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

Calenders for 2016

I have a Dilbert day-by-day calendar again this year.

Saturday and Sunday share a single page, each day of the work week has a page, and a comic, of ots own.

I'll quote here the comic for January 9/10. Dilbert is sitting at his desk, the pointy-haired boss is standing behind him.

Boss asks, "Do we have any actionable analytics from our Big Data in the cloud?"

Dilbert, "Yes, the data shows that my productivity plunges whenever you learn new jargon."

Boss, "Maybe in-memory computing will accelerate your applications."

Dilbert, "Plunge, plunge, plunge."

I also have a month by month wall calendar, aptly titled "Puppies," in which I'll be greeted each month by another cure dog-child. January greets me with a photo of a babe beagle, running about in grass with an orange ball in his mouth.

Finally, am the proud possessor of a desk book for appointments. For the first time in several years, I'm NOT using one from American Exp…

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 …