Reviews
Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left
Theo Hobson
Roger Scruton
Bloomsbury, 296pp
This book looks back at left-wing theorizing since the mid
twentieth century. On one level the tradition has faded, says Roger
Scruton, for the mainstream left seldom speaks of revolution now
that its aims of liberation and social justice 'have been
bureaucratized.' But the left, he argues, still uses obfuscating
language (which he calls, following Orwell, 'Newspeak'), and
retains the nihilistic tendency to attack existing traditions on
the basis of airy possibilities. Also, one or two heralds of
revolution are still taken seriously.
It is not much of a page-turner: trying to follow the convoluted
theories of these thinkers is hard work. One often wonders if the
effort is worthwhile. But Scruton does sometimes shed light on all
this darkness. For example he partially clarifies why Jean-Paul
Sartre was such a pivotal figure. On the surface his philosophy of
personal freedom and authenticity seems contrary to Marxism. But
the desire for absolute freedom is attracted to the absoluteness of
Marxism, its apocalyptic abolishing of all ordinary reality with
its final utopia.
He is comparatively lenient on Theodore Adorno, whose attack on
capitalist culture was steeped in the Jewish critique of idolatry;
he saw a role for a form of 'personal salvation, a turning away
from fantasies', in the pursuit of utopia. But such thought had the
effect of Marxists colonizing the humanities, claiming to speak
about the true political function of art. In the 1960s the debate
shifted in this cultural direction. Foucault (who is admitted to be
an excellent writer) influentially criticised the structures of
domination of capitalist society - but like other thinkers of the
left he could offer no alternative, except 'utopia'. With Lacan and
Deleuze, the left developed a taste for radical-sounding babble -
defying normal bourgeois rationality was presented as a subversive
act. Political philosophy blurred with an esoteric performance art:
only those who believe in the absolute of revolution can grasp
it.
As with Adorno, he partially forgives many of the British
Marxists such as Christopher Hill and Raymond Williams: their
celebration of working-class culture, and dislike of mass
consumerism was in tune with the thought of Ruskin and Morris, and
at odds with cold Continental rigour, and semi-surrealist
posturing. But the left can't really tolerate nuanced, moderate
arguments: it must perform its commitment to the absolute. With the
demise of Communism, a new negative approach emerged: attacking
Western values as bogus, oppressive, racist. Partly thanks to
Edward Said, the humanities are now ruled by a resentful relativism
that unites 'the new ummah of the rootless.'
Recently the ideal of revolution has been revived by Alain
Badiou. He revives Sartre's emphasis on apocalyptic absoluteness,
with his 'philosophy of the Event'. The Christian roots of this are
plainer than ever - he even uses St Paul to illustrate it. Badiou
seems to admit that Marxism is utterly faith-based, and seems to
praise a fidesitic (rationality-rejecting) commitment to it. We
must pursue 'the possibility of the impossible', and (a phrase from
Lacan) we must not give up on our desire. As with Sartre, an
intense individualism, adapted from Nietzsche, is awkwardly
recruited to the revolutionary ideal.
Slavoj Zizek has recently popularized this approach, mixing
verbose posturing and punkish nonsense with some sharp analysis. He
falls back on the absurd claim that the inner purity of the
revolutionary mind is selfjustifying. If one is motivated by a
reality-changing vision that re-makes the world, one rises above
normal ethics. If a movement carries the flame of utopia, it is
justified, even in violence.
With the demise of Communism as a force in the world, the
religious basis of left-wing theory is ever clearer. It is rooted
in apocalyptic utopianism. And it also borrows the idea of the
adherent's leap of faith, away from ordinary reality to
'authenticity'.
In his conclusion Scruton admits the dehumanizing
potential of capitalist societies. But the solution is not
political but spiritual in a wide sense: we must nurture a culture
that treats people as ends not means, a culture that promotes
values beyond commerce and rivalry. 'We must change our lives.' And
we should not pretend that politics can get rid of 'domination':
'Our concern as political beings should be, not to abolish the
powers that bind society together, but to mitigate their exercise.
We should not aim for a world without power, but for a world where
power is consented to.'
This is well said, but I think a Christian
response should say something else. The Marxist desire for absolute
change deserves a sort of respect. Beside it, the secular humanist
belief in human rights and progress is rather lazy and dishonest.
It supposedly aims for the good of all humanity, but in a diluted
way that's compatible with self-interest, common sense. Yes,
revolutionary rhetoric is dangerous and irresponsible, but there is
an echo of the Kingdom of God here that normal political rhetoric
lacks.
We Christians should more boldly claim to square the
circle: we announce an apocalyptic revolution, but we also affirm
the good in the present order, even its most bourgeois
aspects.