While Hegel’s political philosophy has been attacked on the left by republican democrats and on the right by feudalist reactionaries, his apologists see him as a liberal reformer, a moderate [bold mine-DL] who theorized about the development of a free-market society within the bounds of a stabilizing constitutional state. This centrist view has gained ascendancy since the end of the Second World War, enshrining Hegel within the liberal tradition [bold mine-DL]. ~From the description of Renato Cristi’s Hegel on Freedom and Authority
Cristi is also author of “Hegel’s Conservative Liberalism”. I cite scholarship on this question, since I assume that people who spend their lives studying Hegel might know a thing or two I don’t. That is why scholars, like bloggers, make citations in the first place–to recognise that there are subjects on which others are greater authorities.
Karl Popper, interesting, brilliant and fine man that he was, was not a Hegel scholar and was retrojecting onto Hegel the sort of exaltation of the state that he rightly found so terrifying in his own time. He was not alone in this, but he was wrong to do this. In mid-20th century, support for any kind of monarchy was likely to throw your credentials as a political liberal into doubt. Because a constitutional monarchist is, almost by definition, some kind of liberal, as only a liberal or Whig would dare to suggest that the monarch be subject to the limits of a constitution (especially a written constitution), the only thing one might say about my description of Hegel is that it was a bit redundant. Pretty much all constitutional monarchists were liberals (in the 19th century, European sense), though not all liberals were constitutional monarchists. It is possible to find in 19th century liberalism evidence of a dangerous centralising and “rationalising” tendency (demonstrated by Austrian liberals, Red Republicans and Garibaldian revolutionaries), and it is possible to criticise 19th century liberals for their close attachment to nationalism. What you cannot do is deny that people who were plainly political liberals were, indeed, political liberals.
Of course, when I referred to Hegel as a “moderately liberal constitutional monarchist,” a statement that is actually true whether or not some people want to accept it, I was referring to the liberalism of his day. What started all of this was my criticism of the lumping in of Hegel into a discussion of so-called “liberal fascism,” since Hegel was neither a modern liberal nor was he a proto-fascist.
What is strange about all of this is that Hegel’s 19th century liberalism does not actually make him look that good to me. However, there is still a big difference between sympathising with the principles of 1789 and believing in a totalising, all-intrusive state. That said, Hegel’s sympathy for the principles of 1789 ought to make him bad enough for traditional conservatives today that no one should need to resort to trying to pin later totalitarian ideas on him. If you want to make the argument that 1789 led inexorably to 1917 and 1933, that would be an argument for why being a 19th century liberal is not necessarily the most desirable thing to have been. However, for good or ill, that is what Hegel was.
Update: It is also worth noting that Hegel, while he did approve of the principles of 1789, was not an uncritical admirer of the Revolution. Similarly, it is possible for Hegel to be a liberal without being uncritically accepting of all elements in natural rights-based liberalism. He also had some criticism for the Enlightenment. The more I am made to think about it, “moderately liberal” sounds more accurate all the time.
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 7th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
moldbug
Is it all that surprising that modern scholars of Hegel want to characterize him as a moderate liberal? Isn’t the word “apologists” in the above a small tipoff? Should we accept the Marxist view of Marx, as well?
You end up agreeing with Goldberg (and K-L) here on the liberal-fascist connection. Of course you do, because you and K-L are right. The only problem is that Goldberg is right, too (although probably for the wrong reasons).
This sort of thing is exactly why I don’t like the word “liberal.” It moves around faster than the pea under the cup. In the 18th and 19th century, a “liberal” is basically anyone who’s opposed in any way to the clerical-conservative status quo. Any word that can embrace both Shelley and Acton is nonsensical, just as is the modern use of “conservative” to embrace both you and Goldberg.
I do believe that 1789 led to 1917 and 1933 (though “inexorably” is a bit much). But you simply can’t deny that Hegel exalted the state, or claim that Popper is “retrojecting” when he so rudely points that out. It’s not as if the text is lost and all we have is the commentary.
July 7th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Daniel Larison
Oh, that’s pretty weak. Hegel scholars are not all apologists for the man in the sense that they are all dedicated to rehabilitating him no matter what the truth is. They are offering an apology, that is a defense, of his work *because* they believe him to be the “liberal reformer.” You offer an apology for someone who has been accused wrongly of something. That is the original sense of the word. It is only more recently that we have taken to using apologist to mean the equivalent of propagandist.
I agree with the general argument tying together left-liberalism and fascism, because I accept K-L’s argument that fascism is a product of revolutionary leftism. Goldberg also accepts it, which is fine as far as it goes. He then drags Hegel into the mix and begins talking about totalitarianism in connection with Hegel, which makes less sense.
K-L himself was a right-liberal constitutional monarchist, *not significantly different in his practical politics from Hegel*. One of his major arguments was, as you may know, for the appropriateness and justness of monarchy as a political regime. K-L eschewed the word conservative when describing himself and preferred to use the word liberal. He believed that 19th century liberalism was fine, and that things went awry with self-styled liberals in the 20th as they moved more to the left.
It doesn’t matter whether you don’t like how the word has been used. I don’t like the way conservative has been used, but that’s the way things are. “Liberal” is used to describe several groups of people from very different times, so precision is all the more important. In the 19th century, a European liberal could fairly be described as someone who accepted the principles of constitutionalism and a legal enshrining of protections of liberty and equality in a constitution. By that definition, Hegel was most certainly a 19th century European liberal. You may not like what European liberalism entails (I don’t), and you may see dangers in its assumptions about human nature and society (as I do), but that should make you glad to endorse my description of Hegel as a 19th century liberal. Calling him that isn’t a compliment, but it is a vital distinction that gets lost when you begin talking about totalitarianism.
I don’t deny that Hegel exalted the state. Abraham Lincoln, who was assuredly a 19th century liberal, exalted the state in word and deed, and it didn’t work out well for many people–but that didn’t make him a totalitarian. It is possible to exalt the state without being totalitarian. I deny that Hegel is a totalitarian or the source of totalitarianism that Popper and the like want to make him out to be. In some sense, Maistre also “exalted the state,” and so did Filmer. That doesn’t make them totalitarian or even precursors of totalitarianism. I refuse to endorse the view that if someone exalts the state, as Hegel does as a matter of theory, he is therefore not actually a 19th century liberal constitutional monarchist. He is.
However, to use his 19th century liberalism as some sort of a bridge to reintroduce the accusation of totalitarianism would involve condemning essentially all European classical liberals (including Chesterton and Belloc, among others). Additionally, the way in which 1789 led to 1917 and 1933 requires significant explanation. It would not be sufficient to say, for instance, so-and-so approved of the revolution of 1789 and is therefore implicated in later totalitarianism.
July 7th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
moldbug
There is nothing wrong with apologias. I myself apologized - in the original sense of the word - for Carlyle. But when someone claims to be an apologist, we should at least believe him.
Hegel’s “practical politics” may have been the same as K-L’s. But neither was a politician, and it is not their policies but their philosophies that are at issue.
You just accused Popper of “retrojecting” when he said that Hegel exalted the state. Now you don’t deny it. This at least is progress.
“Liberal,” as we agree, means many different things in many different contexts. When we use this dangerous and deceptive word, therefore, it is all the more important for us to understand the context in which the reader will understand us. If this is not “precision,” what is?
When you say that someone is not a totalitarian and that, quite the contrary, they are a liberal, a reasonable reader will believe that by “liberal” you mean an anti-totalitarian or proto-libertarian liberal, such as K-L, Acton, Mill, etc. In other words, someone who believes that the state exists to serve man and not the other way around. But by the standards you propose applying to your evaluation of Hegel, Robespierre was also a liberal. I stand by my original point that this is not the best way to maintain one’s credibility.
July 7th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Daniel Larison
I accused Popper of retrojecting a concept of totalitarianism onto Hegel. Exalting the state and being a totalitarian are distinct things. I stand by that charge, because this is what Popper does. He was mistaken.
The context of referring to Hegel as a “moderately liberal constitutional monarchist” is clear enough for those who know something about Hegel. The context is 19th century Prussia, where Hegel *was* a liberal and reform-minded academic.
Robespierre *was* a liberal. Rather by definition, a Jacobin was a liberal. The French Revolution was a liberal revolution. Please don’t make me explain that one to you. You want to narrow down what liberal means so as to make it impossible to include unpleasant or otherwise objectionable people under that label. You want it to mean libertarian or pro-libertarian as you understand those terms, which is yet again another embarrassing anachronism. Just stop. My credibility is not the one being jeopardised with this debate. Anytime you would like to retract your insult and apologise would be fine by me.
July 7th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
moldbug
Unfortunately, neither you nor Goldberg is blogging in 19th-century Prussia.
And explaining that you in fact meant “liberal” in the 19th-century Prussian sense of the word (which could certainly include totalitarians, such as Robespierre) doesn’t exactly come across as a clarification.
Or was Robespierre not a totalitarian, either? He was certainly “reform-minded” - I’ll give him that.
July 7th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Daniel Larison
Well, no, Robespierre wasn’t really a totalitarian. I wouldn’t have thought that needed to be said. Jacobins had an “armed doctrine,” they were ideological nationalists, and they employed terror, all of which are very bad and leftist things, but this makes them left-liberals, nationalists and identitarians. Not every nationalist is a totalitarian. Not even every identitarian is necessarily a totalitarian.
July 7th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
moldbug
You really will have to explain this definition of totalitarianism sometime - it is certainly not what either I or La Wik think of the word.
I mean, not that Wikipedia is the Great Authority On Everything, but it is usually pretty good at at least defining the customary use of English words, and “totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party state, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics” sounds about right to me.
July 7th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Daniel Larison
But this is not totalitarianism being described here. It is simply authoritarianism. You and the people writing the Wiki entry are falling into a popular habit of conflating the two and using the characteristics of the latter as the decisive elements of totalitarianism. There have been many authoritarian regimes that have all of these things and which have nonetheless fallen pitifully short of totalitarianism, both in theory and practice.
All these things are features of totalitarian regimes as well, but they are not sufficient for totalitarianism. To use this definition, every authoritarian dictatorship and corporatist state would be considered “totalitarian,” but totalitarian regimes involve thoroughgoing involvement in all aspects of life. (There are even some who argued that the level of control achieved or even attempted by fascist regimes never reached this point.) Robespierre was a tyrant, a despot and a fanatic, but once again this does not make him a totalitarian.
July 7th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
moldbug
A very sensible distinction and one I support myself, though the Wikipedia usage is so clearly established that I despair of changing it. The word “authoritarian” as commonly used is even worse - it appears to mean nothing at all.
But even accepting this distinction, I have trouble seeing how it applies to the case at hand. I take it you’re not a fan of Jacob Talmon. What aspects of life were Robespierre, and more generally, the Jacobins, uninterested in? I was not aware that their virtue knew any bounds.