Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
RECONSIDERATION
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
his death in 1983, he admits as much. sion in philosophical and political reflec-
If given an opportunity to return t o the tion rather than in arbitrary decision. He
theme of the final section of the Introduc- ultimately failed in that effort but not
tion, he would, he suggested, “make a without pointing the way toward a more
sharper distinction between social vai- satisfactory understanding of human
11es and mora! virtues, [ h e ] woliid choice.
strengthen the foundation of scientific Aron’s failure, therefore, is a partial
truth and universalism.’”j The mature one. It paved the way for his later, more
Aron did not believe that arecognition of adequate articulation of a morality of
cultural diversity implied moral relativ- prudence. In thelnh-oduction,one already
ism. Historicists were wrong to insist sees elements of Aron’s lifelong critique
that “good and evil are revised from one of “literary politics.” He insists on the
society to another.” In his Memoirs, Aron concrete character of political choice
emphatically denies this claim. “Honesty, and the inadequacy of abstract rational-
frankness, generosity, gentleness, and ism and moralism. The choice for or
friendship do not change signs from one against a particular regime or civilization
century to the next, from one continent may be in some ultimate sense an “exis-
to another, or by crossing borders.”’ But tential” one, but that choice is only rea-
at the end of his life, Aron admitted that sonable if it is grounded in a concrete
he had not adequately come to terms examination of political institutions and
with the theoretical challenge of histori- political economy. Aron rejected the idea
cism. He suggests that if he had the op- that the choice between liberal society
portunity he would subject historicism and its revolutionary alternative could
to a more radical, thoroughgoing philo- be decided on the basis of an abstract
sophical critique. preference for equality, social justice, or
Despite his considerable concessions a planned society. By the time he wrote
to historicism in the Introduction, Aron the Introduction, Aron was fully cogni-
strongly rejected a Durkheim-inspired zant of the fact that the reasonable stu-
sociologism in which “society was put in dent of politics must adopt the perspec-
the place of God” as the source of au- tive of the citizen and the statesman. In
thoritative judgment andvalue. Aron thus this sense, the emphasis on the concrete
refused to combine what he called “lim- or historical account of historical choice
itless relativity” with the “reduction of is not an endorsement of historical rela-
values t o a reality more natural than tivism. Rather, it is a salutaryreminder of
spiritual.”* This unbeliever saw some- the nature and preconditions of political
thing idolatrous in the dogmatic socio- responsibility.
logical denial of transcendence. Aron In the Introduction,however, responsi-
faced this conundrum: He desperately bility is still understood in Weberian
wanted to affirm the libertyof man against terms, in the light of the famous anti-
historical, sociological, and cultural nomy between “the ethics of responsibil-
determinisms, but he believed that choice ity” and “the ethics of conviction” put
was inescapably historical in character. forward by MaxWeberin the 1918Munich
In the Introduction, Aron expressed dis- lecture on Politics as Q Vocation.Weber’s
satisfaction with an understanding of hu- choice for responsibility (and for moder-
man beings in terms of historical pro- ate politics) was presented by him as an
gressivism, cultural relativism, and pure ungrounded decision, an existential
indetermination. He wished to restore choice.Thesamecan besaid about Aron’s
reasonable choice to its place of dignity stated preference for the “politics of com-
in a philosophy of man, grounding deci- promise” over the “politics of reason.”
Modem Age 24 7
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
with a “humanly unthinkable philoso- of The Opium of the Intellectuals) Aron
phy.”I5Thisphilosophy transformed “the clarifies the grounds of his opposition to
antinomy of ethics and politics and the ideological fanaticism. This lucid and
diversity of cultures” into proof of the penetrating rejoinder was written during
inexpiable “war of the gods.” the heyday of gauchiste indulgence to-
Weber’s sociological “rca!rsm,” in ef- ward coniiiiunist totalitarianism. Merleau-
fect, cloaked a covert metaphysics, “a Ponty had defended the “authenticity” of
philosophy of discord” that refused “to the Stalinist show trials inHumanism and
differentiate between vitalistic values and Terror (1948), and Sartre habitually de-
reasonable accomplishment; its hypoth- nounced anti-communists as “dogs,”
eses include the total irrationability of while the Christian socialists at Esprit
choices between political parties or could not get themselves to condemn
among thevarious images of the world in regimes that persecuted Christians as
conflict, and the moral and spiritual state policy. In this context, Aron was
equivalence of various attitudes-those derided as a mere skeptic by secular and
of the sage and of the madman, of the Christian critics alike. It was suggested
fanatic and of the moderate.” Admirably, that his reasoned assault on “the idolatry
Weber wished to validate free human of history” in The Opium of the Intellectu-
decision against the claims of determin- als was a cover for nihilism and at the
istic ideologies and the imperatives of an service of an unjust capitalist status quo.
increasingly dominant and soul-numb- In Fanaticism, Prudence, andFaithAron
ing bureaucratic rationality. “But he did takes on the critics. He makes clear that
not ask himself if a decision could be his opposition to fanaticism is rooted
made for no particular reason.” less in skepticism than in a forthright
Aron came to reject the idea that abso- defense of principle and prudence. He
lutely free or indeterminate choice was argues that the ultimate source of the
compatible with either human dignity or “progressivist”indulgence towards com-
political responsibility. He continued to munist totalitarianism, an indulgence
hold, with Weber and in agreement with displayed in the works of renowned “phi-
the Introduction’s emphasis on “the lim- losophers” such a s Maurice Merleau-
its of historical objectivity,” that human Ponty (for a time) and Jean-Paul Sartre
choices are not “demonstrable.” Every (for decades on end), is nothing less than
choice is a choice among more or less a nihilistic denial of a sempiternal human
reasonable alternatives-and even rea- nature and permanent principles of vir-
sonable ones are defined by a certain tue o r wisdom that guide and limit
imprecision or uncertainty. In agreement thought and action. In their philosophi-
with Weber, Aron admits that “science is cal work proper, Sartre and Merleau-
limited, the future is unforeseeable and Ponty “belong[ed] to the tradition of
short term values arecontradictory.”But Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and the re-
the proper response to the limits of ob- volt against Hegelianism.”” They made
jectivity or to the undeniable tension “the individual and his destiny” the cen-
among conflicting human values is not terpiece of their reflection.I8
groundless or “demonic choice.” Equity, As “existentialists”they defended free
fair or balanced judgment, is thevirtue of or indeterminate choice and “rule[d] out
the philosopher or statesman who accepts a moral law which would govern inten-
the limits of human reason but refuses t o tion.”lgBereft of principles except for the
yield to the pathos of irrational choice.I6 strikingly formal and contentless impera-
In his 1956essay Fanaticism,Prudence, tives of authenticity and reciprocity, they
and Faith (written in response to critics combine what Aron called, following Leo
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
Strauss, “the two faulty extremes,” doc- and action.30Aron’s skepticism was di-
trinairism and existentialism.20 In t h e rected at “schemes, models, and uto-
manner of doctrinaire revolutionaries, pias” and not at the principles that sus-
these Marxist existentialists affirmed “the tain reasonable action and sensible re-
unique truth of the classless society.”21 f o r m ~ . Because
~’ existentialists and pro-
They glorified communist revolution and gressivist Christians have rejected thevery
“ignored the historical diversities, the idea of human nature and the moral law,
slow creations, the unforeseeable acci- they turn to “class or a historical dialectic
dents” that give shape to living political t o provide them with c o n ~ i c t i o n . ” ~ ~
communities. At the same time, “these Aron returned to a classical recogni-
descendants of Kierkegaard” affirmed tion that affirms that common sense or
the primacy of individual consciousness ordinary experience provides the neces-
and rejected the idea of a “total and sary starting point for both human ac-
complete human practice.”22Aron tion and theoretical reflection. Without
tellingly observed that “in certain re- first principles that guide and limit our
spects Marx and Nietzsche are ‘opposite action within and orient our reflection
extremes’ but by many paths their de- about the world, neither thought nor
scendants come together.”23 reasonable action is possible. The hu-
Both existentialists, the partisans of man world becomes merely incoherent
“authentic” choice, and doctrinaire his- and the diversity of human works loses
toricists, the believers in the “necessary its intelligibility. A “faith” in the perma-
development of history,” rejected the nence of human nature is then the indis-
limits established by both human nature pensable “reasonable” precondition of
and the complexities inherent in collec- thought and action. As a consequence,
tive life.24Historicists and existentialists Aron defends prudence, what Burke
alike are inspired by “confidence in the called “the god of this lower world,”
power of the human They ignored against the inhuman oscillation between
natural limits and t h e “wisdom of voluntarism and doctrinairism charac-
Montesquieu,”26the fact that particular teristic of those who smugly renounce
social and political traditions have aform first principles.
of their own and are not easily subordi- In Fanaticism, Aron located the ulti-
nated t o the requirements of “a univer- mate origin of revolutionary fanaticism
sal and homogenous state.” in the nihilistic denial of those first prin-
In Fanaticism, Prudence, and Faith, ciples that make possible a prudent navi-
Aron lucidly shows how existentialists gation of the human world. The reli-
and fellow-travelling Christians end up giously agnostic Aron even provided a
affirming “‘asingle truth’ in an area where lucid defense and articulation of the clas-
the truth cannot be ~ingle.”~’ The exis- sicalchristian understanding of the need
tentialists, in particular, begin with a to avoid both quietist acceptance of
“philosophy of extreme individualism worldly injustice and a messianic dis-
and quasi-nihilism’’that denies “any per- dain for the imperfection of the world.
manence to human nature.”28They end He expressed disappointment (at the
up incoherently oscillating between “law- height of communism’s intellectual pres-
less voluntarism and a doctrinairism tige) that many progressive-minded
based on Aron argued that the Christians indulged regimes that perse-
only way out of this dead end is through cuted believers and denied fundamental
a clear affirmation of “authentic faith” by human liberties. Aron’s formulation of
which he means foundational “prin- the wisdom of a distinctively Christian
ciples” that provide guidance for thought civic moderation merits citation. A true