THE ANGLOSPHERIC DIFFERENCE:

By far Oakeshott's most famous piece is his seminal 1962 essay "Rationalism in Politics," in which he argues against the scientistic conclusion that there are simply right ways to settle all moral and political questions: either by applying proper rules or by engaging in utility maximizing calculations. Many modern political doctrines, including liberalism and socialism--which have much in common--are tempted by this conceit. They discern universal natural rights, or the scientific "laws of motion" that govern history, and seek to apply them wholesale to very distinct communities with different traditions and practices. Practically, this leads to an emphasis on planning and organizing directed by rationalistic experts who apply their methods mechanically and with a disinterested attitude towards the communities they are impacting. The consequence is the gradual corrosion of traditions and practices which are seen as having little value to the rationalist eye, but in fact provide a tremendous sense of meaning to their practitioners. Indeed, Oakeshott sometimes seems to flirt with the Wittgensteinian point that, without being embedded in a distinct "form of life" that obeys its own internal logic, we cannot even make sense of the world.

There is a place for rationalism and planning, of course. A general leading a military campaign shouldn't dogmatically follow tradition and ignore calculations of cost and benefit. Nor should the head of a major corporation. Oakeshott's anxiety is that rationalism has become so epistemologically and morally dominant that it is gradually swallowing all alternatives. It is also discontented with pluralism in practice, even if it might be willing to countenance it in theory for the sake of rationalistic deliberation. This is because, in practice, there must be one correct way to organize the world. Oakeshott is stubbornly resistant to such claims, and posits conservatism as a natural corrective. This is because the conservative loyalty to "familiar relationships" and preference of the "convenient to the perfect" makes conservatives suspicious of the grandiose ambitions of planners who promise a utopia yet to come. They also have a deep attachment to traditional--rather than technical--knowledge, which contains forms of wisdom that the rationalist ignores or even disdains.

Tweet   @brothersjudd