1
Periagoge:LiberalEducationintheModernUniversity1
JohnvonHeyking,UniversityofLethbridge
Conversationandthe“TurningAroundoftheSoul”
Oneofthecommoncriticismsofthecontemporaryuniversityisthatitlacks
individualsunwillingorincapableevenofconversing.CriticssuchasAnthony
KronmanandStephenMillerrightlyobservethatthere’ssomethingabout
contemporarycultureandthecontemporaryuniversityhostiletotheartsorhabits
ofconversation.Conversationhashadaplaceinliberaleducationgoingbackat
leasttothePlatonicdialogue,ifnotbackfurther,shouldonewishtoseethingsthis
way,tothepointintheevolutionofbipedsthatsatconversingsolongthatasapes,
theylosttheirtailsandbecamehumanbeings.2Conversationastheprimarymode
ofliberaleducationisnotmeanttoproduce“results”butisanongoingquestfor
understandingthehumanconditioninallitsmanifold.AsKronmannotesofits
participants,whetherscholarsorgreattexts:“Theyrefertoeachother,
commending,correcting,disapproving,andbuildingontheworksofthosewhohave
gonebefore.”3MichaelOakeshottcapturesthespiritofconversationbycomparing
1IthankTiloSchabert,JohnGueguen,MarkHenry,BruceFingerhut,andJamesRhodesforsharingtheirrecollectionsoftheirteacherswithme,and(alongwithBrendanPurcell)forcommentingonpreviousdraftsofthisessay.2MichaelOakeshott,“TheVoiceofPoetryintheConversationofMankind,”RationalisminPolitics,(Indianapolis:LibertyFund,1991),490.3AnthonyT.Kronman,Education’sEnd:WhyOurCollegesandUniversitiesHaveGivenUpontheMeaningofLife,(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2007),168;StephenMiller,Conversation:AHistoryofaDecliningArt,(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2006);IhavereviewedMiller’sbookhere(“FriendshipanditsLanguage,”TheCresset:AReviewofLiterature,theArts,andPublicAffairs,Lent2007(http://www.valpo.edu/cresset/2007/Lent%202007%20von%20Heyking.pdf).
2
ittogambling:“Conversationisnotanenterprisedesignedtoyieldanextrinsic
profit,acontestwhereawinnergetsaprize,norisitanactivityofexegesis;itisan
unrehearsedintellectualadventure.Itiswithconversationaswithgambling,its
significanceliesneitherinwinningnorinlosing,butinwagering.”4
Conversationistheexpressionofhumanfreedom.Inwagering,onerisks
everything.Inlearning,oneriskseverythingonecurrentlyis,possiblytobecome
whatonecannotpresentlyforesee.Conversationasliberaleducationimplies
liberationfromthenecessities,includingourfelt“necessity”toyieldresults.For
Oakeshott,conversationisfreebecauseitisnotabout“anything”inparticular.Itis
abouttheentiretyofthehumancondition,butnosinglevoiceisdominantandno
singledefinitiveanswerisexpected.Evenmore,whatever“answers”getutteredare
notjudgedbytheirutility.Thefree,orliberal,conversanthasbeenfreedfrom
necessity.Conversationisthusnotsimplyidlechatter,buttheactivityofexistential
virtuethatexpressesourengagementwithreality.EricVoegelin’scommentabout
one’sapproachtocriticalhistoryillustratesthiswell:“Inordertowritecritical
history,therefore,itisnotenoughtoalterwhatonesays;onemustalterone’svery
being(or,“onemustbedifferently”(manmußanderssein)).”5
Conversationthuspresupposescertainvirtuesofopennessthatthemselvesare
notthesameasconversation.Voegelinidentifiedthecapacitytohavefreeinquiry
4Oakeshott,RationalisminPolitics,490.5EricVoegelin,“TheGermanUniversityandGermanSociety,”PublishedEssays,19661985,CollectedWorksofEricVoegelin,vol.12,ed.,EllisSandoz,(BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,1990),3.ThealternatetranslationissuggestedbyBrendanPurcell,uponwhoseanalysisofconversioninVoegelin’steachingIrelyinthispaper(“CanaPhilosopherBeaPropheticWitnesstotheTruth?”Paperpreparedforthe2007EricVoegelinSocietymeeting,AnnualMeetingoftheAmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation).AllsubsequentreferencestotheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(UniversityofMissouriPress1990‐2009)abbreviatedasCW.
3
presupposesanopennesstowardtruththatisnotdistortedbyideologicalagendas,
utility,orlibidodominandi.6Conversationpresupposesawillingnesstoconverse.
Platofamouslyexpressesthecentralexperienceofliberationinthefollowingway:
Thentherewouldbeanarttothisverything,”Isaid,“thisturningaround(tesperiagoges),havingtodowiththewaythesoulwouldbemosteasilyandeffectivelyredirected(metastrophe),notanartofimplantingsightinit,butofhowtocontrivethatforsomeonewhohassight,butdoesn’thaveitturnedtherightwayorlookingatwhatitneedsto.7
Teaching,asVoegelinfrequentlyobserved,istheartoftheperiagoge.Inauniversity
culturecharacterizedbythetreatmentofknowledgeasusefulcommodity,
careerism,andpoliticalcorrectness,itisdifficulttohaveagenuineexperienceof
periagogebecausetheclamoringofthosevoiceseclipsethegentleandfragilepull
thatwisdomhasonus.Somuchofourmoderncivilizationconspiresagainstthat
gentlepullthatwehavedifficultyexplainingandjustifyingit,andwehavebarely
recognizeitwhenithappens.Theloverofthegoodandnobleisconsidered
mystical,obscure,queer,strange,andunproductive.
Inthisessay,Ishallexaminetwogreatscholar‐teachers,EricVoegelin(1901‐
85)andGerhartNiemeyer(1907‐97),inmyownfield,politicalphilosophy,who
navigatedthoseclamoringvoicesandevokedagenuineexperienceofperiagogein
theirstudents(Ishallprovidesomebiographicalintroductionbelow).Ishall
considertheirwritingsoneducationandontheuniversity,butmyfocuswillbeon
theactivityoftheirteaching,asreportedmostly,butnotexclusively,inthetributes
6SeeEricVoegelin,“OnDebateandExistence,”CW12,36‐51.7Plato,Republic,trans.,JoeSachs,(FocusPublishing),518d.
4
theirstudentspaidtothem.Manyoftheirstudentsexperiencedperiagoge,anditis
intheirrecollectionsweseethemanifoldofwaysandoccasionsstudents
experienceperiagoge.Becausethereisnoonemodelofperiagoge,onemustexpect
adegreeofvariationamongtheaccountsofstudents.Evenso,certainpatterns
emerge.
PoliticalPhilosophyAgainstIdeologyandtheSocialScientists
VoegelinandNiemeyersoughttoinoculatetheirstudentsagainstthefalse
presumptionscontemporaryideology.Asuniversityteachersandscholars,they
alsosawthatsocialscienceplayedaroleinfacilitatingthosefalsepresumptions,
eitherbytheirfailureadequatelytocriticizeideologyorbytheiroutrightsupportof
them.Afterall,muchofmodernideologyspeaksinthenameofsocialscience,
whetherofthepositivist,Marxist,racist,orother“‐ist”variety.Asaresult,their
criticismsofsocialsciencewerepartlyacriticismofcontemporaryideologyandthe
stateofcivilization,buttheywerealsoeffortstoretrieveaplaceforliberallearning
withinthemodernuniversity.
EricVoegelin’slifelongworkwasanactofresistanceagainstthe
dehumanizingideologiesofthetwentieth‐century,aswellasthe“softer”formsof
intellectualconfusioninliberaldemocracythatsharedsomeofthephilosophical
lineageasthemoreaggressiveideologies.8Afterreceivinghisdoctorateunderthe
8Foradescriptionof“resistance,”seeThomasW.Heilke,“Science,Philosophy,andResistance:On
5
tutelageofthegreatlegalscholar,HansKelsen,hetaughtlawandsociologyatthe
UniversityofViennauntilhefledin1938totheUnitedStates.Therehetaughtat
LouisianaStateUniversityfrom1942untiltakinguptheMaxWeberChairatthe
UniversityofMunichin1958whereheretiredin1969.Afterthat,hewasaFellow
attheHooverInstitutionofWarandPeaceatStanfordUniversityuntilhisdeathin
1985.Duringthe1960sandpartofthe1970s,hewouldteachasemestereverytwo
yearsattheUniversityofNotreDame.Hiswritingswerealarge‐scalediagnosisof
thecrisisofWesterncivilizationandefforttoregainorder.Hismostsignificant
worksarehisfivevolumeOrderandHistory(1956‐85)andtheNewScienceof
Politics(1952).9Histeachingefforts,describedingreaterdetaillaterinthisessay,
weredirectedatinoculatingstudentsagainstthoseideologies,andtoinstill
periagogetothosestudentswhowouldlisten.Voegelinsawsocialscience
(Wissenschaft)aslessdestructivethansomeotherpoliticalthinkersofthe
twentieth‐century,includingMichaelOakeshottandLeoStrauss,thoughhewasno
lesscriticalofitspractitioners,includingMaxWeber.10Weber’sgreatest
achievementwasinunderliningtheimportanceofbeingopentonewdevelopments
inscience,newdiscoveriesinparticular.ThesignificanceofWeber,whichVoegelin
attemptedtocontinue,wasinincorporatingthediscoveriesofnon‐Westerncultures
intoageneraltheoryofhumanity.Weberfailedatdevelopingatheoryofhumanity,
EricVoegelin’sPracticeofOpposition,”TheReviewofPolitics,56(Fall,1994):727‐752.9OrderandHistory,CW14‐18;“NewScienceofPolitics,”CW5.Formoredetailsofhislife,seehisAutobiographicalReflections,CW34andEllisSandoz,TheVoegelinianRevolution:ABiographicalIntroduction,(NewBrunswick,NJ:TransactionPublishers,2000).10VoegelinwroteseveralfocusedstudiesofWeber:“OnMaxWeber,”PublishedEssays,19221928,CW7,100‐17;“MaxWeber,”PublishedEssays,19291933,CW8,130‐48;“Introduction”to“NewScienceofPolitics,”CW5,88‐108;“TheGreatnessofMaxWeber,”(EleventhLecture),HitlerandtheGermans,CW31,257‐74.SeealsoAutobiographicalReflections,CW34,39‐41.
6
butVoegelincreditshimforseeingtheimportanceoftrying.Voegelin’sfull
explanationisworthquoting:
IfWeberneverthelessdidnotderailintosomesortofrelativismoranarchism,thatisbecause,evenwithouttheconductofsuchanalysis,hewasastaunchethicalcharacterandinfact(asthebiographybyhisnephew,EduardBaumgarten,hasbroughtout)amystic.Soheknewwhatwasrightwithoutknowingthereasonsforit.Butofcourse,sofarasscienceisconcerned,thatisaveryprecariousposition,becausestudentsafterallwanttoknowthereasonswhytheyshouldconductthemselvesinacertainmanner;andwhenthereasons–thatis,therationalorderofexistence–areexcludedfromconsideration,emotionsareliabletocarryyouawayintoallsortsofideologicalandidealisticadventuresinwhichtheendsbecomemorefascinatingthanthemeans.HereisthegapinWeber’sworkconstitutingthegreatproblemwithwhichIhavedealtduringthefiftyyearssinceIgotacquaintedwithhisideas.11
Manyofthe“ideologicalandidealisticadventures”thatstrivetofillthegapwere
explainedinmyothercontributiontothisvolume.InexplainingtheWeberian
startingpointofhislife’swork,Voegelinsituatesitinthestudent’sneedtohavethe
activityofWeberianscienceexplained.Inotherwords,Voegelinrecognizeshow
centraltheexistentialtruthofscienceistostudents,perhapsmorecentraltothem
thanfortheirelderprofessors.Weberrecognizedthedead‐endofspecialization,
butcouldnotadequatelydevelopanaccountofpoliticalandhistoricalrealitythat
couldunifythedetailsofnewknowledgewhosestudyhepioneered.12ForVoegelin,
theexampleofWeberdemonstratesthepossibilityforphilosophicalopennessin
socialsciencewhichisinfrequentlyfollowed.
11AutobiographicalReflections,CW34,40.12SeemyaccountofWeberandspecializationinscienceinmycompanionessayinthisvolume,“ObstaclestoLiberalEducationintheModernUniversity.”
7
ForVoegelin,“openness,”aconcepthederivedfromphilosophersincluding
PlatoandHenriBergson,meantviewingtheempiricalmaterialsastheyare.
Ideologiesareaformofself‐assertion,orlibidodominandi,becausetheydistort
empiricalmaterialsintoaready‐madeself‐image.Materialsthatdonotfitget
discardedoronepretendstheydonotexist,anintellectualmovewhosemost
extremepoliticalexpressionistheconcentrationcamp.13The“softer”formofthis
self‐assertioncanbefoundinthepositivistmethodologiesthatsustainAmerican
(andGerman)politicalscience.
Voegelin’scriticismsofsocialsciencedatebacktohisearlycareerinthelate
1920sduringhistimeattheUniversityofVienna,whereacademicandpoliticallife
wasstronglyinfluencedbyHansKelsen’slegalpositivismandneo‐Kantian
methodologies.14Neo‐KantianNormlogikmadetwomovesthatVoegelincameto
reject.Thefirstwasthepositivistpositionthatanythingthatliesoutsideofthe
capacityofthephysicalsciencestoexamine,includingtheology,philosophy,history,
etc.,wasnotanappropriateobjectofscienceunderstoodasempiricalanalysis.Yet,
theneo‐Kantiandidnotrejecttheexistenceofsuchtopics.Rather,thisledtothe
secondmove,whichwastoregardthesetopicsas“values,”asMaxWeberdid.But
suchamoveassumesthatthescholarwhoexaminesthem“approximatesthe
functionofthetransindividualevaluatingsubject(transcendentalego)ofcognition,
ifandinsofarashehimselfincorporatestheculturalvalueofbeingacultivated
13EricVoegelin,“Science,Politics,andGnosticism,”264‐65,274‐5.14Fordetails,seeThomasHeilkeandJohnvonHeyking,“Editors’Introduction,”PublishedEssays,19221928,CW7;JürgenGebhardtandBarryCooper,“Editors’Introduction,”OntheFormoftheAmericanMind,CW1,ix‐xxxv.
8
person.”15TheeffortoftheGermaneducationaleffortofBildung,then,wasto
createthiscultivatedpersonwhocouldstandabovetheempiricalmaterials.
Voegelin’sextendedcriticismsofneo‐Kantianismpointoutwhythisbifurcatedview
ofreality–rawanddisorganizedempiricaldataontheonehand,andthe
transcendentalegowhowillshisownreasonsfororganizingthosedata–is
untenable.VoegelinwouldcarrythesecriticismstotheUnitedStateswhenhe
wouldcriticizethelesssophisticatedversionsofpositivisticandhistoricalpolitical
theoryintheAnglo‐Americanworld.16
LetusreturntoVoegelin’sassessmentofWeber,whomVoegelinsawasclosely
connectedtoneo‐Kantianism.VoegelinadmiredWeber’s“openness”tonew
possibilitiesbutthoughthelackedadeepersenseofopenness,orPlatoniceros,that
mighthaveenabledWebertoformulateadeepersenseofhumanityoutofthe
fragmentsofmaterialshecollected.ReflectinguponWeber’scontinuedattemptsto
formulatethehumanspiritinthemodernage(e.g.,hisadmirationforTolstoy),
VoegelinconcludesWeber’stranscendencewasunresolved.
VoegelincitestwokeyepisodesofWeber’sbiographypertinenttoour
discussionofperiagoge.ThefirstisWeber’sexistentialreflectionsinspiredbyhis
illness.Hetoldhiswifethat“SometimeIwillfindahole,outofwhichIrushup
15GebhardtandCooper,“Editors’Introduction,”CW1,xv.16Voegelin,“PoliticalTheory,”inCW33;“TheOxfordPoliticalPhilosophers,”CW11,24‐46.BarryCooperobservesthatVoegelinwasimpatientwithAmericandebatesinthe1950sand1960soversocialscience,methodology,andbehavioralismbecause“hehadalreadydealtwiththeseissuesataphilosophicallymoresophisticatedlevelsomethirtyyearsearlier”(BeginningtheQuest:LawandPoliticsintheEarlyWorkofEricVoegelin,(Columbia,MO:UniversityofMissouriPress,2009),18).
9
againintotheheights.”17Voegelinconsidersthesymbolofarocketshootingoutofa
holeoneofanideologicalactivist,whorushesoutfromoppressionuptotheheights.
However,Weberwasnoideologicalactivist,ashisresignationoverthemodernage
wasleavenedwithaninarticulatelongingfortranscendence:“Besidethis,one
thinksofthePlatonicparableofthecaveandofthemanwhoisopento
transcendenceandfeelshimselfcompelledtoturnhimselfaroundinordertocarry
outoftheperiagogeandascendtowardthelight.QuitedifferentlyMaxWeber:He
rusheslikearocketoutofthehole.Thesymbolforthatageandforitsunresolved
tensioncouldhardlybemorecharacteristic.”18
AfewpageslaterVoegelincitesWeber’sexchangewithhiswife,Marianne,over
hisquestiontoherwhethershecouldthinkofhimasamystic.Hisrejoindertoher
negativeresponseispoignant:“’IsupposeitcouldbethatIamone.SinceIhave
dreamedmoreinmylifethanoneshouldreallyallowoneselftodo,Iamalso
nowhereathomewithcompletecertainty.ItisasifIcouldandwouldalso
completelywithdrawmyselffromeverything.’Thatisasplendidformulationofthe
Paulinehosme,theas‐if‐not,oftheChristiancounsel,‘Beintheworld,butnotofit.
17Voegelin,“TheGreatnessofMaxWeber,”inHitlerandtheGermans,CW31,270.VoegelincitesEduardBaumgarten,MaxWeber:WerkundPerson:DokumenteausgewahlteundkommentiertvonEduardBaumgarten,(Tubingen:J.C.B.Mohr,1964),638.18Comparewithanearlier(1925)assessmentofWeber,“OnMaxWeber,”CW7,111‐16,whereVoegelinfindsWeber’stranscendentalegointhelonelycompanyofhisdaimon.Yet,Weber’sdaimonfunctionsdifferentlyfromthatofSocrates:“theultimatemeaningoflifeisnottofinditsmeaning,butconstantlytocreateit.Forourconsciousnessthereisapointbeforetheworld,wherewearealone,soalonethatnoonecanfollowusthere.”CooperdescribesWeber’sdaimonas“asomewhatNietzscheanwayofreferringtotheneo‐Kantiantranscendentalego.Howevername,thetaskofthehistoricalscientistwastomarshalhiswillandabilitytoimpressaconcreteshapeorformuponhistory”(Cooper,BeginningtheQuest,33).Writinginthe1920s,Voegelinwouldfindthemightiestsymboloftheage,andtheclearestexpressionoftheexistentialstateofsocialscience,wasWeber’slonelyconversationwithhisdaimon(seealsoHeilkeandHeyking,“Editors’Introduction,”CW7,7).
10
Liveintheworldasifyoudidnotliveinitandbelongtoit’(cf.1Cor.7:29‐31).”19
ForVoegelin,thestakesofunresolvedtranscendence,stuntedperiagogeifyouwill,
arehighbecausefailuretobringoutthehighesteroticlongingsinhumanbeingscan
becatastrophic.AsVoegelinfoundwithWeber,andwithPlato,erosisaterrible
forcethatcanbegoodorevil.Thepurposeofeducation,then,istoevokethe
experienceofperiagogeinthePlatonicsense,butstartingfromthespiritual
disturbancesofthemodernage,ofwhichWeberwasoneofthegreatest
articulations.
GerhartNiemeyer’sconfrontationwithsocialscienceislessextendedthanthat
ofVoegelinbecauseheregardeditaspartofthewiderstoryofmodernideology.20
LikeVoegelin,hetoofledNazism,inGermany,andafterteachingatPrinceton
UniversityandOglethorpeUniversityinAtlanta,hetaughtattheUniversityofNotre
Damefrom1955to1992.HeandVoegelinwerefriendsandNiemeyerincorporated
manyofVoegelin’sinsightsonideology,reason,andfaith,intohisnumerousessays
andbooks,mostnotably,BetweenNothingnessandParadise.21Niemeyerreliedon
Voegelin’scriticismofWeberiansocialscienceintheNewScienceofPolitics,and,
19“GreatnessofMaxWeber,”HitlerandtheGermans,CW31,273.20WithinandAboveOurselves:EssaysinPoliticalAnalysis,(IntercollegiateStudiesInstitute,1997),247‐9.V.BradleyLewisanalyzesNiemeyer’sassessmentoflegalpositivisminhisLawWithoutForce,andtherolethisassessmentplayswithinhisoverallthinkingconcerningpoliticalorder(“GerhartNiemeyer:PoliticalOrderandtheProblemofNaturalRight,”PoliticalScienceReviewer,31(2002):119‐26).21LawWithoutForce:TheFunctionofPoliticsinInternationalLaw,(TransactionPublishers,2001,reprint)andBetweenNothingnessandParadise,(SouthBend:St.Augustine’sPress,1998,reprint).Asampleofhisessayswerecollectedintwoseparatevolumes:WithinandAboveOurselves:EssaysinPoliticalAnalysisandAftersightandForesight:SelectedEssays,(UniversityofAmericaPress,1988).Atributevolumetohisworkwaspublishedas,JohnGeugenandMichaelHenry,TheGoodManinSociety:ActiveContempation:EssaysinHonorofGerhartNiemeyer,(UniversityofAmericaPress,1989);anonlinesymposiumofessaysthatreviewhisworkcanbefoundinThePoliticalScienceReviewer,Fall2002,31(1)(http://www.isi.org/journals/archive/issue.aspx?id=71280b0e‐0941‐4a11‐93e1‐59aee2b929bc).BiographicaldetailscanbefoundinPaulV.Niemeyer,APathRemembered:TheLivesofGerhartandLucieNiemeyer,(IntercollegiateStudiesInstitute,2006).
11
accordingtoJamesRhodes,NiemeyertaughtVoegelin’sNewScienceofPoliticsto
undergraduatesin1959,spending“significanttimeontheWeberchapter.”22Even
so,Niemeyerhaddevelopedacritiqueofpositivismasearlyastheearly1930s
whenhestudiedunderlegalscholarHermanHeller,whoseStaatslehre,which
NiemeyerhelpedprepareonaccountofHeller’suntimelydeath,criticizedthe
positivistconceptionoflawasbeinganabstractionunrelatedtosovereigntyandthe
state.23Niemeyer,likeVoegelin,sawthelimitationsoflegalpositivisminits
inabilitytoaccountforthegreaterpoliticalrealitythatsciencemustaddress.
ForNiemeyer,thepositivismofsocialscienceisrootedinthemodernturn,seen
inthinkersincludingThomasHobbes,ofviewinghumanbeingsintermsofthe
physicalproperties,whichconstitutesareducedviewofhumanity.Thebiggest
problemwithsocialscienceisthatwhileitcanprovidenumerousdetailsabout
externalfacts,its“tabooontheory”meansitcannotunderstandthemeaningof
events.ForsomeoneofNiemeyer’sgeneration,thefailureofsocialscienceto
understandtotalitarianismwasdamning.ApositivistsocialscientistlikeHerman
Finercould,inMussolini’sItaly,provideasuperblydetailedaccountofMussolini,but
“thebookutterlyfailedtocomprehendthespiritofevilinfascism.Its
incomprehensionwasafittingfoiltoNevilleChamberlain’sillusionthatHitlerwas
nothingmorethanazealousGermanpatriotwhomerelydesiredtouniteallethnic
GermansandwhocouldbeappeasedbyofferinghimtheGerman‐speakingpartof
22PersonalcommunicationwithJamesRhodes.23Niemeyer,APathRemembered,146.HermannHeller,Staatslehre,ed.,GerhartNiemeyer,(Leiden,A.W.Sijthoff,1934).
12
Czechoslovakia”.24Amorerecentexampleofthefailureofpositivismtounderstand
politicalrealitycanbeseenintheattemptatcriticismthatColumbiaUniversity
PresidentLeeBollinger,alegalscholaroftheFirstAmendment,directedathis
university’sguest,IranianPresidentMahmoudAhmadinejad.Afterlistingalitanyof
humanrightsatrocitiescommittedbytheIranianregime,thebestBollingercould
dowastocallAhmadinejad,whowasatleastnominallyelected,a“pettyandcruel
dictator.”25Thebestcontemporarypositivismcandescriberadicalideologiesisas
ananti‐typetoAmericanconstitutionalism.26Isitanywonder,forNiemeyer,that
thestudentrebellioninFrancein1968begantheirdemonstrationsatNanterre
Universityagainstthesociologydepartmentandits“positivisticapproaches.”27
Socialsciencefindsitselfhelplessinrespondingtoquestionsofmeaning,butits
ownfoundationsalsocreatetheexpectationofhavingmeaningexplainedand
created.Forthisreason,Niemeyertookspecialinterestinteachingliterature
detailingtheinabilityofliberalandmorallyrelativisticsocietiestocounterthe
rebelliousyoung(e.g.,Turgenev’sFathersandSonsandMaxFrisch’sTheFirebugs).28
Socialscienceflatterstheyoungbyholdingoutthepromiseofknowingthewholeof
socialreality,butlacksthespiritualdepthtosatisfytheiryearnings.
24AftersightandForesight,194,citingFiner,Mussolini’sItaly,(London:V.Gollancz,1935).25LeeC.Bollinger,“IntroductoryRemarksatSIPA‐WorldLeadersForumwithPresidentofIranMahmoudAhmadinejad”September24,2007(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks.html).26IhaveprovidedmyownanalysisoftheIranianPresident’sideologyin,“Iran’sPresidentandthePoliticsoftheTwelfthImam,”GuestCommentary,AshbrookCenterforPublicAffairs,November2005(http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/guest/05/vonheyking/twelfthimam.html).27WithinandAboveOurselves,270.28GregoryWolfe,“DiscerningtheSpirits:GerhartNiemeyerasCultureCritic,”PoliticalScienceReviewer,31(1)(Fall2002):170‐2.
13
TheradicalideologiesofComteanism,Marxism,andsoonconstitute
attemptstocreatea“fuller”viewofhumanity,butlargelyonthebasisoftheearly
moderneffort.Niemeyerseesalreadyinthepositivismofearlymodernitythe
dreamof“autonomousman”whereby,indeed,theempiricalfactsofexistenceare
given,butmanisfreetowillanymeaningtothem.Thisistherootofthefact‐value
distinctionbutalsothebasisforthedreamoftherevolutionarywhoseruleover
meaningexpandsintoadreamlikedesiretodominateallofreality.Itisdreamlike
becauseitisanactoftheimagination.Thepointofmodernthoughtisnot
understandingreality,butchangingit,agoal“notconfinedtorevolutionary
ideologiesbutcharacterizedtheapproachestonaturalscience,psychology,and
sociology.Theproductofthiskindofeducationisthemodernself,
characteristicallysplitintoself‐pityandself‐deificationormagnification.”This
modernselfisreproducedthroughvariousversionsofmoderneducation,most
dramaticallyintotalitariansocietieswhoseeducationis“designedtoproducedocile
instrumentsusefultothetotalitarianrulersalone.”29
ForNiemeyer,thegoalofcontemporaryhighereducationmustbeto
overcomethelibidodominandicharacteristicofmodernthinking,whichmeans
educationmustnecessarilybeaboutthewholeperson.Niemeyerfrequently
referredtoAristotle’snotionof“existentialvirtues”(atermheborrowedfromEric
Voegelin),which,distinctfromandmorecomprehensivethanmoralandintellectual
29AftersightandForesight,335‐6.Aformerchairman(andlawprofessor)oftheCalgary,Alberta,BoardofEducationvoicedthissentimentwhenhestated:“Thechildisnotyourchild.Canadianchildrenarethepropertyofthestate,likeouroil,ourgas,andourpipelines...it'sthelaw.”(QuotedbyWilliamGairdner,speechdeliveredtoQueen’sUniversity(Kingston,Ontario)SchoolofLaw,2March1994,postedhere:http://www.williamgairdner.com/politicalcorrectness‐libertyeq/).
14
virtues,referto“thecomplexofattitudesrequiredfortheharmonyandunityofa
humancomposite,arealmofcommonexistence,”whichareexpressedmostdeeply
inthepracticeoffriendship.30Education,then,instillsethicalandintellectual
virtues,butultimatelymustbedirectedtotheexistentialvirtuesandthecapacityof
studentstopracticefriendship.
ThepracticeoffriendshipsustainshisreflectionsoftheWesternuniversity:
TheWesternuniversity,then,notonlyembodiestheconceptofbeingbut,isalso,aphilosophicalrealismwhichpresupposesthatthereisanexternalworldindependentofthemind,andthatitisintelligible….Itisallthesameimpliedinthemanifoldoftheuniversity’steachingactivities,allofwhichproclaimpubliclythatsomethingis,thatourmindscanknowit,andthatwecantransmitreliableknowledgethroughconceptualconstructionsofourminds.31
NiemeyercontraststhecommunicatiooftheWesternuniversitywiththe
“communitiesofmonks”ofTheravadaBuddhism“pursuingtheirsubjectivepathsto
personalenlightenment.”Infact,the“communitiesofmonks”cannotbe
communitiesbecausetheyinfactsharenorealitybutnirvana,whichmeans
extinction,andsocommunity,orfriendship,isimpossibleinsuchcommunities
where“theconceptofdependentorigination…[bars]anyideaofbeingintheminds
ofitsadherents”orcommunicatedamongthem.Communication,whichimplies
communicationaboutthesomethingthatiseminentlysharableamongall
participants,istheessenceoftheuniversity,asitisforfriendship.32Thus,
Niemeyer’scallforthe“restorationofratio”inthemodernuniversityisalsoacall
30BetweenNothingnessandParadise,194.31WithinandAboveOurselves,244.32Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatthegood“beyondbeing,”asPlatodescribesit,whichisineffable,cannotformthebasisoffriendshipandcommunity.Conversely,itcan.Fordetails,seeJamesRhodes,Eros,Wisdom,andSilence:Plato’sEroticDialogues,(Columbia,MO:UniversityofMissouriPress,2003).
15
fortherestorationoftheactivityofcommunicatio,thepracticesoftheexistential
virtues,whichincludes,asafirststep,breakingthe“tabooontheory”establishedby
positivism.
Partofthecommunicatiothatconstitutestheuniversityisitsrelationto
tradition.Niemeyer,ofcourse,wasnotinterestedinnostalgia,forhehadaprecise
understandingoftradition:“Traditionprovidesaframeworkfordecisions….
Traditionattendsallrelationsbetweenparticularpersons….Traditionispublic
memory–thestuffthatAristotledescribesas‘civicfriendship.’”33Justasmemoryis
thecentralintellectualfacultyinanindividual,andthememoriesofalifelived
togetherconstitutethefoundationforfriendship(foritprovidesthefoundationfor
theirfutureprojects),sotoodoespublicmemoryconstitutepoliticalcommunity.In
otherwords,traditionisthesymbolhumanbeingsusetodescribethemselvesas
partsinawhole,andwhichexperiencedassuccession,a“memoryofwhatis
significant.”Ofcourse,therearedisagreementsoverwhatissignificant,but
discussing,arguing,and,changingimperceptibly,andaboveall,piouslyreceiving
this,as“oneapproachesthewoundsofafather”(NiemeyercitesBurke),constitutes
theessenceoftradition,andofcommunity.34TraditionwasNiemeyer’stermforthe
responsibilitywehaveofcaringfortheinheritancewereceiveashumanbeings,of
“everythingthatbearsahumanface,forallhumanquestingfortheground,theend,
andtheway.”Asfriendshipistheprofoundestexpressionofthecommunityformed
byteachersandlearners,sotootraditionistheprofoundestexpressionofthe
civilizationalgrounduponwhichthosefriendshipsarenourishedandpracticed.33WithinandAboveOurselves,255.SeealsoBetweenNothingnessandParadise,175‐78.34AftersightandForesight,345.
16
Withthesepreliminarytheoreticalreflectionsconcerningtheactivityof
thinkingandteachinginthecontemporaryuniversityinmind,wenowturnto
Voegelin’sandNiemeyer’sactivityofteachinginthecontemporaryuniversity.
TeacherasProphet:GerhartNiemeyer
Plato’sdescriptionofeducationasaturningaround(tesperiagoges)ofthe
soul(Republic518d3‐4)iskeytounderstandingtheteachingeffortsofboth
VoegelinandNiemeyer.ForGerhartNiemeyer,the“metaphysical”takesonadded
weightbecauseofthedarknessofthecivilizationalcavefromwhichlearningneeds
toemerge.WhileNiemeyermaynothavethoughtofhimselfasaprophet,John
Geugen’suseofthiscategoryforhimandhiscolleagueStanleyParryisapt:“The
correct(“prophetic”)responseis‘metapolitical’—thatis,educational,cultural,and
religiousattemptstorecoverthe‘substantivemeaning’ofourpoliticalcommunity
inthetraditionthatexpressesour‘experienceoftruth.’”35The“prophetic”teacher
doesmorethaninitiateastudentintohiscultural“inheritance.”The“prophetic”
teacherexplicitlyviewsteachingasdirectedagainsttheentirepersonofthestudent
initsintellectualandspiritualdimensions.ItiswhatNiemeyercalled,borrowing
fromVoegelin’sanalysisofAristotle’svirtuetheory,existentialvirtue,whichrefers
tothevirtueofthewholeperson.BruceFingerhut’srecollectionofhisfirstdayof
classwithNiemeyerexpressesthisexperience:“Irealizedatthatmomentthatall
35JohnGeugen,“StanleyParry:TeacherandProphet,”Logos,10(2)Spring2007:109.
17
mypreviouseducationhadservedonlyonepurpose‐togetmeintothatclassroom
withthatman.Iwouldhavetostartover.”36Similarly,GregoryWolfestates:“An
encounterwithGerhartNiemeyerisnotmerelyamentalexperience,butonewhich
affectsthewholeperson.”37Hereareclear,thoughcompact,expressionsofwhat
Platomeantbydescribingeducationasperiagoge–theturningaroundofthesoul.
Friendshipisaconsistentthemeinthetestimonialsamongformerstudents
forNiemeyer,thoughperhaps“fellowship”withstudents,asMarkHenryremarks,is
amoreappropriateterm:“Hislifewasfilledwithfriendships,manyspanninghalfa
centuryormore,becauseofthegenerosityofhisspiritandhisimmenselyattractive
personality.Hehadagiftforandanintenseappreciationandneedoffriendshipand
“fellowship,”whichincludednurturingfriendshipswithhisstudents.”38His
proximityalsomakesitselffeltontherecollectionsofformerstudents:“It'salook
onhisfacethatIchieflyremember,asofsomeonetryingpolitelytoleavea
conversation‐andaroom‐withamouthfulofspoiledporridge.”39GabrielRestrepo,
whostudiedwithNiemeyeratthePhoenixInstitute,asummerprogramwhere
studentsattendNotreDametostudypoliticalphilosophyalsoemphasizes
Niemeyer’scapacityforfriendshipascentraltohisteaching.Herecounts
Niemeyer’sappreciationforthephysicalproximityoffriendsontheoccasionofa
commentNiemeyermadetoafriendontheoccasionofhisfriend’sordination:“We
donotseeeachotheroftenbutIneverfeelthattheintersticeshavemeantaloss.36BruceFingerhut,“LookfortheLift:ABiographicalEssayonGerhartNiemeyer,”PoliticalScienceReviewer,Fall2002,31(1):34.37“TabulaGratulatoria,”inTheGoodManinSociety,304.38MichaelHenry,“ThePresenceofaTeacher,”UniversityBookman,46(1)Spring2008(http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=861&theme=home&loc=b).ThisisareviewessayofNiemeyer,APathRemembered.39Fingerhut,“LookfortheLift,”33.
18
ThusIwasnottosadnottobeabletotalktoyouthatnight.Itwasnotanoccasion
forconversing.Isawyou,Ifeltyourhand,andgottheglancefromyoureye.No
morewasneeded.”40ForRestrepo,Niemeyer’ssuccessasateacherandascholar
derivedfromhiscapacityforfriendshipanditscentralityforbeinghuman.
Evenso,asintimatedbyHenry’spreferenceforthelanguageof“fellowship”
over“friendship,”Niemeyer’sfriendshipwasclosertoafatherlyloveofhischildren
(mostlysons,asNotreDamewasmale‐onlyforthemajorityoftimeNiemeyer
taughtthere,admittingitsfirstfemalestudentsin1972).Niemeyerwasfarfrom
cuttingtheimageoftheobsequiouscontemporaryacademicwhoposesasanequal
tohisstudents.TheobituarypublishedinNotreDameMagazinecalledhima
“staunchconservative”who“wasanintimidatingfiguretostudents.”41Walter
Nicgorski,hiscolleague,providesamorebalancedaccountinhisrecollectionof
havingacloseprofessional,butnotpersonal,relationshipwithhim,andthat
“Niemeyerwasnotregardedashavingadispositionorpracticeofspeakingreadily
ofhispersonalstate,”asfriendsmighttendtodo.42However,GregoryWolfe
recollectssomeofNiemeyer’spersonalpathosintheclassroom:“Inhispointingout
ThomasMann'sownintensesufferingoverthetragicfateofGermany,Niemeyer's
ownsufferingresonatedintheclassroom.”43GueguenrecallsNiemeyerneverhad
difficultyconnectingwithstudents,whomhefrequentlyinvitedtohishomefor
discussions.Niemeyerhadthecapacity,afterposingtostudentsadirectquestion,
40GabrielMoraRestrepo,“ThePoliticalPhilosophyofGerhartNiemeyer,”Pensamientoy
Cultura,2(1999):136.41“Inmemoriam,”NotreDameMagazine,Autumn1997:6.42WalterNicgorski,“Politics,PoliticalPhilosophy,andChristianFaith:GerhartNiemeyer’sJourney,”PoliticalScienceReviewer,31(Fall2002):41‐2.43GregoryWolfe,“DiscerningtheSpirits,”174.
19
oflooking“intous,asitseemed,tohelpusfindtheanswersomewherewithin,
quietlyurgingwithhisreassuring,confidenteyes.”GuegueninvokesnovelistMarion
Montgomery’sphraseofthoseafatherhaschosenassonstodescribethe
experienceofbeingastudentofNiemeyer.44MichaelHenrydescribesNiemeyer’s
fatherlyloveinlightofhisappreciationoftradition:
InhiscontinuedeffortstopromoteoursuccessIbelievehewasmotivatedcertainlybyafatherlyinterestinourpersonalaccomplishments,butalso,onadeeperlevel,byasenseofresponsibilityforfosteringasucceedinggenerationtocontinuetheworkinwhichhesawhimselfengaged,handingonacriticallydeepenedunderstandingofwhathehadreceived.Niemeyer’sexcellenceat“fathering”grewoutofhiscontemplativededicationto“sonship”;thatis,hegavealifetimeofprofoundthoughttothetradition,andthefaith,hehadreceived.Becausehestrovetoliveandeventoembodywhatheknewandlovedhewasabletotransmittohisstudentsanexampleofthelifeofphilosophyinthetruestsense,thelifededicatedtothelovingsearchforwisdom.45
Asnotedabove,Niemeyerunderstoodthattraditioncouldnotbeaccepted
uncritically.Moretothepoint,handingdowninvolvesnotsimplythetransmission
ofdoctrine,butalsoimpartingtheexistentialvirtues,whichonedoesbyexample,
andwhichdrawfromdeeperdepthsofthehumansoulthandoestradition.
Geugenexplainsthisdeeper,“prophetic,”dimensionofNiemeyer’sfatherly
lovetowardhisstudents:“AtNotreDame,ParryandNiemeyersawthemselvesas
mentorsengagedinrestoringtradition‘toitsontologicalstatusastheformof
44JohnGueguen,“AStudent’sTeacher:GerhartNiemeyer(Feb.15,1907–June23,1997),”PoliticalScienceReviewer,27(1998):1‐2,6.45MichaelHenry,“TheHeritageofGerhartNiemeyer,”TheIntercollegiateReview,Fall1997:3.Henryelsewherecomments:““Manyofhisstudentssoughtandfoundinhim,notjustamentor,butafatherwhoenteredwiththemintoaprofoundlyloving,mutuallyloyalspiritualandintellectualfellowshipbasedonasharedloveoftheGood”(“GerhartNiemeyerSymposium:Introduction,”PoliticalScienceReviewer,31(Fall2002):31).
20
society.’Theystroveto‘re‐experience’thattraditioninthecompanyofyoung
minds,apprenticeswhowouldonedayhavedisciplesoftheirown.Intheirsouls
wouldsurvive‘inacriticallypurifiedmanner...theorderofsociety’(“RT,”135f).
Theclassroomwasalreadya‘re‐constructedcommunity’discoveringhowto
‘experiencetruth’andhowtoinducethesameexperienceinotherswithfullrespect
forthefreedomoftheirmindsandwills.”46Theactivityofliberallearningisfound
intheformoffellowshipbecausepartakinginthetraditionoflearningmeanstaking
themeaningoftraditionascommunityseriously.
Educationrequiresclearingoftheideologicalunderbrushthathindersthe
eroticquestfortruth.Inalesserteacher,thisclearingmighttaketheformof
alertingstudentstothe“crisis”ofWesterncivilizationandoftheuniversitythat
frequentlytaintsanalysesofhighereducation.47Aproblemwith“crisis”aspartof
one’spedagogyisthatonecanneverreallyexperienceperiagoge,theturning
aroundofthesoul.Liberationisalwayshauntedbythefactthatonemustalways
turnaroundandsolvepoliticalproblems.Whilewehaveadutytoourpolis,“crisis”
mentalitypreventsusfromenjoyingthenecessarymomentofliberationthatisthe
preconditionofourabilitytoserveourpoliswithrighteousness.AsNiemeyer
observesinhisessay,“TheGloryandMiseryofEducation,”liberaleducationis
rootedintheliberationofthesoulfromnecessity,andthisliberationalsoformsthe
46Geugen,“StanleyParry,”109,citingRev.StanleyJ.Parry,CSC,“TheRestorationofTradition,”ModernAge3,no.2(Spring1961):125–38.47TimothyFullernoteshowthiscrisismentality,whichcharacterizedAllanBloomandwhichMichaelOakeshottrejected,corrodestheexperienceofliberaleducation:“Oakeshottcharacteristicallyresistsallapocalypticformulations,seeinginthemrecipesforsuspendingconversationalityinfavorofapoliticizingcounterrevolutionthatwilldefineeducationasthecarryingonofwarbyothermeans”(“Introduction,”toMichaelOakeshott,TheVoiceofLiberalLearning,(Indianapolis:LibertyFund,2001),xxxii).
21
preconditionforcommunityformedbythedesiretoknow.48
Asaconservativeandcriticofmodernideologyandutopia,the“crisis”
mentalitycertainlywasanoptionavailabletoNiemeyer.However,asRhodes
argues,itwasanoptionherefusedtotakebecausehisconservatismwasrootedin
“commonsense,”whichmeantmorethantheopinionscommontotheUnitedStates,
butrootedinthegreattraditionofphilosophicalrealismintheancientGreeksand
philosophicalChristians.49TheconservatismofNiemeyerwasdefinitelynot
ideologicalconservatism,butratherrootedinanappreciationofthecomplexityof
realityinitsmanifold;monism,thehallmarkofideology,cannotbepresentwhen
thismanifoldisrecollected.
SoNiemeyer,followingPlato,beginsliberaleducationwithanassessmentof
politicaldisorder.Gueguenrecollectshisteachingmethodfromhisnotesofayear‐
longseminarhetookwithNiemeyeroncommunistideology.Gueguenidentifies
threestagesoverthecourseoftheyear.Inthefirststage,Niemeyercoveredthe
basicpoliticalideasanddoctrinesofcommunistideology.Yet,thiswasnotall,even
inthisfirststage.Thepointofunderstandingtheideologywastoascendto
philosophicalfundamentals.50IfLeninismviewsbeingasrevolution,thenNiemeyer
wouldpushtheclasstoaskwhatisbeing,whichwouldleadthemtoconsiderLenin
inlightofother,greater,philosophersincludingPlatoorSt.ThomasAquinas.
Similarly,reflectingupontheMarxistvisionofsocietywouldleadstudentsto
considerwhatasocietyingeneralis.Orpolitics.Orhumannature.Liberal
48AftersightandForesight,340.49JamesRhodes,“GerhartNiemeyer:SeekeroftheWay,”Logos,10(2)Spring2007:120‐23.50Gueguen,“AStudent’sTeacher,”5‐6.
22
educationistheascentfromthecave.
Gueguenobservesthesephilosophicalquestions,asfundamentalastheyare,
pointedtomoralquestions,thenextstage,reachedearlyinthesecondtermofthe
course.Ifcommunistideologydoesnotpenetratetophilosophicalfundamentals,
onemustaskwhy.ForNiemeyer,ashearguesmostextensivelyinBetween
NothingnessandParadise,itistheverynatureofideologytoreducerealitytoa
singlepart.Ifphilosophicalinquirymovesfromparttowhole,orindividualto
species,thenideologytreatsthepartasthewhole,therebydistortingthings,and
doingbothintellectualandphysicalviolencetoone’spoliticalworld.Theviolence
ofcommunismintheSovietUnionandelsewhereispredicatedontheviolencein
thought.
Themoralstagegiveswayultimatelytothereligious.Themoralstage
explainstheeviloftheideologybutdoesnotsaveonefromit,whichinvolves
evokingthefullamplitudeofhumanexperiencethatideologyseekstodestroy.
GueguendrawsfromhisclassnotestoquoteNiemeyer:“[Christianity]hitsthe
mind,theemotions,thewill–thewholeman.”Communistideologytriestoreplace
Christianityandevenmimicsitwithitsownplanstosavetheworld,itsownhell,its
ownpurgatory,itsownutopianparadise.OfcourseChristianitydiffers,butone
cannotfullyappreciatethenatureofideologywithoutalsounderstandingwhatit
apes,andthisrequiresappealingnotonlytoknowledgeofChristianity,buttoits
livedexperience.Gueguennotes:“ithasbecomemoreapparenttomethatDr.
Niemeyerwasusingtheideologyasawaytoshapethesoulsofyoungpeoplesothat
theycouldmoretrulyappreciatetherealquestionsandtheiranswers.Hisgoalwas
23
notunrelatedtothetraditionalendsofaliberaleducation.Onlywhenwewere
armedwithsuchaneducationcouldweeffectivelyundotheworkofMarxand
Lenin.”51
Inthenextsection,weshallseethatVoegelin’steachingfollowedasimilar
patternofexistentialascent.Niemeyer’steachingmethodappearstofollowhisown
lifeexperience.WalterNicgorskiobservesasimilartripartitepatterninNiemeyer’s
writtenworkoverthecourseofhiscareer:
Niemeyerwas,inachronologicalsense,firstamanofpolitics,indeedapassionatemanofpolitics;then,outofdistressandperplexity,hebecameamanofphilosophysearchingtounderstandtherootsandcausesofthedisorderhefound;andthen,amanofChristianfaithwhoseowninquiriesandlifecametobeshapeddecisivelybythatfaith.Theprogressionfrompoliticstophilosophytofaithwasnotonewheretheearlierstageisleftbehindateachpoint.Rather,eachstagerepresentedanewcenterforhislifeinwhichtheearlierconcernsandemphasesstillhadacriticalrole.NiemeyerremainedpassionatelyconcernedwithpoliticsevenwhenhecameinthelightofChristianfaithtohaveawell‐informedsenseofthelimitsofpolitics.Niemeyerneverabandonedphilosophicalinquiry,butatacertainpointhisinquirybecameclearlydirectedandilluminatedbyChristianfaith;heembracedthenotionof"faithseekingunderstanding.”52
Indeed,thethreestages–political,philosophical,andChristian(whichoverlaptoa
largedegreewithGueguen’sphilosophical,moral,andreligiousstages),while
distinct,cannotbeseparated.Niemeyerhimselfobservesthisunityinoneofhis
earlyessayswrittenbeforeheconvertedtoChristianity,wherehedescribesthe
insidiousmoralprojectofsocialscience’slogic:“Inclaimingtobeabletosolvethe
problemsofsociallifebyscientificmethods,thesocialdisciplinesreallyundertake
51Gueguen,“AStudent’sTeacher,”7‐8.52Nicgorski,“Politics,PoliticalPhilosophy,andChristianFaith,”44‐5.
24
tomakemoraldecisionsonthebasisofstrictlylogicalderivationsfromfacts.”53All
scienceimpliesamorality,whichmeansthatthescientificunderstandingofscience
mustalsobeamoraljudgmentofscience.
Niemeyer,then,sawtheclassroomastheplaceofrecreatingtheoriginary
experiencesofphilosophicalerosaswellascaritasinhisrelationshipswithhis
students.ThisleadsRhodestociteJosefPieper’sdescriptionofteachingforSt.
ThomasAquinasinhistributetoNiemeyer.Thefullquotationisworth
reproducing:
Theteacher,remarksPieper,enjoysa“relationshipwithtruth,thepowerofsilentlisteningtoreality,”andcombinesitwith“somethingthatprobablycannoteverbelearned,”namely,“lovingdevotiontothelearner,...lovingidentificationoftheteacherwiththebeginner”thatfosterstruelearning.Truelearningis“morethanamereacquisitionofmaterial.”Indeed,itisa“growingintoaspiritualrealitywhichthelearnercannotyetgraspasapurelyintellectualmatter.”Theteacher’slovingcareofthelearnercausesthelearnerto“recognizetheamazingqualities,themirandum,”ofasubjectandputsthelearner“ontheroadtogenuinequestioning.Anditisgenuinequestioningthatinspiresalltruelearning.Granted,theteacherimpartsinformationandengagesinthedisputesoftheday.Theseefforts,however,properly“endlikethePlatonicdialogues;theymakenoclaimtoofferingcomprehensiveanswers,butthrowthegatesopentoaninfinitudeoffurtherseeking”sothat“theroadopensupintoaboundlessunknown.”54
WithNiemeyeronecanidentifyagreaterclarityoftheteacher’sidentificationwith
thesoulsofhisstudents,drawnfromNiemeyr’scaritas,whichdeepensthemoral
reasonsforhisnonpresenceasonewho“teaches”hisstudent“thepowerofsilent
listeningtoreality.”
53Niemeyer,“FaithandFactsinSocialScience,"TheologyToday5(4)(January1949),490.54Rhodes,“GerhartNiemeyer,”114,citingJosefPieper,GuidetoThomasAquinas(NewYork:Mentor‐OmegaBooks,1962),87,88,91.
25
IattendedtheUniversityofNotreDameasaPhDstudentandhadthe
opportunitytoattendareadinggroupunderProfessorNiemeyer’sguidanceinfall
of1994.WereadhistranslationofAnamnesisbyEricVoegelin.55Irecallhimasa
wonderfulteacherwhoaskeddeepandpenetratingquestionsofus.Ialsorecallhe
wasverydemandinginourattentiontothetextandtheseriousnessofour
endeavor.Someofmycolleagueswerealittleintimidatedbywhattheytookas
bruskness,whichwechalkeduptohisGermanstyleofteaching.Irecallnotbeing
terriblyintimidated.MyownGermanbackgroundgavemetheunderstandingthat
Germanauthorityfigurescanhaveatenderheartunderneath;itisabitofaritualto
reachthattenderheart.InevergottoknowProfessorNiemeyeraswellashis
formerstudentsIhavecitedinthisessay,butIcansayheexercisedcaritasinhis
desireforustounderstandthecentralquestionsofhumanexistencefoundinthis
text.His“bruskness”wasreallyadesiretofocustheattentionofusstudentsonto
theexistentialquestionsraisedbythetext.NotonlydidIlearntoreadthistext
carefully,andnotonlydidIgainaphilosophicalvocabularytohelpmeunderstand
whatwasgoingoninthisdifficulttext,butIalsounderstoodtheimportanceofthe
teacher’spresence,andwhywecouldsaycertainthingsaretruesimplybecause
theyareandnotbecausetheycomplywithsomefurtherstandardorrule.As
GueguennotesofNiemeyer’scapacitytoencapsulategreatthoughtsinabrief
phrase,Igainedinsightintohowtruthgetsembodiedintheexistentialmovementof
thehumanperson.“Justice,”“virtue,”and“truth”becamelivedrealities,andnot
academicabstractions,lying“outthere”tobeblithelymanipulatedbyaboredand55EricVoegelin,Anamnesis,trans.,GerhartNiemeyer,(Columbia,MO:UniversityofMissouriPress,1978).
26
alienatedmodernacademic.
EricVoegelin:“Phenomenon”andFounder
Inadditiontobeingagreatteacher,GerhartNiemeyerwasafriendofEric
Voegelinandstudentofhisthought.56WhileNiemeyerleftbehindanimportant
legacyofwrittenwork,itisnoinsulttoNiemeyertocharacterizeVoegelinasthe
profounderandmoreoriginalthinker.ThisisonereasonVoegelin’scapacityasa
teachergetsmixedreviews.57TomFlanagan,whotookundergraduateclassesfrom
both,regardedNiemeyerthebetterteacher.Niemeyer’steachingmethodwas
Socratic.Hewas“constantlyaskingpeoplequestionsandgettingthemtoexplore.
Andheorchestratedallthissothatwewouldalsocometogether.Icanremember
allthebooksIreadinNiemeyer’sclass.Incontrast,Ican’trememberanything
specificthatVoegelinsaid,althoughhewasthereforanentireterm.”58Niemeyer,
whoexercisedSocraticerosaswellascaritas,evokedagreaterreactionfromthis
particularformerstudent.IfMichaelOakeshottiscorrectinhisobservationthata
teacherisnotreallyateacherunlessthestudentlearns,thenFlanagan’smemoryof
hisexperienceandofhisreadingsmightserveasausefulmarkerofNiemeyer’s
greatercapacityasteacher.However,weshouldbecautioustoavoiddrawingtoo
hastyaconclusion.
56Fordetails,seeRhodes,“GerhartNiemeyer,”118andNiemeyer,APathRemembered,310‐14.57InvaluableinthisregardaretherecollectionsofalargenumberofhisstudentsinBarryCooperandJodiBruhn(eds.),VoegelinRecollected:ConversationsonaLife,(Columbia,MO:UniversityofMissouriPress,2008).58VoegelinRecollected,132.
27
FlanaganreflectsthesentimentofmanyundergraduatestudentsofVoegelin
innotinghewas“mesmerized”byVoegelin.Hewas“agoodspeaker”and
“tremendouslyeruditeandinteresting.”Readinginthesamevolumethe
recollectionsofVoegelin’sstudentsattheUniversityofMunich,oneisnotsurprised
byFlanagan’sreaction.Voegelin’slectureswerewideranging,andformostmortals,
astonishment,notunderstanding,wasthemainreaction.Thus,Flanaganconcludes,
Voegelin“wasn’treallyateacher,hewasaphenomenon.”
Flanagan’stestimonialservesasareminderthatagreatmind(andone
certainlynothostagetoone’sfragmentaryspecialization)risksbeing
incomprehensibletostudents.ThetestimonialsofhisstudentsatLouisianaState
Universityalsotestifytohisgreatnessasascholar,buttheytendtospeakmore
positivelyashiscapacityasanundergraduateteacher.Partofthismightbedueto
thefactthatVoegelinwasstillanimmigrantduringhistimeatLSU.Hewaslearning
tobecomeanAmerican,andmayhavebeenlearningthisfromhiscolleagues,as
wellashisstudentsevenwhilehewasteachingthem.Oneoftheconstantsintheir
recollectionsisthatitwasobviousVoegelinwasbeingmagnanimoustowardthem.
Hewasobviouslyagreatman,andtheytookhismagnanimityasoldworld
generosityandstyle.
Thegapbetweenstudentandteacheralsocharacterizedhisrelationswith
hisGermanstudents.ItseemsVoegelinleftLSUforMunichwiththehopeof
recreatingtheGeistkreisofscholarsheenjoyedinViennainhisyouth.59Eitherthat
59SeecommentsbyTiloSchabertinVoegelinRecollected,105.FordetailsofVoegelin’slifeinVienna,seeVoegelinRecollected,220‐253.HedescribestheGeistkreis,whichwascomposedofscholarswhowouldremainhislifelongfriends:“Itwasagroupofyoungerpeoplewhometregularlyeverymonth,
28
oraschoolofscientistswhocouldrejuvenatetheactivityofscienceinGermany.60
However,thiswasnotmeanttobe,inpartduetohisown(self‐imposed)isolation
andlackoffriends.
Asateacherofundergraduates,Voegelinhadareputationamongmanyfor
strictnessandbeingunfriendly,butitseemsthiswasastrategytoweedout
ideologicalorsimplystupidandlazystudents.AccordingtoClaus‐EkkehardBarsch,
Voegelin’sstrategybenefitedthosewhostayed.Itseemsithelpedthemgainclarity
onthefundamentalissues.Moreover,heobserveshowappreciativeVoegelinwas
forstudentstotalktohiminwalksbetweenclasses.Voegelin’sformerstudentsat
LSUandNDconfirmthissideofhim.61EllisSandoznoteshowVoegelingave
undergraduateandgraduatestudentsasensetheywereparticipatingwithhimin
theactivityofscience:“TothisdegreeVoegelinwasdoingscienceashetaught,
whetherinlectureorinseminar–andeverybodyknewthisiswhatweweredoing:
thestudentsandclassweretogreaterlesserdegreeparticipantsinapersuasive
inquiry,insomethingappreciatedasasearchfortruth,fortruththatmattered!I
thinkthispalpablesenseofparticipationintheactivityofinquirywasperhapsthe
chiefsourceofVoegelin’spopularityasateacher.”62
oneofthemgivingalectureonasubjectofhischoiceandtheotherstearinghimtopieces….Animportantcharacteristicofthegroupwasthatwewereallheldtogetherbyourintellectualinterestsinthepursuitofthisorthatscience,butthatatthesametimeagoodnumberofthememberswerenotsimplyattachedtotheuniversitybutwereengagedinvariousbusinessactivities.”(AutobiographicalReflections,35‐36).ThelackofidentificationwiththeUniversityofViennaremindsusofStephenMiller’sobservationthatthe“clubbablemen”oftheEnlightenmentpursuedtheirmostimportantconversationsoutsidetheparametersoftheuniversities(Conversation,79‐118).60VoegelinRecollected,111.61VoegelinRecollected,81.62EllisSandoz,“EricVoegelinAsMasterTeacher:NotesForATalk,”RoundtableDiscussion,AmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation&EricVoegelinSociety,AnnualMeetingsinChicago,September4,2004.IthankProfessorSandozforsharinghisnoteswithme.
29
Voegelinalsoevokedaneroticattraction,especiallyfromsomeofhisfemale
students.Usinganeclecticmethodofstudyingstudentbehaviorinallhisclasses,
BarschnotesofVoegelin’sbrighterfemalestudentsthat“theireyeswereopenand
theirlegswereopen.Andtheylookedliketheywereinamixtureofrelaxingand
theoppositeofrelaxing….Tense!Always.IthinkthatVoegelinhadanerotic
attraction.Thatwasmygeneralimpression.”63VoegelinexertedaSocratic
eroticismofthesoulthatcharacterizesgreatteachers,andthatremindsusthisform
oferoticismcallsforththeentireperson.64PlatoexpressesitwellinthePhaedrus
whenhespeaksofthelover“shuddering”whilebeholdinghisbelovedwhomhe
seesastheiconofthegood.65
Thegapbetweenthe“phenomenon”andstudentnarrowsintherecollections
ofhisgraduatestudents.AccordingtoTiloSchabert,heregularlyinvitedhisstaff
andstudentsforgatheringsathisMunichapartmentandsometimesforabarbeque
athiscottageinWeilheim.66Hecertainlypreferredthecompanyofhisstudentsto
hiscolleagues.However,someofhisstudentsexpressfrustrationathisaloofness
andincapacityforconversation.
AllthelimitationsofVoegelin’spersonalityandhisaloofnessseemedto
dissolveforthosegraduatestudentswhoendedupparticipatinginhisown
scientificinvestigations.Hewasinconstantconversationanddialoguewiththem
concerningthelatestbooks,theories,andcurrentevents.67Schabertexplainsthat
63VoegelinRecollected,82‐3.64SeeWilliamDeresiewicz,“LoveonCampus,”AmericanScholar,Summer2007:36‐46(http://www.theamericanscholar.org/su07/love‐deresiewicz.html).65Plato,Phaedrus,251a.66VoegelinRecollected,89.67TiloSchabert,“DieWerkstattEricVoegelins,”ZeitschriftfurPolitik,Marz2002,49(1):83‐95.
30
Voegelin’s“workshop”consistedofhisimmediateresearchassistants,butalsothose
withwhomhecorrespondedbyletter,andhisstudentsinhislectures:
Afterinitiatingaconversation–andwithoutconsideringwhetherwhatwastofollowwouldinterestallwhowerepresentorwouldevenbeacceptabletothem–EricVoegelinwouldpresentthelatestideasthathadcometohiminthecourseofhisthought,ofhiswork.Manifestly,thesewereideasthathewantedfirstto"test."Theyweredeliveredinthatmannerhealwaysmaintained:oneofpresentingthemasconceptualdiscoveriesthatwereabsolutelyunfamiliar,shockingandunorthodox,yetofafar‐reachingsignificance.Voegelinusuallyproceededinpreciselythesamewayinlecturesandpresentations,especiallyduringthediscussionround.Onsuchoccasions,heappearedasthefigureoftheexperimentalmindthatrebelliouslyprobedtothefurthest,leastexpectedlimit.Theeffectuponhisaudiencewaspalpable:ittoonowbrimmedwithcreativeexcitementaswell.Voegelinregardedhislecturesasamanifestationofhisworkshopthathadnoparallelanywhereelse.Asamatterofparticularnote:itwasatjustsuchlecturesthatVoegelinwonothersovertohisthoughtandgainedthemforthestudyofhiswork.68
Students,whocouldnotpossiblyfullyunderstandwhatVoegelinwastalkingabout,
couldstillsensethesignificanceandthrillofscientificinquiry.Herewasa
scientist’sexistentialmotionintruth.Ofcourse,Voegelinwasnotaregularscholar
inthesenseofbeingaspecialist.Anexuberantgnatbiologistcanthrillhisstudents
byteachingthemaboutitsdigestiveorgans.Voegelin,aswehaveseen,was
attemptingtomovebeyondWeber’sattempttodevelopatheoryofhumanity.
ThomasHollweckelaboratesVoegelin’sinvitationtostudentsto“thinkwith”
him:
Voegelinasateacher,thatmeanstomefirstofall,Voegelinasakeenobserverofthepersonwithwhomhewashavingaconversationandassomeonewhovisibly
68Schabert,“DieWerkstattEricVoegelins,”91.TranslationtakenfromunpublishedEnglishtranslation.IthankProfessorSchabertforsharinghismanuscriptwithme.
31
thoughtyourthoughtswithyou,whichmybynomeansmeantthathisthoughtprocesseswouldarriveatthesameendasyourown.Thisiswhenthingswouldbecomeextremelyinteresting;forthenyouknewthatsomethingimportantwasgoingon,somethingthatembodiedtometheessenceofWissenschaftandphilosophy.Voegelinneverhadanyneedtointerrupt,excepttointerject“whatdoyoumean.Idonotunderstand,”whenIhadonceagainfailedtoexpressmythoughtsclearly.69
Underthecircumstancesof“thinkingwith”atalentedgraduatestudent,Voegelin
displayedaSocraticsenseofteachingdeeperperhapseventhanofSocrates,who,it
seems,never“thoughtwith”anotherinterlocutorinthesenseoftreatinghimasan
equal,atleastintermsofthetopicathand.70HisSocraticteachingwastheresultof
hiscapacitytoremovehimselffromthetopicofinquiry:“Itisthesignofa
sovereignthinkerthathehasnoneedtomentionhisownwritingsonaparticular
subjectandthathedoesnotchewthecudofoldaccomplishments.WhenVoegelin
invitedyoutoreadsomethinghehadwrittenitwas,asTiloSchabertpointsout,
‘workinprogress.’Voegelininvitedyoutothinkwithhim,notabouthim,not
againsthim,butaboutthesubjectmatter.”71
Ofcourse,aninequalityexistedbetweenVoegelinandhistopstudentsby
virtueofVoegelin’sintellect,which,thestudentsrecognized:“WhatIpersonally
valuedmorethananythingelseinVoegelin’sthinkingwasitsanalyticalpower.He
wastheonlymaneverfromwhomIwouldacceptstatementsaboutwhatcannotbe
proven,becauseIknewthatifanyoneeverhad,hehadthoughtitthroughandhad
69ThomasHollweck,“RoundtableDiscussion:VoegelinasMasterTeacher,”CommentspresentedatEricVoegelinSociety,2004AnnualMeetingoftheAmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation(http://www.artsci.lsu.edu/voegelin/EVS/2004%20Papers/Hollweck22004.htm).70Thisisacontentiousclaim,asSocraticignorance,ifwetakeitseriously,impliesagenuineequalityamongSocratesandallmen.SørenKierkegaardbringsthisequalityoutverywell.71Hollweck,“VoegelinasMasterTeacher.”
32
notreliedonintuition.”72Evenso,forseveralofhisGermanstudents,theauthority
ofhisintellectmeantsomethingmorethangivingthemthefaithtotakehiswordfor
grantedonthisorthattopic.HisGermanstudentsgrewupinthepost‐WorldWarII
period,whichmeanttheirownparents–fathersinparticular‐weredirectlyaffected
bythewar.Thefathersofsomewerekilled(whichmeanttheybarelywouldhave
knownthem),whileothershadbeenNationalSocialists.73Voegelinwasafather
figureformanyofthemforthesamereasonSocrateswasafatherfigureforthe
dispossessedyouthofAthens.Theoldorderwaseitherdeadorcorrupt,andhe
representedthenewwayformanyofhisstudents(thoughheseemsnottohave
noticednorcultivatedthiskindofrelationship).
ManysidesofVoegelintheteachertreatedheresofararegatheredupinthe
seriesoflectures,“HitlerandtheGermans,”deliveredin1964,thatperhaps
constitutedtheclimaxofhisteachingcareer.74Aswehaveseen,manyofVoegelin’s
studentsregardedhimamesmerizing“phenomenon”buthissignificancewasnot
altogethercleartothem.Hissignificancetothisaudience,composedmostlyof
students,wasclearbecausethetopicwasaboutthem,orrather,aboutthesociety
theyhadinheritedfromtheircorruptedparents.Purcellcomparestheperformance
toSocratespullingAthenianyouthsoutoftheircave:“Forhisaudience,
encounteringVoegelindeliveringthelectureswaslikemeetingsomeonecomingup
fromtheunderworldofPlato’scave,wouldbetheirSocraticguide.Inthatsense,
72Hollweck,“VoegelinasMasterTeacher.”73VoegelinRecollected,113.74Voegelin,HitlerandtheGermans,CW31.ThefollowinganalysisdrawsuponPurcell’sanalysisoftheselectures,whichfocusesonVoegelin’sperformanceofthem,insteadofthepublishedversion(“CanaPhilosopherBeaPropheticWitnesstotheTruth?”).
33
ManfredHenningsenremarkedthattheirgreatestimpactwasintheiractual
performance,‘inexpectationofaGermanmetanoia.’”75PurcellarguesthatVoegelin,
forwhom,likeSocratesorKierkegaard,philosophyisawayofexistenceinsteadof
simplyholdingconcepts,thelectureswereintendedtorecreatethecapacityfor
civicfriendshipintruthinGermany,arebuildingofsoulsin“acommunityof
existentialconcern”:“That’sperhapsthefullestsignificanceofthoselectures–they
expressedVoegelin’sownphiliapolitike,hisattitudeofpoliticalfriendshiptowards
hisaudience.Theywereintendedtogroundthecommonhomonoia–
likemindednessinparticipationinthesamedivinenous–anewgenerationof
Germanspoudaioi,ofaninnerdignityandexternalcivicvirtueequivalenttoMax
Weber’s.”76LikeSocrateswhorefoundsthebeautifulcityinthesoulsoftheyoung
withwhomheconverses,Voegelinattemptedtoreconstitutethelifeoftruthfulness
inadestroyedGermansociety.
PurcellanalyzesthemethodofVoegelin’sattempttoevokeperiagogeinhis
students.HedrawsuponKierkegaard’sprogramofelicitinginhisaudiencethree
stepsinconversion:aesthetic,ethical,andreligious,aswellasafourthstep,
towardsthetruthofexistence.ThesestepsarecomparabletotheonesGueguen,
andNicgorskitoadegree,noticeofGerhartNiemeyer’steaching.Thesestepsof
ascentareattemptstopracticethe“artoftheperiagoge,”asVoegelinreferredto
liberaleducation.
75Purcell,“CanaPhilosopherBeaPropheticWitnesstotheTruth?”,2,quotingHenningsen,“EineMischungausSchlachthofundKlapsmühle,EinleitungzuEricVoegelin,”HitlerunddieDeutschen,(Munich:WilhelmFink,2006),38.76Purcell,“CanaPhilosopherBeaPropheticWitnesstotheTruth?”,6.Henningsendocumentsanumberofstudentsinattendancewhowouldgoontoformacross‐sectionofGermanspoudaioi,representingmedia,government,bureaucracy,andtheacademy(“EinleitungzuEricVoegelin,”19).
34
Thefirststeptowardconversionistoenterintotheaestheticbymeansof
ironyandsatire.Effortsbypost‐warGermanphilosophers,historians,andsocial
scientiststoexplaintheNaziphenomenawerepatheticbecausetheytoo
participatedinthedestructionofreality(whichhelpsexplainwhythetitleof
Voegelin’slectureswas“HitlerandtheGermans”(myemphasis),toshowthatHitler
doesnotariseinaculturalvacuum).VoegelinborrowsheavilyfromKarlKraus’s
satiresontheNazisandcultureintheinter‐warperiodtodemonstrate,witha
considerabledegreeofbluntness,howanyoneshouldhaveseenthedestructionof
orderinsociety.Satireexposesthedestruction,buttheironicpresentationof
detailsenablestheaudiencetodistanceitselffrom“thecommonlyaccepteddoxaof
academiccontemporaryhistoriography.”77Voegelinbluntlydemonstratestohis
studentsthattheparagonsofintelligenceandmoralityintheirsocietyarestupid
idiots.NowonderhewasprofessionallyisolatedinGermany!Evenso,Purcell
singlesouttheaestheticasVoegelin’sfirststeptowardevokingperiagogein
students.Satireandironyarenotmeanttobelittleorintimidate,asmanyofhis
studentsthought,butwas“aimedathealingthroughcauterization.”Ofcourse,
satireandironycanappearasmereinsulttosome,and,withouttheshared
backgroundofbeingyounginacorruptsocietylikeVoegelin’sGermanstudents
were,itwouldbedifficulttodeterminethetargetofVoegelin’sbarbs.
Fromtheaesthetic,Voegelinmovestotheethical.Itshouldbenoted,though,
thatPurcell’sKierkegaardiancategories(towhichVoegelindoesnotrefer)are
existential,nottemporal,ones.Thismeansthateachispresentateachandevery
77Purcell,“CanaPhilosopherBeaPropheticWitnesstotheTruth?”,3.
35
pointofthelectures.Onedoesnotfindthefirstlectureintheaesthetic,thesecond
lectureintheethical,andsoon.
HavingdemonstratedtheabsurdityoftheNazisandtheirsubsequent
“scientific”interpreters,andhavingachievedanironicdistancingfromthe
authoritativeclaimsofthelatter,Voegelinelicitsethicalconversionexpressedfirst
asmoralindignationandsecondasaffirmationofmoralorderasakeyconstituent
ofscientificunderstandingofpoliticalreality.Theabsurdityofparticipatinginthe
secondaryrealityofideologydeservesmoralindignation,whichisanaffirmationof
participationinacommonreality.Voegelinusestheexampleofajournalistwho
criticizesaformerAuschwitzprisonerforlosingcontrolonthewitnessstandand
callingaformerguardamurderer,eventhoughtheguard“merely”beathimintoa
cripple.Voegelin’sindignationatthejournalistisapparent:“Forwhatitissayingis
thatoneshouldpeacefullyallowoneselftobekilledandshouldn’tinanywayshout
‘murderer!’...AslongasIhavenotbeenkilled,Imustnotsaythattheotherpersonis
amurder.IfIseethatthisotheroneiscommittingmurder,Istillmaynotsay
‘murderer!’beforehehasbeenconvictedinapropercourt.”78Onecanseeinthe
journalistalegalistmindsetthatwouldprohibittheformerprisonerfromspeaking
truthwhendoingsobreakstheletterofthelaw.
Havingaffirmedthemoralorderintheconversiontotheethical,Voegelin
thenelicitsreligiousconversion,orperhapsmoreaccurately,“conversiontothe
transcendent.”79Fromaffirmingthemoralorderintheethicalconversion,Voegelin
movesintothetranscendentunderwhichtheindividualstandstobejudgedbythat78Voegelin,HitlerandtheGermans,CW31,64.79Purcell,“CanaPhilosopherBeaPropheticWitnesstotheTruth?”,4.
36
standard.Voegelinidentifiesthelossofreality,rootedinman’sdesiretobethe
creatorofhisownexistenceandvalues,asthesourceofGermandisorder,andcites
onesentenceofNovalistosummarizethissentiment:“’TheworldshallbeasIwish
it!’ThereyoualreadyhaveinanutshellthewholeproblemofHitler,thecentral
problemofthededivinizinganddehumanizing.”80Incontrast,Voegelinsuccinctly
clarifiesthetranscendent,andempiricallytrue,standardunderwhichmanexists:
“Theexperienceofreasonandspiritagreeonthepointthatmanexperiences
himselfasabeingwhodoesnotexistfromhimself.Heexistsinanalreadygiven
world.Thisworlditselfexistsbyreasonofamystery,andthenameforthemystery,
forthecauseofthisbeingoftheworld,ofwhichmanisacomponent,isreferredto
as‘God.’So,dependenceofexistenceonthedivinecausationofexistencehas
remainedthebasicquestionofphilosophyuptotoday.”81Ofcourse,Voegelinwas
notaspokesmanforChristianityoranyotherreligion.ButChristianity,aswellas
Socraticpoliticalphilosophy,callsupontheindividualtolivehislifeintruthandto
bejudgedbythattruth.The“experiencesofreasonandspirit”telluslifeistobe
livedinexistentialtruth,andthatphilosophyisnotsimplytheholdingofrightor
eventrueopinionsandconcepts.ThisenablesVoegelintodevoteconsiderable
attentiontocriticizingtheChristianchurchesduringtheNaziera,fortheyfailedto
bearwitnesstotranscendenttruth.Willingnesstoliveunderjudgmentexpresses
the“openness”towardthedivinegrounddiscussedabove.Onlysuchsoulsare
capableofpoliticalandphilosophicalfriendship.ThatVoegelinwascapableof
80Voegelin,HitlerandtheGermans,CW31,88.81Voegelin,HitlerandtheGermans,CW31,86.
37
elicitingsuchfriendshipinhisuniversitylecturestestifiestohisgreatnessasa
teacher.
The“HitlerandtheGermans”lecturesappeartohavebeenfoundational
eventsforthosewhoheardthem.Manyintheaudiencewentontoformimportant
partsoftheGermanregime.Ouranalysisofhisteachingbeganwithsome
reservationsofhistalents,whichhisformerstudentsexplainedtobetheresultof
hisgreatnessasascholar,whichtendedtomakeitdifficultforstudentstokeepup
withhim.Thosewhowereabletodevelopaworkingrelationshipwithhimidentify
hiscapacityto“thinkwith”thestudentasthebondbetweenthem.Morethe
originalscholarthanNiemeyer,Voegelin“pushedahead”withhisscienceand
thinking,whichriskedleavingbehindstudents.However,aswesawwithPurcell’s
accountofthe“HitlerandtheGerman”lectures,Voegelinwasverycapableof
teachingtoawidearrayofintellects,andofcondescending(inthegoodsenseofthe
term)tothelongingsofthestudents.
Conclusion
VoegelinandNiemeyerunderstoodteachinginthePlatonictermsofturning
aroundthesoulsofstudentsfromthecrisisoftheircivilization,towardexistential
truth.Theirwrittenworkmatchestheirteachingefforts,firstintermsofdiagnosing
thecrisisandfindingawayoutofit.Itisanidlequestiontoaskwhowasthebetter
teacher,foreachhadhisstrengthsandweaknesses,andeachindividualstudent
reacteddifferentlytobothmen.Evenso,theirdifferentself‐understandingsas
38
scholarsappeartohaveresultedindifferentteachingstyles.Voegelin,themore
originalthinker,seemedtohavehadamorepronouncedimpactonthosewhocould
“thinkwith”him.Niemeyerwasmoreself‐consciouslyafather‐figureforhis
studentsandtherefore,whilestillhighlydemandingoftheirattentionand
intelligence,didnotregardhisstudentsaspeoplewhocould“thinkwith”him.
Instead,Niemeyerattemptedtore‐createtheoriginaryexperiencesofthetradition
ofthinkingthatheunderstoodhimselfashandingdown.Foralltheattention
NiemeyerandVoegelinpaidtorecollection(afterall,Niemeyertranslated
Voegelin’sbook,Anamnesis),Voegelinwaslessinterestedinviewinghimselfasan
imparterofatradition.Thisisnottosayhe,likeaprogressivist,rejectedtradition.
Rather,heseemedtohavetreatedtraditionasastarting‐pointforinquiry,andit
wastheactivityofinquirythatinterestedhimthemost.
However,itisdifficulttosaymuchmoreabouttheirrespectiveteaching
methods.EventhoughIhaveidentifiedathree‐stage“ascent”ineachone’smethod,
itshouldbemadeclearthatthesethreestagesareroughcategories,andthateach
stageisnottobeunderstoodasisolatedfromtheothers.Inthissense,onecan
appreciatethecomplexityoftheirteachingandthe“artoftheperiagoge,”which
entailsawidearrayofartsandtechniquestogetstudentstolearn.AsRalph
McInernyexplainsinhiscontributiontotheFestschriftforNiemeyer,teachingisa
taskthat“cannotbeaccomplished”becauseallateachercandoispoint.82He
cannotmakehisstudentlearnandthereforeisalwaysthehelplessinitiatorof
liberaleducation.Onemightthinkteachingisforthisreasonafutiletask.However,
82RalphMcInerny,“ReflectionsonTeaching,”TheGoodManinSociety,137.
39
thehelplessnessoftheteachermightbeonereasonSocratesintheSymposium
explainshowDiotimadescribesthemulti‐dimensionalerosas:“courageous,stout,
andkeen,askilledhunter,alwaysweavingdevices,desirousofpracticalwisdom
andinventive,philosophizingthroughallhislife,askilledmagician,druggist,
sophist.”83ThesameadjectivescouldbeusedforVoegelinandNiemeyer,who
participateinthewayofthinkingofteachingofDiotimaandofSocrates.
83Plato,Symposium,203d‐e.
