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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more