Note: The following is the script for one of my YouTube videos. You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfU8mt6iG9g&t=34s
Why Heinrich von Treitschke was popular
in his time is a mystery to me. I mean, granted, his writings are
kind of mesmerising in their own way, like a car crash you can´t
take your eyes off, if you´ll forgive the criminally cliché
comparison – I´m not that imaginative.
But yeah, this guy´s opinions were
pretty damn stupid.
Heinrich von Treitschke in his later years. Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_von_Treitschke
Before we get to his views, however,
let me fill you in on this interesting fellow´s backstory – in
case you don´t know it yet.
Heinrich von Treitschke was a German
historian, journalist/essayist and member of parliament who lived
from 1834 to 1896. Born into a family with a strong military
background, he was originally a liberal, and an opponent of the
radically consrvative Prussian chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. But his
180-degree political pivot came with the success of Bismarck´s
militarist policies, as three victorious wars against Denmark,
Austria and France led to the establishment of a unified Germany with
Prussia at its head as a new major European power.
Von Treitschke´s newfound passion for
the military shines through with glaring brightness in his work. In a
moment he had been transformed from a progressive to an ardent
nationalist and monarchist with a heartful of love for war and a
scornful disdain for all nations except the German one.
In 1871 he entered the German
Parliament as an MP for the National Liberal Party.
So now that we´ve got his personal
details out of the way, let´s get to the subject of this video –
his political philosophy. The man was a widely-recognised
intellectual, after all. So I read Chapter 1 of his book „Politics“,
which is a collection of lectures published in 1911. In this chapter,
he outlines his theory of a state. Let´s delve right in as I
summarise what I found out about his ideas.
Von Treitschke sees a state as a people
legally united as an independent entity, which is a phrase he repeats
several times throughout the chapter. This carries several
implications with it. Firstly, it means a rejection of the
Enlightenment idea of „Natural Law“, i.e. rules of government
derived directly from reason and therefore universal. Von Treitschke
emphasises the individual differences between all states, which are
necessary because of the differences in the characters of the various
peoples.
However, according to this book, there
are certain rules which hold true everywhere, throughout history. One
such rule is that societies naturally tend towards aristocracy as
opposed to other forms of government. Von Treitschke explains this by
saying that people are naturally different, and therefore inequality
among them is natural, and therefore systems of government based on
inequality are natural. No society, he maintains, can exist which is
not divided into classes. You can see why this guy was vehemently
opposed to social democracy.
And it´s not just within countries
that inequality is inevitable. Although Treitschke does remark that
all people are brothers, as they are all made in God´s image, he
goes on to use the natural inequalities between people to explain,
this time, „the subordination of some groups to others“. This, of
course, fits nicely with his expressed desire to see Germany acquire
its own colonies overseas. He also asserts that each nation deserves
what it gets, meaning that if one country is subjugated by another,
it´s the subjugated country´s fault for being too weak to defend
itself.
As to the functions of the state, von
Treitschke sees its main purposes in, firstly, the administration of
justice and, secondly, war. However, it is clear that its functions
are not limited to these two aspects, since elsewhere he
refers to another one, namely the „duty to stand above social
antagonisms“ (p.53). Here he takes a view similar to Thomas
Hobbes´s justification of a strong state as a peacekeeper among
fundamentally immoral men. Von Treitschke believes that the conflicts
which invariably arise within societies would lead to aggression,
violence and the destruction of society if not for the state, which
is there to protect the rights of the people.
But there´s no reason to be afraid
that the state could ever disappear, because according to the book, a
community of people without a state is impossible. States arise from
human communities as naturally as does language. Here we see an
unmistakeable Aristotelian influence, since Aristotle also believed
that a human community naturally and necessarily forms a polis.
Indeed, von Treitscke draws heavily on
Aristotle, and goes so far as to call Aristotle´s book „Politics“
the greatest work of political science in history. This places him
squarely within the realm of what is called „classical political
philosophy“, a school of thought which goes back largely to the
ancient Greek thinker.
Another attribute of classical
political philosophy is the previously indicated belief that human
beings are inherently flawed, and the state is therefore needed to
overcome the faults in their character. But besides ensuring law and
order, this also means actually making its citizens into better
people. The state plays a major role in the moral development of its
citizens. In fact, von Treitschke goes so far as to write that
writers can only be great if they draw directly from the culture of
their respective nations. This is summed up in the statement that a
great writer must be „a microcosm of his nation“.
This subtly plays in to the statement
by Fichte, quoted elsewhere in the book, that the only way for an
individual to achieve immortality is to embed himself in the
collective memory of his own nation.
As you may have noticed, von Treitschke
is very fond of nations, which is why he rails against both
internationalism, which he sees as lunacy because, as previously
mentioned, each nation has it own character, and provincialism, which
he sees as obsolete, primitive small-mindedness which leads to
intellectual stagnation.
But back to the state. Von Treitschke
identifies a further core aspecct of the state as an intolerance
towards any power above it. According to him, the essence of the
state is power, much as the essence of religion is faith and the
essence of family is love. Since the sovereignty of a state depends
on no other power being able to challenge its authority, von
Treitschke does not consider any state which is not the most powerful
entity on its territory a state in any real sense. Similarly, a state
that cannot wage war because it has no military is not really a
state, since it has no true authority.
Von Treitschke is actually a huge fan
of war, arguing that human greatness andprogress is fueled by
competition among nations, and reinvigorates the character of a
nation which has descended into decadence. He writes:“Misfortune is
a tonic to noble nations, but in continued prosperity even they run
the risk of enervation.“
He sees war as something noble,
claiming that it is typically fought not for material gain, but for
the sake of inherited national honour.
In light of all this, I was surprised
to find that he was not actually advocating for a totalitarian state.
The state von Treitschke wants would be militarist and autocratic,
but there would still be plenty of areas in its citizens´ lives in
which it would not interfere. On p. 25 he writes that „As it aims
only at forming and directing the surface of human existence, it can
everywhere take up an attitude of indifference towards the
conflicting schools of thought in Art, Science, and Religion. It is
satisfied so long as they keep the peace.
So that´s Heinrich von Treitschke for
you. I have to say, some of what he outlines in his lectures seems
quite reasonable, but there´s also a lot of nonsense in the mix
which really kills it for me. Often, he´ll acknowledge an exception
to one of his rules which is so huge that, to me, it disproves the
rule. For example, he writes that small states cannot defend their
sovereignty against large ones, and admits that Switzerland, the
Netherlands and Belgium are exceptions to that rule. That´s three
states in Central Europe alone! Also, for all his insistence that
political science ought to rely on historical observations rather
than armchair philosophy, he provides next to no hstorical evidence
for outrageous claims like war contributing to the moral edification
of a society.
In short, I´m not a fan.
Comments
Post a Comment