The “Realism” of Augustine's “Political Realism”: Augustine and Machiavelli

Abstract

Arendt and Tocqueville both celebrate a participatory notion of political freedom, but they have a fundamental disagreement about the role that political education should play in fostering an active citizenry. I contrast Tocqueville's “educative” conception of politics with Arendt's “performative” conception, and I explore an important but little-noted difference between the two theorists: whereas Tocqueville argues that it is the task of statesmen “to educate democracy,” Arendt warns that those who seek to “educate” adults are inappropriately aspiring to be their “guardians.” I argue that although Arendt's warnings about the dangers of intertwining politics and education are at times salutary, Tocqueville is ultimately correct that education must be a key task of democratic leadership, and he is right to suggest that politics can itself be educative in crucial ways.     

Perspectivism: 'Type' or 'bomb'?

In this editorial Bruno Latour reviews a debate on 'Perspectivism and animism' between Philippe Descola (College of France) and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro (National Museum of Rio de Janeiro), that took place at Maison Suger, Institute of Advanced Studies, Paris on 30 January 2009.     

TIBETAN CULTURE:Extinct or Developing?

The 14th Dalai Lamarecently deliveredan interestingspeech to the Euro-pean Parliament. And anexamination of speeches hehas made over the past 40years show he has"grown up"with regard to how to exploithis wisdom under the cloak ofthe kasaya(religious gar-ment).His actions, however,belie that he is more than     

Nationalism and revolution: friends or foes?

Nationalism and revolution have generally been held to go together. Many nation‐states have had their origins in revolution, from the Americans in the 18th century to a host of Third World nation‐states in the 20th century. Generally, both modern revolutions and modern nationalism have the same origins, in 18th century Enlightenment thought. But this paper argues that, despite this common origin, the principles of revolution and nationalism are divergent, and can set one against the other. Revolutions emphasise freedom and equality; nationalism emphasises integration and unification. These principles can clash, though not inevitably and not always. The paper examines the 1789 French Revolution, the 1848 revolutions and the 1917 Russian revolution. It shows that in the first two cases, revolutionary aspirations came up against and were eventually displaced by nationalist aims. In the case of 1917, revolution paradoxically, and unintentionally, institutionalised nationalism. These examples show that, though linked at some high level of modern thought, revolution and nationalism express different and at times divergent strands of modernity.     

Marxism in archaeology: Real or spurious?

Spriggs, Matthew, ed. Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. viii + 158 pp. including photographs, individual bibliographies, index. $39.50 cloth.

Miller, Daniel, and Christopher Tilley, eds. Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. viii + 157 pp. including photographs, individual bibiographies, index. $39.50 cloth.