[Note: From time to time, this blog issues a set of
postings that summarize what the blog has been emphasizing in its previous
postings. Of late, the blog has been
looking at various obstacles civics educators face in teaching their
subject. It’s time to post a series of
such summary accounts. The advantage of
such summaries is to introduce new readers to the blog and to provide a
different context by which to review the blog’s various claims and
arguments. This and upcoming summary
postings will be preceded by this message.]
This blog has provided
a bit of information on the origins of the natural rights view. It has attributed John Locke as its main
author.[1] But he did not hit upon his ideas in a vacuum. It turns out that two influences, that were
having their effects on European thinking during Locke’s time, more than likely
had their effects on him. The two were the
Enlightenment and the work of Niccole Machiavelli.
The Enlightenment, a philosophic
development, took place in Europe from 1685 to 1815. It affected the politics, science, and
communications of that continent. Reflecting
on its main effect, it was also known as the “Age of Reason,” since it questioned
the foundational ideas and ideals that propped up the monarchial rule that
prevailed at the time. As such, it is credited
with ideations that lay down the basic rationale for democratic rule.
But
before one totally attributes these democratizing developments to the
Enlightenment, one should remember the ideals of democracy predate the 1700s by
centuries in that the beginnings of those beliefs in European thought stretch
back to ancient Greece. Looking at
ancient Athens, not only can one find the attributes of a “choice” polity
(using Madison’s terminology) but can even find the expression of federalist
values within the discourse of that city-state.
Many
of those norms were later picked up by the Romans especially during their “republic”
years. One should not mistakenly
attribute full fledged allegiance to democracy or federalism to these earlier
examples of governance, but the ideals can be detected by their rhetoric and
even in the governmental structures they set up.
But
the development of these views, ideas, ideals, and practices was not a straight
line from the Greeks till the outbreak of the Enlightenment. Instead they went into dormancy first with
the fall of the Roman Republic and then, further, with the fall of Rome. Eventually, in Europe, there arose the
dominance of the Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe which held onto a
theological view that was mostly antagonistic to democracy and, in many ways,
to reason.
A more favorable outlook had to wait till the beginnings
of the Renaissance in the 14th century which lasted till the 17th
century. The Renaissance served as a
precursor, in some ways, to the Enlightenment.
Specifically, it reintroduced a priority or importance on reason and
logic. A lot of that shift flew in the
face of the authority of the Roman Church and its foundational support of the
various feudalistic monarchies in the various European nations.[2]
More
specifically, the Church was most concerned with the Renaissance’s belittlement
of otherworldly forces that were credited with determining what happened on
earth. Later, instead of inspiration,
the Enlightenment promoted the sciences – experimentation and objective
observation – to determine the attributes of reality in the physical
world. Originally, this newer emphasis
was targeted on the study of physical forces and states of being but eventually
spilled over to the study of human behavior.
As
for the influence of Machiavelli’s work, his main contribution was his
demystifying what was considered the bases of a ruler’s powers. While not directly claiming that God has no role
on who rules, his description of “good” leadership portrays prudent exercises
in power as just an expression of promoting the self-interest of a leader. He goes on to state that politics is amoral,
a far cry from ironically the philosophical standards such writers as Aristotle
had established.
The
combination of the Enlightenment and Machiavelli’s work helped to establish how
contemporary views of governance and politics are held. It particularly has been instrumental in the
development of the natural rights view. Specifically,
by placing politics as just another way to pursue personal goals, one almost
has the justification for leaders – and one can extend to anyone – to be as selfish
and narcissistic as one wishes to be.
Unfortunately, examples of this are too common in the current
environment.
It
also lends to an understanding of political behavior that is amenable to what
has evolved in the study of political science.
That would be behaviorism, the prominent form of study that discipline
uses. To a large degree, behaviorism assumes
this sort of reward/punishment calculations to political machinations. Any reliance on self-sacrifice for the common
purpose or good is seen as mostly naive to expect or upon which to rely.
But
before leaving this subject, it should be emphasized that this is not the only
way to interpret what the Enlightenment or even Machiavelli had to offer. That is, what has just been described is
really a set of assumptions held by those who adhere to the natural rights view. When questioned they are apt to cite those
sources (the Enlightenment and/or Machiavelli) as justification, either
directly or by application of their reasoning.
Surely the reader has heard the natural rights view expressed by the
complaint, “be real, politicians are just a bunch of crooks.”
But
other views can also cite these sources with alternate, even opposing, adaptations
or interpretations. The Enlightenment’s
call for reason and logic can also justify the need for policies that stray
away from self-centeredness. They can
express that nations need to promote and sustain community and collaboration.
In
general, one can sense that the natural rights view approaches these sources on
a very short-term basis – that is, the set of immediate conditions at a given
time that face a person or group. But if
one uses a more long-term basis, and considers such factors as reciprocity,
sentiment, and self-fulfillment, for example, one might more likely appreciate
a nuanced application of these cited sources.
These
other factors tend to have their effects over longer time intervals. If one affects another by some action,
reciprocity might have to wait for the right conditions to administer either a
targeted reward or punishment.
Sentiments – especially those relating to liking or disliking; loving or
hating others – do not occur immediately but over time. And self-fulfillment takes a lifetime to even
appreciate. And yet they have their
effects day in and day out as one goes through the various challenges of life.
For
a teacher adhering to the federation theory construct, the obvious connections
to the Enlightenment can more easily be made than any connection to
Machiavelli. For that theory, citing
Aristotle is more fruitful, but here are some thoughts in favor of
Machiavelli. First, one should remember
that he was reacting to what existed during his time. And that environment ascribed unjustified
legitimacy, authority, and power to supernatural forces – basically the world
that existed was attributed to the ongoing authorship of God.
The
result of that connection was the readily available rationale for horrendous
policies that promulgated unjust policy choices on the populations of European
nations. While Machiavelli does not
directly question this connection, his work undermines it. By casting as prudent the commission of selfish
acts by a prince, he undermines the theology upon which that leadership depended. That would be the Christian doctrines based
on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Here
is a good example of how the espoused theories of a social entity make a
difference.[3]
To
be sure, one can readily cite abuses of that doctrine, but ultimately it served
to legitimize these rulers’ power. If
one debases that foundation, which Machiavelli does, ultimately their rule and
the power upon which it is based comes into more and more degradation within
the minds of the governed. Eventually,
as it happened, that authority vanishes.
One,
under such a development, leaves behind a rationale for an “accidental” polity (based
on nobility) and moves toward a “choice” polity (based on the establishment “of,
by, and for” a people). Hence, all this supports
the foundation and maintenance of, for example, a federated union like that of the
United States.
[1] For example, see “Piracy of the Highest Order,” June
4, 2019.
[2] An entertaining account of this history can be observed in the animation entitled The Greeks: Chasing Greatness. See The Greeks: Chasing Greatness, Public Broadcasting System, Public Broadcasting System, season 1, episode 3 (2016), accessed April 9, 2020, https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/thegreeks_ep3_full/thegreeks_ep3_full/ .
[3] See Chris Argyris and Donald A. Shon,
“Evaluating Theories in Action,” in The
Planning of Change, Fourth Edition, eds. Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D.
Benne, and Robert Chin (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985),
108-117.
No comments:
Post a Comment