fbpx

Learning for Life: Political Education According to Michael Oakeshott

In a world in which everything is politicized — even the choice of food! — it is difficult to find conversations that involve actual politics and not ideology. For the most part, people are not trained or educated in politics, and so they regurgitate one ideological doctrine or the other. In order to know what real thinking and proper political discourse should look like, it’s very important to define and single out ideology. For British philosopher, Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990), ideology limits the possibilities of the individual mind and by implication, the possibilities of productive discourse.

In his essay, “Political Education” (1951, and reprinted in 2001 by Liberty Fund as a part of The Voice of Liberal Learning), Oakeshott makes a crucial distinction between political ideology and politics. His timely reflections can illuminate and help us move beyond the current onslaught of identity politics in the public square. Just as Oakeshott explored what makes political education unique and necessary, we too should be concerned with this very issue.

Oakeshott reflected extensively on the importance of politics in people’s lives. For him, political education is not limited to the classroom, although a “reflection on political activity may take place at various levels,” one of these being philosophy (182). But, what makes politics unique is that it’s grounded in real life, which is composed of both action and contemplation. Political ideology, on the other hand masquerades as philosophy, and it “purports to be an abstract set of principles, or a set of related abstract principles, which has been independently premeditated (164).

Regressing further into a theoretical abstraction is a hallmark of political ideology. This, however, is not its only inadequacy. Being “independently premeditated” means that political ideology is not concerned with an organic opening and development of the mind. Rather, it has an attachment to a particular abstract principle and it forces the reality to fit into that principle. This ‘symptom’ of bad thinking that Oakeshott is describing resides primarily in the abstract empiricism of ideology, which has to do with a “style” of politics rather than real political activity.

Politics or political activity for Oakeshott is very much connected to the idea and reality of the community. It is “an activity of attending to the general arrangements of a set of people whom chance or choice have brought together” (159). Politics is relational in nature and it is in those relations that we learn how to navigate through any community which we may be part of. Unlike political ideology, political activity is not primarily concerned with theoretical musings but what kind of human beings are created in the process of politics. With this argument, Oakeshott affirms the dialogue between the individual and the community.

Politics is an act, but not one identical to activism. In our current state of affairs, we witness ideology daily in empty and meaningless slogans, whether it comes from established media figures, protests, or general social media exchanges among people. It all amounts to what we may call ‘hashtag politics.’ We understand the activity of politics when we recognize that the world we inhabit is not a haphazard mess but a “concrete whole” (161). The actual political act extends beyond static terms, which are the territory of ideology. Rather, a political act has the “source of its movement within itself” (161). What Oakeshott means is that politics, by nature, is a movable act dependent upon individual thought.

Since human beings are not inherently inert creatures, we can’t expect to grow intellectually from the diet of political ideology. Political ideology, just like today’s identity politics, is an immovable set of terms, which seeks revolution for revolution’s sake, agitation for agitation’s sake. It posits a view of reality before any encounter with actual and individual lived experience. From this seat of fake wisdom, its proponents coerce and force real events into being assessed through an artificially created framework. There is no room for an individual voice in this joyless theoretical grid. As Oakeshott remarks, “Wherever else politics may begin, they cannot begin in ideological activity” (173). In a moment when the citizen’s voice is silenced, then he has ceased to engage in political activity.

If the signs of political ideology are cold empiricism and coercion of individual thought, then real political activity must involve freedom of individual thought that acknowledges the past intellectual efforts but also looks to the future.

It’s not enough to either “be concerned” or to know “one’s own tradition of political activity” (182). It is only natural that we know what we are familiar with and what we encounter every day. This is what our lives are composed of. But in order for political activity to also be a political education, it

must embrace… knowledge of the politics of other contemporary societies.… The study of another people’s politics, like a study of our own, should be an ecological study of a tradition of behavior, not an anatomical study of mechanical devices or the investigation of an ideology. And only when our study is of this sort shall we find ourselves in the way of being stimulated, but not intoxicated, by the manners of others” (182)

The originality of Oakeshott’s thoughts on education truly lies in the above paragraph. For him, politics is also metaphysics, and this is one of the most important aspects of this essay. This assertion certainly goes against political and philosophical tradition that politics is just a set of principles which are sometimes applied in order to gain a particular outcome. Metaphysics, on the other hand, inevitably involves an individual’s interior life, which is composed of memory, ethics, a relation to the particular community, and generally speaking, a world view. Without affirmation of metaphysics in political activity, we are indeed just a series of abstract constructs, devoid of humanity, and slaves of political ideology. Not only is politics about the wholeness of the person, it is also about the wholeness of thought. Person and thought are never separated, just as an individual and community aren’t either. If the person is seen only as a concept, then it shouldn’t be surprising that it will limit knowledge, reason, and ultimately education itself.

In order for political activity to flourish, we have to recognize that politics originates in a personal encounter, which ought to always be in concert with knowledge and learning. This is why the metaphysics of an individual person is the most important ingredient for the flourishing of our society.

Education, and certainly political education, is not about rigid terminology, which is what ideology offers. It is about a constant opening of the mind, and “the more profound our understanding of political activity, the less we shall be at the mercy of a plausible but mistaken analogy, the less we shall be tempted by a false or irrelevant model” (184). At the heart of this unfolding of the mind is a face-to-face encounter. An encounter such as this doesn’t create an imposition or a coercion for the person with whom we are engaging. Rather, it is a political activity that is grounded in freedom, which begins with the individual and naturally continues into the folds of the community.

In order for such a political activity to occur, we have to recognize the inherent dignity of another person. The question we have to ask is whether an act of learning is contributing to the growth and flourishing of ourselves and others, or is it taking us into the depths of unenlightened ideological repetitions. As we learn about others in an encounter, as we recognize their humanity, we shall also be surprised by the new knowledge we unearth about ourselves.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on July 26, 2018 at 08:46:51 am

Condensing some quotes: “Oakeshott affirms the dialogue between the individual and the community. Politics is an act, but not one identical to activism. The actual political act extends beyond static terms, which are the territory of ideology. What Oakeshott means is that politics, by nature, is a movable act dependent upon individual thought.”

The discussion would be helped by an imaginary dialogue, let’s say, between an originalist and a civic citizen, call him or her “preamblist,” who thinks the preamble to the U.S. Constitution is a legal agreement offered among living people in fifty states rather than reserved for the people living on June 21, 1788, when the people’s representative of nine states established the USA.

By “legal,” I mean the preamble 1) ended the confederation of states and started the union of states, the first federal republic to be disciplined by willing people and 2) created the laws and institutions by which the people may divide themselves: the willing (civic), the passives, the dissidents, the rebels, and the criminals. “Civic” goes beyond law abiding, in that the willing people discover injustice then collaborate to correct statutory law. According to the above Oakeshott ideas, the originalist would not brook non-static dialogue with the preamblist, at least not overtly.

“In a moment when the citizen’s voice is silenced, then he has ceased to engage in political activity.” This statement begins passive but emerges active: Why? I think I don’t agree: When the originalist ignores or ridicules, the preamblist may still publish and speak his or her thoughts for possible collaboration. Also, the preamblist develops his or her understanding regardless of stonewalling. That is, the preamblist learns from the stonewaller's stonewalling.

“Metaphysics, on the other hand, inevitably involves an individual's interior life, which is composed of memory, ethics, a relation to the particular community, and generally speaking, a world view. Without affirmation of metaphysics in political activity, we are indeed just a series of abstract constructs, devoid of humanity, and slaves of political ideology.”

Advocating metaphysics seems equivalent to saying any-subjective-truth is as worthy of development as the-objective-truth; imagination is as valid as actual reality; doctrine is on par with fact. That’s a belief I cannot adopt. Also, “world view” arrogates actual reality, an act I cannot undertake. Naturally, I do not subscribe to the conclusions: devoid and slaves.

I think “metaphysics” in this discussion is a lame surrogate for personal hopes and dreams. In other words, the human practice is to hope and dream and call it "metaphysics." Only when hopes and dreams conform to actual reality may a human develop the person he or she may be. Thus, willing humans are not slaves yet work to discover and utilize the-objective-truth.

“At the heart of this unfolding of the mind is a face-to-face encounter. An encounter such as this doesn’t create an imposition or a coercion for the person with whom we are engaging. Rather, it is a political activity that is grounded in freedom, which begins with the individual and naturally continues into the folds of the community.”

Part of actual reality is that every other human may develop hopes and dreams. Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop his or her person.

Freedom-from oppression provides each person the liberty-to either develop integrity or not. Integrity is the process of discovery, benefiting, publicly sharing and listening regarding understanding and benefits, and remaining open to new discovery that demands change. The willing person responsibly uses his or her IPEA to develop personal hopes and dreams rather than the plans someone else has for them.

Unfortunately, extant cultures do not publicize IPEA during the first three decades. Then, a human, feral infant may transition to young adult with understanding and intent to live a full life, perhaps 80 years. Some humans do not develop integrity, intentionally or not.

Humans who use their IPEA to either deceive, practice crime, or enact evil betray their own dignity, and may suffer constraint by statutory justice. Hopefully, justice inspires reform.

Statutory justice is grounded in the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion. Criminals and evils employ their IPEA to defeat arbitrary laws. In other words, dominant opinion such as a theism is insufficient for statutory justice.

The above principles spring from the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which seems to have two practical flaws: “a more perfect Union” and “our posterity.” Perhaps civic integrity is more useful than “Union” and “the children and beyond” is more expressive than “posterity.” However, the original sentence outlines a noble civic morality by which the people may guide development of integrity and collaborate to discipline both their state and the nation.

The articles and institutions that were specified in 1787 (to fulfill the preamble) were amendable then and remain so now. No one may justifiably use them to retard any person’s or any institution’s development of integrity. The-objective-truth exists, and eventually humankind discovers actual reality. Often it comes with woe.

read full comment
Image of Phil Beaver
Phil Beaver
on July 26, 2018 at 15:00:09 pm

Oakeshott is someone whose writings / thinking must be returned to again and again.
An nexceptional bottle of wine ought to be bought by the case so that one can return to it and savor its depth and complexity over the years. It is always fun to see how a good wine (or author / thinker) ages.

In a nutshell, it may be said that Oakeshott believes that politics exists within, and as an outcomeof the * collisions* of human intercourse. All else is stale preaching and folly.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on July 26, 2018 at 21:47:08 pm

"...Ideology limits the possibilities of the individual mind and by implication, the possibilities of productive discourse...What makes politics unique isthat it's grounded in real life...."

Human activity, i.e., politics, sans ideology is definitely aspirational but Oakeshott's educational gift operates over the striving peculiar to the overreaching political practices common in America. Yes, real political activity ought to involve freedom of individual actions motivated by both intellectual enrichment and societal prospective. But culturally said education begins where and how? People generally take their cues on how to behave from other people: learning for life, that is Michael Oakeshott's politics, requires an open society in which people and ideas move freely and no one is punished for airing dissenting views - oh, getting there.

read full comment
Image of Anthony
Anthony
on July 27, 2018 at 19:29:48 pm

[…] 2. At Law & Liberty, Emina Melonic makes the case for rereading Michael Oakshott. From the essay: […]

read full comment
Image of As with Gladness Men of Old – Full Magazine
As with Gladness Men of Old – Full Magazine

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.