Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:55:07.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Process Thought and Political Theory: Implications of a Principle of Internal Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Douglas Sturm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ultimate aim of political theory is to disclose the meaning of political activity. As such, political theory is, at one and the same time, interpretive and evaluative. In the phrasing of Dante Germino, political theory “takes as its starting point the empirical fact of the existing human person in the totality of his experience as a creature in society.” But, of course, the meaning of “the empirical fact of the existing human person” is a topic of philosophical inquiry. Facticity is not a given. It is an issue of paramount importance. On the resolution of that issue, much depends. According to Whitehead, “theories are built upon facts; and conversely the reports upon facts are shot through and through with theoretical interpretation.” The notion, for instance, of “history devoid of any reliance on metaphysical principles and cosmological generalizations, is a figment of the imagination.” The task of political theory therefore cannot be undertaken apart from considerations of cosmology. It is at this point that process thought is relevant to political theory. And that, in general, is the topic of this article.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , July 1979 , pp. 375 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Germino, Dante, Beyond Ideology: The Revival of Political Theory (Chicago, 1967), p. 5Google Scholar.

2 Whitehead, Alfred North, Adventures of Ideas (New York, 1967), p. 4Google Scholar.

3 Whitehead, Alfred North, Science mid the Modern World (New York, 1939), p. 80Google Scholar. See alsoUnger, Roberto Mangabeira, Knowledge and Politics (New York, 1975), p. 30Google Scholar.

4 Whitehead, , Science and the Modern World, p. 25Google Scholar.

5 Ibid., p. 80.

6 Ibid., pp. 72, 75, 85.

7 Ibid., p. 14.

8 See Hart, Thomas N., “Whitehead's Critique of Scientific Materialism,” New Scholasticism, 43 (1969), 231CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Whitehead, , Science and the Modern World, pp. 133, 251Google Scholar.

10 Matson, Floyd W., The Broken Image: Man, Science and Society (Garden City, New York, 1966)Google Scholar.

11 For a more complete account of these schools of political science, see Sturm, Douglas, “Politics and Divinity: Three Approaches in American Political Science,” Thought: A Review of Idea and Culture, 52 (12 1977), 333–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Two examples of summaries of political behavioralism are the following: (1) Eulau, Heinz, The Behavioral Persuasion in Politics (New York, 1963)Google Scholar;and (2)Easton, David, “Introduction: The Current Meaning of ‘Behavioralism’ in Political Science” in The Limits of Behavioralism in Political Science, ed. Charlesworth, James C. (Philadelphia, 1962)Google Scholar.

13 Spragens, Thomas A. Jr, The Dilemma of Contemporary Political Theory: Toward a Postbehavioral Science of Politics (New York, 1973), pp. 73–74Google Scholar.

14 Two summary renditions of political traditionalism are the following: (1) Voegelin, Eric, The New Science of Politics (Chicago, 1952)Google Scholar; and (2) Strauss, Leo, What Is Political Philosophy? (Westport, Connecticut, 1973)Google Scholar.

15 Germino, Dante, “Eric Voegelin's Framework for Political Evaluation in His Recently Published Work,” American Political Science Review, 72 (03 1978), 110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Spragens, , Dilemma of Contemporary Political Theory, p. 146Google Scholar.

17 Emmet, Dorothy, Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism (New York, 1966), p. 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Bernstein, Richard J., The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory (New York, 1976)Google Scholar.

19 Easton, David, The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science (New York, 1966), chaps. 4 and 5Google Scholar.

20 Kariel, Henry S., Saving Appearances: The Reestablishing of Political Science (Belmont, California, 1976)Google Scholar.

21 Strauss, , What Is Political Philosophy? p. 40Google Scholar.

22 See Spragens, Thomas A. Jr, The Politics of Motion: The World of Thomas Hobbes (Lexington, Kentucky, 1973)Google Scholar.

23 Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, III, xlvi [Library of Liberal Arts edition (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958), p. 9]Google Scholar.

24 Ibid., “The Introduction” [p. 23].

25 For a compact summary of this controversy, see Spragens, Politics of Motion, chap. 1.

26 Hobbes, , Leviathan, I, xi [p. 86]Google Scholar.

27 Ibid., I, xiii [p. 107].

28 See Coleman, Frank, Hobbes and America: Exploring the Constitutional Foundations (Toronto, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Whitehead, Alfred North, Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect (New York, 1959), p. 68Google Scholar.

30 Ibid., p. 88. The centrality of the symbolic factor in the dialectic between self and society lends credence to the effort to associate process philosophy with communications theory in political thought. See Emmet, , Philosophy of Organism, p. xxvi, fn. 2Google Scholar; Hoffert, Robert W., “A Political Vision for the Organic Model,” Process Studies, 5 (Fall 1975), 175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sturm, Douglas, “Rule of Law and Politics in a Revolutionary Age,” in Law and Philosophy: Readings in Legal Philosophy, ed. Kent, Edward Allen (New York, 1970), p. 371–387Google Scholar. In the almost poetic phrasing of Deutsch, Karl W., the concern at the heart of the communications model of politics is “to preserve for any finite mind or group some open pathway to the infinite, that is, to preserve for it the possibility of communication with a potentially inexhaustible environment and a potentially infinite future” (The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control [New York, 1966], p. XIV)Google Scholar. Such a vision calls to mind Henri Bergson's concept of an open society in The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (Garden City, New York, 1954)Google Scholar.

31 Note Philip Green's assertion that “In the end, a political science which does not know who the victims are is no political science at all” in Green, Philip and Levinson, Stanford, eds., Power and Community: Dissenting Essays in Political Science (New York, 1970)Google Scholar. Spragens, Thomas S. makes the same point in his Understanding Political Theory (New York, 1976)Google Scholar: “Political theories are like pearls: they are not produced without an irritant. Most political theories … are written as attempts to deal with some very real and urgent problems. These problems demand the attention of the theorist; they don't merely invite inquiry” (p. 20).

32 Whitehead, , Adventures of Ideas, p. 10Google Scholar.

33 Ibid., p. 43.

34 Ibid., p. 34.

35 Ibid., pp. 62–63.

36 Kaplan, Morton A., Alienation and Identification (New York, 1976), p. 115Google Scholar.

37 This is the striking thesis of a study by Oilman, Bertell, Alienation: Marx's Conception of Man in Capitalist Society (Cambridge, 1976)Google Scholar. For a contrasting interpretation, see Torrance, John, Estrangement, Alienation, and Exploitation (New York, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Torrance insists that Marx clearly distinguishes between estrangement (Entfremdung) and alienation (Entdusserung). The antitheses of the two terms are, respectively, solidarity and appropriation.

38 Whitehead, Alfred North, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology (New York, 1941), p. 346Google Scholar.

39 Whitehead, , Symbolism, pp. 7–8Google Scholar.

40 Whitehead, , Process and Reality, p. 256Google Scholar.

41 Noonan, John T. Jr, Persons and Masks of the Lam: Cardozo, Holmes, Jefferson, and Wythe as Makers of the Masks (New York, 1976)Google Scholar.

42 Buber, Martin, Good and Evil (New York, 1953), pp. 7–14Google Scholar.

43 Don S. Browning, “Psychological and Ontological Perspectives on Faith and Reason,” in Delwin Brown; Ralph E. James Jr.; and Reeves, Gene, eds., Process Philosophy and Christian Thought (Indianapolis, 1971), pp. 128–142Google Scholar.

44 Lippmann, Walter, Public Opinion (New York, 1961), pt. 3Google Scholar.

45 Camus, Albert, The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt, trans. Bowen, Anthony (New York, 1962)Google Scholar.

46 Habermas, Jürgen, “On Systematically Distorted Communication,” Inquiry, 13 (1970), 205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Oilman, Bertell, Alienation, pp. 133–134Google Scholar. See also John, P. M., Marx on Alienation: Elements of a Critique of Capitalism and Communism (Columbia, Mo., 1976), pp. 177–180Google Scholar.

48 See Pappenheim, Fritz, The Alienation of Modern Man: An Interpretation Based on Marx and Tonnies (New York, 1968), pp. 84ffGoogle Scholar.

49 Kaplan, Alienation and Identification, pt. 2.

50 See the parallels and problems discussed in Parsons, Howard L., “History as Viewed by Marx and Whitehead,” Christian Scholar, 50 (1967), 273–289Google Scholar; Pixley, George V., “Justice and Class Struggle: A Challenge for Process Philosophy,” Process Studies, 4 (Fall 1974), 159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williamson, Clark M., “Whitehead as Counter Revolutionary? Toward Christian-Marxist Dialogue,” Process Studies, 4 (Fall 1974), 176–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 On the relation between the philosophy of internal relations and the principle of the dialectic in Marx, see Bertell Oilman, Alienation, chaps. 3, 5, and 6. To deal with the assertion in the text, one should distinguish various types of dialectic as does McKeon, Richard in the second section of his “Dialectic and Political Thought and Action,” Ethics, 65 (10 1954), 1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Gregory Vlastos, in a paper originally published in 1937, for instance, distinguishes (1) homogeneous dialectical idealism (Hegel), (2) homogeneous dialectical materialism (Marx), and (3) heterogeneous dialectic (Whitehead). The paper, “Organic Categories in Whitehead,” is republished in Kline, George, ed., Alfred North Whitehead: Essays in His Philosophy (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1963), pp. 158–167Google Scholar. Some more current interpretations of the thought of Karl Marx would raise serious question about Vlastos's classification and might provide a basis for effecting the comparison of Marx and Whitehead suggested in the text. See, for instance, Williams, Raymond, Marxism and Literature (Oxford, 1977)Google Scholar, especially pts. 1 and 2.

52 See Bertell Oilman's description of evidences of alienated relations in contemporary capitalist society (Alienation, pp. 250–252) and Hall's, David L. interpretation of ”the cultural problem” (The Civilization of Experience: A Whiteheadian Theory of Culture [New York, 1973], pp. 167–181)Google Scholar.

53 Whitehead, , Adventures of Ideas, pp. 251, 293Google Scholar.

54 Hoffert, “A Political Vision for the Organic Model.”

55 Weinstein, Michael, Philosophy, Theory, and Method in Contemporary Political Thought (Glenville, Illinois, 1971), chapter 4Google Scholar.

56 Hall, Civilization of Experience.

57 Beer, Samuel H., The City of Reason (Cambridge, 1940)Google Scholar.

58 Sullivan, William M., “Two Options in Modern Social Theory: Habermas and Whitehead,” International Philosophical Quarterly, 15 (03 1975), 83–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Sullivan's, doctoral dissertation, “The Process Social Paradigm and the Problem of Social Order” (Fordham University, 1971)Google Scholar.

59 Beer, , City of Reason, p. 141Google Scholar.

60 Ibid., p. 191.

61 Ibid., p. 201.

62 Ibid., p. 212.

63 Whitehead, , Adventures of Ideas, p. 83Google Scholar.

64 Ibid., p. 63.

65 Whitehead, , Process and Reality, p. 309Google Scholar.

66 See Whitehead, , Adventures of Ideas, pp. 56, 69, 257Google Scholar. Sullivan's, Compare argument in his dissertation, abstracted in Process Studies, 2 (Spring 1972), pp. 88–89Google Scholar.

67 Whitehead, , Adventures of Ideas, pp. 66–67Google Scholar.

68 Whitehead, , Process and Reality, pp. 339, 390Google Scholar.

69 Ibid., pp. 329, 341.

70 On this issue, see Press, Howard, “Whitehead's Ethic of Feeling,” Ethics, 81 (02 1971), 161–168, and the critique of Press byGoogle ScholarSpencer, J. B. in Process Studies, 1 (Fall 1973), 244–245. Spencer's side of the argument seems supported by Whitehead's statement that by peace he is “not referring to political relations” but to “a quality of mind steady in its reliance that fine action is treasured in the nature of things.” But Press might invoke this affirmation: “The essence of Peace is that the individual whose strength of experience is founded upon this ultimate intuition, thereby is extending the influence of the source of all order” (Adventure of Ideas, pp. 274, 292)Google Scholar.

71 Whitehead, , Adventures of Ideas, p. 292Google Scholar.

72 Ibid., p. 293.

73 On communitarianism, see Lodge, George C., The New American Ideology (New York, 1975), pp. [162–197Google Scholar; and Unger, Roberto Mangabeira, Knowledge and Politics, pp. 263–295Google Scholar.

74 Whitehead, , Adventures of Ideas, p. 295Google Scholar.