By Michael O'Meara | 5 Comments | 
Print
The Culture of Critique
& the Pathogenesis of Modern Society
Part 3 (Conclusion)
Review of:
Reinhart Koselleck
Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society
Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988
Read Part 1 here.
Read Part 2 here.
3. The Crisis of the Old Order
“When and whenever [men] are subjects without being citizens, they inevitably endow other concerns and pursuits—economic, social, cultural—with an independent and hence rival authority.” This was the great failing of Absolutism.
In such a situation, the voluntary associations of the bourgeoisie—Masonic lodges, salons, clubs, coffee-houses, academies, sociétés de pensées, the “Republic of Letters”—became rival centers of moral authority and eventually rival models of political authority.
The criticism of these bourgeois organs sought to “test” the validity or truth of its subject, making reason a factor of judgement in its process of pro and con.
Bourgeois judgements critical of the political system set off, in turn, a crisis threatening the existing State.
As scientific materialists, armed with a naive analytic-empiricist epistemology, such bourgeois critics waged their subversive campaign with no appreciation of existing political realities or the imperatives and limits these realities imposed. This would make their moral crusade unrealistic, Utopian, unconcerned with the “contingency, conflict, and compulsion” that occupies and defines the political field.
Their Utopian proposals (their anti-political politics) constituted, as such, no actual political alternative, based as they were on a purely formal, abstract understanding of the political realm, which it subjected to the individual’s moral conscience.
But once the private moral realm started to impinge on the political sphere of the Absolutist State, the State itself was again called into question.
First unconsciously and then increasingly consciously, the bourgeois Enlightenment applied its Utopian and ultimately hypocritical standards to the State, whose political imperatives were ignored rather than recognized for what they were—so as not to complicate its own geometrical schemes of reform.
The Enlightenment, it followed, was wont to see itself in moral terms, not political—not even metapolitical—ones.
This self-deceiving politics could only end in ideological excess and terror—for the sole way to realize its Utopian political theology would be by forcing others to accept and submit to it.
The result, Koselleck concludes, was the advent of the modern condition—this “sense that we are being sucked into an open and unknown future, the pace of which has kept us in a constant state of breathelessness ever since the dissolution of the traditional ständische societies.”
The turbulent “tribune of reason” bequeathed by the Enlightenment aimed, moreover, at every sphere of human endeavor—not just the Absolutist State, traditional Catholic Christianity, or the numerous corporate restraints inhibiting the market.
Everything historically given was, as such, to be re-conceived as a historical process that had to be re-directed, reformed, and re-planned, as the dictates of fate gave way to the rationalist obliteration of political aporia (i.e., the impasses or challenges posed by exceptional situations determined only by the sovereign).
Through its Règne de la Critique, the bourgeoisie (as prosecutor, judge, and jury) subjected the State to an enlightened conscience that debunked its “rationality” and increasingly advocated, or implied, its replacement.
With this rationalist critique of Absolutism came an unfolding philosophy of history—which promised a victory that was to be gained without struggle or war, that applied to all mankind, and that would bring about a better, more rational, and peaceful future—if only “reason” (i.e., bourgeois interests) was allowed to rule.
Through this critique, politics—the tough decisions fundamental to human existence—was dissolved into an Utopian project indifferent to the historical given. Everything, it followed, was subject to criticism, nothing was taboo—not the “order of human things,” not even life itself would be spared the alienation that came with the critic’s unpolitical reason.
Then, as the critic assumed the right to subject the whole world to his verdict, acting as “the king of kings,” criticism was “transformed into a maelstrom that sucks the present from under the feet of the critic”—for his criticisms amounted to an endless assault on the present in the name of a far-off, but allegedly enlightened future.
4. Modern Pathogenesis
At the highest level, Koselleck offers “a generic theory of the modern world”—one that seeks to explain something of our age to us.
In his view, criticism engendered crisis, calling the future into question.
The Enlightenment’s culture of critique could, however, only culminate in revolution—a revolution whose new order would privilege the rich and powerful (and, in time, the Jews).
By subordinating law to morality, ignoring the differences that divide men over the great questions of existence, the liberal State born of Enlightenment culture stripped sovereignty of its power.
Henceforth bourgeois morality became the invisible framework of the State, as sovereign authority was changed into an act of persuasion and reason—and the essence of politics (no longer the polemic over fundamental problems of human existence) became the non-political rule of a discursive bourgeoisie indifferent to matters of faith and desirous of a fate-less society without a sovereign State.
As social and political realities were indiscriminately mixed and subjected to the invisible opinion of the bourgeois public, based on an ostensively objective reason, everything failing to accord with that opinion became an injustice, subject to reform.
Society here assumed the right to abrogate whatever laws it wished, inadvertently establishing a reign of permanent revolution.
Refusing to recognize the State’s amoral (rather than immoral) character, the emerging bourgeois political system—with its culpablizing, but “value free” politics and its civil ideal taken as the universal destiny of all humanity—not infrequently had to resort to naked force to realize its Utopia: the terror and mass killings that followed 1789, the nuclear holocaust inherent in the Cold War, the on-going, unrelenting destructuration of the local and global today.
The consequence has been liberalism’s non-political State (whether in its 19th-century guise as a Night Watchman State or in its 20th-century Nanny State form). This State replaced politics with morality, tradition with planning, disagreements with a cold indifference to all that matters. It became thus a legal order, a Rechtsstaat, supposedly unattached to any constituting system of ascription or belief, and thus beyond any “exception” that might make visible the actual basis of bourgeois rule.
In this situation, where politics were negated and political problems were reduced to “organizational-technical and economic-sociological tasks,” the world was emptied of “seriousness” and turned into a vast realm of entertainment, where the bourgeois was allowed to enjoy the fruits of his acquisitions.
With liberalism, then, politics ceases to be a destiny and becomes a technique hostile to all who refuse its philistine philosophy of history—for the linear notion of progress inherent in this philosophy undermines and “reforms” everything that has historically ensured the integrity of white life.
Michael O'Meara
Michael O’Meara, Ph.D., studied social theory at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris and modern European history at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe (Bloomington, Ind.: 1stBooks, 2004).
Thanks for this review. I have not read Koselleck, and your comments make me wish to do this.
Other dimensions of the (inadvertent?) hypocrisy of the enlightenment project have been very usefully explored in Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue. MacIntyre points out that the enlightenment project involved an attempted moral revolution, and then goes on to argue persuasively that the project necessarily had to fail, given the failure of enlightenment thinkers to properly understand the necessary interactions of tradition and character ideals. What the enlightenment project actually produced was a brittle facility with reducing the concrete to the abstract, and popularizing this “improvement” as a new standard for would-be cognoscenti.
Macintyre’s critique of the cult of expertise in the same work is also of value. The bureaucracies that administer the state do so largely by translating the propaganda of our elites (who provide the the “moral” ends, never questioned except in the specific cases of ratcheting the cultural revolution one step further) into a discussion of “means”. This passes for “democratic process” for the unwary.
Oakeshott’s “Rationalism in Politics” is also a valuable exploration of some of the relevant themes.
I really do not know what to make of this book. The review started sounding good in part 1, then seemed to turn into a verbiage-fest of inscrutible quoted statements that did not make sense? There needed to be more examples, more references to actual events maybe? Here is an example:
“Through this critique, politics—the tough decisions fundamental to human existence—was dissolved into an Utopian project indifferent to the historical given. Everything, it followed, was subject to criticism, nothing was taboo—not the “order of human things,” not even life itself would be spared the alienation that came with the critic’s unpolitical reason.
Then, as the critic assumed the right to subject the whole world to his verdict, acting as “the king of kings,” criticism was “transformed into a maelstrom that sucks the present from under the feet of the critic”—for his criticisms amounted to an endless assault on the present in the name of a far-off, but allegedly enlightened future.”
Judging from part 3 of the review, I think the author of the book took a superficial view of reality, and did not understand the forces that were truly at work. You have to look at the truly big picture (i.e. the accumulation of scientific and historical knowledge in the world by 1988) to see what was really going on in those times and it looks like the author did not care for big pictures, and the far future, but rather the here-and now? That is a Jewish view–”live for today”, “be here now” — major Abbie-Hoffman hippie stuff, right? The talk of the Jewish-marxist idea of “bourgeois” was used liberally throughout, it seems. I kept getting the feeling that this book was written by a Jew and / or a communist in parts. The last thing a communist has is any high ideal, any real truth-motives, any religion. That is all western, civilization-builder stuff. It seemed like the book was saying that all there is is politics without universals (which he says are just made up)– which is patently Jewish in it’s moral particularism.
The divine right of kings, which was the ostensible rationalization of kingly authority, is that kings were not just doing whatever they wanted… (selfish interests or politics) but that they were good for humanity because they followed the will of the creator? They were supposed to be emissaries of the creator by their vision and abilities in regard to the creators ultimate time-transcendant, far-flung purposes acting through them. That’s why King James interpreted the bible, etc…
When the review said that reason was just masquerading interests of a monied bourgeois class, well then in my mind that is not reason at all, right? Jews use psuedo-reason to realize their goals, but westerners do not — they actually want objective truth. That’s why Freud won a Nobel Prize for literature, not science — he never did any science. Rationalization of masquerading interests is POLITICS not reason — therefore politics cannot be in opposition to politics? Made no sense… In actuality, politics is pursuing selfish interests at the expense of universal, empirical reason and truth that we can clearly see from studying biology, nature, evolution. Politics is the enemy of objective truth and reason. Politics is a moral particularist or even amoral free-for-all, right? I did not understand the use of the words, it seemed like the words being used were to be interpreted as the opposite of what they really mean? Maybe there was some bad translating involved too.
I did not understand what was being said in the book except that the rise of the middle class introduced different interests, deposed the authority of kings, and paved the way for Jews. If that is the message, it is hardly worth a book. Also, it is wrong because as Kevin MacDonald and many others have shown, it is reason, the theory of evolution included, that has the best chance of SAVING us fron destruction by understanding the forces at work in our civilizations and our world. Humans are different because we can see the timeless principles at work in the world and glean best courses of action from that.
To me, from this long review, this is a book written by a torn mind struggling with the concepts introduced by Jews unmotivated by truth (as I did in college) and unable to reconcile them with real concepts from the authentic truth-seekers in European society and unable to reconcile them with actual reality. To me, Jews tend to be poisoners of minds. Where they cannot deceive or de-rail, they simply confuse and distort. That is because their motives are different. If you are concerned about truth, and making a coherent picture of reality, then Making up high-sounding concepts (example – Freud, Boaz) in place of science or objective reality is a hallmark of those not concerned with truth, and of Jews. Reading the review alone was unsettling and confusing. I don’t think I will be reading this one (and I have read a lot of Freud!).
Steven, old boy, Koselleck is not a Jew, but a German student of the great Jew-hating political theorist Carl Schmitt. How could you say such a thing?
I think even he was confused maybe by Jewish concepts? I said I got the feeling he was Jewish… not that he was Jewish — big difference. Maybe he had a translator who messed what he was saying up on purpose or maybe just through the lens of modern liberal / Jewish concepts? Seriously I liked how it started, and there seem to be good concepts in the book, and I think back then they thought of “intellectual” as pontificating, disguised, political interests (i.e. Goering saying that when he hears the word “intellectual” he reaches for his gun…) like we see in Freud or Boas, etc. I don’t know. I think it has a sort of different meaning now as “smart” or bookish, etc. Using “bourgeois” over and over is another example — isn’t that a concept made up by communists to divide society? Another term would have been better — thus I think the translation was bad. Given what you said in your last comment, I can appreciate what he was trying to say and overlook some of the terminology I think. Giving the benefit of the doubt, I think that if he was trying to say that kings are superior to mass-money interests of a rising upper-middle-class, then yes that is true. Certainly mass-democracy gives power over us to Jews who want to get rid of and destroy us obviously.
I think at some level Europeans (at least the insightful ones) knew that greed or money-interests should not rule. That kernel of truth that greed should not rule was twisted and turned into the self-destructive poisonous revolutions and class-war of communism by Jewish writers and influences. Greed itself (never called that–words like “social justice” etc are used) and revenge in lower classes was actually exploited in communism — that they would finally get the food, housing, etc. they deserved that others were keeping from them for no good reason. This is not reason or high ideals, this is politics, greed. They used high-sounding terms like utopia for communism, but it was never that. It was people manipulated by their base emotions to serve Jews and Jewish purposes. The movement, or natural rising sentiment that money should not rule, became their Jewish communist movement by manipulating our own natural emotions against us. The author of the book lacked full knowledge of the Jewish mindset and influences maybe too. I know I struggled to make sense of what was going on in the world, and could not piece it together into a coherent whole until I understood alien Jewish influences, money, media power, and mindset. Then finally it began to make sense! The history of wars, politics, academia, etc. are incoherent until you see their interests, worldviews, and influences at work. The primary constant war of civilization is Jewish politics vs the civilization-builders — just like Hyenas are constantly at war with lions. I am not singling this writer out, many are like this. Even “conservative” politicians are like this. They do not understand Jews or racial factors enough today, so they are constantly ineffectual in stopping our demise. Their heart may be in the right place… but they channel their efforts in unproductive ways. This writer seems to have written unaware of Jews in many cases. For example:
“the voluntary associations of the bourgeoisie—Masonic lodges, salons, clubs, coffee-houses, academies, sociétés de pensées, the “Republic of Letters”—became rival centers of moral authority and eventually rival models of political authority.”
They were all centers of massive Jewish influences (which might have had something to do with that, no?)– the Vienna coffee houses and the Masonic lodges became legendary centers of Jewish influences and subversive communist activism, for example. He does not mention the Jews. Jews are usually a minority, so much of their interests are always served by the manipulation and exploitation of others — their influences are to be found in the opinions of others. Once you identify what Jews are after, and the movements they got going, you can see when people are speaking Jew-speak. Maybe we are just more aware today than he was (thanks to people like Kevin MacDonald and others). Many non-Jewish people — even those ostensibly on our side — speak Jewish-inspired opinions, or use Jewish-coined terminology. That’s what it means to be immersed in what Slezkine calls the “Jewish century”.
Steven,
That you think European terminology is Jewish (or sounds Jewish), I suspect, says a lot about you.
The “bourgeoisie” existed long before Marx, just as “the culture of critique” existed long before the Jews made use of it.
To discuss European history, you must know something about it — not just about what your anti-Jewish sentiments lead you to believe.