[x] Political Thought

Jodi posted an ad for a job in her department looking for candidates able to teach "American Politics/American Political Thought." The idea of "American Political Thought" (the ad gives the example of the Federalists/Anti-Federalists) and wondered what it means to have a national tradition in "political thought." Regarding "American political thought," wouldn't the two main texts be the Federalist Papers and Democracy in America? Tocqueville, of course, was French, an aristocrat and not a fan of democracy - is that "American" or "French" political thought? My copy of Tocqueville's book, the Mansfield edition, says that it is the most important book on America. (Does Martineau's Society in America count as English or American? Does anyone actually read it?) But, does "French" political thought even describe Tocqueville's book? Is there a "French" tradition in political theory? The most famous book of "French" political theory was written by a Genevan, not a Frenchman. This, of course, lead me to thinking, "What would a course in Canadian political thought look like?" Certainly, Canada has produced some fine political thinkers - but there is nothing essentially "Canadian" about them that would characterize their thought as "Canadian." James Tully, Will Kymlicka, Charles Taylor, G.A. Cohen, Michael Ignatieff, Shumalith Firestone, George Grant, H.S. Harris, Thomas Pangle, (Alan Bloom, IIRC) ... they're all either "Canadian" or spent time at Canadian universities. Does that make their thought "Canadian"? George Grant is likely the only "Canadian political thinker" we've ever produced - but I'm not sure there's anyone who could sit through a twelve week lecture course on his thought.

Comments

[Jodi]

In part (although this is too narrow), what constitutes the so-called tradition in American political thought is the relation to the Constitution and the law. The problem with the ad--and I'm thinking of rewriting it a bit--is that it eliminates American transcendentalism (Emerson, Thoreau). One could say, though, that Thoreau comes in because of his civil disobedience, withdrawal. And now that I say this (not being a Thoreau reader, myself) I wonder how a comparison of Thoreau and Bartelby would look.

[squibb]

I think such a tradition, so described, would have to be thinkers who either were themselves american, or who took america to be representative or indicative of some, specific political relevance. This would run in opposite directions at a certain point - I think of Veblen on german industrialization as the opposite end of the democracy in america question...

I guess the problem becomes the dominant term in the politcal/american binary - and whether that dominance is historical or thematic.

[Eric]

I always assumed (without having any real biographical evidence) that Melville had Thoreau at least partially in mind when he created Bartleby. If Emerson got excoriated as philosophical huckster Mark Winsome in The Confidence-Man, Thoreau (who also appeared in that book) was the ghost, the man who made himself identical with his surroundings, who turned himself into nothing. I think you're right to say that Bartleby/Thoreau-style withdrawal is very much within and acceptable to American political thought. That's a reason I don't see Bartleby and subjective destitution as worthy political models. They are very different from exodus and creation.

[E.E. Flipit]

It's a sad state of affairs that Harold Innis was left out of your summary survey of Canadian political thinkers. He's a genius whose work might go some way to answering your question of how "national" political thought might be constituted. Squibb, I think Innis fits your criteria and moreover would agree with you. But there is a more rigorous account of what it means "to be" American or Canadian. That is an interesting question. Innis would say it has much to do with the exigencies of the land itself--start with the waterways, the St. Lawrence, Hudson's Bay, the Grand Banks, etc. and work your way up from there. What kinds of institutions can form on such a continent, at such a time? Similar questions might lead to a conception of an American episteme. But I doubt Innis would draw a line in "the episteme" at the 49th parallel. He would probably say that there are watersheds of thought, i.e. The Great Lake's region, the Atlantic coast, Pacific thought... etc. Innis was influenced by Veblen. Of course there is a French tradition of political thought. It is bound up with the history of the French language, the University of Paris, the Revolution, and Catholicism. The problem is trying to take an individual author as representative of the whole French episteme. Yes, there will be differences that mark the work off from all the others, but there will also be similarities. I tend to think that the similarities are as important to an understanding of the work as the differences. Both, my friends, both are important. Protagoras says, "it is not right to call things similar because they have some one point of similarity, even when the resemblance is very slight, any more than to call things dissimilar that have some point of dissimilarity." (The Protagoras, 331E).

[Craig]

I can assure you that no sleight was intended against Innis - the list was not intended to be exhaustive. Empire & Communication is a beautiful book and should be more widely read.

[Rigoletto]

"American Politics/American Political Thought."

West O' the Missisippi, think masonic drunkards, teamsters, Mormons, ho's, natives and hombres, and a few pinkerton men trying to save TJ's mad dream