Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
hegel
"When philosophy paints its grey in grey then has a shape of life grown old. By philosophy's grey in grey it cannot be rejuvenated but only understood. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk." -- G.W.F. Hegel, 'Preface', Philosophy of Right.
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Library
Links - weblogs
Links - Political Rationalities
Links - Resources: Philosophy
Public Discussion
Resources
Cafe Philosophy
Philosophy Centres
Links - Resources: Other
Links - Web Connections
Other
www.thought-factory.net
'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainity and agitation distinquish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.' Marx

Freedom and Terror « Previous | |Next »
February 5, 2003

This morning I started to re-read my very battered paperback copy of Hegel's well-known but little read Phenomenology of Spirit in the light of my recent exposure to some American neo-conservative material.

The reason for doing so is due to the writings of Anne Coulter, the author of Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right and an upcoming book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War To The War On Terrorism. The texts I have read---some of the newspaper articles---have been preying on me. I cannot forget what I saw buried there. It has shaken me.

What struck me about the more extreme of Coulter's writings is the neo-con political unconscious. Coulter's writing open up the blind fury of the politics and the willingness to attack all opponents---whether they are nation-states like France or the US Democrats---in the name of freedom. Attack is given an extreme form since attack means fighting a campaign in a war.

What I discern in Coulter's writings---what these texts bring to the light of day---is a freedom that is hostile to any constraint or restriction on its action, and which celebrates its intolerance with an in-your-face style.

Such a freedom is what Hegel calls an absolute or universal freedom.

Here are some quotes taken from The Phenomenology of Spirit (Ch.6, para. 589ff) to indicate the character of absolute freedom. Hegel is referring to the absolute freedom of the French Revolution.

"Universal freedom, therefore, can produce neither a positive work nor a deed; there is left for it only negative action; it is merely the fury of destruction."

"And, moreover, by virtue of its own abstraction, it divides itelf into extremes equally abstract, into a simple, inflexible, cold universality and into the discrete, absloute hard rigidity and self-willed atomism of actual self-consciousness. Now that it has completed the destruction of the actual organization of the world and exists just for itself, this is its sole object, an object that no longer has any content, possession, existence or outer extension; but is merely this knowledge of itself as an absolutely pure and free individual self."

"The sole work and deed of universal freedom is therefore death, a death too which has no inner significance or filling, for what is negated is the empty point of of the abolutely free self. It is thus the coldest and meanest of all deaths, with no more significance than cutting of a head of a cabbage or swallowing a mouthful of water."

"What is called government is merely the victorious faction and in the very fact of its being a faction lies the direct necessity of its overthrow..."

"....the terror of death is the vision of this negative nature of itself."

I have turned back to Hegel to begin to make sense of the neo-conservative conception of politics as blind fury that is willing to destroy what stands in its way. What it constructs as its opposite----that which has to be fought and destroyed ----is a negative, which is called terror. A war has to be unleashed on terror. Terror must be destroyed. What this gives birth to is a self-destroying reality.

So we have a dialectic of absolute freedom and terror.and this makes for dark times. That seems to me to capture what is happening with the war on Iraq.

That is the best I can do. Its not much help I know. But it is something, especially when there is little public evidence that Iraq poses a threat to the US; little public evidence that there is a direct link between the Iraqi government and the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, or little public evidence that there are links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. For the latter see Sunday's postings by Mark at pineappletown.

The irony is that this political unconscious of absolute freedom is surfacing in a nation-state whose ethical liberal culture is deeply structured around universal individual rights. These rights---a right to free speech, a right to a free trial, a right to freedom of assembly etc ---are almost venerated in the US nation, whilst the liberal state is deeply committed to these rights.


| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:58 AM | | Comments (15) | TrackBacks (3)
TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Freedom and Terror:

» A BIG thanks to the war crowd from Public Opinion
The 'lets wage war on Iraq now' crowd surged through public opinion for a moment, stopping by to drop some [Read More]

» A Big Thanks to the war crowd from Public Opinion
The 'lets wage war on Iraq now' crowd surged through public opinion for a moment, stopping by to drop some [Read More]

» The UN: Where to now? from Public Opinion
A large part of the conflict around the forth-coming war on Iraq centres around the role of the United Nations [Read More]

 
Comments

Comments

Sounds like the biological metaphor for Hegel's absolute freedom might be cancer. Which would make Coulter a rhetorical/political cancer.

Coulter is the equivalent of the small nuke "bunker buster" the USA is preparing for use in Iraq and elsewhere...

"Robert Nelson, a Princeton University physicist and senior fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations who has studied nuclear weapons as possible bunker busters, believes they are impractical.

Even smaller nuclear devices would throw off enough radioactive dirt and dust to kill tens of thousands of people if they were exploded underground in an urban environment.

Moreover, Nelson said, evidence suggests that a nuclear explosion could not be counted on to destroy chemical, biological or nuclear material stored in a deep bunker.

Instead, it would probably spread such material over a substantial area, he said."

"You would end up doing exactly the opposite of what you wanted to accomplish," he said.

You could be right, but is Coulter really a neo-con in the sense you use the term? I don't read much of her stuff, but she strikes me as more of traditional Christian-centered conservative.

Since I consider myself to be, in some sense, a Hegelian and a conservative, I must say that I consider your larger argument to be off track. (I won't bother trying to defend Coulter; she is a provocateur, meaning that you can't really enjoy her writings unless you add all of the qualifications yourself.)

Hegel's account of absolute freedom, as you mention, is connected to the reality of the French revolution. It is a freedom without consequences. It is a freedom that locates itself in abstract principle rather than the concrete relations worked out in human history.

What this has to do with neoconservatism is not clear to me. Shouldn't acts of terror have consequences for the terrorists? Shouldn't Hussein's willingness to use chemical & biological agents, combined with his attempts to acquire them in greater quantities, have consequences? What you are trying to argue as a matter of principle is to a large extent a matter of empirical inference. I trust you realize that not everyone shares your sense that Hussein is no danger to us, nor is everyone willing to look past the ongoing danger he is to his own people.

I would agree that the neoconservatives, having emerged from a classical liberal tradition, are much more likely to bind themselves to abstract principles than other conservatives might be. That may well cause problems for them, but I don't see that in evidence here.

Derk,
Yes I am troubled by what neo-con means---it is often used as a defence of the freedoms and values of the free market, small government, anti-statism eg. The Wall Street Journal.
This hardly conservative in any meaningful sense---its libertarian if not classical liberal.

These guys are also in favour of war, the national security state, and they see international affairs in classical market terms---self-seeking atoms furthering their self interest. Just plug in nation state instead of economic individual to atom. Its a harsh world of power conflicts out there and nation states need to use their power to get their own way--its realpolitik.

It is conservatism that articulates this national security understanding not classical liberalism. What is the cultural mentality or discourse of this conservatism?--- I am suggesting that some of can be discerned in Coulter's writings.

So I take these texts seriously because she is openly saying what many US conservatives in the Bush administration hold/believe but do not, and cannot, publicly say.

Maybe its the wrong way to approach things but I'll stick with it until I find a more better articulation of what is driving this national security conservatism?

Any suggestions?

Eddie,
I am suitably deflated. My case has been demolished and I have been left standing naked looking a bit silly. My initial reaction was in the early hours of the morning was: how could I have got things so wrong?

After a good nights sleep I reread your comments. its a good post with good substantive points. But I think that you have been too harsh.

1. Ann Coulter---a provocateur for sure--- but I am reading her texts from an Australian perspective in terms of the political unconscious of a war-like US conservatism. So I take the treason and attack France stuff seriously---- but needs like a lot of deciphering.

2.What I said about Iraq was that there was little public evidence for the two central claims--- not that he poses no danger to other nation states, the region or his own people. He does. Again the Australian context is crucial; Howard is going to war without making a case ; the majority of Australians want a UN mandate; that mandate comes from arguing the case publicly that the Iraqi regime has breached UN resolutions; it is very unclear what geopoltical interests are being met for Australia (not America) by going to war.

3. for the mixup re neocon (ie liberal) and conservative see above comments to Derk.

4. The big point here is Hegel. I am freewheeling here I admit--strong interpretation of a text and all that. I accept your points that absolute freedom is abstract and freedom without consequences. I think both apply.

From the Australian perspective of UN mandate for war the gungo hawks want to take out the Iraqi regime with little in the way of the consequences in the Middle East region for invasion, regime change and long term us presence. What comes across for us is:'its war and dam the consequences.'

The abstract principles bit comes from the deep philosophical presuppositions of realpolitik. What I have I have argued in various posts in the old public opinion weblog
http://sauerthompson.blogspot.com
To put it into the philosophical tradition: Hobbes sits under realpolitik, since it is Hobbes''scientific'account of political life within the nation state transposed to international affairs. Social contract theory has always struck me as based on abstract principles. Was not this the starting point of of Hegel's criticism of the social contract tradition?

5. What has this to do with political conservatism? I would have thought that these conservatives would have criticised the neocons as imposters. Lockean liberals pretending to be conservatives.

6. My freewheeling Hegel comes a desire to account for the mentality,form of consciousness, discourse in terms of a dialectical opposition between freedom and terror. That is what I see in the political unconscious I discern in Coulter's texts. Its the cultural constructions of this form of consciousness that I am interested here, not the actual terrorism of the Iraqi regime. It is how this form of consciousness understands the world ---Hegel's little piece on absolute freedom and terror seems to be a good starting point because of the strong dualism at work in this form of consciousness: freedom and terror; good and evil; us and them etc.

"Ann Coulter---a provocateur for sure--- but I am reading her texts from an Australian perspective in terms of the political unconscious of a war-like US conservatism. So I take the treason and attack France stuff seriously..."

But by calling her the political unconscious, I believe you set up in advance the criticism concerning universal freedom. Isn't it the nature of the unconscious to fantasize about a world without restraint? I suspect that every political movement has an id that looks a lot like Coulter.

"...the majority of Australians want a UN mandate; that mandate comes from arguing the case publicly that the Iraqi regime has breached UN resolutions; it is very unclear what geopoltical interests are being met for Australia (not America) by going to war."

To my mind, the UN is the perfect picture of speech and actions without consequences, so I think the unwillingness of the US to let the UN have final say is a welcome recognition of the UN's banality. The real negotiations will happen between individual countries, and the US seems to be making efforts to bring a large number of countries on board. Ultimately, you find your limits by running into them, not by setting them upon yourself ahead of time.

"What has this to do with political conservatism? I would have thought that these conservatives would have criticised the neocons as imposters. Lockean liberals pretending to be conservatives."

Some do, of course, but I am comfortable with the thought that an American conservative is conserving a political tradition grounded in classical liberalism. Thus American conservatism ought to resemble classical liberalism, even if it rejects some of its more extreme attempts to make individual autonomy the summum bonum of politics.

"My freewheeling Hegel comes a desire to account for the mentality,form of consciousness, discourse in terms of a dialectical opposition between freedom and terror. That is what I see in the political unconscious I discern in Coulter's texts. Its the cultural constructions of this form of consciousness that I am interested here, not the actual terrorism of the Iraqi regime. It is how this form of consciousness understands the world..."

I don't entirely follow this point, except to say that modern democratic freedom does seem to inspire a self-destructive nihilism that is a more perverse form of freedom. Perhaps this counts as dialectical opposition, but I'm not sure.

It is great to read someone taking stock of politics using Hegelian argument. I hope you keep that copy of the Phenomenology close beside you!

Gary,

Your description of neo-conservatism seems to fit my outlook, and I do find myself agreeing with the Weekly Standard and National Review more often than not (which is not to say that I always agree). But, the few times I have read Coulter columns, I have found that either I didn't really agree, or that she was just exaggerating for effect. As an analogy, I would say that where the neo-cons, whatever they are, are akin to, say, karate or boxing, Coulter is more like professional wrestling. Sure, there are some similar elements, but it is more of a comedy routine. That said, you may be right. I haven't read much of her stuff. Perhaps she does reveal something about my sub-conscious mind and I don't even know it.

At the very least, she probably captures the basic team instinct that is a fundamental force in the world. I see it this way. If you are on a football team preparing to face an opponent, and if member of your team start talking about how we have to think about how the opponent feels and perhaps we have been winning too much, I think it is safe to say that some animosity will arise. This is a basic biological impulse, and although it is not polite to admit it, this team oriented mentality dominates world affairs far more than is usually recognized. She calls dissenters traitors and so on thereby giving voice to this impulse.

In any case, I was wondering if you think Michael Moore gives voice to the subconscious of the left.


Derk,
as to Mike Moore giving expression to the political unconscious of the left---of course. Being a lefty I probably do not see half of the deep stuff I hold and I don't even realize that I hold it. So I have to read Moore's critics to get some idea of what I accept at a deep unconscious level. But you need good critics to do this as you need help to negotiate the distorting mirrors.

Coaches do demonize the opposing team as the enemy. They know they are doing it---it is to motivate the team- to win and become champions. But somehow fiction and reality are still recognized. The other team is still just a team and not butchers, rapists, murderers etc who have to be taken out.

Yeah I agree abou the team analogy. Its a good one. The politicians and media act as the coach gearing us up for war with Iraq.

I'm not sure that the team analogy is a good one for running the country. Its too undemocratic. I do prefer to think of it terms of citizens having a say in policy formation and decision-making rather than the coach calling all the shots. We citizens don't get much here, I know, but we can fight for more of a say.

For example I, a lot of Australian citizens, would like John Howard to use his special relationship with George Bush to go back to the UN and get a resolution to go to war if the Iraqi regime does not fully comply with the UN resolution. He can bang the war drum to place pressure on the Iraqi regime to comply, but he also needs to work through, and with the UN.

Howard as the coach resists this and so lots of pressure has to bought to bear on the coach to make him see that he is a team player. Tony Blair in the UK is far more willing to engage and debate than Howard.

Eddie,
I concur with every political movement has a political unconscious that looks a lot like Anne Coulter--who gives expression to the left one? John Pilger? It has to be someone wilder than Mike Moore?

Am I setting up things in advance re the unconscious fantasizing without restraint? Perhaps. I use political unconscious rather than id to indicate that it is culturally coded----part of the historical development of culture. (reading that in terms of Hegel's chapter in the Phenomenology). The political unconscious of the US conservatism has changed over the last 300 years. A new one is forming now that the Soviet Union has gone.

We basically disagree about the role of the UN. But its credibility is on the line on this issue---is that common ground?

If US conservatism is a modified Lockean liberalism--fine; that makes it a very different from the English tory conservatism with its roots in Burke and Hiume; or a Hegelian conservatism based on the philosophy of Right. But why not call it for what it is--Lockean liberalism? That would stop the rest of us getting confused.

Re the dialectical bit in the Coulter political unconscious---I too am unsure about the strict dialectical bit. But I do see the historical development of liberal culture in a Nietzschean way---as the devaluation of our highest values (the process of nihilism).All the US 'God and Christian' discourse strikes me as a counter reaction to liberal nihilism: it tries to do somethign about it by going back.

They have put the finger on the pulse of a cultural sickness but they come up with a faulty diagnosis. At a high culture level its all that German and French stuff that is the cancer destroying the healthy American body (eg. Allan Bloom).

"I use political unconscious rather than id to indicate that it is culturally coded----part of the historical development of culture. ...The political unconscious of the US conservatism has changed over the last 300 years. A new one is forming now that the Soviet Union has gone."

I agree that the unconscious is a better term than the id, in terms of what is and in terms of Hegel's philosophy. I agree too that the political unconscious of US conservatism has changed, but this is to be expected of any vital conservatism (as opposed to reactionary politics). Conservatives ought not be ideologues; they trust in their unconscious more than abstract principle. The trick, of course, is to try to make the unconscious manifest.

"If US conservatism is a modified Lockean liberalism--fine; that makes it a very different from the English tory conservatism with its roots in Burke and Hiume; or a Hegelian conservatism based on the philosophy of Right. But why not call it for what it is--Lockean liberalism? That would stop the rest of us getting confused."

I can't speak for the tory tradition that well, but I don't doubt that American conservatism is distinct from it. English conservatives, for example, take social class much more seriously than American conservatives. (I know even less about Australian conservatives.) Why not just call it Lockean liberalism? Well, maybe we should, but I take the point of conservatism as being recognizing and maintaining one's strengths. American conservatives tend to think that America's strength comes from this liberal tradition (even if they don't call it that), but that doesn't mean that conservatives necessarily want to buy into the extreme individualism of this philosophy. That is, American conservatives are amazed at the power of individuals set loose into the world, and strive to maintain that freedom in the face of a paternalistic welfare state, but conservatives also have some misgivings about the alienation of the individual that liberal society promotes. In this sense they are perhaps not so far from Hegel.

"I do see the historical development of liberal culture in a Nietzschean way---as the devaluation of our highest values (the process of nihilism)."

And you support the UN?! I can't imagine anything that would make Nietzsche more ill than watching the grand display of resentiment found in this body. I am quite sympathetic to Nietzsche, and think that he does identify significant problems with liberal democracy, but I am one of those conservatives in awe of American individualism, or Athenian individualism if you want another example.

It is my opinion then that American conservatism does necessarily look different from conservatism as it is found in Europe or in the Orient. It is similar in mood, i.e., the strength of one's tradition must be maintained, but the tradition itself is quite different. This leads then to a spirit of adventure that is odd for conservatism generally, but there is danger in not realizing who you are. Thucydides tells us that the general Nicias, who was a conservative in the plainest sense of the word, failed Athens because he failed to live up to its ambitious spirit. In a sense, then, I would say that his conservatism failed as well.

Gary,

I am not saying that the team impulse is necessarily a good thing, but it is has a biological basis and I think Coulter is exploiting it. I don't see this as unique to Coulter, nor do I see it as unique to the right side of the political spectrum. The left defines itself largely in opposition to perceived or real enemies and opponents and I know leftists who have been shut out and scorned because they sided with the "enemy" on on issue or another.

But, I think this basic reactionary impulse is very active on all sides of the debate and the worst writers/pundits (I include both Coulter and Moore) make most use of it instead of dealing with ideas. I am not really sure how much you will learn about the right from Coulter, but, as I said, I should probably read more of her stuff to see.

To drag the conversation up to a really superficial level for a sec ... Am I alone in taking Coulter (who I think is very smart and funny) to be a gonzo comedian. I personally think she's right about a lot of things, but then I personally think Jim Carrey and Richard Pryor are right about a lot of things too. But I'd never think of taking any of them as making reasoned politcal arguments. Nonetheless, there's a lot to what they say -- such is my reaction, anyway.

I'm not sure in what sense the word "unconscious" is being used here. I suspect Coulter's quite conscious of her strategy, her attack, her persona and her effects, although she may indeed come across as a little more crazed than she intends to. So, "unconscious" how? In the sense that she's effective, and makes some people laugh, and is thus a key to a group's unconscious? Something like that?

I hope I don't stop this conversation cold. I'm really enjoying it.

Michael,
Coulter is conscious of what she is doing; but her consciousness is fed by a historically formed political unconscious. She expresses fragments of it---as do many comedians and clowns and those fragments are in need of a little interpretation.

There are many forms of this expression. Let me give an example from politics. We find something similar in the language of Mark Latham, a federal Labor in Australia, who calls Liberals little Tory suckholes, sees George Bush as the modst incompetent and dangerous US President in living memory and denounces John Howard as a US apologist and a liar.

The language is far more colourful, vitriolic and violent than that of course--- you can see the hate, the loathing and the fury. And Latham knows what he is doing -- it is a worked out strategy to get some air for the ALP and a platform from which the ALP can speak and be heard and so get some traction in the electorate. The language is one of out and out war---that reaches back into the deep recesses of one hundred years of Australian political history. It strikes a deep chord---it makes contact with an deep emotional/political template of the Australian people on the left of centre side of politics.

The US Ambassador is sufficiently concerned by his interpretation of these fragments to intervene in Australian domestic politics.

The US ambassador interprets Mark Latham to be more than an anti-US ranter--I see the Ambassador as interpreting Latham to be articulating the political unconscious of the ALP left and a large proportion of Australian citizens. The Ambassador is so concerned by what he discerns that he is willing to intervene into Australiaan politics to get the ALP to cool it, tone it down, and be more responsible and so risk stoking the "anti-US" embers even further.

And the Ambassador has had that effect. Expect more fireworks.

Does that help?

Eddie,

Okay I accept your account of American conservatism as liberalism with misgivings on individual freedom. I do think you down play the constraints bit--Hegel had a rich account of community, nation, corporations to constrain/limit, the atomism of negative freedom in civil society. From where I am sitting this constraining individual freedom within civil soceity tends to be downplayed in US conservatism, which is more focused on defending individual rights vis-a-vis the (mostly) paternal welfare state. Community gets very short shift.

Or am I misreading?

I admit that I am in a bind with the UN re my nihilism of liberalism bit. This bind is made worse by my giving priority to the nation state vis-a-vis the IMF and WT0-two other deeply flawed global institutions of governance.

I walk a tightrope here. The UN is imperfect and corrupt;its all we have, and efforts to reform it are blocked by nation states defending their patch. But given the experience of East Timor I'd rather have it than not have it. So I want the Australian Government to resist the Americans saying we don't give a dam about the UN, that its a hollow institution and that our new world order after the Cold War doesn't need the UN.

I do not trust the Howard Govt. to talk public sense to the Americans by putting the case of the majority of Australian citizens. The Howard Govt.has drunk far too deeply from US neo-conservatism and so they buy the whole realpolitik account, which makes the UN a hollow institution that should be tossed onto the scrap heap of history.

Why the UN? For good Hegelian reasons. The UN embodies international law, which springs from the relations between autonomous adn particular nation-states. these states have treaties which act as the ground of obligations between states and have a tacit ought-to-be-kept implication. The UN acts as mediator or arbitrator that is recognized by each individual state.

We then get all that cosmopolitan stuff (liberal internationalism) based on Kant's 'perpetual peace' through arbitration that makes it impossible to go to war. I don't buy it----when states cannot agree and their particular wills and interests cannot be reconciled/harmonized then the matter is settled by war. But war implies the possibility of peace being retained.