Book Review: The Cult of Authority, The Human Condition, Oppression and Liberty, The Landmarks of Tomorrow, Politicians: An Inaugural Lecture, British Attitudes to Politics, Cabinet Government, Honourable Members, The Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, Nationalisation in Britain: The End of a Dogma, The British Communist Party: A Historical Profile, European Politics in Southern Rhodesia, The New Zealand General Election of 1957, Titoism in Action, Smolensk under Soviet Rule, Documents on International Affairs 1956
| Date | 01 September 1959 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1959.tb01945.x |
| Author | R. C. Pratt,P. A. Bromhead,W. H. Morris-Jones,Wilfrid Harrison,F. M. G. Willson,Basil Chubb,John Plamenatz,D. N. Chester,Joseph Frankel,Ivan Avakumovic,Derek J. R. Scott,Hugh Berrington,W. H. Greenleaf |
| Published date | 01 September 1959 |
| Subject Matter | Book Reviews |
BOOK
REVIEWS
THE
CULT
OF
AUTHORITY.
By
GEORG
G.
IGGERS.
(Martinus
Nijhofl,
The Hague.
Pp.
210.
g.
14.25.)
The thesis
of
this book is that the disciples of Saint-Simon, unlike their master, held
a
totalitarian philosophy. Saint-Simon, though he despised democracy and regarded the
doctrine of the rights
of
man as
so
much nonsense, believed in liberty of conscience and
never wanted science to be controlled by an organization preaching a dogmatic faith.
Though he wanted leaders to owe their position to ability and not to popular election, he
also wanted their authority to rest on trust and not on force. Those of his disciples who,
after his death, formed a sect in his name wanted every sphere of social life controlled by
a
self-recruiting hierarchy professing
a
dogmatic philosophy and allocating work according
to their estimate of social needs and the abilities of the workers. Scientists and artists were
to
be as much as anyone subject to discipline. The disciples criticized the doctrine of liberty
of conscience, arguing that individualism and rejection of authority are the marks of what
they called a ‘critical epoch’ in human history, when a system of dogmatic beliefs supported
by an established hierarchy
is
breaking up because it no longer suits men’s needs. The
function of such an epoch is merely to prepare the way for another and better dogmatism,
another and better hierarchy.
That the disciples
of
Saint-Simon were more, and even much more, ‘totalitarian’ than
their master cannot be denied. Yet the author rather spoils the effect
of
his book by putting
forward unconvincing arguments to support his thesis. In his seventh chapter he says-
what is no doubt true-that the disciples had less respect for science than had Saint-Simon,
and he supports this contention by showing that they attributed much more importance
than he did to ‘genius’. But by ‘genius’ they meant imagination, the seeing of connexions not
immediately obvious, the framing
of
bold hypotheses; and they did not deny that hypotheses
must be verified. They were not contrasting ‘genius’ with science; they were trying to show
the importance
of
genius even in science.
So,
too, their being more interested in the content
than the form of art, their regarding it as an expression of the ideals of the age, their think-
ing it
a
powerful influence on behaviour
is
not illiberal; they could have held these views
without wanting to regiment artists. Again, though the author admits that the disciples of
Saint-Simon differ from modern ‘totalitarians’ by their abhorrence
of
violence, the class
struggle, and party politics, he devotes much less space to this admission than to pointing
out how, excited by the Belgian crisis of
1831,
their paper,
Le
Globe,
for a short time
advocated the use of force by France. Though the disciples spoke
so
much of the need for
authority, they were in practice remarkably gentle and unworldly. Mr. Iggers compares
their sect with a church aspiring to catholicity and with a totalitarian political party; the
first comparison is much more apt than the second.
A sub-title of this book is
A
chapter
in
the intellectual history
of
totalitarianism.
It is
a
chapter which ought in justice to be written, for the disciples of Saint-Simon were most
illiberal. Yet that side of their teaching has touched posterity very little; it has had to be
unearthed by scholars. Their concern for the poor, their pacifism, and their ardent feminism
have had a much deeper influence.
The author clearly does not think in English. There are many faults of grammar and
also misprints in the book.
Nu
field College, Oxford
JOHN
PLAMENATZ
To continue reading
Request your trial