Larry Alan Busk, "The Right-Wing Mirror of Critical Theory: Studies of Schmitt, Oakeshott, Hayek, Strauss, and Rand" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2023)
Dec 6, 2024
auto_awesome
Larry Alan Busk, a visiting assistant professor at Eckhart College and author of "The Right-Wing Mirror of Critical Theory," dives into how critical theory unintentionally reflects right-wing philosophies. He discusses the ideological intersections between conservative roots and critical theory, as well as the nuances of cultural Marxism within right-wing thought. Busk critiques the superficial engagement of the left with right-wing ideas and explores the philosophical tensions in figures like Schmitt and Oakeshott, revealing the complexities in contemporary political discourse.
The podcast explores the ideological commonalities between leftist critical theory and right-wing philosophers like Carl Schmitt, challenging perceived oppositions.
It examines how Carl Schmitt's rejection of foundationalism complicates traditional views on combating authoritarianism within critical thought frameworks.
Michael Oakeshott's philosophy highlights the value of pluralism and skepticism in politics, questioning the necessity of radical change for equality.
Deep dives
The Interconnectedness of Ideologies
The discussion emphasizes how various thinkers from the right and left share ideological commonalities despite their contrasting political commitments. For instance, similarities in arguments can be found between contemporary critical theorists and right-wing minds like Carl Schmitt or Michael Oakeshott. The connections illustrate that both factions can arrive at similar critiques, particularly regarding foundationalism and the limitations of political design. This convergence prompts a reevaluation of how leftist thought may unwittingly reflect right-wing premises.
Carl Schmitt's Fascist Philosophy
Carl Schmitt stands out as an intriguing case given his rejection of foundational principles while simultaneously supporting fascist ideologies. His notion suggests that political orders should prioritize stability over moral correctness, arguing that human societies are merely a series of competing interests rather than universally valid truths. This perspective diverges from traditional critical thought, which often views foundationalism as the antidote to fascism. Thus, Schmitt’s work raises critical questions about the effectiveness of post-foundationalism in combating authoritarianism.
Oakeshott and the Politics of Skepticism
Michael Oakeshott's political philosophy strives to differentiate between the politics of faith, which attempts to redesign society, and the politics of skepticism, which values coexistence among differing purposes. He contends that civil society lacks a defined purpose, unlike institutions with specific functions, favoring instead a political structure that allows for pluralism and minimal conflict. This perspective positions conservatism not as a rigid adherence to tradition, but as a framework that prioritizes the preservation of diverse social practices. Oakeshott's ideas challenge the notion that leftist principles of equality must be imposed through radical change, aligning them with his skepticism.
The Limits of Rationalism in Hayek's Thought
Friedrich Hayek rejects the concept of intelligent design in politics, promoting the idea of spontaneous order as the natural evolution of social systems. He argues that societal norms, much like language, develop over time without deliberate planning, suggesting that attempts to rationalize or reorganize society would be misguided. Hayek's assertion that 'there is no such thing as society' echoes Margaret Thatcher, emphasizing the focus on individual actions over collective structures. This rejection of the collective in favor of a disjointed understanding of society highlights a fundamental tension in contemporary political discourse.
Strauss and Elitism versus Vanguardism
Leo Strauss presents a nuanced rejection of both vanguardism and foundationalism, asserting the existence of a 'good' political order ascertainable through philosophical inquiry. He argues that while it is possible to know what constitutes an ideal society, actualizing this vision is impractical due to the incompetence of the general populace. Strauss's elitist perspective emphasizes the need for intellectuals to safeguard philosophical discourse from misguided attempts at realizing political ideals. This leads to a complex relationship with contemporary leftist movements that may similarly resist the translation of theoretical ideas into actionable policies.
What really separates emancipatory thinking from its opposite? The prevailing Left defines itself against neoliberalism, conservative traditionalism, and fascism as a matter of course. The philosophical differences, however, may be more apparent than real.
The Right-Wing Mirror of Critical Theory: Studies of Schmitt, Oakeshott, Hayek, Strauss, and Rand (Rowman & Littlefield, 2023) argues that dominant trends in critical and radical theory inadvertently reproduce the cardinal tenets of the twentieth century’s most influential right-wing philosophers. It finds the rejection of foundationalism, rationalism, economic planning, and vanguardism mirrored in the work of Schmitt, Oakeshott, Hayek, and Strauss. If it is to be more than merely an inverted image of the Right, critical theory must reevaluate its relationship to what Julius Nyerere once called “deliberate design” in politics. In the era of anthropogenic climate change, a substantial—not merely nominal—departure from right-wing talking points is all the more necessary and momentous.
Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter.