In my initial reading of Immanuel Kant’s essay
“What is Enlightenment?”, I ran into many ideas that I expected to come from a
prominent Enlightenment philosopher. In accordance with Enlightenment
philosophy, Kant urges people to think for themselves in order to become
autonomous. Kant believes a free state results from autonomous individuals who
deliberate about political issues and advise their government to make the
necessary changes. On the contrary, Kant claims a tyrannical state results from
non-autonomous individuals who let others make their decisions and control the
government. In essence, Kant argues that independent thinkers will create a
free, ideal society.
Surprisingly,
Kant also expresses ideas that are contrary to the Age of Enlightenment. In an
age that fostered the American and French Revolutions, Kant unexpectedly argues
against the idea of civil disobedience. Kant encourages people to argue over
political issues but to always obey the laws of the state. Kant insists that
legitimate governments will listen to the concerns of the people and adjust the
laws accordingly. But the question arises: What do citizens do when a
government is not legitimate, meaning it does not listen to the concerns of the
people?
 |
| Mobutu Sese Seko |
From Kant’s essay, the answer is apparently
nothing. Despite the fact that most revolutions intend to gain political
autonomy, Kant shockingly argues against revolution, claiming it leads to new
prejudices that force individuals to become non-autonomous. In other words,
Kant assumes the new political regime will inflict its beliefs onto the people,
thus taking away their autonomy.
In many instances, Kant’s theory is
correct. For example, the Russian Revolution transferred power to the
insurgents that eventually formed the tyrannical Soviet Union. The revolution
brought upon new and more detrimental prejudices when the Soviet Union stripped
citizens of their civil rights. Similar situations also arose across Africa
when European imperialists left the continent. As Kant predicted, each revolution
instituted another corrupt leader to replace the previous one, creating an
endless cycle of political instability. For instance, the Congo has experienced numerous revolutions and an endless line of corrupt leaders since Belgium left
the country in 1960. Its first leader Patrice Lumumba was overthrown by the
infamous dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, who stripped the Congolese people of their
human rights and established an authoritarian government. After Mobutu was
finally overthrown in 1997, the Congo has experienced nothing but civil war,
making Kant’s argument against revolution even more credible.
 |
| George Washington crossing Delaware River |
Some revolutions, however, have
proven Kant’s assumption wrong by leading people to autonomy. In particular,
the Thirteen Colonies gained autonomy from Great Britain by leading a
successful revolution. In the mid-18th century, England ended its
policy of salutary neglect toward the colonies by implementing loftier taxes
without their consent. In response to their loss of autonomy, the colonies started
a revolution and eventually earned their independence. To preserve their
autonomous society, the leaders of the revolution wrote the Constitution and
included laws designed to protect the civil rights of the people. To this day,
the United States maintains the most lenient freedom of expressions laws in the
world, indicating that the revolution resulted in a long-lasting autonomous
state.
But is the United States the
exception to Kant’s otherwise flawless rule? Is revolution really an ineffective
way to reach autonomy? The answers to these questions may arise as we see the
outcomes of the recent revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East (Arab
Spring). For many of the Arabian nations, revolution appeared to be the only response
to their oppressive government. If these revolutions prove ineffective as Kant
predicts, what else can citizens due when faced with an illegitimate
government?
First of all, Jackson, I'm always impressed with your blog posts. I'm not sure, however, that I'd agree with your characterization of revolution as "civil disobedience;" for me, revolution is closer to "civil war." But I think you raise an interesting point by arguing that Kant's thinking on revolution is a little hit-and-miss. In certain places revolution actually ushers in a new, Enlightened regime, while in others it results in the Not-Actually-People's Not-Actually-Republic of Wherever. My first thought as to the reason for this is that maybe revolutions succeed in places with a (small-d, small-r) democratic/republican intellectual or political tradition - the American colonies had been self-governing for at least a century before the American Revolution, whereas post-colonial Africa lacked a liberal political culture ready to instate a strong liberal democracy. I'm interested to see how the Arab Spring turns out.
ReplyDeleteThanks Connor, I appreciate the compliment. When I wrote this post, I debated on whether or not to use the term “civil disobedience” in this specific context. I decided to use it because Kant specifically argues against civil disobedience by encouraging individuals to argue but obey the laws. Although revolution is closer to civil war than tradition civil disobedience (boycotts, protests, etc.), I consider it to be an elevated form of civil disobedience since people disobey the laws of the state when they attempt to overthrow the government.
DeleteI think you make a good point in regards to which types of places have the most successful revolutions. The Thirteen colonies definitely benefited from the era of salutary neglect because it allowed them to establish governments of their own. In places that have been under the authoritarian rule, however, the people have to start from scratch after a revolution. During the preliminary stages of building a new government, many individuals compete with one another for political control. Once a single party or person gains control, it institutes laws to keep its power and prevent uprising which often limit the civil liberties of the people. Unfortunately, they end up back under an authoritarian regime.
I really enjoyed your post since I love thinking about revolutions and theories behind them, and perhaps I can posit a complication? Last year I took a class through the history department called Religion and Revolutions, and one thing that was pointed out was how revolutions tend to change society so it becomes more secular (France, Russia, and Turkey were the examples for this; Iran was the odd one out. So if we take this idea, what does this say about Kant's theory? Considering Kant thinks religion limits enlightenment, but doesn't condone revolution as a way of disposing of these doctrines, then how should we free ourselves from these non-secular confines? He probably would support keeping religious doctrines over having a revolution to remove them, but then how do we revolutionize something that is such an integral part of many societies in a Kantian, non-revolutionary way?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the thoughtful comment and you pose a really good question. First, let me address you initial point. I’m not sure if revolutions tend to make nations more secular, although they have recently (i.e. Arab Spring). For example, the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the Russian Revolution in 1917, and the Cambodian Revolution in 1975 (which lead to the Cambodian genocide) all led to less-secular countries. But if we accept your premise, I think Kant would support revolution over a religious indoctrinated society. Considering that religion often cripples the spread of knowledge, Kant would probably argue that, if revolution actually leads to secularism, revolution is preferable because it allows society to increase its knowledge. A smarter society then would institute an effective government that avoids the prejudices that he worries about.
DeleteI thought it was really important that this post included real-world instances of how Kant's opposition to revolutions have been both accurate and inaccurate. It brings to light that there is no one answer to how a government should be run, nor whether a particular situation, such as a revolution, will bring about the same change each time. It touches on the question frequently brought up in the lecture in regards to political knowledge, "Who is correct and how do we know?" Kant is correct in only certain circumstances,just as our own opinions for the solution to a problem are limited by what we think to be true and what we know to be true. On a large scale, it suggests that no government is really perfect, just as Burke says. Surprisingly, the examples in the post connect to some of Burke's points, even though Burke and Kant are extremely different.
ReplyDelete