“Scott”:http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/01/10/mclemee has an interesting new column up at _Inside Higher Ed_ suggesting (not entirely tongue in cheek) that George W. Bush may qualify as being a great man under G.W.F. Hegel’s definition of what a great man (sexism direct from the original source) is
“They are men,” the philosopher continues, “who appear to draw the impulse of their life from themselves; and whose deeds have produced a condition of things and a complex of historical relations which appear to be only their interest, and their work.” In other words, they can go it alone. They have no use for the “reality-based community.”
I’m entirely innocent of any direct exposure to Hegel, but it would seem to me that if (and, as Scott says, the proof of the pudding is in the extent to which he changes the course of history) G.W.B. is indeed a great man under Hegel’s definition, this may say more about the inadequacies of Hegel’s claim than any actual greatness of soul on the part of the current president. Far more apropros, to my mind, is Weber’s discussion in “Politics as a Vocation”:http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/Weber/polvoc.html (a superb essay, for all of its chunks of stodge, about which I’ll have more to say soon) of how the real politician needs to leaven passion for a cause with responsibility and a sense of proportion. This quote from the essay provides a better account of Bush than does Hegel.
The sin against the lofty spirit of his vocation, however, begins where this striving for power ceases to be objective and becomes purely personal self-intoxication, instead of exclusively entering the service of ‘the cause.’ For ultimately there are only two kinds of deadly sins in the field of politics: lack of objectivity and–often but not always identical with it–irresponsibility. Vanity, the need personally to stand in the foreground as clearly as possible, strongly tempts the politician to commit one or both of these sins. This is more truly the case as the demagogue is compelled to count upon ‘effect.’ He therefore is constantly in danger of becoming an actor as well as taking lightly the responsibility for the outcome of his actions and of being concerned merely with the ‘impression’ he makes. His lack of objectivity tempts him to strive for the glamorous semblance of power rather than for actual power. His irresponsibility, however, suggests that he enjoy power merely for power’s sake without a substantive purpose. Although, or rather just because, power is the unavoidable means, and striving for power is one of the driving forces of all politics, there is no more harmful distortion of political force than the parvenu-like braggart with power, and the vain self-reflection in the feeling of power, and in general every worship of power per se. The mere ‘power politician’ may get strong effects, but actually his work leads nowhere and is senseless. (Among us, too, an ardently promoted cult seeks to glorify him.) In this, the critics of ‘power politics’ are absolutely right. From the sudden inner collapse of typical representatives of this mentality, we can see what inner weakness and impotence hides behind this boastful but entirely empty gesture. It is a product of a shoddy and superficially blase attitude towards the meaning of human conduct; and it has no relation whatsoever to the knowledge of tragedy with which all action, but especially political action, is truly interwoven.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 19 comments }
Nick L 01.12.07 at 5:46 am
If my understanding of Hegel is correct then the status of Great Man is conferred in part by their success. Failures don’t make the cut, they are rightly regarded as scoundrels (sorry Bush). This is because such world-historical individuals must go it alone and risk stepping outside the comfort of ordinary ethical life and everyday moral rules. With no path or moral mapbook to guide them, they are led by their own compass. As a result they can easily end up on the wrong side of history, which of course is the ultimate judge for Hegel. Their willingness to do potentially terrible, potentially heroic acts is what makes them Great.
What’s interesting is that Hegel clearly admires the courage of even the scoundrels who find themselves on the wrong side of History, in places he pours scorn on thinkers such as Socrates and Kant for having the conceit to step outside the dogmas of their age. Hegel then, is happy with the drama of ‘tragic’ power politics, but recoils at the idea of the ‘untimely’ intellectual.
Backword Dave 01.12.07 at 6:00 am
Because I get most of my news from radio 4, I thought this was going to be about the Senator who called Bush’s current plan “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam”.
abb1 01.12.07 at 7:18 am
George W. Bush may qualify as being a great man
He certainly does, in the sense of ‘Time Magazines’s Man of the Year’. Adolf Hitler made it in the 30th, enough said.
nnyhav 01.12.07 at 7:47 am
Scott’s nuance of Hegel’s G.W.F. as “Great Way Forward” should be noted.
KH 01.12.07 at 7:51 am
Parts of the Weber passage recall, or foreshadow, Harry Frankfurt’s essay on bullshit.
alke 01.12.07 at 7:59 am
Backword dave, you have Hagel in mind.
Backword Dave 01.12.07 at 8:03 am
Hey, abb1, I was Time’s Person of the Year last year (other poor saps think it was them, but it was me, I tell you). Are you comparing me to Hitler?
Scott McLemee 01.12.07 at 8:06 am
Here’s an afterthought on the column.
Sk 01.12.07 at 11:46 am
actually, abb1 was also Time’s man of the year last year. Thus, he is comparing himself to Hitler.
Sk
Ken Houghton 01.12.07 at 12:02 pm
Isn’t this more Erikson than Hegel?
Backword Dave 01.12.07 at 12:05 pm
Alke, I know; terrible pun.
Sk, Time magazine’s person of the year was ‘You’ – and when said to me, ‘you’ means ‘me’. I didn’t see abb1 anywhere. I’m the person of the year, I tell you!
engels 01.12.07 at 12:24 pm
Dave – How presumptuous! It could have been any one of these guys.
engels 01.12.07 at 12:34 pm
Oh, and Hegel remarks somewhere that Chimpy is not a great man. (He forgot to add: not by a long way.)
Jim Harrison 01.12.07 at 1:23 pm
If you’re going to appeal to mystical theories of history to explain Bush, I’d go for an idea of the Bengali, Nirad C. Chaudhuri, who remarked in his autobiography that nations in decline need leaders to conduct them down the road to ruin. Leadership isn’t just essential to success. To really foul things up, you also need the right man for the job.
Wade 01.12.07 at 4:10 pm
I don’t see what’s so great about that passage from Weber. If anything it points up the biggest weakness of his political philosophy, the distinction he makes between power and authority. Weber’s ‘authority’ is supposed to serve ends, whereas he thinks of power as strictly a means; but this doesn’t work because all ends in Weber’s scheme are ultimately irrational—except for the sort of bureaucratic authority that justifies itself on the basis of its effectiveness, i.e. its power.
Scott: I don’t get your disclaimer about teleology. Are you arguing *against* the cunning-of-reason thing, or what?
Scott McLemee 01.12.07 at 5:38 pm
Wade: Good question, and I could certainly have been more clear. No, I’m not making such an argument, as such.
The IHE column and the postscript at Cliopatria tried to approach the question of whether GWB might qualify as world-historical figure from slightly different angles. The Clio item reframed things (as you noticed) by including the “cunning of reason” aspect. I’d left out that of the original piece in the interest of meeting a deadline and keeping the whole thing to a practical length.
That parenthetical comment saying that I didn’t actually endorse teleology was a way of spelling out that either version was offered more as a thought experiment than an endorsement: “How might Hegel explain Bush, if he saw him as world-historical figure?”
That said, I do still find cunning-of-reason thinking pretty seductive — having formerly, and for quite a long while, endorsed one straightforward and familiar brand of historical teleology. (“Socialism or barbarism!”)
At times, the idea that GWB’s role in history is precisely the opposite of what he thinks it to be — and that the world-spirit is using him to that end — seems strangely plausible, if not exactly credible at the most literal level.
John Landon 01.12.07 at 5:48 pm
At the time of the start of the Iraq invasion I was subscribed to a leftist email list and recall an ironic comment by a (trueblood marxist) to the effect that if Leninists can invade countries to establish communism via ‘revolution’ then why can’t ‘revolutionaries’ like Bush invade countries to establish (classical) liberalism? I think this remark, while not sarcastic, correctly sensed that Bush would make a bollocks of the thing and expose American imperialism, hence deserved to be egged on.
But I think that, qua Hegel, the issue is not that Bush is some sort of ‘great man’, but that, as Marx attempted to put it, globalization is itself revolutionary, garbled liberalism to be sure. The situation is straight ‘bourgeoisie in action’ since 1848: chaos in the name of the economic freedom against the horrid medievalism of all those premodern folk.
Anyway, I hate to say it, but as revolutionary idiots go Bush couldn’t be worse than Stalin.
novakant 01.12.07 at 7:00 pm
Sorry, but Scott’s reading seems to be a misreading. It’s not about a devil-may-care attitude towards reality, but rather great men are great only insofar as they grasp the reality of the age and push it forward:
“They are great men, because they willed and accomplished something great; not a mere fancy, a mere intention, but that which met the case and fell in with the needs of the age.”
Neither Bush, nor the Iraq war qualify – Gorbachev and the downfall of communism would have.
Thom Brooks 01.15.07 at 7:46 am
I agree entirely with #18. The trick is not merely to change the course of world history. (Whether or not Bush has actually done just this remains to be seen, although the present situation doesn’t augur well.) The other bit is to be on the proper side of history, to push civilization forward along a dialectical trajectory of reason.
Here Bush is not a world-historical personality (the technical phrase), but its opposite. Arguably, he is trying to push civilization backwards. Hegel might appluad Bush’s realism, but not Bush’s pseudo-tribalism. Hegel might agree with Bush that states decide for themselves whether and when to abide by international treaties (as Hegel did not accept international law, although certainly international norms of proper conduct), but deplore Bush’s denial of such a right to otehr states (e.g., Iran, for example).
Oh, there’s one other bit: the great deeds of the world-historical person are recognized as such by his/her fellows. The greatness of Socrates, Julius Caesar, Jesus Christ, and Napolean were certainly denied by many, but accepted by, say, far more than a mere 1/3 or so of the US population who only like Bush anyway because he is a Republica—it wouldn’t matter what Bush did to sway this crowd. There is nothing great and forward moving with Bush. Nor, as a self-confessed Hegelian (or the TH Green-variety), do I detect any progress in reason. Surely, colleagues need not be Hegelians to agree with that!
Comments on this entry are closed.