Academic literature on the topic 'Burke, Edmund, 1729-1797 Contributions in political science'

So much of the history of science has been written from the point of view of the scientist or the proto-scientist that it may be salutary for the modern reader occasionally to consider how science and its early practitioners were viewed from the outside. We must not be too surprised if a pioneering activity performed by controversial agents was misunderstood or misrepresented and if what emerges is, therefore, sometimes less of a portrait than a caricature. We are concerned here much less with what natural philosophers actually did than what they were thought to have done, or what they were thought to stand for. The image is sometimes more influential than the reality. Considering that the period to be studied is one of major political and social unrest and that the principal spokesman, Edmund Burke (1729–1797), had made his reputation mainly in the arena of parliamentary politics, we can anticipate rather more polemic than dispassionate argument. In the formation of public opinion a colourful exaggeration or even an occasional sneer are often more effective than the objective exposition of a case. The spectacles through which Burke looked at his world sometimes magnified and often distorted, but they produced a view of knowledge and society shared by many of his contemporaries and of considerable subsequent influence.

This thesis explores the political reformation of “faction” in the political thought of Montesquieu, David Hume, and Edmund Burke, three thinkers whose works span what Pierre Manent calls “an exquisite moment of liberalism.” It examines the transformation of faction from one based largely on class to one based largely on political function and argues that as the political emphasis of “party” overtook that of class, a disconnect in constitutional theory appeared between the principles formerly associated with class, such as honor, and the principles now associated with parties. This disconnect is examined by focusing on the interrelated concepts of political principle, or that which motivates and regulates men, and faction, itself divided into two types, principled and singular. This thesis further considers the role of political principle to faction in each thinker’s thought in order to demonstrate how limited domestic political conflict could sustain itself via a party system. Each thinker recognized that limited political conflict did not weaken the state but rather strengthened it, if engendered by “principled faction” cognizant of a nominal sovereign. Accordingly, it is argued that a similar understanding of “principled faction,” though focused largely on aristocratic ideas of prejudice, self-interest, and inequality, better promoted political liberty within the state and contributed to a greater acceptance of party in political thought.

La pensée politique moderne a admis la dichotomie entre réforme et révolution. Le réformisme en a fait un principe qui domine actuellement les esprits. Mais la politique n’est-elle pas irrémédiablement partagée entre révolution et réforme ? La politique de Kant constitue un paradigme idéal pour poser le problème du rapport entre réforme et révolution. A l’initiative de Burke, l’opposition moderne entre réforme et révolution se forme à cette époque en réaction aux révolutions en Europe. Kant accepte bien l’opposition entre la réforme entreprise par le souverain et la révolution accomplie par le peuple. Mais sa sympathie bien connue pour la Révolution française l’amène à élaborer une politique pragmatique qui prend en compte les conditions historico-politiques de l’application des principes républicains défendus par la Révolution. Animé par un esprit révolutionnaire, le réformisme kantien entend réussir le processus politique de la républicanisation par le moyen de la réforme, tout en rendant justice à la nécessité du processus naturel de la révolution qui réagit à l’oppression de la liberté. Selon le philosophe de la Révolution, la réforme (révolutionnaire) accomplit la révolution. Pour le montrer, il faut réinscrire la politique de Kant dans son temps. La partie I en précise le contexte historique et sémantique : la réfutation kantienne du droit de rébellion est dirigée contre les monarchomaques ; l’articulation kantienne de la réforme à la révolution s’inscrit dans la lignée du consensus entre réforme et révolution mise en place par les Lumières. La partie II retrace la mise en place de la dichotomie « réformiste » entre réforme et révolution par les burkiens allemands : ils opposent à la violence destructrice de la Révolution l’option d’une réforme conservatrice qui se contente d’améliorer ponctuellement les institutions monarchiques. Kant, en revanche, se révèle être le théoricien secret d’une réforme révolutionnaire qui bouleverse le système monarchique de fond en comble : pour le montrer, la partie III décrypte l’esprit révolutionnaire de sa politique
Modern political thought has admitted the dichotomy between reform and revolution. Reformism has turned it into a principle that currently dominates our minds. But isn't politics irremediably torn between reform and revolution?Kant's politics is an ideal paradigm to pose the problem of the relation between reform and revolution. At Burke's initiative, the modern opposition between reform and revolution is formed at that time as a reaction to the revolutions in Europe. Kant accepts the opposition between reforms adopted by the sovereign and the revolution done by the people. But his well-known sympathy for the French Revolution leads him to elaborate a pragmatic political philosophy that takes into account the historico-political conditions of the implementation of the republican principles defended by the Revolution. Stimulated by a revolutionary spirit, Kantian reformism means to successfully establish the political process of republicanisation thanks to reform, while doing justice to the necessity of the natural process of the revolution which reacts to the oppression of liberty. According to the philosopher of the Revolution, (revolutionary) reform accomplishes the revolution.So as to show it, one must place Kant's politics in his time. Part I makes clear its historical and semantic context: the Kantian refutation of the right to rebel is directed against the Monarchomachists; the Kantian way of articulating reform to revolution is inscribed in the tradition of a consensus between reform and revolution implemented by the Enlightenment. Part II charts the creation of the 'reformist' dichotomy between reform and revolution by German Burkians: rather than the destructive violence of the Revolution, they opted for a conservative reform that managed only to bring about ad hoc improvements to the monarchic institutions. Kant, on the contrary, turns out to be the secret theoretician of a revolutionary reform which totally upsets the monarchic system: to show this, part III deciphers the revolutionary spirit of his political thought