保守主义、民族主义与意识形态创新:以施特劳斯和奥克肖特为例

Q4 Social Sciences Perspectives on Political Science Pub Date : 2023-06-08 DOI:10.1080/10457097.2023.2218139
P. Moreira
{"title":"保守主义、民族主义与意识形态创新:以施特劳斯和奥克肖特为例","authors":"P. Moreira","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2023.2218139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract From a label that used to mean an ideological family in favor of customs and tradition, the meaning of “conservatism” has been recently changing to encompass more nationalistic and populistic connotations. Given this shift, I use two works to discuss what it means to label something as “conservative” and to talk about the nature and function of political labels in general. On the one hand, I use David McIlwain’s recent work on Strauss and Oakeshott as a gateway to discuss the meaning of this label and of political labels in general. McIlwain’s is critical of the idea that Strauss and Oakeshott are conservatives and he separates them as much as possible from conservatism’s “conventional” senses: reactionism, traditionalism, and free-market liberalism. In this essay, I argue that the significance of Strauss’ and Oakeshott’s conservatism is not found in any straightforward defense of reactionist, traditionalist, or free-market policies. Rather, Strauss and Oakeshott were ideological innovators who offered new concepts that enabled conservatives to redraw the limits of the conservative family – to conflate several disparate opponents as enemies of conservatism, and to exclude other conservatives as not being part of the conservative family. Then, and on the one hand, I look at how Oakeshott’s notion of “rationalism” entails a critique of religious defenses of conservatism. On the other hand, I describe how Strauss’ notion of “historicism” entails a criticism of Oakeshott’s style of contextualist conservatism. Finally, I use the ideas of this essay to look at a recent attempt at ideological innovation, i.e. Yoram Hazony’s Conservatism that tries to take conservatism in a nationalist direction. I show that Hazony’s conservative nationalism does not succeed. Contrarily to Strauss and Oakeshott, Hazony creates concepts that do not innovate conservatism, and that are absent in his critiques of other conservatives and of the opponents of conservatism.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"52 1","pages":"183 - 194"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conservatism, Nationalism, and Ideological Innovation: The Cases of Strauss and Oakeshott\",\"authors\":\"P. Moreira\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10457097.2023.2218139\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract From a label that used to mean an ideological family in favor of customs and tradition, the meaning of “conservatism” has been recently changing to encompass more nationalistic and populistic connotations. Given this shift, I use two works to discuss what it means to label something as “conservative” and to talk about the nature and function of political labels in general. On the one hand, I use David McIlwain’s recent work on Strauss and Oakeshott as a gateway to discuss the meaning of this label and of political labels in general. McIlwain’s is critical of the idea that Strauss and Oakeshott are conservatives and he separates them as much as possible from conservatism’s “conventional” senses: reactionism, traditionalism, and free-market liberalism. In this essay, I argue that the significance of Strauss’ and Oakeshott’s conservatism is not found in any straightforward defense of reactionist, traditionalist, or free-market policies. Rather, Strauss and Oakeshott were ideological innovators who offered new concepts that enabled conservatives to redraw the limits of the conservative family – to conflate several disparate opponents as enemies of conservatism, and to exclude other conservatives as not being part of the conservative family. Then, and on the one hand, I look at how Oakeshott’s notion of “rationalism” entails a critique of religious defenses of conservatism. On the other hand, I describe how Strauss’ notion of “historicism” entails a criticism of Oakeshott’s style of contextualist conservatism. Finally, I use the ideas of this essay to look at a recent attempt at ideological innovation, i.e. Yoram Hazony’s Conservatism that tries to take conservatism in a nationalist direction. I show that Hazony’s conservative nationalism does not succeed. Contrarily to Strauss and Oakeshott, Hazony creates concepts that do not innovate conservatism, and that are absent in his critiques of other conservatives and of the opponents of conservatism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Political Science\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"183 - 194\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2023.2218139\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2023.2218139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要“保守主义”一词过去是指支持习俗和传统的意识形态家庭,但最近它的含义发生了变化,包含了更多的民族主义和民粹主义内涵。鉴于这种转变,我用两部作品来讨论给某些东西贴上“保守”的标签意味着什么,并讨论一般政治标签的性质和功能。一方面,我用David McIlwain最近关于Strauss和Oakeshott的研究作为切入点来讨论这个标签和一般政治标签的意义。麦克韦恩对施特劳斯和奥克肖特是保守派的观点持批评态度,他尽可能地将他们与保守主义的“传统”意义(反动主义、传统主义和自由市场自由主义)区分开来。在这篇文章中,我认为施特劳斯和奥克肖特的保守主义的意义并不在于对反动主义、传统主义或自由市场政策的任何直接辩护。相反,施特劳斯和奥克肖特是意识形态上的革新者,他们提出了新的概念,使保守派能够重新划定保守家庭的界限——将几个截然不同的对手合并为保守主义的敌人,并将其他不属于保守家庭的保守派排除在外。然后,一方面,我看了奥克肖特的“理性主义”概念是如何对保守主义的宗教辩护进行批判的。另一方面,我描述了施特劳斯的“历史主义”概念如何包含了对奥克肖特的情境主义保守主义风格的批评。最后,我用这篇文章的观点来看看最近意识形态创新的尝试,即Yoram Hazony的保守主义,它试图将保守主义带向民族主义方向。我认为哈扎尼的保守民族主义并没有成功。与施特劳斯和奥克肖特相反,哈扎尼创造的概念并没有革新保守主义,而且在他对其他保守主义者和保守主义反对者的批评中也没有这些概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Conservatism, Nationalism, and Ideological Innovation: The Cases of Strauss and Oakeshott
Abstract From a label that used to mean an ideological family in favor of customs and tradition, the meaning of “conservatism” has been recently changing to encompass more nationalistic and populistic connotations. Given this shift, I use two works to discuss what it means to label something as “conservative” and to talk about the nature and function of political labels in general. On the one hand, I use David McIlwain’s recent work on Strauss and Oakeshott as a gateway to discuss the meaning of this label and of political labels in general. McIlwain’s is critical of the idea that Strauss and Oakeshott are conservatives and he separates them as much as possible from conservatism’s “conventional” senses: reactionism, traditionalism, and free-market liberalism. In this essay, I argue that the significance of Strauss’ and Oakeshott’s conservatism is not found in any straightforward defense of reactionist, traditionalist, or free-market policies. Rather, Strauss and Oakeshott were ideological innovators who offered new concepts that enabled conservatives to redraw the limits of the conservative family – to conflate several disparate opponents as enemies of conservatism, and to exclude other conservatives as not being part of the conservative family. Then, and on the one hand, I look at how Oakeshott’s notion of “rationalism” entails a critique of religious defenses of conservatism. On the other hand, I describe how Strauss’ notion of “historicism” entails a criticism of Oakeshott’s style of contextualist conservatism. Finally, I use the ideas of this essay to look at a recent attempt at ideological innovation, i.e. Yoram Hazony’s Conservatism that tries to take conservatism in a nationalist direction. I show that Hazony’s conservative nationalism does not succeed. Contrarily to Strauss and Oakeshott, Hazony creates concepts that do not innovate conservatism, and that are absent in his critiques of other conservatives and of the opponents of conservatism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Perspectives on Political Science
Perspectives on Political Science Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Whether discussing Montaigne"s case for tolerance or Nietzsche"s political critique of modern science, Perspectives on Political Science links contemporary politics and culture to the enduring questions posed by great thinkers from antiquity to the present. Ideas are the lifeblood of the journal, which comprises articles, symposia, and book reviews. Recent articles address the writings of Aristotle, Adam Smith, and Plutarch; the movies No Country for Old Men and 3:10 to Yuma; and the role of humility in modern political thought.
期刊最新文献
Paul & Empire Criticism: Why and How? Paul & Empire Criticism: Why and How? by Najeeb T. Haddad, Cascade Books, Publication Date: 2023 Conversation as Political Education Defending Socrates: Political Philosophy Before the Tribunal of Science Defending Socrates: Political Philosophy Before the Tribunal of Science , by Alex Priou, Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 184 pp., ISBN 978-0-88146-914-1, Publication Date: 2023 The Politics of Suicide: Miasma and Katharmos in Plato’s Political Thought “Worse than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism,” by Erwin Chemerinsky
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1