Raymond Geuss, Philosophy and Real Politics
There is often a significant time lag between an idea and its expression. Being aware of that gap maybe necessary for appreciating the original idea for what it is. I am reminded of this in reading Raymond Geuss’ book Philosophy and Real Politics which was published in 2008 but draws its inspirations ultimately from the late 1960s and early 70’s when its author was a student at Columbia University in New York City. In his recent autobiographical essay Not Thinking Like a Liberal Geuss write: “Nothing that has happened in the fifty years since I finished my doctoral dissertation in 1971 has really had a radical effect in shaking the basic way of viewing the world which I had acquired.” How then – we want to ask – is Philosophy and Real Politics rooted in that earlier period and why is its lesson still useful to us in the third decade of the 21st century?
Columbia University was a place of political agitation during Geuss’ time as a student. He may not have been much of an activist, but he was certainly touched by the events. At one point his most important teacher and intellectual role model, Sidney Morgenbesser, was bloodied in a confrontation between the protesting students and the police. This local unrest was part of the political and social turmoil that extended at the time across the globe from the United States to France, Germany, China and numerous other places – including Tunisia where it spawned Michel Foucault political engagement. We can see today that the upheavals had far-reaching effects in all those countries. Our world would look entirely different without them – though they didn’t necessarily bring about the changes their protagonists had hoped for.
One outcome of these happenings was the revitalization of political philosophy in the United States, a topic that had been languishing for some decades. Starting in the early 1930s and accelerated by the arrival of émigré philosophers from Europe, American philosophy had come to focus on the study of logic, language, and the sciences, largely by-passing the problems of politics. What had come to dominate was a somewhat restrictive form of “analytic philosophy.” But in the social and political upheavals of the 1960s the philosophers were suddenly confronted with students who challenged the “relevance” of what they were doing. The result was a renewal of philosophical interest in political philosophy. Of particular importance in this turn were the Harvard philosophers John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Rawls published his acclaimed book A Theory of Justice in 1971 and Nozick followed hm in 1974 with Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Each of those books defended a political view that was widely popular in America: Rawls a mainstream progressive liberalism and Nozick a libertarian anarchism. It was in this period that Geuss also turned to political philosophy.
But he moved from the beginning outside the emerging current of American political philosophy. In his autobiography he writes of his “naturally contrarian temperament” and his feeling “distant from the prevailing philosophical culture.” Having gone to Freiburg/Germany for the academic year 1967-1968 with an interest in Heidegger, he discovered there the writings of Theodor Adorno. Their critical, skeptical, even pessimistic tone attracted him. But this did not mean that he began to think of himself as a fully committed member of the Frankfurt School and its critical theory. He had, in particular, not much sympathy for Juergen Habermas’ attempt to construct a systematic socio-political theory. He remained, rather, true to Adorno and his critical approach to philosophy. It is with this in mind that we must approach Geuss’ Philosophy and Real Politics.
Geuss taught at Princeton, Columbia, and the University of Chicago in the early parts of his career but then moved to Britain in 1993 to take up a position of lecturer and professor of philosophy at Cambridge University. There he discovered a more congenial intellectual environment than he had known in in the US. Where American political philosophy tended to be affirmative, optimistic, and moralistic, the English political philosophers proved to be more skeptical, more pessimistic, and more “realist” in their thinking. (Stuart Hampshire, Bernard Williams, John Dunn, Quentin Skinner, and John Gray come to mind.)
While teaching in the US, Geuss had been slow to publish. His only book at the time was small volume on The Idea of a Critical Theory that appeared in 1983. But since then, he has published eight books, most of them collections of essays. In that series of publications, Philosophy and Real Politics may be the most important. It is certainly Geuss’ most programmatic statement in political philosophy.
Geuss begins the book by drawing a distinction between “ideal” and “realist” theories in political philosophy. In the book he clearly identifies with the latter but has since come to regret calling himself a political realist. A better description would, indeed, be to call him a diagnostic political thinker (a term he doesn’t us) because the starting point of his philosophical thinking is a diagnosis of what he conceives to be the dominant liberalism of our era. What he opposes, in particular, is the moralistic conception of politics in Rawls’ political liberalism. This, he thinks, derives ultimately from the philosophy of Kant. He writes: “A strong ‘Kantian’ strand is visible in much contemporary political theory, and even perhaps in some real political practice. This strand expresses itself in the highly moralized tone in which some public diplomacy is conducted, at any rate in the English-speaking world, and also in the popularity among political philosophers of the slogan ‘Politics is applied ethics.’” He adds: “In this essay I would like to espouse and advocate a kind of political philosophy based on assumptions that are the opposite of the ‘ethics-first’ view…”
In the introductory section of the boo, Geuss makes four observations about how we need to think about politics and political philosophy. The first is that “political philosophy must be realist.” It must be concerned “not with how people ought ideally (or ought ‘rationally’) to act … but rather with the way the social, economic, political etc. institutions actually operate.” Political philosophy must recognize furthermore that “politics is in the first instance about action and the context of action, not about mere beliefs or propositions.” Politics is, moreover, to be understood as “historically located,” And it is, finally, “more like the exercise of a craft or art” than an application of a theory. Its exercise relies on skill rather than theoretical understanding. He summarizes his view later in the book provocatively as a form of neo-Leninism. “In my view, if political philosophy wishes to be at all connected with a serious understanding of politics, and thus become an effective source of orientation or a guide to action, it needs to return from the present reactionary forms of neo-Kantianism to something like the ‘realist’ view, or, to put it slightly differently, to neo-Leninism.”
To explain this surprising claim, he adds: “Lenin defines politics with characteristic clarity and pithiness when he says that it is concerned with the question that keeps recurring in our political life: ‘Who, whom?’ ” He admits that Lenin’s formula is perhaps too dense and needs to be expanded. “First of all, the formula should read not merely ‘Who whom?’ but, rather, ‘’Who [does] what to whom for whose benefit?’ with four distinct variables to be filled in, i.e., (1) Who, (2) What, (3) To whom, (4) for whose benefit? To think politically is to think about agency, power, and interests, and the relations among these.” One consequence of this view is that it helps one to overcome some of the currently popular views in political philosophy. “If one takes this extended Leninist model as the matrix of political philosophy, certain consequences would seem to follow. The first is that it would be a mistake to believe that one could come to any substantive understanding of politics by discussing abstractly the good, the right, the true or the rational.” Another implication of Lenin’s view is that “every theory is ‘partisan.’” This implies that “any kind of comprehensive understanding of politics will also have to treat the politics of theorization.” Political philosophy must, in other words make itself a subject of examination. We must ask such things such as: What is the political background from which a political philosophy emerges? The political philosopher always occupies a place within a political context. So, how does his/her thinking reflect that context? And how does a political philosophy shape actual political practice?
Lenin conceived politics in terms of power and the understanding of the concept of power has to be, indeed, one of the tasks of political philosophy. But Geuss considers it a mistake to treat ‘power’ as a single, uniform substance or relation wherever it is found. We should, instead, speak of a variety of qualitatively kinds of power. “In this account ‘power’ is to be construed as connected with general concepts like ‘ability to do’ “To illustrate this, Geuss offers us these examples: (1) Coercive power by virtue of physical strength, (2) persuasive power “by virtue of being convinced of the moral rightness of your case and having a special training or natural talent for speaking,” (3) the power of a charismatic figure due to an ability to attract enthusiastic, voluntary support, and finally (4) power due to one’s belief that one has power and that one is perceived to have power.
But Geuss adds that the political philosopher needs to think about more than power; other major concerns should be the notions of political priorities, timing, and legitimacy. Priorities involve an opting for A rather than B or before B. Politics characteristically demands the choice between different options, none of which may be ideal, rather than an unconditional pursuit of an absolute good. We always act politically under non-ideal conditions. Timing is all-important. We usually can’t wait to make decisions and are forced to take action when the opportunity or the need arises without having a full understanding of this situation, of the consequences of our actions, nor even of what the best outcome would be. There is finally also the question of legitimacy. Max Weber distinguished three sources of legitimacy, that is, our reasons for accepting political authority: tradition, charismatic leadership, rational-legal. All these notions call for clarification and providing such must be a basic task of political philosophy.
These then are the tasks of a realistic political philosophy:
- Understanding: describing and analyzing the actually obtaining political reality
- Evaluation: assessing features of this reality. Geuss holds, in contrast to Weber, that there can be no “value-free” political philosophy.
- Orientation: providing us with a more or less comprehensive vision of the political situation
- Conceptual innovation: by providing a set of new concepts the political philosopher may get us to see our situation in an entirely new way.
- The critique of ideology as a form of power that is used “to shape opinions, attitudes, and desires and thus to manufacture what look like ‘consent.’”
In the second part of his book Geuss criticizes a number of “ideal theory” versions of political philosophy distinguishing “two influential contemporary views that represent almost the direct opposite of ‘realism.” The first involves an attempt “to construct a society along the lines of an idealized legal system structured around a set of rights.” These rights may be conceived as “either legal rights or some more vaguely envisaged ‘human’ rights.” He takes as his target, specifically the first sentence of Robert Nozick’s State, Anarchy, and Utopia according to which: “Individuals have rights, and there are things which no persons or group may do to them (without violating their rights).” From where do these rights come? How is the claim justified? “It is not that Nozick got something wrong by specifying the wrong set of rights or making mistakes of argumentation, He does not ask the right questions, and by presenting ‘rights’ as the self-evident basis for thinking about politics, he actively distracts people from asking other, “highly relevant questions.”
Geuss’ second major target of criticism (here and in other writings) is John Rawls who wants to conceive of politics in terms of the implementation of the virtue of justice. His immediate target of attack is Rawls’ initial statement in A Theory of Justice that “justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought… Truth and justice are uncompromising.” Geuss comments: “This brings us to the most general line of criticism of Rawls as a political philosopher. If one looks at the body of his work … one is immediately struck by the complete absence in it of any discussion of what I have described as the basic issues of politics. The topic of ‘power,’ in particular, is simply one he never explicitly discusses at all… Rawls’ view is seriously deficient, because it does not thematize power.”
We can read Geuss , perhaps, most profitably as spelling out the ways a diagnostic political philosophy should proceed. But he does not, in fact, offer us an example of a worked out political diagnosis. While his eye is critically focused on political liberalism as a formative conception of contemporary politics, he does not proceed to a detailed diagnosis of this conception either in this book or in his other writings. He proves to be, in fact, more of a critical than a constructive thinker and, in this respect, a faithful follower of Adorno. He is more eloquent in his attacks on ideal theories than in developing a realist and diagnostic political philosophy of his own.
