From a Necessary Evil to an Art of Contingency: Michael Oakeshott's Conception of Political Activity

” A wide-ranging and interesting book, well researched and intellectually engaging, that contends that Oakshott’s thought went through significant changes in the course of his life.”

— David Boucher ― Political Studies Review

CHAPTER I
Introduction: Why Oakeshott?
1: Oakeshott and Politics: The Perspective

It is quite common to speak about Michael Oakeshott s (1901-1990) conception of politics. One famous formula is, of course, Oakeshott s metaphor of politics as a “bottomless and boundless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place nor appointed destination.” As Oakeshott himself anticipated, this characterization of politics has affected many people representing many different genres: for progressivists, it represents the death of ideals, but it also delights die Schwindelfreien, who feel no vertigo in the face of it and welcome its anti-foundationality. Equally famously, politics appears as the custody of a manner of living, reflecting Oakeshott s reputation as a conservative. Furthermore, some have characterized his conception of politics as a “politics of conversation,” further accentuating its anti-foundational and rhetorical nature. For me, none of these characterizations alone is satisfactory. Yet, each one has its own place in the portrait of Oakeshottian politics that I paint in this book.

My main theme can perhaps best be expressed by presenting two quotations. In 1939, Oakeshott wrote on politics:

Political action involves mental vulgarity, not merely because it entails the concurrence and support of those who are mentally vulgar, but because of the false simplification of human life implied in even the best of its purposes.

In 1975, politics was characterized instead as calling for:

so exact a focus of attention and so uncommon self-restraint that one is not astonished to find this mode of human relationship to be as rare as it is excellent.

Whereas in Oakeshott s early thought politics was seen as better suited to people who were mentally simple or vulgar, especially in comparison with poets and philosophers, in the later account the ideal type of politics required a specific and high level of political intelligence. Thus, although one need not need take all of Oakeshott s most pointed expressions literally, the differences between the texts from the late 1930s and the mid 1970s, which is also the period examined in this book, are still so great that I find it important to pointedly examine the development of his conception of political activity in order to do justice to the flexibility and sensitivity exhibited by his political thought in its contemporary context without compromising any of its originality.

I will argue that it is incorrect to speak about Oakeshott s conception of political activity as such, as it must be dissolved into many different conceptions. It might initially seem as though there are only slight differences in nuance between his texts on politics or political activity, but in the long run I think we can argue that there is a clear shift in Oakeshott s understanding. First, his attitude towards political activity shifts from near disdain towards what could be called applauding of politics. Second, the elements that Oakeshott attaches to his description of political activity imply an increasing emphasis on politics as a reflective activity as opposed to the habitual continuation or preservation of a political tradition.

In short, then, I examine in the following why and how Oakeshott s attitude towards political activity changed. Further, I deal with the question of what specific aspects are present in Michael Oakeshott s conception(s) of politics and the related terms in the context of other contemporary ideas and theories. How does Oakeshott s vocabulary change over the course of this period? Are these changes significant? What kind of relevance does Oakeshott have in the contemporary discussions on political theory and thinking? These questions form the main body of the problematic examined in this book.

I will examine Oakeshott s conception of political activity in the British context, mainly within the specific context of postwar political thought. It is important to clarify some of the aspects which contributed to my decision to limit my examination to this primary context. First, in my view there is something called “British postwar political thought,” which should be distinguished from the broader genre of “Anglophone political thought” that includes the United States. Secondly, I claim that Oakeshott occupies a significant place in the sphere of British postwar political thinking. Thirdly, we must take a specific interest in the relationship between the two. My assertion in this book is that the examination of Oakeshott s vocabulary and its connection to the vocabularies of other contemporary thinkers enables us to uncover innovative ways of conceptualizing the political and politics in relation to some key concepts of British political thought. I also argue that Oakeshott s political thought develops through interaction with his interpretations of real contemporary British politics; Oakeshott s paradigm conception of political activity is inherently British.

[snip]