A Middle Way
Weber – Substantive
Well, I’m still not quite sure how to BLOG in the proper sense, but in any case here is my take on M. Weber. Besides the constant reference and glorification of Goethe, the relevance of political science is made clear. How often have our ever-increasing acquaintances within this course (the authors) referred to those who undertake politics as a role? Well, a quick look back will see that all, or almost every author, alludes to a figure that takes on politics as a role in their life, but can these roles be considered a vocation, a sort of calling and duty? I would have to have to say that “yes,” these people are not in politics for brevity of reaping the booty and spoils. Pericles, Hobbes’ sovereign, Rousseau’s founder, and Kant’s moral politician all seemed to have a vocation for politics. This talk of vocation leads to Weber’s final point of what a vocation for politics entails. M. Weber sums this up as(sorry for the length but the point is best seen in whole):
Politics means a slow, powerful drilling through hard boards, with a mixture of passion and a sense of proportion. It is absolutely true, and our entire historical experience confirms it, that what is possible could never have been achieved unless people had tried again and again to achieve the impossible in this world. But the man who can do this must be a leader, and not only that, he must also be a hero—in a very literal sense. And even those who are neither a leader or a hero must arm themselves with that staunchness of heart that refuses to be daunted by the collapse of all their hopes, for otherwise they will not even be capable of achieving what is possible today. The only man who has a “vocation” for politics is one who is certain that his spirit will not be broken if the world, when looked at from this point of view, proves too stupid or base to accept what wishes to offer it, and who, when faced with all that obduracy, can still say “Nevertheless!” despite everything (93-94).
While examining this position of a true vocation for politics, I began to wonder if the mutually complimentary ethics of conviction and ethics of responsibility resembled Carr’s mixture/balance of utopianism and realism. Weber initially declares the ethics to be mutually exclusive, a sort of antithesis of ethics but the two antitheses come to form the ideal thesis of what a vocation entails, a balance of yin and yang. Similarly, Carr begins his work with a constant pull of different forces on utopianism and realism but comes to conclude that one cannot exist on its own, they are symbiotic in a sense, one depending on the other, and vice versa, for its very survival and existence. Like Weber believes, as quoted above, the possible could only be achieved through the attempts to achieve the impossible. Hmm, does this sound familiar, utopianism perhaps? And with the collapse of these ideals comes the harsh reality of failure, a view that there are forces in play in the realm of politics that do deal with the balance of power in one form or the next. The point being that perhaps there is a middle way to the conceptualization of politics and what appears to be an antithesis may be a part of the whole, whether in vocation or the subsequent within international relations.
Well, I’m still not quite sure how to BLOG in the proper sense, but in any case here is my take on M. Weber. Besides the constant reference and glorification of Goethe, the relevance of political science is made clear. How often have our ever-increasing acquaintances within this course (the authors) referred to those who undertake politics as a role? Well, a quick look back will see that all, or almost every author, alludes to a figure that takes on politics as a role in their life, but can these roles be considered a vocation, a sort of calling and duty? I would have to have to say that “yes,” these people are not in politics for brevity of reaping the booty and spoils. Pericles, Hobbes’ sovereign, Rousseau’s founder, and Kant’s moral politician all seemed to have a vocation for politics. This talk of vocation leads to Weber’s final point of what a vocation for politics entails. M. Weber sums this up as(sorry for the length but the point is best seen in whole):
Politics means a slow, powerful drilling through hard boards, with a mixture of passion and a sense of proportion. It is absolutely true, and our entire historical experience confirms it, that what is possible could never have been achieved unless people had tried again and again to achieve the impossible in this world. But the man who can do this must be a leader, and not only that, he must also be a hero—in a very literal sense. And even those who are neither a leader or a hero must arm themselves with that staunchness of heart that refuses to be daunted by the collapse of all their hopes, for otherwise they will not even be capable of achieving what is possible today. The only man who has a “vocation” for politics is one who is certain that his spirit will not be broken if the world, when looked at from this point of view, proves too stupid or base to accept what wishes to offer it, and who, when faced with all that obduracy, can still say “Nevertheless!” despite everything (93-94).
While examining this position of a true vocation for politics, I began to wonder if the mutually complimentary ethics of conviction and ethics of responsibility resembled Carr’s mixture/balance of utopianism and realism. Weber initially declares the ethics to be mutually exclusive, a sort of antithesis of ethics but the two antitheses come to form the ideal thesis of what a vocation entails, a balance of yin and yang. Similarly, Carr begins his work with a constant pull of different forces on utopianism and realism but comes to conclude that one cannot exist on its own, they are symbiotic in a sense, one depending on the other, and vice versa, for its very survival and existence. Like Weber believes, as quoted above, the possible could only be achieved through the attempts to achieve the impossible. Hmm, does this sound familiar, utopianism perhaps? And with the collapse of these ideals comes the harsh reality of failure, a view that there are forces in play in the realm of politics that do deal with the balance of power in one form or the next. The point being that perhaps there is a middle way to the conceptualization of politics and what appears to be an antithesis may be a part of the whole, whether in vocation or the subsequent within international relations.
posted by Holly at 9:48 PM
<< Home