I don't think I imagined this while I was half-asleep, but this afternoon Sean Hannity mentioned on the radio that the last line uttered by William Wallace in Mel Gibon's Braveheart was the cry of "Freedom!" And then he proceeded to relate this to a "libertarian" conception of freedom, what one might associate with license, but the individual right to determine one's actions for one's self and choose accordingly. But the freedom that the fictional Wallace was striving for in the movie [and the real historical person as well] was "political freedom" -- liberation from a occupying power (or a tyrannical government). Political liberty as opposed to differing notions of individual liberty; there isn't a necessary connection between the two, unless one rejects both subjection from without and from within (as being unjust). More on this in a bit.
BBC - History - Scottish History
Wallace: A Biography - Google Books Result
Braveheart @ MacBraveHeart - Homepage
One friend liked the movie to an extent, which was a surprise when I first heard him talking about it since he usually avoids movies. But he wished that instead of "Freedom," Gibson's Wallace had shouted instead something like "Scotland!" Catholic traditionalists and reactionaries tend to mistrust any talk about liberty, since it is often tied up with some form of liberalism or bad conceptions of freedom, authority, and community. But is talk of liberty always necessarily tainted or wrong? Can there be a proper Catholic understanding of political liberty?
Traditionally, it has been taught that if the ruler is ruling justly, for the sake of the common good, then his rule is legitimate and should be obeyed. So one question is what is to be done if his rule or his laws are unjust. The other question is whether those conditions are enough. It has also been traditionally taught that those who obtain rule through conquest may have their rule legitimated with time, provided that they meet the other conditions for just rule. If, despite the way they came into power, they rule justly, one cannot disobey their laws or start a rebellion.
Still, we would do well to question whether there is a divine mandate for one world government. I can see how the desire for self-rule in the medieval republics (and autonomy on the part of kings in their states) would lead to discussions about the various claims to authority (especially by the Holy Roman Empire) and reactions by some to attempts by others to gain power over them. Other than a claim to having inherited some imperial authority from the past, what legitimate claim did the Holy Roman Emperor have over others?
If communities should be of an appropriate size (in accordance with natural limits), then most attempts to gain control over them by larger entities would probably be not only wrong-headed but unjust as well. Only in extreme cases should such authority be assumed (for example, if a community is incapable of self-rule, realizes it, and asks for outside help--but is that likely to happen?), and ideally authority should be returned to that community as soon as it is possible. (Once it becomes capable of self-rule, and this is a goal that the outside power should seek to bring about, if it is truly 'benevolent'.)
I could envision someone using Aquinas' argument concerning the best form of government to press for a unified world government over all, but I think this is too much to ask for, in a world marred by sin. And, it would go again reason. (Once again, the question of limits -- size and being able to understand local circumstances -- and the proper political participation of the citizens.)
Quentin Skinner has written about republican government and conceptions of liberty during the middle ages and afterwards. He has traced various understandings of political liberty through European history, focusing on the classical notion as being the best(?). According to the classical notion of [political] liberty, only those who participate in self-rule are free; those who are subject to the authority of another are not really free.
Even if we accept that there is a "classical" conception of political liberty to be found in Republican Rome and in the Greek poleis, is it necessarily always the best? Or do we follow Aristotle, who differentiates between the different good constitutions? Aristotle maintains that polity (or 'rule by the many') is not the best constitution for all societies. Is a right violated if one does not participate in rule? Or is this only when one is qualified to rule? What are the qualifications for rule? 'Civic humanism' or republicanism does not always involve the egalitarian assumption that one is qualified to rule merely in virtue of being a(n) [adult] member of a community. But is the many's possession of the requisite virtue for a polity sufficient to entail that taking political participation away from them is unjust and a violation of their liberty? One need not to accept this to avoid such an action--the prudential judgment that the taking away of political power from them will cause resentment and other adverse effects on the common good would be enough.
This sort of political liberty is not opposed to, or does not do away with, the virtue of obedience, since self-rule is attributed to the whole and not to each member of the community taken individually. There is no place in authentic republicanism for an exaggerated notion of freedom -- that I be able to do what I want, and not have to follow the commands of others, since this would be destructive to the common good. The question is whether others outside of the community can claim to have authority over me. God and the Church, yes. But what of another human temporal authority, in which we do not participate?
Just as one cannot licitly disobey an usurper if he is ruling in accordance with the common good, so political liberty cannot be the highest good within the political order--the common good (and by extension obedience to the law) take precedence. (Which isn't to say that one shouldn't strive to regain or strengthen self-rule, so long as it the intended outcome is likely and it does not destroy the common good, respect for the law, and so on.)
I should try to skim through Professor Skinner's Liberty Before Liberalism and Hobbes and Republican Liberty; they are probably worth getting. I've read through his The Foundations of Modern Political Thought; while it is informative I'm not entirely convinced by the narrative that he puts forth. I do think that links between republicanism of the middle ages and of the classical period need to be explored further and judged in accordance with something normative, even if medieval rhetoric appealed to liberty and republicanism to justify certain political actions. ("Following the example of our ancestors" would not be enough?)
Google Books: The Foundations of Modern Political Thought
As for "American independence," and whether it really was a case of secession or rebellion--I have yet to study the constitutional case of the loyalists. Was it a case of tyrannical rule being rejected? Or the violation of a contract between sovereign communities and a higher authority being violated? Hence, my present ambivalence about celebrating the 4th of July.
I'm surprised none of the networks is broadcasting The Patriot tonight. Is it being shown on cable?
Yahoo Movies; Rotten Tomatoes
Extended version
More on Quentin Skinner
wiki
Quentin Skinner on concepts of liberty (mp3)
A summary: Cambridge historian lectures on concepts of liberty - Podcast ...
Content-TV: Quentin Skinner - Three Concepts of Liberty - video
LRB · Quentin Skinner: A Third Concept of Liberty
Rethinking Political Liberty -- Skinner 61 (1): 156 -- History ...
Quentin Skinner - Rethinking Political Liberty - History Workshop ...
Google Books: Equal Freedom: Selected Tanner Lectures on Human Values
The Social Affairs Unit - Web Review: David Womersley
The place of history in public life, by Quentin Skinner
Quentin Skinner on civic humanism
Professor Quentin Skinner on Hobbes | The Early Modern Intelligencer
DSpace at Cambridge: Interview of Quentin Skinner
INTERVIEW WITH QUENTIN SKINNER (pdf)
On Encountering the Past – Interview with Quentin Skinner (pdf)
Philosophy Bites interview with Quentin Skinner (mp3, transcript)
Related:
Cambridge University Press: Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought - Cambridge
Republicanism - vol. 1, 2; Visions of Politics - vol. 1, 2, 3
States and Citizens
An Approach to Political Philosophy
P. Pettit, KEEPING REPUBLICAN FREEDOM SIMPLE On a Difference with Quentin Skinner (pdf)
Samuel Moyn - Intellectual History and Democracy: An Interview ...
3 comments:
Let me make this absolutely clear - William Wallace was NOT fictional as you write in the 3rd sentence of this blog post. Here are some extracts from the book 'WILLIAM WALLACE: The True Story of Braveheart' by Chris Brown -
'William Wallace has attracted a great deal of attention from interested enthusiasts, but surprisingly little from historians. Of the several biographies readily available at the time of writing, not one has been written by anyone with a background in medieval history, let alone with any scholarly understanding of the society in which Wallace lived. The lack of understanding of the context has led to the easy acceptance of material that is at best questionable and at worst fraudulent. This is most evident in the film 'Braveheart'. Not content on relying on Blind Harry's largely fictitious poem 'The Wallace' as the sole source of material, the writer, Randall Wallace, simply changed the story to suit a script that made no sort of historical sense and has, in fact, deprived Scottish people of part bof their history by effectively undermining the factual material. The benefit of the 'Braveheart' phenomenon is of course the extent to which it has heightened interest in medieval Scotland: an important consideration in a country where there is no viable programme of history in schools. Although 'Braveheart' did help to make Scots more aware of their past, the damage done to our perception of Wallace and of the early period of the Wars of Independence is incalcuable. If it is true that a picture paints a thousand words, how damaging is it when the picture is a fantasy? - page 125,
'The Scots had some experience of non-regal government. During the reign of Margaret of Norway, and throughout the Great Cause, and possibly in the reign of John Balliol himself, Scotland had been ruled by Guardians. These Guardians were drawn from the uppermost ranks of what medieval society percieved as the most valid representation of the Scottish people, the Community of the Realm...By the standards of medieval political structures, the willingness of the Scots to accept non-regal government, particularly the willingness to accept government by committee on behalf of a minor, and a female minor at that, indicates a remarkably sophisticated political consciousness. The Community of the Realm was the practical expression of the 'political identity or nationhood' of the Scots over and above the institution of the monarchy. The Community of the Realm may have been dominated by the most powerful alignments of the nobility, but it represented the 'totality of the Kings free subjects' and 'the political entity in which they and the King were comprehended'. The practical need to carry on the kings' government when there was, effectively, no king at all was perfectly understood, and the authority of the Community of the Realm was seen as adequate for the provision of government during a royal minority or as a forum in which to address a specific problem, such as a succession dispute, but it was not considered an adequate permanent substitute for the personal rule of a monarch. Like any other medieval monarchy, to make Scotland's government 'complete' she needed a king, so the primary objective of all the Guardians (including Robert Bruce) from 1297 to 1304 was to bring about the restoration of King John.' - page 97,
'... there was widespread sympathy for for the concept of national 'liberty', in the sense of political independence, and they fought against 'the kind of intensive government which they were quite unaccustomed to, and which contrasted greatly...with life under the King of Scots'. - page 100.
SOURCE: 'WILLIAM WALLACE: The True Story of Braveheart' by Chris Brown, ISBN 0-7524-3432-2.
What do you mean by the question 'Can there be a proper Catholic understanding of political liberty?'. There are many Catholics here in Scotland who are actively involved in the Scottish National Party's campaign for the political independence and freedom of Scotland (including me). I have my own blog The 'Sanitization' of Scottish History at http://follonblogs.blogspot.com/.
I wrote fictional because I was referring to the movie character and the main point centered on a line from the movie. I do acknowledge that he is a real historical person, and will modify the post accordingly.
As for the question--I think the rest of the post is an attempt at a response to the question.
In paragraph 5 you write 'Only in extreme cases should such authority be assumed...' - personally I would be uneasy about a larger country assuming anything about a smaller country. A possible solution to the sort of situation you describe may be found in Article 76(b) of the Charter of the United Nations vis-a-vis the International Trusteeship System.
Post a Comment