Bergson's Two Sources Revisited: The Moral Possibility of Nationalism
- PDF / 156,750 Bytes
- 18 Pages / 442 x 663 pts Page_size
- 78 Downloads / 172 Views
Bergson’s Two Sources Revisited: The Moral Possibility of Nationalism Richard Vernon Department of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2. E-mail: [email protected]
Beyond borrowing the terms ‘open’ and ‘closed’ societies, political theorists have not had much time for Henri Bergson’s book The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (1932; English translation, 1935). However, the recent flowering of interest in liberal nationalism provides a context for understanding what the book has to contribute. For it takes up the relationship between the nation-state and ‘special ties’ on the one hand and ‘cosmopolitan’ obligations on the other. From a political point of view, it should be read as a critique of the too-easy assimilation of cosmopolitan claims by republican ideology, and as a warning that the state cannot be seen as only contingently exclusive. Although both nationalists and cosmopolitans will find things to welcome in Bergson’s book, its most original contribution may be its claim that nationalists cannot consistently resist the demands of cosmopolitan morality, for the nation-state already draws upon its for its legitimation. Contemporary Political Theory (2003) 2, 271–288. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300104 Keywords: Bergson; open and closed societies; nationalism; liberalism; republicanism; cosmopolitanism
Although Henri Bergson was not primarily a political philosopher, his distinction between ‘open’ and ‘closed’ societies has been influential in modern political theory.1 This distinction was coined in Bergson’s last major work, Les Deux sources de la morale et de la religion, published in 1932, and translated into English as The Two Sources of Morality and Religion three years later (Bergson, 1935). This article attempts to show that there are some compelling reasons to revisit this unusual and thought-provoking book, and it tries to spell out some of its important implications for contemporary views of liberal nationalism. Reaching as it does beyond Bergson’s central concerns in psychology and the philosophy of science, The Two Sources may have a somewhat eccentric place even within his own work, although recent discussions have made some very useful connections (Kolakowski, 1985, 72–74; Lacey, 1989, 197–215; Mullarkey, 1999, 88–105). As for its place in French political or social thought, the appropriate context may seem equally elusive, for its sparsely footnoted and
Richard Vernon Bergson’s Two Sources Revisited
272
meditative text does not employ the conventions and concepts that we would expect in a political theory specialist. I will argue, however, that as political theorists we should read the text as an uncompromising dissent from the dominant French conception of the nation-state (Schnapper, 1998). Further, I will argue that Bergson defines his dissent at a comprehensive level that invites us to look beyond the context of inter-war France; it offers a challenge to any view that the nation-state can reach more than a temporary and unstable rapport with va
Data Loading...
