorry Mark. I could have sworn that I thought Rob raised the question. eyes are playing tricks on me or maybe wbb has infected my brain with one of Friedrich Nietzsche’s spirochetes.
If wbb was really trying to sublate my opinions and Mark’s, which I’m sure he wasn’t, I’d compare it to the labours of Sisyphus or perhaps a new Hercules’ 13th.
I hope I’m allowed to say that as a direct response to Jason without being non-germane.