[M]any commentators have failed to notice that it is a distinctly conservative document. Think for yourself, Kant seems to be saying, but cause no trouble. Leave the state and its institutions alone; conform; think original thoughts after hours, in the privacy of your own home. (The Enlightenment: A Brief History with Documents [New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001], 202).Jacob's interpretation is, as she acknowledges, not shared by "many commentators." What she calls a "failure to notice" the document's conservatism may rather be a belief that the term "conservative" doesn't accurately gloss what Kant is saying in this essay.
What do you think?
Offer some text to support your views.
Deadline: Wednesday (2/23), start of class.
12 comments:
Jacobs' reading is directly contradicted by Kant. Jacobs interprets Kant as saying, "think original thoughts after hours, in the privacy of your own home," but Kant actually says, "The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among human beings..." [Emphasis from text] (p. 601).
Kant is not as radical as Jacobs may like him to be, but I think it is difficult to consider him "distinctly conservative". Even today, I believe that there is something to be said for his suggestions that when you are at work, you should do your job but be free to criticise your institution as much as you like, in public, as long as you are not currently contracted to perform particular duties. Kant gives the example of a dissenting clergyman on p. 602 - one who is "bound to deliver his discourse to the pupils in his catechism class and to his congregation in accordance with the creed of the church he serves, for he was employed by it on that condition." This does not seem conservative to me, unless it is conservative to behave professionally and with integrity. In the present day, I believe that lawyers generally consider it unethical for a member of their profession to give a less determined defence if they know their client is guilty. Would it be fair if they did not?
What is radical in Kant is the refusal to recognise the binding of an "unalterable creed", which Kant says is "concluded to keep all further enlightenment away from the human race forever" and declares it "null and void, even if it were ratified by the supreme power, by imperial diets and by the most solemn peace treaties." (602) Kant probably believed in God, so it cannot be correct that he should recommend disregarding the ratification of a supreme power lightly. Certainly, he is not advocating for anyone to overthrow the monarch, but Kant seems to be quite fond of King Frederick the Great, so why should he? His essay was also published shortly after the American revolution and before the French, but it makes no direct comment on them. Political revolution is not a topic he is explicitly addressing at this time.
Its only failure in radicalism is that it leaves the step between public argument and change blank. It only suggests that after having convinced the vast majority of people, they could "submit a proposal to the crown" (602) which leaves the ultimate fate of such a proposal in arbitrary hands. There is no failsafe mentioned if the monarch is unreasonable or unenlightened - which is perhaps outside of Kant's considerations when he is as fond as he is of Frederick.
I think Ms Jacobs has a point. Our text begins with, "Enlightenment is the human being's emergence from his self-incurred minority," and minority is explained to be a state in which one is not completely responsible for himself. This would be a profoundly liberal idea, but, as she points out, Kant does a little bit of side-stepping throughout the text to keep the "public" and "private" forms of expression separate. "A revolution may well bring about a falling off of personal despotism and of avaricious or tyrannical oppression, but never a true reform in one's way of thinking..." (601).
While her argument is valid, in a historical context she is not correct. We must remember that Frederick was probably the most liberal leader in Europe at the time . By our own standards, this is an incredibly conservative document for precisely Ms Jacobs' reason: "Think for yourself, but cause no trouble."
However, we would be remiss if we forgot that the spectrum of political leanings is redefined throughout history, and historically has expanded with time. If I remember my European history from high school correctly, Frederick and Catherine of Austria were the most "Enlightened" leaders of the times. And they were monarchs . In other countries, any such expression was not so readily admissible. So in spite of Kant's incomplete delivery of his own philosophy, for the times it was very far left. Just not as far left as "radicals", like Ms Jacobs appears to be, have pushed the boundary since the Enlightenment.
In our times, writing like this would be considered right-of-center, and would fall under the considerations of those people *cough* Glenn Beck *cough* who misrepresent progressivism as a plot to take over the world.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-18-2010/conservative-libertarian
I think that Demosthenes makes some very accurate points regarding history and politics, but I'd go one step further and say that Kant's "What is Enlightenment?" is more easily read as a progressive or radical text today than a conservative one*. I believe that Kant is making a point that is so fundamental to the process of political change that it is resilient over time. The line that Demosthenes cites - "A revolution may well bring about a falling off of personal despotism and of avaricious or tyrannical oppression, but never a true reform in one's way of thinking..." - is making the point that for political change to be lasting and effective, it must proceed from a change in the ideas of the people. As Kant goes on to say, "[I]nstead, new prejudices will serve just as well as old ones to harness the great unthinking masses." (601)
In my first comment, I discussed how I thought Kant left a bit of a blank between public opinion and political change. Modern democracy allows us to fill in that blank. The public 'scholar' (any opinion leader really, from academic to columnist to comedian) can help to bring about the reform in thinking that is required for change to happen. If the people don't believe in the change, regardless of what it is - they will not back the referendum for it, they will vote for the candidate who will block it or they will donate to the lobby groups that fight it. Small groups of activists can only win if they are backed by or win over the tide of popular opinion.
So Kant is not a conservative, even today and he does not believe in lasting institutions. In his words:
One age cannot bind itself and conspire to put the following one into such a condition that it would be impossible for it to enlarge its cognitions (especially in such urgent matters) and to purify them of errors, and generally to make further progress in enlightenment. (602)
*To avoid getting into specific political debates, I take conservatism broadly to be opposition to change in favour of tradition, while progressivism or radicalism (used interchangeably) seeks change.
While I think that Demosthenes makes some very accurate points regarding history and politics, I'd go one step further and say that Kant's "What is Enlightenment?" is more easily read as a progressive or radical text today than a conservative one. I believe that Kant is making a point that is so fundamental to the process of political change that it is resilient over time. The line that Demosthenes cites - "A revolution may well bring about a falling off of personal despotism and of avaricious or tyrannical oppression, but never a true reform in one's way of thinking..." - makes the point that for political change to be lasting and effective, it must proceed from a change in the beliefs and values of the people. As Kant goes on to say, "[I]nstead, new prejudices will serve just as well as old ones to harness the great unthinking masses." (601)
In my first comment, I discussed how I thought Kant left a bit of a blank between public opinion and political change. Modern democracy allows us to fill in that blank. The public 'scholar' (any opinion leader really, from academic to columnist to comedian) can help to bring about the reform in thinking that is required for change to happen. If the people don't believe in the change, regardless of what it is - they will not back the referendum for it, they will vote for the candidate who will block it or they will donate to the lobby groups that fight it. Small groups of activists can only win if they are backed by or win over the tide of popular opinion.
Kant is not a conservative - he does not believe in the perpetual maintenance of current institutions, values or beliefs. Rather, he expresses his belief in progress:
One age cannot bind itself and conspire to put the following one into such a condition that it would be impossible for it to enlarge its cognitions (especially in such urgent matters) ant to purify them of errors, and generallyto make further progress in enlightenment. (602)
Shaun, although I agree that Kant does not advocate for continual preservation of social and political institutions, we should not overlook the compromises he makes regarding established authority when describing the process of enlightenment. The notion of an enlightened ruler is central to understanding how societies attain gradual liberation. Kant asserts that a “prince who does not find it beneath himself to say that he considers it his duty not to proscribe anything to human beings in religious matters…is himself enlightened and deserves to be praised…as the one who first released the human race from minority” (603). According to Kant, a transition to freedom requires enlightened rule by an absolute monarch. As you mention, Kant argues that institutions must change, but a monarch’s authority must mediate this change and balance civil freedom with spiritual freedom.
The necessity of an enlightened monarch is not immediately apparent at the beginning of Kant’s work when he asks what types of restrictions promote enlightenment. However, Kant later explains that the proper restrictions are those that “guarantee public peace” (604). For Kant, social stability is the product of a leader who is enlightened and does not repress “freedom of spirit” (604). The seed metaphor Kant offers illustrates the tension between obedience and change that characterizes his view of enlightenment. The dominant social institutions correspond to the “hard shell” (604) and protect the seed, free though. Over time, the shell eventually unwraps and allows the seed to develop independently. Similarly, public use of reason allows political liberation to develop until the monarch is no longer needed. Monarchs allow social freedom because it is in their short-term interest to have a society that is productive yet obedient. Yet the long-term benefit of liberalization is at the expense of the monarch and for the benefit of political freedom.
It is difficult to describe Kant’s work using contemporary political terminology, such conservative or liberal, because we often use these terms while taking democratic representation for granted. In today’s political discourse, whether one advocates for a large or small federal government, people generally agree that democratic representation and political liberty is an effective system for securing a free society.
The challenge Kant addresses is how to transition a society and government to such a system, although he may not necessarily be in favor of the exact system we have today. Kant is not a conservative in the sense that he advocates social and political progress. But Margaret Jacob is not wrong when she claims that he maintains a concern for social stability and obedience.
I'm fairly confused as to what evidence in the document Jacobs' is referring to when she claims Kant prefers people remain silent, perhaps simply because the blog entry does not include a specific line she refers to. I think much of "What is Enlightenment?" is completely contradictory to conservatism. He says clearly, "The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightment among human beings; the private use of one's reason may, however, often be very narrowly restricted without this particularly hindering the progress of enlightenment" (pg 601). This seems to be the opposite of what Jacobs proposes. She may be referring to further on, when he says "Thus it would be ruinous if an officer, receiving an order from his superiors, wanted while on duty to engage openly in subtle reasoning about its appropriateness or utility; he must obey". However, "he cannot fairly be prevented, as a scholar, from making remarks about errors in the military service and from putting these before his public appraisal". He is saying you must obey the law, but he is not saying you can only question it privately. In fact, the entire article Kant is writing seems to call for people to become 'enlightened' and to question and 'argue' publicly and that the freedom to do so is very important.
I think that Jacob does not give due credit to what Kant is trying to say, while not directly going against his own monarch. Kant is not advocating keeping quiet, except when at home. He is advocating a separation of potentially conflicting interests. He suggests that the free exchange of ideas is essential and necessary, and relatively harmless to the institutions but that these ideas are best expressed from the standpoint of a scholar, not a state/institutional employee. This idea is in fact quite modern. University staff are prohibited from bringing political campaign materials to the office. An employee can have a pin saying "Vote" but not a pin saying "Vote for Mr....". The university does not restrict political ideology after working hours however. This is similar to Kant's idea that while performing the office for which he is paid, the clergyman should perform that office according to the dictates of their employer. After they have delivered their sermon; however, the clergyman can and should be able to speak his mind, so long as he does not make any claim to speak for the church. Essentially, Kant is making a claim for responsible enlightened thought. If, over a period of time, a majority of people agree with certain ideas circulating publicly, then he suggests that those people can petition their government for change. He is not advocating the stance that Jacob lays out. He does not say that people should keep their thoughts to themselves, instead, he suggests that people should spend time learning how to think before they presume to overthrow the current order. Responsible thought leading to responsible change as opposed to brash thought and brasher action.
I can understand why Jacobs would see this document as conservative, but let me ask this: why would he advocate thinking these thoughts at all if he didn't support some form of innovative/revolutionary thinking? Could it be that he was just trying to quell the masses by giving them something to think about, to occupy them away from thoughts of revolution? Or, are the politics of that era putting a sort of inhibition on his writing? If you read the background to Kant's life, you can see that he was living under the rule of Frederick of Prussia: an absolute monarch. Now, Frederick might have been an excellent ruler, but he was still a monarch and wouldn't have been ecstatic about the ideas of the Enlightenment. Kant may have been trying to get his ideas out to the masses while shielding his intentions from Frederick, a man that could do anything to Kant without direct repercussions.
There are even parts of the text in which Kant seems to be flattering Frederick, by referring to him as a ruler that says, "Argue as much as you will about what you will; only obey!" This line could be used as evidence that Kant was chafing under Frederick, and that he had to put a muzzle on his writing for it to be let off of the leach. This line, repeated twice in the essay, could be Kant stroking Frederick's ego with one hand while writing "revolutionary" thinking with the other.
I will like to attack Jacob's claim in general with something that Kant mentioned at the very beginning of "What Is Enlightenment?" Jacob claims that Kant is almost passive in his regards to individuals taking advantage of the Enlightenment period, but feel he is dead on with his statement regarding people's way of thinking. Kant said, "Thus it is difficult for any single individual to extricate himself from the minority that has become almost nature to him. He has even grown fond of it and is really unable for the time being to make use of his own understanding, because he was never allowed to make the attempt."(600) Here, I believe Kant is saying individuals have conformed to society, and the way of not establishing their own self. They have become accustomed with the way of life that the state has provided, but neglects their ability to expand and challenge what is presented to them. Jacobs mentioned that Kant is saying "Think for yourself, Kant seems to be saying, but cause no trouble," but people cause no trouble because they don't have the right mind state to do so. As Kant mentioned in this reading, "If it is now asked whether we at present live in an enlightenment age, the answer is: No, but we do live in an age of enlightenment."(603) He knows that the period that they lived in was proclaimed as the enlightenment, but the it has not reached a stable or full capacity of being classified as enlightened. He uses logic and reasoning to not push people but to place the thought in their minds, to reconsider the way that they are thinking. I believe he resembled a more "conservative" nature because as he stressed with the enlightenment "nothing is required but freedom"(601). What I took from this was his stress on how people should be able to use their own sense of reason in whatever the do. He then goes into how each outlet of society stresses not to fight or argue. I feel that Kant does not only want to use this reading as something to place a small thought in the minds of readers during that time, but he also wants to bring about change through a philosophical manner.
In the beginning, to answer the question "What is Enlightenment?" Kant responds by stating "Enlightenment is the human being's emergence from his self-incurred minority. Minority is inabilitu to make use of one's own understanding without direction from another. This minority is self incurred when its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another"(600). I feel that Jacobs is confusing Kants real beliefs. Jacobs feels that Kant is passive in regards to individuals taking advantage of the Enlightenment era, but aren't when it relates to their way of thinking. However, I think she doesn't realize that Kant is simply not stating that individuals have adjusted to the ways of society. Hence, Kant supports my belief of this by stating, "It is so comfortable to be a minor....thus it is difficult for any single individual to extricate himself from the minority that has become almost nature to him. He has even grown fond of it and is really unable for the time being to make use of his own understanding, because he was never allowed to make the attempt" (600). I find this as a great example to explain that in society today people conform themselves to certain things in life as well as people. So the opportunity always seems limited because many are not use to change and as Kant suggested it is easier to be that of a minority or accustomed to something without knowing what advantages or disadvantages something different offers because we aren't exposed to it. I feel that Jacobs isn't understanding Kant's perspective by her statement, "think for yourself, Kant seems to be saying, but cause no trouble" (Jacobs). I just feel that Kant whats to allow his readers to see another point of view with also voicing their own. It's like taking the advice from a friend, or parent about something but making your own decision based on your own beliefs as the final step.
"Sapere aude!" or "Dare to know" is mentioned at the very beginning of this reading and Kant is telling us how he feels enlightened. He is constantly telling us throughout conform, do as you're told, but while you are doing that free yourself with your mind. I think that Jacobs claim was a very inaccurate one because Kant is just trying to tell us that this is what enlightenment is for most people. If everyone in the world quit their jobs to seek pure enlightenment there would be a little bit of chaos. I can see the conservatism here, but he wants people to publicly question things that they thought wrong in authority.
I would have to agree with most of what Jacobs has to say about Kant. It's important to remember, as mentioned in the essay that introduces "What is Enlightenment," that Kant, as a scholar patronized by Frederick the Great, "is careful... not to advocate the direct overthrow of of monarchies." This is not to say that Kant was trying to stir up some "anti-king" feelings among folks because I feel that Kant would have had some respect for his "enlightened" despot. I think this essay is very much an example of what enlightened individuals should engage in - public sharing ideas while respecting current social structures. Kant clearly argues that every human being should use their ability to reason and think for themselves, critiquing prevalent ideas and coming up with ideas of their own. However much thinking and sharing you do though, it is important to be careful not to rile up revolutionist feelings because the destruction caused by revolution. Although revolution is good and bringing down "wrong" power structures and such, it leaves the problem of having to build back up from the bottom, which is an inconvenience, to say the least, for everyone. Instead, Kant suggests that people "submit a proposal to the crown" (602) if they want to see changed. That way their ideas can be considered without the mess that accompanies revolution. So while Kant suggests conservative action he encourages people to think as radically as they want. "Argue as much as you will and about what you will; only obey!" (604) This is where I disagree with Jacobs, who seems to have interpreted Kant as saying, "Think as much as you want but do nothing." I would say that Kant is urging people to think as much as they want and do everything in your power change the state as you see fit AS LONG AS you don't cause too much trouble. Write letters to kings, politicians, other scholars, etc. to show them what a great ideas you have but don't gather a mob, which probably would be made up of "unenlightened" individuals, to force your ideas onto everyone else.
Post a Comment