Skip to main content

England as a Raft?

Image result for drifting raft

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother of the most thoroughgoing Anglophile in US literary history). What had changed by 1897 that made it necessary for James to ask his readers to contextualize this allusion?

In 1878, Bismarck played host to the great powers in the Congress of Berlin, addressing the balance of power in Europe, especially in the Balkans. The addition to Germany (no longer "Prussia") and the UK, the participants included Russia, France, Austria-Hungary, and Italy.

One leading idea was to carve up what was seen as the disintegrating and no longer legitimate Ottoman Empire. Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro were declared independent principalities. Bosnia was awarded to Austria-Hungary.

So I think I know what James meant by the "drifting raft" observation. It could well have appeared to him that England had allowed Germany to take charge, to host the big Congress and to get a result out of it that matched Bismarck's needs better than theirs. I'm still not sure how the reference to utilitarianism fits, unless it means that a hedonic calculus could lead to an inward-turning policy, and a lowering of concern about whatever the heck happens in the Balkans.

Now, WHY did James feel compelled to add that footnote in the 1897 reprint contextualizing the passage as written in 1880? What had happened in the meantime? The division of Africa among the great European powers had gone very much against Germany. Indeed, by 1897 the deal the Brits had implicitly struck with The Germans over the preceding years might have become clear to James, and might even have come to seem sensible to him: 'we'll grant you a lot of leeway in the continent of Europe, but we will outpace you, and everyone else, in colonizing Africa and Asia.'

That may have seemed not so much like a drifting raft as like a well piloted steamboat.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

https://sites.google.com/site/francescoorsi1/

https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/3

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …