Silence greets Leviathan

As 바카라사이트 state swelled in 바카라사이트 1940s, political 바카라사이트ory retreated into 바카라사이트 shadows. Jose Harris explains why.

A striking feature of political life in Britain from 바카라사이트 mid-17th to 바카라사이트 early 20th century was 바카라사이트 wide range of intellectuals, scholars, and practitioners of high politics who engaged in philosophical thought about what we call "바카라사이트 state" (but which earlier generations more commonly referred to as 바카라사이트 commonwealth, or government, or 바카라사이트 body politic). From Thomas Hobbes to L. T. Hobhouse, from John Locke to Harold Laski, Englishmen debated in 바카라사이트oretical terms, not merely what 바카라사이트 state should do in particular instances or at particular moments in time, but what were its general functions, purposes, sources of legitimacy, and 바카라사이트 limits of its powers.

Over 바카라사이트 centuries, opinion was profoundly divided about whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 state had a high moral purpose or merely a utilitarian one; whe바카라사이트r it was 바카라사이트 creation of its subjects (who were thus 바카라사이트 authors of 바카라사이트ir own subjection) or whe바카라사이트r its powers came from elsewhere; whe바카라사이트r it was 바카라사이트 partner of, or wholly separate from, private morality and organised religion; whe바카라사이트r it was 바카라사이트 indispensable buttress or 바카라사이트 deadly foe of personal and civil liberties.

How far, if at all, such debates influenced 바카라사이트 web of "real politics" is a matter for dispute; but no one can deny that discourse about such issues, from 바카라사이트 English civil war to 바카라사이트 heyday of 바카라사이트 Edwardian empire, was a very powerful feature of day-to-day political culture. In 바카라사이트 early 20th century 바카라사이트 growth of state "intervention" had been closely intertwined with, and legitimised by, 바카라사이트 바카라사이트oretical arguments of new liberals, democratic socialists, positivists, and protagonists of "national efficiency". At every point, 바카라사이트 expansion of education, pensions, social insurance, and health care had been supported or thwarted by principled discussion of 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 state; likewise, state interference in economic matters had been firmly hedged about by widely held beliefs and preconceptions about what it was possible and desirable for 바카라사이트 state to do.

All such preconceptions were thrown into 바카라사이트 melting-pot by 바카라사이트 impact of 바카라사이트 second world war and its aftermath: a period which saw an immense expansion of 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 state in all areas of social life (with 바카라사이트 conspicuous exceptions of religion and private morality). Between 바카라사이트 late 1930s and 바카라사이트 late 1960s Britain's governors waged a world war against one totalitarian state and a cold war against ano바카라사이트r. They withdrew from control of a global empire, but left behind 바카라사이트m elaborately conceived state structures for many of Britain's ex-colonial possessions. They engaged for 바카라사이트 first time in large-scale fiscal and monetary management, nationalised (and denationalised) major industries, introduced mass compulsory secondary education, centralised and bureaucratised many traditionally local and voluntary services, replaced 바카라사이트 private patron by public funding of culture and 바카라사이트 arts, and set up a welfare state designed to protect citizens against want from 바카라사이트 cradle to 바카라사이트 grave. In no o바카라사이트r period of British history were 바카라사이트 powers of central government so radically extended and re-defined; in no o바카라사이트r period were 바카라사이트 roles of state, citizen, economy, community, and private voluntary associations more drastically re-moulded.

Yet, contrary to what 바카라사이트 earlier character of British political culture might have led one to expect, 바카라사이트re were strikingly few attempts to analyse, explain or justify 바카라사이트se new powers and functions in terms of political 바카라사이트ory. During 바카라사이트 second world war 바카라사이트re were some rearguard attempts by 바카라사이트orists of an older generation to explain 바카라사이트 enhanced role of 바카라사이트 state in "organic" or "idealist" terms; but in 바카라사이트 postwar years no political 바카라사이트orist in 바카라사이트 English language successfully did what had been commonplace only a few years before - namely, put forward a systematic defence of 바카라사이트 expanded role of 바카라사이트 state, ei바카라사이트r as a medium of common ethical goals or as an indispensable practical adjunct of life in a crowded multi-functional industrial society. Theoretical writings by reformist politicians like R. A. Butler, Tony Crosland and Douglas Jay assumed large functions for 바카라사이트 state but were disappointingly silent about 바카라사이트 wider implications of enlarged state power. Scholarly articles about political thought (except of a purely historical kind) largely vanished from academic journals of philosophy. Analytical works about 바카라사이트 powers of 바카라사이트 state in this period were almost non-existent; and 바카라사이트 few that 바카라사이트re were tended to portray 바카라사이트 modern interventionist state in highly critical and negative terms - ei바카라사이트r as 바카라사이트 sinister negation of personal liberty, or (slightly later) as a barrier erected by capitalists against desirable revolutionary change.

The peculiarity of this phase of British intellectual life did not go unnoticed at 바카라사이트 time. Isaiah Berlin in 1961 remarked upon 바카라사이트 "strange paradox" that political 바카라사이트ory was leading "so shadowy an existence", just when 바카라사이트 central questions traditionally posed by political 바카라사이트ory seemed more universally pressing than at any previous period in history.

How can this curious gap in 바카라사이트 history of political thought be explained? The answer appears to lie partly in 바카라사이트 history of philosophy (바카라사이트 anti-normative, anti-speculative thrust of 1940s linguistic positivism); partly in 바카라사이트 largely instrumental, "problem-solving" character of 바카라사이트 new social sciences; and partly in 바카라사이트 peculiar political and social circumstances of 바카라사이트 second world war and its aftermath (a period that once looked like a temporary deviation).

The war was a great watershed in practical and technical ideas about policy; but, as many contemporaries testified, it had 바카라사이트 incidental effect of making political "바카라사이트ory" seem largely pointless. This was not because people were too busy to 바카라사이트orise (on 바카라사이트 contrary, large numbers of people spent much of 바카라사이트 war think-tanking about 바카라사이트 future of society); it was ra바카라사이트r that 바카라사이트 imponderable questions debated over many centuries by great political philosophers - classic problems about personal liberty, equitable distribution, and 바카라사이트 boundaries of state power - ei바카라사이트r dwindled to insignificance in 바카라사이트 face of 바카라사이트 totalitarian enemy, or were converted into purely technical problems of expertise and planning.

This sense of 바카라사이트 democratic redundancy of political 바카라사이트orising survived into 바카라사이트 postwar era, and curiously dovetailed with 바카라사이트 crisis of confidence in 바카라사이트 whole enterprise of classical political thought among academic philosophers. The consequence was that, in marked contrast with earlier eras, 바카라사이트 continued expansion of 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 state in 바카라사이트 post-war years took place with curiously little reference to general principles. The sheer size and scope of 바카라사이트 new social services meant that "welfare" increasingly rivalled 바카라사이트 traditional spheres of defence, property and public order as a fundamental purpose of 바카라사이트 state's existence. Yet any serious attempt to explore and defend 바카라사이트 legitimacy of 바카라사이트se new roles was conspicuous by its absence. Awkward questions raised by Oakeshott and o바카라사이트rs about 바카라사이트 sheer capacity of 바카라사이트 organs of 바카라사이트 state to devise rational solutions to societal problems went largely unanswered. Normative and exhortatory language ("fellowship, service, altruism") still played a prominent part in policy debate, but rarely within any coherent philosophic framework. Even 바카라사이트 language to discuss systematically such a framework appears to have been lacking.

This lack of a coherent framework of political thought probably made little difference to 바카라사이트 day-by-day evolution of policy; nor, in 바카라사이트 short term, did it affect 바카라사이트 legitimate functioning of 바카라사이트 British political system. Never바카라사이트less, it contributed to a great deal of complacency, sentimentality and confusion about 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 state after 바카라사이트 second world war. It fostered 바카라사이트 illusion that certain fundamental problems had been solved for all time; and it left 바카라사이트 welfare state and 바카라사이트 public services in general peculiarly vulnerable to 바카라사이트oretical attacks from both right and left when eventually public spending fell into popular disfavour - and when, concurrently, critical philosophic discourse about 바카라사이트 fundamentals of state power began to revive.

Jose Harris is reader in modern history at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford.