countdown boutiques-francophones Luxury Beauty home Kindle Explore the Vinyl LP Records Store sports Tools

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on November 7, 2015
“Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions than ruined by too confident a security.”

Edmund Burke deeply distrusted the confident rationality of the leaders of the French Revolution. In this book, written before that revolution went disastrously wrong, he essentially predicted the reign of terror and eventual seizure of power by a dictator. Burke’s insights are well worth considering, and should not be entirely dismissed for his real shortcomings or for being on the wrong side of history. He saw society as an intricate web of connections that we should be careful of messing with, telling us,

“The nature of man is intricate; the objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity: and therefore no simple disposition or direction of power can be suitable either to man’s nature, or to the quality of his affairs.”

This complexity means actions often have unintended consequences:

“The science of constructing a commonwealth, or renovating it, or reforming it, is, like every other experimental science, not to be taught à priori. Nor is it a short experience that can instruct us in that practical science: because the real effects of moral causes are not always immediate; but that which in the first instance is prejudicial may be excellent in its remoter operation; and its excellence may arise even from the ill effects it produces in the beginning. The reverse also happens: and very plausible schemes, with very pleasing commencements, have often shameful and lamentable conclusions.”

This gives the praiseworthy impression of an evidence-based approach to understand how a society actually works. It is a good start, but scientific method also requires a sceptical examination of that evidence. Burke fails us by mythologizing the past to the point of seriously misrepresenting it. He even warns against questioning the legitimacy of institutions (what science is all about) because even that can be destabilizing.

But given the wisdom (such as it is) from the past, the connecting role of inheritance is a crucial process for Burke. As he puts it,

“Society is indeed a contract. It is a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

The Virtue of Prejudice

Today the word “prejudice” is almost synonymous with irrationality and the evils of the past. Burke has a rather different view, given his distrust for glib rationality and his veneration of the past:

“In this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess that instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree. The longer they have lasted, and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. We are afraid to put man to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages.”

Note that Burke observes that people are less rational than they think they are, a fact confirmed by modern psychology. That is why reasonable looking proposals often do not work as intended. He continues,

“Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, sceptical, puzzled, and unresolved. Prejudice renders a man’s virtue his habit; and not a series of unconnected acts. Through just prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature.”

To Burke, prejudice is the wisdom we inherit from past ages. We should not dismiss that wisdom lightly. But in reality all was not always quite so wise in the past, and social change can make even that which was once wise, obsolete. While we may inherit our rights from past relationships, we also inherit the wrongs.

Religion as a Foundation of the State

“We know, and what is better, we feel inwardly, that religion is the basis of civil society, and the source of all good and of all comfort.”

Burke sees religion as providing the morality that binds a society together. The church is there to both support the authority of the state, and to rein in those to whom the state gives authority.

“The consecration of the state, by a state religious establishment, is necessary also to operate with a wholesale awe upon free citizens; because, in order to secure their freedom, they must enjoy some determinate portion of power. All persons possessing any portion of power ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an idea that they act in trust: and that they are to account for their conduct in that trust to the one great Master, Author, and Founder of society.”

The actual content of the theology seems to be unimportant to him. The church’s role is to support the state, not criticize it. “No sound ought to be heard in the church but the healing voice of Christian charity,” he tells us, objecting to a sermon sympathetic with the goals of the French Revolution. The problem is Burke relies entirely on religious ethics to restrain the ruling class. History show this is often not enough.

The Problem with Idealism

“I cannot conceive how any man can have brought himself to that pitch of presumption, to consider his country as nothing but carte blanche, upon which he may scribble whatever he pleases. A man full of warm, speculative benevolence may wish his society otherwise constituted than he finds it; but a good patriot, and a true politician, always considers how he shall make the most of the existing materials of his country. A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman. Everything else is vulgar in the conception, perilous in the execution.”

For Burke, ‘improve’ means restraining certain excesses that violate the existing social contract. He does not seek to change the underlying structure that makes these excesses possible. However, he is properly critical of applying simple-minded ideals to the complexity of a living society. He sees rights as something one inherits from the past, closely linked to the responsibilities that come with them. In contrast,

“The pretended rights of these theorists are all extremes: and in proportion as they are metaphysically true, they are morally and politically false. Their abstract perfection is their practical defect.”

He is also capable of making the same point in simple language, such as when he asks,

“What is the use of discussing a man’s abstract right to food or medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them. In that deliberation I shall always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician, rather than the professor of metaphysics.”

I agree, but maybe we should ask the advice of an economist, who would point out that the feudal system provides little incentive to increase food production. The large landholdings that Burke so loved, along with the forced labor of the peasants he declines to mention, remind me of the collective farms imposed by Stalin.

Edmund Burke Foreshadows Karl Marx

While reading Burke I keep comparing his thinking to that of Karl Marx. On the positive side, they both reject an idealist conception of society, insisting on the importance of the relationships between people and classes. Marx called his view historical materialism. Burke correctly saw the crucial role played by social morality, in his case implemented by religion. Marx neglected morality (‘false consciousness’) in favor of economic forces.

[Today, conservatives ignore the role of social morality when they privatize parts of government. When the ethic of public service is lost, there is nothing to restrain the looting of public resources, which is the frequent consequence of these actions. Enron provides a good example.]

On the negative side, they both had a collectivist view of society. The distinctive achievements of Western civilization largely come from the power and initiative of the free individual. And both ideologies were ultimately based on myths: for Burke the idealized past, and for Marx the ideal of a future Communism.

While conservatives back unrestrained change through markets, today’s liberal environmentalists have fully adopted the spirit of Edmund Burke with respect to the physical environment. Our natural inheritance is held to be sacred, and any changes to it are feared as being disruptive to that complex web of ecological relationships we do not fully understand. Maybe we should have the same respect for our social environment.

Turning Sacred Land into Monstrous Money

This book was written at the beginning of the industrial revolution, before its effects were fully felt. Burke is already troubled by the changing values that he already sees, complaining,

“But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever. Never, never more shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom.”

He has an almost mystical attachment to the value of land ownership handed down through the generations. He complains that,

“Perhaps a full tenth part of all the land in France has now acquired the worst and most pernicious part of the evil of a paper circulation. By this means the spirit of money-jobbing and speculation goes into the mass of land itself, and incorporates with it. By this kind of operation, that species of property becomes (as it were) volatilized; it assumes an unnatural and monstrous activity.”

Only a tenth! Burke had no idea of the unnatural and monstrous activity the industrial revolution was about to unleash upon his glorious traditional landscape. The irony is that today’s so-called conservatism is about giving markets the unimpeded ability to transform society, no matter what the social cost.

Real Progress Demands Understanding Reality

I found Burke’s thinking in this work to be fascinating and thought provoking. He has a deep view of how society works, seeing it as like an ecosystem, and often expresses it well. His insights into the perils of idealism were correct at the time, and continue to be true today. But in the end his analysis was betrayed by an idealistic veneration of the past, and a failure to understand the importance of the individual. Like the idealists he criticizes, Burke was also an intellectual with an inordinate fondness for certain ideals.

Today the landed aristocracy of Burke’s time has been replaced by largely unrestrained corporations. They are not only more powerful than the old landowners, they also provide us with the material goods we crave. They are not about to disappear. To manage the undesirable side effects, we need Burke’s concept of understanding society as it really is, but without the romantic myths that obscure the problems. We also need a vision of how to move forward, because if it were up to Burke we would still be living in the squalor of the Middle Ages. But idealist solutions frequently result in a return to the barbarism of the Middle Ages, as with the French and Russian Revolutions and the Arab Spring. Realistic analysis, freed from the myths of the left and right, is difficult but necessary if we really want to progress.

So, is this book worth reading? It is easier to start with a modern summary, as I did with "The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left" by Yuval Levin. But I found reading his original work gave me a richer understanding of what Burke was really about. I skimmed over long passages of historical details to find the type of philosophical ideas that I have quoted here. I am glad I made the effort.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 8, 2017
Got the book in time, and the premise of the book is very interesting but this is a very LONG and heavy read with no chapters what so ever. Also,l if anyone already is aware of Edmund Burkes writing, he does fill his work up with jargin and does tend to jump back and forth so pay attention when you read this book
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 3, 2015
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 4, 2000
In Life of Johnson, Boswell brings up the name of Johnson's one-time sparing partner, Edmund Burke. Johnson, being quite sick, and not given to easy praise, admits, "Yes, Burke is an extraordinary man." Boswell tries to coax a more quotable reply, and Johnson, who thought argument the sole end of conversation, finally noted, "That fellow calls forth all my powers. Were I to see Burke now, it would kill me."
Reflections on the Revolution in France should not be a killer read for most, but is difficult in spots. Many of the sentences are long and complex, written in an age when thought and rhetoric had not yet been corroded by sound bites. Some of the topics may seem a bit obscure now. But this is undoubtedly a great book, by a great man, thinking lucidly and passionately about great issues. It is indeed a work of great intellectual power. At the same time, it is also a work of moral passion, balance, and foresight, often eloquently and sometimes simply expressed.
Much of it is also remarkably timely. Not only did Burke seem to anticipate the extremes to which the French Revolution was tending, the great Marxist revolutions of our times also often greatly resemble his remarks. "It is a suffient motive to destroy an old scheme of things, because it is an old one." "Kings will be tyrants from policy when subjects are rebels from principle." "Criminal means once tolerated are soon preferred. . . Justifying perfidy and murder for the public benefit, public benefit will soon become the pretext, and perfidy and murder the end." Examples could be multiplied. Reading the book, the subsequent history not only of communism, but also of progressive social cults in the West, becomes more comprehensible.
I prefer to think of Burke primarily in moral or spiritual terms, rather than political. Burke remarks, anticipating Rank and Becker and preempting Marx's silly economic heresy, (and anticipating Marxist personality cults) "Man is by his constitution a religious animal." One of the attractive things about Burke to me is his non-sectarian faith; he spoke from a viewpoint C.S.Lewis later described as "Mere Christianity." Some of his insights also parallel those of the Chinese philosopher, Confucius. What the two men shared was intellectual accuity combined with humility that expressed itself as a willingness to sit at the feet of teachers of the past. "We know that we have made no discoveries; and we think that no discoveries are to be made, in morality." That is one pole within the orthodox Christian approach to morality; God has "placed eternity in our hearts;" the Tao is universal, as Lewis argued.
Burke's argument may go too far at times; surely some of the changes wrought by the French Revolution were for the good, and there is something to be said for the moral passion of the revolutionary. And not every paragraph is interesting to me. Still, overall, the balance and sanity of this book remain not just as a monument to the powers of its author, but as useful resource to anyone who thinks about the relation of power and morality. Solomon said, "Pride comes before a fall." This book is, in some ways, a prophetic and wise meditation on the social consequences of that deep truth.
Author, Jesus and the Religions of Man (July 2000)
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 17, 2002
I personally find, overall, that other persons writing
about and analyzing Burke and his views tend to be a bit
more interesting and compelling, than Burke himself in
his prose.
I do not consider myself a "conservative" -- in the
sense that that is a political agenda or mindset, nor
a reactionary. There is much in academics and political
philosophy which tends to want to damn by labels -- and
by putting ideas into boxes, filing, and forgetting...rather
than listening to, or thoughtfully considering.
One can believe in classic values, and find his
grounding in classical philosophy without being a
rigid reactionary or even a doctrinaire conservative.
So, when Burke speaks with the speech of the
Ancients and espouses classical warnings and
remonstrances about the necessity of restraint
and careful consideration, one can agree with him.
And, as the editor and author of the "Introduction"
to the Penguin Classics edition, Conor Cruise O'Brien,
points out, there is that of the prophet in Burke as
well, since he published these REFLECTIONS in 1790,
before the Reign of Terror in 1793, yet he correctly
foresees the excesses to which the French Revolution
will proceed in its unchecked course.
One of the best quotes which I like very much from
this work follows:
"When I see the spirit of liberty in action, I see
a strong principle at work; and this, for a while,
is all I can possibly know of it. The wild GAS, the
fixed air is plainly broke loose: but we ought to
suspend our judgment until the first effervescence is
a little subsided, till the liquor is cleared, and
until we see something deeper than the agitation of
a troubled and frothy surface. I must be tolerably
sure, before I venture publicly to congratulate men
upon a blessing, that they have really received one.
Flattery corrupts both the receiver and the giver;
and adulation is not of more service to the people
than to kings. I should therefore suspend my
congratulations on the new liberty of France, until
I was informed how it had been combined with
government; with public force; with the discipline
and obedience of armies; with the collection of an
effective and well-distributed revenue; with morality
and religion; with the solidity of property; with
peace and order: with civil and social MANNERS. All
these (in their way) are good things too; and, without
them, liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and
is not likely to continue long."
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 24, 2001
This version (Penguin Classics) has a wonderfully informative(81 pages) introduction that will bring anyone not familiar with Edmund Burke or his writings up to par.
Edmund Burke originally wrote what became "Reflections" as a letter in response to a young Parisian man who sought his support. He later went back to elaborate upon the original letter and wrote this book, knowing then that the book would be read by many more than the simple few that would read the letter.
In "Reflections on the Revolution in France", Edmund Burke lays down his arguments against several items on which he disagreed with the National Assembly leaders responsible for the French Revolution. The basis for most of his concerns was that he saw the French to be tossing aside all the prior wisdom and knowledge gained throughout history, simply to erect a radical, new government. It is amazing in retrospect to see how uncannily Burke predicted the Reign of Terror that would follow shortly. Thomas Paine, a hero of the US Revolution, who then went to France to aid in their revolt, angrily chastized Burke and this book, in Paine's "The Rights of Man." But while Paine gave many valid points in his book (I recommend it and this one for the full spectrum of the debate), he clearly ended up on the wrong side of this argument.
Another thing I found so amazing about reading this book was how Burke's warnings to the French are still almost entirely applicable today. One of my favorite passages, Burke writing about the general public, is something I would love to personally deliver to every modern-day political pollster (not to mention Bill Clinton & Co.): "A perfect democracy is therefore the most shameless thing in the world... It is therefore of infinite importance that they (the people) should not be suffered to imagine that their will, any more than that of kings, is the standard of right and wrong."
I recommend this book to anyone who thinks logically or wants to know why conservatives think the way they do. Also, if you believe yourself to normally be conservative, but often find yourself pinned or lacking an explanation for why you are against something that the majority, or "trendy" minorities, might support, then this book is where you need to start.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 18, 1999
Edmund Burke is considered by many to be the first to expound upon Conservative principles. And this book provides plenty of justification for that view. Burke's "reflections" are especially potent since they not only provide a common sense defense of Conservative values but allow one to examine the consequences of ignoring those values, vis-à-vis the French Revolution. Burke defends the stability that comes with constancy and aged wisdom and derides those that embrace variability and experimentation as virtues. However, the reader is not left with the impression that Burke is opposed to all change. Quite the contrary. Recognizing the fallibility of Man, Burke fully expects that there is to be changes in our habits and prejudices as part of the normal course of human endeavors in order to improve upon established wisdom. But he forthrightly rejects the wholesale dismissal of knowledge and wisdom accumulated over vast periods of time. And he holds no punches in castigating the French Revolutionaries who were so presumptuous and arrogant as to count their vernacular wisdom wiser than that of all generations preceding them. He uses example after example of failures in the French experiment to demonstrate the futility and imbecility of starting afresh instead of building upon an existing foundation. This book is an absolute must read for conservatives.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 8, 2001
I would agree with the commentators below in that Burke is by far the greatest politican ever, and that Reflections is not to be missed. However, of the several editions of this book I have read, this is undoubtedly among the worst. None of Burke's french footnotes are translated. Several quotations are untraced. The introduction is too long and unintelligent. The view it provides of Burke is not particularly accurate. The picture chosen for the cover ought to tell us what to expect from this edition, and the hopes we have are not disappointed. I recommend, for anyone who really wants to read this wonderful book, the Everyman edition, which is better on all of these counts.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 27, 1996
Without a doubt, the finest political/philosophical conservative text published in its time. The Honorable Mr. Burke saw what the French revolution was about and attacked it root and branch. Ultimately being vindicated by Napoleon's fall at Waterloo.
The work posits the chaos of the left to the natural political order of the right well before those terms were connected. Serious students of the subject will learn much from this text
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 11, 2001
My recommendation was for the Oxford rather than the Everyman edition, edited by L.G. Mitchell. I apologise for this error.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse