Comparing Michael Oakeshott's Critique of Rationalism with Arendt's Idea of the Rise of the Social - Essay Example

COMPARING MICHAEL OAKESHOTT’S CRITIQUE OF RATIONALISM WITH ARENDTS IDEA OF THE RISE OF THE SOCIAL History and Political Science April 25, Michael Oakeshott is one of the prominent twentieth century writers in the intellectual conservative tradition. In his essay of rationalism in politics, Oakeshott revisits the empiricism-rationalism debate. 1Oakeshott begins by stating that the rationalism he is concerned with is basically an invention of the modern period, he indicates several aspects of the general character and inclination of rationalism which include independence of mind, thought free from authority setting free the authority of reason and independence of thought. Oakeshott follows a uniform mode of rationalism and refers to rationalism and the rationalist in an undifferentiated manner. His is a unique rationalistic way of critiquing rationalism. Despite this Oakeshott has made positive contribution by providing a useful critique of the separation of means and ends in modern thought. He points out that within the rationalist thought; affairs are only conducted to solve problems. There is therefore an inherent agreement within rationalism that there is no knowledge which is not technical knowledge and all problems are fundamentally administrative problems. Oakeshott’s critique of rationalism is concrete, this is because a rationalist approach assumes that the basics of human practice can be conveyed by means of instruction that specifically state ruled, formalized technical processes and general conceptual principles. Theoretical understanding of some activity is the beginning of practical know-how and not the complete implementation. Oakeshott sees a dependence of the theory on practice which is unavoidable; rationalists are also not capable of performing skillfully when guided only by theory. They are not able to stick to their asserted instructions when performing poorly, in order to proceed, people inevitably fall back to some tradition. A rationalist philosophy only looks at the influential question of how people should be doing something, integrated philosophy should look at deeper ontological questions of identity and meaning, such questions can only be answered through relation with the past and recognition of what is well known2. According to Oakeshott, the failed projects of the politics of rationalism are societies, conventions and plans. For example proposals for peace are problematic because they lack everyday experience in action, behavior and principles. Oakeshott argues that the significance of a qualified practitioner’s skill cannot be transferred to a beginner through specific technical instructions; instead they must be leaned slowly during a period of close encounter through training. A good example is a rationalist cook who is ignorant of the many years a skilled chef takes to get acquainted with his recipes and equipment getting into a kitchen with only what he can read from a cookbook. The rationalist cook blunders with almost all dishes he attempts to cook. However, repeated failures do not mean zero chances of future success. Instead each failure motivates the rationalist to search for new, better and more rational cookbooks for recipes. Oakeshott’s view of modern politics was particularly pessimistic. 3According to him almost all politics today have become rationalist or near-rationalists, politics aims to dictate a uniform condition upon humankind. His critique of rationalism in politics led to the false assumption that he had a general disregard for politics. His critique of rationalist politics was misunderstood as a critique of political activity as a whole. He points out that rationalism has had its greatest influence in the field of politics. Rationalism in politics has increased during the last four centuries and is stronger now than previous times. Rationalist politicians should identify disorders in their undertakings not as manifestations of problems but indication of the need for more vigor and thorough implementation. The fact that rationalism undermines the very conditions that make it possible makes it self-defeating. The characteristic viciousness of rationalism is that it destroys concrete or traditional knowledge which is the only knowledge that could possibly save it from itself4. Rationalism aids in deepening the inexperience out of which it was initially generated. The firmness of rationalism upon most aspects of life has varied, a firm grip remains in politics where it seems to steadily increase. According to Oakeshott, rationalist influence in modern political life can never actually achieve an undertaking; it always winds up acting more or less along lines dictated through experience. In Oakeshott’s view, the rationalist analysis of politics is illogical in theory and unattainable in practice. Despite this, its grasp on contemporary dialogue is essentially whole. 5A political movement or party without its ideology is now regarded as being unfortunately not well equipped to face and pass arguments and discuss issues on a public stage. According to Arendt, the social is the realm of labor, of biological and material necessity and of the reproduction of our conditions of existence. 6Arendt also claims that the rise of the social concurs with the expansion of the economy from the end of the eighteenth century. By recognizing the social with the economic activities of simple reproduction she is sightless of the fact that contemporary capitalist economies generate excess far beyond the needs of reproduction. Additionally the activities associated with the generation of this surplus are more excellently distinguished by the typical lie rather than that of labor since they generate the entire material infrastructure upon which the society depends and technology that allows the creation of a completely artificial environment. On totalitarianism, Arendt stated that totalitarian leadership turns the mission of government completely upside down; this is because the government no longer holds interests for the well being of the people but destroys wide areas of society due to a transnational ideology. Arendt contended that the rise of the twentieth-century totalitarianism could be followed to the rise of assimilating the social circle in the contemporary state. She believes that totalitarianism is a new kind of government that diverged from other types of dictatorship or imperialist politics.7With the rise of the social sphere, the distinction between private and public which was a symbol of old Athenian polis was obscured. On labor, Arendt agrees that there can be joy in work but life dedicated to work is restrictively inadequate. Ancient Greek laborers were kept off the public political life since working is done in private within households. Essentials needs have to be met before one can exhaust energy on political matters since labor is a requirement of politics. However, Arendt contrary believes that the rise of technology has given all people a chance to take part in politics if they wish. According to Arendt, work builds a devised world of lasting and constant things, unlike work which is unending; labor has a defined beginning and end. Public and lasting space to shelter humans from unending demands of nature is a prerequisite for engaging in politics. Political action is the most significant aspect of active life. Arendt states that people live in a state of plurality; they are equal and possess similarities but are also different and unique from one another. People disclose their personalities through political action and make themselves known to others. Actors in politics cannot control the outcome of their political action but the audience viewing then can. Actions are irreversible when they occur but their irreversibility can be countered by the ability of people to forgive each other. According to Arendt, unlike totalitarianism political action gives priority to free discussion, copes with differences between people and encourages public participation and reflection. Arendt desires for the Athenian polis because it develops pluralism in both public and private spheres, this could act as a support against conformity of modern society and totalitarianism8. With increasing concern for common good and welfare, the political became involved in all aspects of people’s lives and the political sphere became a realm of conformity. Arendt thinks that private matters should remain outside politics and citizens should pursue making political decisions based on the common good of the entire society and not upon self interests. In the contemporary society the public and private have been blocked away and the result has been the rise of the social. The private realm is guided by needs and survival requirements affiliated with labor rather than freedom. The public realm on the other hand is led by freedom, distinction and equality. The social arises when the public and private are blocked. It involves bureaucracy, individual self-interest and conformity. According to Arendt, politics require opinion hence should not be completely biased. Different opinions of the society need to be considered before coming to a consensus on what’s best for everyone. Arendt’s discussion of the social realm and her emphasis that it should remain separate from the political realm is still one of the most controversial aspects of her philosophy. The basic problem with the social is that it takes away the liberty of the political action for reasons of self acknowledgement, disclosure of a principle and reduces it to an activity within the framework of means and ends9. Arendt does not support violence in politics but confusion arises when there is a necessity for violence. When a community is oppressed sometimes violence is needed to achieve public freedom of the people. She agrees with many aspects of the American Revolution because it was with the objective of securing the freedom of the people. References Page, James. Peace Education: Exploring Ethical and Philosophical Foundations. North Carolina: Information Age Publishing, 2008. Palonen, Kari, Ihalainen, Pasiu and Tuija Pulkkinen. Redescriptions: Yearbook of Political Thought and Conceptual History. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2005. Giddens, Anthony. Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994. Haddock, Bruce. A History of Political Thought: 1789 to the Present. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005. DEntrèves, Maurizio. The Political Philosophy of Hannah Arendt. New York: Routledge, 1994. Simmons, William. Human Rights Law and the Marginalized Other. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Parekh, Serena. Hannah Arendt and the Challenge of Modernity: A Phenomenology of Human Rights. New York: Routledge, 2008. Read More