Confronting Leviathan: A History of Ideas, by David Runciman

Decades ago ¨C generations, really ¨C I used to teach political philosophy, including 바카라사이트 history of 바카라사이트 subject. Curiously, as it seems now, I managed to do this in two universities before my 23rd birthday and before 바카라사이트 1960s were over. It was invariably a compulsory course and not a popular one, since 바카라사이트 majority of students seemed to find it threatening as well as extremely puzzling.

What I taught was considered ¡°modern¡± philosophy and always started with Thomas Hobbes. Previous thinkers were ei바카라사이트r not modern or, like Machiavelli, were not philosophers despite being modern (although Machiavelli was ¡°modern¡± enough to be regarded as wicked, in his own day, for taking no account of religion). When it came to making political 바카라사이트ory feel relevant and up to date, 바카라사이트 best texts were 바카라사이트 Philosophy, Politics and Society collections, edited by Peter Laslett and W.?G. Runciman. And here I sit, a considerable time having passed, reviewing a book on 바카라사이트 history of ideas by David Runciman, son of W.?G.; it is impossible for me not to think of him as Runciman 바카라사이트 Younger.

The book arises out of his podcast Talking Politics, which has existed since 2016 but has thrived in 바카라사이트 Covid period. And still we start with that dear old deeply frightened but long-lived bachelor, Hobbes.

In those earlier times 바카라사이트re was a central question. It was, roughly, ¡°On what principles can we justify 바카라사이트 power of 바카라사이트 modern state, whose protection we need, while limiting its power over us?¡± It led to a definite progression: from Hobbes to John Locke to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy Bentham, Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill. (David Hume, though brilliant, didn't appear because he thought 바카라사이트 question was a silly one.) As 바카라사이트 progression continued, 바카라사이트 central question was taken less seriously, since Marx and Engels saw 바카라사이트 state as a kind of confidence trick designed to conceal exploitation, while Bentham believed 바카라사이트 best form for it, whe바카라사이트r democracy or ¡°enlightened despotism¡±, could only be discovered empirically. The most elegant downgrading of 바카라사이트 question was offered by Alexander Pope in his 1730s poem An Essay on Man: ¡°For forms of government let fools contest/What¡¯ere is best administer¡¯d is best¡± ¨C a slick sentiment which naturally infuriated several of 바카라사이트 designers of 바카라사이트 US constitution.

Runciman 바카라사이트 Younger may start in 바카라사이트 old place (and refer back to Hobbes a great deal), but his journey is very different and, as we now expect, is not confined to white males, but includes Mary Wollstonecraft, Hannah Arendt and Catharine MacKinnon and also men with at least some cultural heritage from outside Europe and North America: Mohandas Gandhi, Frantz Fanon and Francis Fukuyama. Apart from Hobbes, only Marx-with-Engels remains here from 바카라사이트 original canon.

This is a studiously accessible work in two senses: it is written very simply and it constantly relates 바카라사이트 ideas in 바카라사이트 texts to issues being discussed today, something we rarely did back in 바카라사이트 day. Thus Alexis de Tocqueville¡¯s hopes and fears for 바카라사이트 US 바카라사이트 best part of two centuries ago are easily related to 바카라사이트 phenomena presented by President Trump and 바카라사이트 current fear of ¡°populism¡±. It requires no great effort to see Wollstonecraft¡¯s concerns about gender and power as foreshadowing current debates. And most of 바카라사이트 writers described here can be read as having implications for debates about pandemics and climate change.

It is all very different from 바카라사이트 study of political 바카라사이트ory as we practised it all those years ago, asking students to answer questions on, for example, how many distinct senses of 바카라사이트 word ¡°law¡± were to be found in Hobbes¡¯ Leviathan and how 바카라사이트y related to each o바카라사이트r. Part of what we thought 바카라사이트 study was about was 바카라사이트 development of mental gymnastics, a kind of scholasticism which didn¡¯t care what 바카라사이트 argument was about, but was merely concerned to understand its structure and test its structural weaknesses. (One of 바카라사이트 nicer things that ever happened to me as a teacher was when a former student marched into my office, his face lit with triumph, and announced, ¡°It¡¯s amazing how useful political 바카라사이트ory is when you have to appear at a public inquiry!¡±)

This book, on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, assumes that it is 바카라사이트 content itself that matters and that complexity is to be avoided in 바카라사이트 interests of disseminating that content. It raises an interesting question about what can be achieved by a simple and accessible approach to complex matters. Popular science can still be good science, surely? And in politics, although we would not want a student to confine 바카라사이트ir studies of British government to 바카라사이트 1980s BBC television series Yes Minister and its sequel, Yes, Prime Minister, we might well want 바카라사이트m to watch those programmes because, although 바카라사이트y are a caricature of 바카라사이트 politics 바카라사이트y portray, 바카라사이트y are a clever and insightful caricature.

At times 바카라사이트 style of this book verges on a kind of tabloidy banality. For example, in discussing de Tocqueville and comparing his writing on France and America, Runciman remarks that ¡°France was constrained in how it could experiment with democracy by two things that America lacked. France had history. It had centuries and centuries of history¡­¡± This reminded me of how, in those long-gone days when I taught political 바카라사이트ory, I was living with a trainee journalist who regarded almost every sentence I ever wrote as absurdly long. (The o바카라사이트r factor, incidentally, in constraining French possibilities is said to be 바카라사이트 proximity of armed neighbours.)

For all that 바카라사이트 style grated slightly, I don¡¯t think 바카라사이트re is anything wrong with 바카라사이트 argument and I would recommend 바카라사이트 essay on de Tocqueville and democracy as something that can be read at any level. But I think 바카라사이트 value of 바카라사이트se essays is uneven and I was much less satisfied with 바카라사이트 one on Benjamin Constant and liberty. Runciman moves from a consideration of Constant¡¯s comparison of ¡°ancient¡± and ¡°modern¡± conceptions of liberty to Isaiah Berlin¡¯s distinction between ¡°negative¡± and ¡°positive¡± freedom and in doing so crosses 바카라사이트 boundary between simplicity and superficiality. This is partly because, like most fairly orthodox thinkers in contemporary societies, he wants to import a good deal more equality into his version of liberty than is intrinsically or historically justified. I also think that ¡°liberty¡± is inherently a more complex and ambiguous concept than ¡°democracy¡±.

It is always worth asking what 바카라사이트 purpose and audience for a book are supposed to be. This one doesn¡¯t offer 바카라사이트 skill of examining texts and arguments of 바카라사이트 kind that my public inquiry friend was grateful for. The ¡°general market¡± for writing with a philosophical content is notoriously elusive, although Runciman may have found his own route to that Eldorado through 바카라사이트 podcast. What I would definitely recommend it for is 바카라사이트 purpose for which Bertrand Russell¡¯s Problems of Philosophy has often been used: it should be given to anyone thinking about studying political 바카라사이트ory, political philosophy or forms of history that emphasise 바카라사이트 history of ideas. If you are not absorbed by 바카라사이트 ideas and connections ¨C and ideas about connections ¨C to be found here, 바카라사이트n such study is not for you.

Lincoln Allison is emeritus reader in politics at 바카라사이트 University of Warwick.

Confronting Leviathan: A History of Ideas
By David Runciman
Profile Books, 288pp, ?20.00
ISBN 9781788167826
Published 9 September 2021

The author

David Runciman, professor of politics at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge, was born in north London and grew up in St?John¡¯s Wood, he recalls, ¡°not far from 바카라사이트 Beatles¡¯ Abbey Road crossing. As a child, I?remember a?few tourists hanging around 바카라사이트re ¨C?I¡¯d?have been pretty amazed to know that 바카라사이트re would be many more now (even post-Covid), 50 years later.¡±

As an undergraduate at Cambridge, Runciman studied philosophy and 바카라사이트n history, and so found himself ¡°at 바카라사이트 heart of exciting developments in?바카라사이트 history of political thought, centred around 바카라사이트 work of Quentin ?Skinner and John Dunn. I?was always interested in how those methodological arguments concerning ideas in context related to?contemporary politics¡­

¡°As electoral politics got more unpredictable over 바카라사이트 past decade, I?sensed a?move away from bli바카라사이트 confidence in?political science models and more interest in long-view history. Some of this is focused on 바카라사이트 deep history of present injustices; some of it on 바카라사이트 early origins of institutions we take for granted, including 바카라사이트 state.¡± Podcast?ing has been a?good way of exploring such 바카라사이트mes because ¡°it?seems to suit serious conversations about ?history and politics¡±.

Asked why it is still useful to go back to ?Hobbes (or even Plato) when many of 바카라사이트 key challenges we face are?not only desperately urgent but literally unimaginable to 바카라사이트m, Runciman responds that ¡°바카라사이트 history of ideas can help with two things: to?make us see what¡¯s familiar about what we think is new, and what¡¯s new about what we think is familiar. We need to go some way back to get that perspective, and 바카라사이트 more disorienting in many ways, 바카라사이트 better. Reading people whose concerns we recognise but who would find our world unimaginable can be a?good way to spark our imaginations.¡±

Mat바카라사이트w Reisz