Teaching practice
Teaching practiceEdmund Burke's Political Theory
1. Burke is quite critical of many of the liberal political theorist that have we have discussed. For Burke terms like liberty, freedom, natural rights, and the General Will should not be used in abstraction. They can only be discussed in context, and more importantly they can only be implemented in the appropriate historical context e.g. England in the seventeenth century, but not France in the eighteenth century.
Consent and Contract
2. One of the most distinctive points of difference between the liberal and conservative centres over the ideas of consent and contract. For the liberal government is formed at least hypothetically by men organising to establish a government will clear limits to protect individual rights. For Burke the contract is too shaky a foundation for government. Government is instituted to serve man's wants and needs, but we are frequently unaware of our true wants and needs. We fail to recognise what is in our best interests or on other occasion we are the victim of our own passions and drives. There is a need for a power outside of us, a power that we do not consent to that will restrain our passions.
3. "The science of government being therefore so practical in itself, and intended for such practical purposes, a matter which requires experience, and more experience than any [one] person can gain in whole life, however intelligently and observing he may be, it is with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down an edifice, which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society, or on the building it up again, without having models and patterns of approved utility before his eyes." [Ebenstein, p. 496]
4. Burke tells us to rely on the experience of centuries of political practice. No single individual, no matter how extensive the studies of a lifetime, ought to presume that their small wisdom is a match for the experience of ages.
Question to Ponder Is there any difficulty with Burke's argument that the wisdom and "sea worthiness" of an idea and institution is too be measured in terms of how long the institution has been around.
5. Burke writing about the French Revolution portrayed the revolution like a raging brush fire that consumed everything before it, friend and foe.
6. Burke is the critical of Locke and Rousseau because both theories seem to give the people the power and right to reform the structure of society and government.
7. "History consists for the greater part of the miseries brought upon the world by pride, ambition, avarice, revenge, lust, sedition, hypocrisy, ungoverned zeal, and all the strains of disorderly appetites which shake the public."
Government and Society: Burke as Democrat
8. As to who is eligible to rule, Burke makes a qualified case for equality of opportunity. He does allow for those from below to rise to positions of power and responsibility, but the process should be long and arduous. He further qualifies the argument for Equality of Opportunity by limiting its applicability. The privileged class the Aristocracy must pass no test of merit and virtue. Thought Burke was in the middle class and had to work for his parliamentary position, he was quite willing to allow for the automatic ascension of the privileged. How does Burke defend this seeming double standard of those selected of positions of responsibility?
9. Question to Ponder Contemporary conservatism is frequently tied to a strong respect for the market and individual acquisition. How does this version of conservatives mesh with Burke's argument?
Social Control attending hierarchy?
10. The way to assure the continuity of rule by the aristocracy is through the protection of inherited property. By property Burke specifically has in mind family property that is passed from one generation to another. He argues that this property must be quite substantial and in land. Property in land will foster master-servant, and lord-vassal relations.
11. Religion Burke argues that humans are frustrated in their ability to understand reality. Religion fulfils a necessary role in providing answers about life meaning.
12. "Nothing is more certain, thus that our manners, our civilisation, and all the good things which are connected with manners and civilisation, have depended upon two principles, the spirit of a gentlemen, and the spirit of religion."
13. Prejudice Burke defends the role of myths and illusion as a means to foster social stability. It is irresponsible for the liberal or the enlightened thinker to talk of wiping away religious myths or social illusions.
14. Freedom Burke's conception of freedom departs from the arguments of a liberal like Locke or democratic theorists like Rousseau. For Burke freedom is neither individual nor political. Freedom is social and historical.
15. Reflections on the Revolution in France
Burke's most important work is his treatise Reflections on the Revolution in France.
Burke argues in this work that the attempt to create a new constitution in France and alter basic institutions in property and religion will lead to violence and disorder. He suggests that the revolution once begun will feed upon itself and that those now in power will swept along and away by events.
16. "The objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity and therefore no simple dispositions or direction of power can be suitable either to man's nature or the equality of his affairs. The politician must support the value structure of society.
What are the Limits and Strengths of Burke's Political Theory?
Burke is man calling for prudence and restraint. He is a voice telling us to calm our efforts to significantly alter a social system. The good you might try and accomplish in a great flurry might destroy not only the evil of the society you are changing, but also the very fabric of the society. He is the cool voice of restraint to the radical or liberal reformer. If Burke as conservative can be criticised as a defender of the status quo and the present evils of society, the liberal can be criticised for their overly hasty desire to modify it. Social engineering has very clear limits and history is strewn with failed social reforms.
Related to the above, Burke displayed great insight into the French Revolution and the dynamics of revolutionary change. He recognised that people dedicated to equality and justice might also find themselves caught up in violent and destructive atmosphere. Change at times has its own momentum and the dispassionate review falls by the wayside.
Burke has a real insight into the bonds that tie a society together. Like a fabric or spiders web that has been meticulously constructed each part is related to the other and a change in one influences other components of the society. He is not saying that change is impossible or that the reformer serves no purpose. He did differentiate between the American Revolution and French Revolution and defends the former as a reasonable adjustment in social and political conditions. England can not rule a colony from 3,000 miles away. He also trusted the leaders in America to take up the responsibility of governance.
Criticisms
1. As insightful as Burke's analysis is of the French Revolution he gives far too much significance to the ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity as the cause of revolution. Burke simply disregards the quite obvious financial and political problems that had saddled France for much of the 18th century with massive debts. Kings in the 18th century had taken loans, which returned two and three times the principal to the borrowers. The government was also unwilling to control its expenses at Versailles, the upkeep of a large aristocracy, war efforts, and perhaps the straw that broke the camels back, the expenses of trying to aid the American colonies achieve independence. French bureaucracy was also a nightmare with laws and rules that made effective administration impossible. It was not that the government, or at least elements within it, were not working towards reform, but the efforts of ministers like Turgot proved fruitless.
2. Burke had a great respect for history, tradition, and natural evolution of society, but why did he conclude that historical change is only natural when it is slow and gradual? Why couldn't it be contended that the revolution in France was a product of evolutionary circumstances also? If history is our judge then why aren't the demands of revolutionaries as legitimate as their critics?
3. Perhaps it is simply a reflection of our democratic ethos and values, but Burke's scepticism about human nature and more importantly his distrust of the capacities of the masses to rule seems unwarranted. Certainly Burke is correct that democratic regimes have sometimes been oblivious to the rights of individuals and minorities. If we deny the possibilities of individual expression and rule government the consequences are even more frightening for wise rule.
4. Related to this Burke's argument in defence of religion and prejudice as mechanisms of social control place the value of stability and cohesion at too high a level. Political theorists before and after Burke have similarly placed a high value on stability but because they wish to advance to a better system. Burke is the voice of constraint telling us to be satisfied with our present position and conditions. Why can't we try and live up to such principals such as 'All Men are Created Equal"? Of course it established an impossible goal, but it is one that America has falteringly tried to achieve over the past two centuries. We are a better society for it.
5. We previously suggested that his defence of institutions in terms of their longevity seems too indiscriminate. It's one thing to make such an argument when you are living in Britain in the 1780's quite another when you are living in Russia in the 1800's. Burke tries to argue about Russia and France that their governments reflect evil in human nature. But this does not seem consistent or reasonable. Why is human nature in France different than in England? Why can't the French try and make France more like England? [Clearly no Frenchmen would accept such a preposterous suggestion.]
6. Finally Burke, relies too much on the wisdom of time and history. He is too distrustful of man's reasoning capacities. The excesses of both the French and Russian revolution do not appear to be that people became trapped in the heady air of reason and overrode all constraints. Burke did not recognise what both Mill and Rousseau did that human nature can change in differing circumstances through political participation. Mill, for instance, will argue that liberty is too difficult for the barbarians society, but he does believe that Britain in the 19th century has advanced to the point they can be allowed to exercise it. Burke is unwilling to take chances and trust that people can advance and rise to the occasion.