irresponsible ordoliberalism and the imperialistic fantasy that … · 2017-12-11 · 1...
TRANSCRIPT
1
IrresponsibleOrdoliberalismandtheImperialisticFantasyThatWeAllMightBecomeGoodGermansOneDayAResponsetoDoldandKrieger,Hien,Heath-Kelly,Guittet,DosReisandKamisJohanvanderWaltUniversityofLuxembourg&UniversityofPretoria
Germany’spolicyofexpansionaryfiscalconsolidationbymeansofbindingfiscalrulesissettingapositiveexampleforothereurozonecountries,butthatalonewon’tsuffice.Alltheeurozonegovernmentsneedtodemonstrateconvincinglytheirowncommitmenttofiscalconsolidationsoastorestoretheconfidenceofmarkets,nottospeakoftheirowncitizens....Germany’scourseofgrowth-friendlydeficitreductioninconjunctionwithitssuggestionsforastrengtheningofEurope’sfiscalframeworkcouldserveasablueprintforEuropeaneconomicgovernance.
WolfgangSchäuble(2010).1OverviewWhatfollowsisareplytothecriticalresponsesofMalteDoldandTimKrieger,JosefHien,
CharlotteHeath-Kelly,EmmanuelPierreGuittet,FilipedosReisandBenKamistomy2016
NewPerspectivesintervention‘WhenOneReligiousExtremismUnmasksAnother:
ReflectionsonEurope’sStatesofEmergencyasaLegacyofOrdo-liberalDe-
hermeneuticisation’(hereafterODH–for“OrdoliberalDehermeneutisation”2).Myreplywill
bedividedintotwomainparts.ThefirstpartwillfocusonwhatIwillcall‘adisciplinary
instructionnottothink.’ThesecondwillfocusonwhatIwillcall‘constructiveinvitationsto
thinkfurther.’ThefirstpartfocusesonDoldandKrieger’sarguments.Thesecondfocuses
predominantlyonthoseoftherestoftheinterlocutorslistedabove.Whatultimately
emergesoutofthissecondsectionisareflectionontheneedtoconsiderbothorderand
disorderasconstitutiveelementsofhumanfreedom,andtosustainthetensionbetween
them.Ofconcern,here,Iargue,isafreedomthatrefusestobesubjectedconclusivelyto
any“orderofliberty”thataliberalgovernmentingeneralandanordoliberalgovernmentin
particularmaywishtoestablish.
1SeeLechevalier(2015:77,footnote15).2Iwillresorttothemoreelegantterm“dehermeneutisation”(insteadofde-hermeneuticisation)fromnowon.IamindebtedtoChrisEngertforsuggestingthisimprovement.
2
ItwillverysoonbecomecleartothereaderthatIconsiderDoldandKrieger’s
responsetomyODHinterventionanexampleofparticularlypoorscholarship,soImayas
wellsayithere.Ihavespentmuchtimeinwhatfollowsrespondingcarefullytoagood
numberoftheircontentions.Manyofthesecontentionsmaywellbeconsiderednotto
meritalltheattentionIhavegiventothem.Ihaveneverthelessengagedwiththem
meticulouslyfortworeasonsthatIconsiderimportant.Firstly,IwishtostateclearlythatI
generallyconsidertheworkofordoliberalscholarsinterestingandimportant.WereItojust
brushoffDoldandKrieger’sresponsewithoutfurtheradoasasadcaseofscholarly
irresponsibility,Iwouldsurelyclosedownthepossibilityofmoreconstructiveacademic
exchangeswiththemand/orotherordoliberalsinthefuture.Inotherwords,byresponding
carefullyandmeticulouslytoDoldandKrieger,Ihopetohavekeptalivethepossibilityof
futureacademicexchangeswithordoliberalswhomaybemorewillingtoengageina
properscholarlydebate.
ThesecondreasonforengagingextensivelywithDoldandKrieger’sresponse
concernsthewayinwhichtheirresponsenotonlydismissesmyODHinterventionasdevoid
ofvaluablescholarlyinsight,butalsomisrepresentsitscentralthesisasavastly
oversimplifiedcausalargument.Themeticulousresponsetothisdismissaland
misrepresentationthatfollowsseekstoofferthereadersofDoldandKrieger’sresponsean
efficientopportunitytoassessbothcarefullyandquicklywhetherthelackofscholarly
insightandoversimplifiedcausalreasoningthatDoldandKrieger(D&K,fromnowon)
imputetoODH,isaproductoftheirimagination,orafairevaluationofmytext.IfIdidnot
providetheirreadersthisopportunity,D&Kmightwellsucceedinhavinganeasylastword,
andaperniciousoneatthat.Intheacceleratedworldinwhichwelivetoday,fewreadersof
D&K’sresponsearelikelytotakethetimetogobacktomytexttodeterminecarefully
whethertheircontentionsaresoundandfair.
Ihavegoodreasontosaythis.D&Khaveobtainedadviceandcommentsfrom
respectedscholarssuchasBrigitteYoungandVolkerBerghahnbeforesendingtheir
responseoffforpublication.IfinditsurprisingthatthesescholarsdidnotadviseD&Kto
reconsideranumberofconspicuousweaknessesthatshouldhavebecomeevidentfroma
readingofD&K’stextalone.Butthesescholarswouldhavehadmanymorereasonsfor
advisingD&Ktoreconsideralmostalloftheircontentionshadtheygonetothetroubleof
comparingD&K’stextcarefullywithmine.Now,ifevenfriendlymentorsorcolleaguesdid
3
nothavethetime,energyorscholarlyinclinationtocompareD&K’sresponsecarefullywith
myODHintervention,howmanyotherreaderscanoneexpecttogotothistrouble?Thisis
whyIconsideritnecessarytorespondalmostlineforlinetoD&K’sresponseinwhat
follows.Icitethemextensivelyineachcasesothatthereadercanseequickly,clearlyand
accuratelywhatisatstake.
ItiswithregretthatIendupdedicatingmuchlesstimeandspaceinwhatfollowsto
theresponsesofHien,Heath-Kelly,Guittet,DosReisandKamisthantheseresponses
deserve.Ihavegainedmuchinsightfromtheseresponsesandwishtothanktheauthorsfor
thetimetheytooktorespondintelligentlyandconstructivelytomyODHintervention.I
trusttheywillconsidermylimitedresponsestothemasplausiblebeginningsoffurther
debateswhichwemayhaveinthefuture.Spaceconstraintspreventedmefromtaking
thingsfurtherthanIhavedonehere,butItrusttherewillsoonbeopportunitiestorevisit
thecompellingissuestheyraise.
ADisciplinaryInstructionNottoThink[SubtitleLevel1]D&KcommencetheirresponsetomyODHinterventionwithabriefperfunctoryremark
aboutmy“excellent”scholarshipinthefieldoflegaltheory,butdosoonlytocontinuewith
thesuggestionthatIshouldbetterconstrainmyscholarlyinquiriestothefieldoflegal
theory,because,astheysay,“juxtaposingone’sownexpertiseupondisjointedfragmentsof
lesswellunderstoodresearchfromotherfieldsdoesnotnecessarilylenditselftoconvincing
scholarship.”Theycontinuewiththissuggestionasfollows:
VDW’sargumentin[ODH]restscruciallyuponassumptionsaboutthecurrenteconomiccrisis,ordoliberalismandthegenesisofterrorism;however,theauthorfailstodemonstratevaluableacademicexpertiseinthesetopics.WestronglydoubtthatthesimplemechanicsofVDW’sargumentsupporttheassertionthat–withorwithoutaprocessofde-hermeneuticisation–Protestantethicsledtoordoliberalism,whichresultedinanimposedausterityinFranceandultimatelyjihadistterrorism.Thiscausalchainisnotonlyhighlyquestionable,butalsoitsunderlyingassumptionsare,infact,inaccurate.
Havingshotoffthisopeningsalvoaboutmyfailuretodemonstratevaluable
academicexpertiseregardingthe“economiccrisis,ordoliberalismandthegenesisof
terrorism,”theyproceedtoinstructmeontheproperconceptualdistinctionbetween
4
“economicscarcity”and“redistribution.”Iwillpresentlylookmorecloselyattheir
contentionsregardingthisdistinction.Beforedoingso,however,Ialsowishtodraw
attentiontoanotherremarkregardingmyexpertisethattheymakealittlelaterintheir
reactiontomyNPintervention.D&Kwrite:
Unfortunately,mostwritingsbyordoliberalscholarswerenevertranslatedfromGermanintoEnglish.IfVDWhadreadtheseoriginaltextsoratleastthecontributionsofscholarswithadeepunderstandingofGermanordoliberalism(suchasViktorVanberg),hewouldprobablyhavestartedquestioninghisownassumptionsabouttheordoliberalprogram.
Now,onecannothelpwonderingabitabouttheintellectualclimatethatencourages
astatementlikethistospillsoinnocentlyintoanacademicargument.Letmenevertheless
saynomorethantheveryleastthatrequiresbeingsaidinresponsehere.D&Ksuggestthat
IwouldnothavemademyincorrectassumptionsaboutordoliberalismhadIbeenableto
readtheoriginalGermantextsofthisGermantraditionofeconomicthinking,ortheworks
ofGermanscholarswithadeepunderstandingofthetradition.Theproblemcannotlie
here,however,formyGermanisnotsoshabbyastheyseemtoassume.Iwillsurelynotcall
myselfanexpertonorconnoisseurofordoliberalthinking,butIhavereadareasonable
selectionofprimaryordoliberaltextswithouthavingtorelyontranslationsandhave
supplementedthesereadingswithagoodnumberofsecondarytexts,severalofthemalso
inGermanandwrittenbyGermanscholarswhomitwouldbedifficulttoaccusesobrazenly
ofnothavinga“deep[enough]understandingofGermanordoliberalism.”
So,consideringthatIhavedonequiteabitofsolidhomework,myfailuretoarriveat
a“deepunderstandingofGermanordoliberalism”islikelytobeattributabletosomeother
failureorfailuresonmypart.Thefirstmaywellconcernaninabilitytocomprehendthe
reductionofsocialpoliticstotheorderingofaneconomicsystemoffreecompetitionthat
manyscholarsattributetotheordoliberalschoolofeconomicthinking.Ishallpresently
returntoaddressthispointmoresquarely.Asecondfailuremaybeattributabletonothing
lessthanapsychologicalresistanceto“adeepunderstanding”ofanyconcernwithorder–
economicorderincluded–thatrefusestosustainadueregardforthelimitsoforderand
theconstitutiverolethatdisorderplaysinthesustenanceofastableorder.Icomebackto
thissecond‘failure’towardstheendofalltheresponsestomyinterlocutorsthatfollow.
Sufficeitthereforetojustobservefornowthatmyfailuretoarriveata“deep[enough]
understanding”ofGermanordoliberalismmaywellrelatetomydistrustofalltheoretical
5
endeavoursthatreducesocial-theoreticalinquirytoinstrumentalconcernswiththe
sustenanceoforder.Suchendeavours,Isuspect(andcannothelpsuspecting),takeafirst
steptowardsatechnocraticreductionofgovernmenttothepursuitofpreselectedsocial
goalsthattoleratesnofurtherquestioningof,andresistanceto,thispreselection.Ibelieve
thebetrayalofliberaldemocracyandtheroadtoauthoritarianisminvariablystarthere.
TheotherreasonformyfailuretounderstandGermanordoliberalismdeeply
enough,mayofcourserelatetotheinadequateunderstandingofeconomictheory,assuch,
thatD&Kattributetomeinthefirstpassagequotedabove.Imustofcourseconcedehere
thatIhavenoformaltrainingineconomicsandthatthismaywellbeasignificanthindrance
toarrivingata“deepunderstandingofGermanordoliberalism,”oranadequatelyadvanced
understandingthatmightbeworthyofenteringintoadiscussionwiththehallowedcircles
ofFreiburgeconomicthinking.Iwouldneverthelessliketoatleastexplaininwhatfollows
whyIamleftsomewhatpuzzledbyseveralaspectsofD&K’sresponsetomyarguments,and
especiallybytheEconomics101classtowhichtheyhavetreatedme.
Allowmetobeginwiththeeconomicsclass.IfailtograspwhatexactlyD&Ksought
toteachmewiththeirdistinctionbetweeneconomicscarcityandeconomicredistribution
and,moreimportantly,whytheyarenotthemselvessomewhatworriedbythewaythey
drawthisdistinction.Theirinvocationofthedistinction,firstly,doesnotseemtomakeany
pointapartfromtellingmethatIamoutofmydepthinthefieldofscientificeconomic
inquiry.Secondly,itrevealsanunderstandingofthescienceofeconomicsthatisremarkably
outoftouchwithcontemporarythinkingaboutthestatusofsocialscience.Thirdly,itwould
appeartohingeonaconceptionofscientificinquirythatrendersitblindtoitsown
disciplinarypresuppositionsandforthisreasondoomsittoaself-imposedthoughtlessness.
Andfourthly,itdoesalloftheaboveonlytoendupendorsingandstrengtheningthe
argumentregardingeconomicscarcityandeconomicredistributionthatIputforwardin
ODH.Underthefirstthreesub-headingsthatfollow,Iunpackthesecondandthirdpoint
separatelyandthefirstandfourthtogether.ThereafterIturntoanumberoftheother
puzzlingcontentionsthatD&KmakeinresponsetoODH.
TheScienceofEconomicsandtheLinguisticTurn[SubtitleLevel2]SohereareD&Kinstructingthelegaltheoristwithadisciplinedanddisciplinarydefinitionof
economicscarcity:
6
Ineconomictheory,thescarcityproblemresultsfromthefactthatwhileresourcesarelimitedinamount,peopleneverthelessdesiretheminaninfiniteamount.
TheirdefinitionderivesfromLionelRobbins’(1932)definitionofeconomicsas“the
sciencewhichstudieshumanbehaviourasarelationshipbetweenendsandscarcemeans
whichhavealternativeuses.”3D&Kattributetheendorsementofthisdefinitionto“most
economists.”Theyalsoattributetothismajorityofeconomiststhebeliefthat“scarcity,in
thefirstplace,isnotamentalornormativeconstruct.”Andwiththisinvocationofthe
dominantdefinitionofeconomicscarcityineconomictheory,theymoveontodismissing
myargumentregardingeconomicscarcityasasocialandmentalconstructionthatissubject
to,andconditionedby,interpretationandreinterpretation.Inotherwords,mywholeODH
argumentfallsflat,theyseemtosay,becauseitskeypointthat“economicscarcity”is
conditionedbyinterpretationandhermeneuticsissimplyspurious.This,ofcourse,relieves
meoftheburdenofaddinganythingtothedehermeneuticisationargumentthatIput
forwardinODH,fortheyconcedeandconfirmthepointintheclearestofterms.Theyonly
takeissue,itseems,withthefactthatIdeemitimportanttoputforwardanargumentthat
theyconsideraself-evidentpointofdepartureofalltheirtheoreticalendeavours.Relieving
meoftheburdensofmyargumentsbytakingthemontheirownshoulders–shooting
themselvesinthefoot,inshort–ultimatelybecomesamainfeatureoftheirendeavours,as
weshallseebelow.
LetmeneverthelessretracethedehermeneuticisationtowhichD&Kadmitso
blithely.Accordingtothem,“mosteconomists”considereconomicscarcityatranscendent
realitythatreceivesanimmaculatebirthintohumanlanguage.Itstranscendenceshatters
alltracesoflinguisticimmanence(‘linguisticimmanence’referringtothelinguistic
recognitionthatnolanguageescapesitself,nolanguageescapesitsownlinguisticstatus,
andnocomponentoflanguagemakessenseoutsideconventionalrelationswithother
languagecomponents).Inaccordancewiththisdismissalofthenotionoflinguistic
immanence,thescienceofeconomicsconsidersitselfleftwithnochoiceastohowthis
‘reality’ofeconomicscarcitythatentersitfrombeyondistobeaccommodatedand
communicatedfurther.
3IhavetakenthisreferencedirectlyfromDoldandKriegerandhavenotyetconsultedthesource.
7
Thisfaithintranscendenceistrulyremarkableinatimesuchusoursthatisso
pervasivelyburdenedbytherecognitionoftheconventionalconstraintsthatlanguage
imposesonculturalandsocialunderstanding.Itisespeciallyremarkablegiventhatmany
andperhapseven“most”socialscientistswhoreflectmeta-theoreticallyontheirown
disciplinaryinquirieswouldprobablyfinditdifficulttodaytoarguetheirwayaroundthe
irreduciblelinguisticityoftheirscientificendeavours.4Thesocialscientific‘realists’or
‘positivists’ofoldhavesurelynotdisappearedfromthefaceoftheearth,buttheyno
longercommandthesceneandmostlikelynolongerconstitutea‘majority’ofanykind.
This,ofcourse,doesnotmaketherealistswrongandthelinguisticbrigaderight.Butitdoes
meanthatsocialscienceisexposedtoameta-theoreticalormeta-disciplinary
indeterminacythatitcannotwishaway.And,withthisindeterminacycomesthecallfor
socialsciencetoconstantlythinkreflectivelyaboutitsconstitutiveboundariesand,
therefore,tothink.Thelinguisticturninthesocialsciencessurelycannotclaimthevictory
ofhavinglaunchedscientificinquiryonabetterwaytotruthwithoutmakingamockeryof
itsowninsights.Butitcanclaimthemeritofhavingwokenupscientificinquirytothe
imperativeofconstantlyreconsideringandrethinkingitsfoundationalconceptsand
principles.ItiswiththisbackgroundinmindthatIwishtoengagewithD&K’sinvocationof
“mosteconomists”asregardsthisfaithintranscendent“economicscarcity.”
ThoughtlessEconomicScience[SubtitleLevel2]D&K’suseoftheword“most”wouldseemtoallowforthepossibilitythattherearesome
economistswhodonotsharethisfaith,buttheyareevidentlynotbotheredbythese
others.ToputthisintermsthatThomasKuhnmadesalient:theremaybesomeeconomists
whoareengaginginabnormalscientificinquiriesandforwhomeconomicthinkingbegins
witharegardforthewayinwhichthenotionof‘infinitedesire’doesnotconstituteaself-
evidentpointofdepartureforeconomicthinking,butD&Karenotinterestedinthem
(Kuhn,1970).Theseothereconomistsmaywellhaveahistoricalregardforthewaythe
notionof“infinitedesire”isconditionedbyaconstellationofmodernconceptionsofhuman
4Themaindevelopmentsinmeta-theoreticalreflectiononsocialscienceandthehumanitiesthatmakedenialsofthelinguisticityofsocialtheorydifficulttodayarerelatedtotheimpactofhermeneutics(Gadamer,Ricoeur),pragmatistandpost-analyticaltheoryoflanguage(Rorty,Davidson)andpost-structuralists(Derrida,Foucault,Lyotard)onlatetwentiethcenturysocialtheory.Thislinguisticturnappearstohaveenteredeconomicthinkingunderthebannerof‘criticalrealism.’SeetheessayscollectedinPaulLewis(2004).
8
individualitythatwasunthinkableinapremodernagewhenarangeofAristotelianand/or
Thomistbeliefsconditionedtheessentialtermsofsocialcooperation,noneofwhich
cateredtonotionsof“infinitedesire.”Theymayalsohavearegardforthewayinwhichthe
demiseoftheseAristotelianandThomistworldviewswasasocio-culturalpreconditionfor
theriseofmodernconceptionsofindividualityasanagentorsourceof“infinitedesire.”
Furthertothis,theymayalsohavearegardforthewaythisdemiseitselfwasconditioned
andexactedbythetechnologicaltransformationofmethodsofproductionandcommercial
exchange.IammostcertainlynotstagingamoralargumenthereforareturntoAristotelian
andThomistviewsofcommunityandsociety.Iamonlymakingthepointthataninvocation
ofatranscendent‘economicscarcity’thatisunconditionedbycontingentconventional
frameworksofsocialconstructionbecomesratherfar-fetchedwhenthesehistorical
developmentsaretakenintoconsideration.
IamnottheeconomistinthisdiscussionandIwillnotattempttoprovidea
bibliographyhereofeconomistswhoarecurrentlychallengingthenotionof‘transcendent
scarcity.’However,Iamquiteconfidentthatonewouldnotsearchlongtocomeupwitha
significantlistandthatthescholarshiparoundtheworkofKarlPolanyimaywellprovide
productiveleadsforidentifyingsuch‘abnormal’economicinquiries.5Letmeagainstress
thatIamnotintheleastproposingthisminorityor‘abnormal’viewamongeconomistsas
theconclusively‘correct’or‘better’pointofdepartureforeconomictheory.Iamonly
suggestingthatafailuretobearitinmindasaconstitutiveboundaryorlimitwithinthefield
ofeconomicinquiryreducesthestudyofeconomicstoadisciplinaryandconceptualclosure
withintheconfinesofwhichthetaskofrethinkingfundamentalassumptionsand
propositionsbecomesimpossible.Thisishowscientificandtheoreticalenterprisesbecome
thoughtless.Thinkingbeginswiththeregardfortheirreducibleindeterminacyof
fundamentaltheoreticalassumptions.Again,thisinnowayimpliesarejectionofthese
fundamentalassumptions.Butitrequiresanopenintellectualitythatseeksandwelcomes
pertinentchallenges,anditisthisopenintellectualitythatisentirelymissingfromD&K’s
dismissalofmyargumentsregarding“economicscarcity.”
5ThereasonwhyIbelieveasearchforaconceptofeconomicscarcitythatrelatesscarcitytoconcretesocialconceptionsofneedandthusoffersasignificantalternativetoanabstractlyconceivednotionof‘infinitedesire’thatreflectsnosocialembeddedness,relatesexactlytoPolanyi’s(1975)reflectionsonembeddedeconomies.
9
ShootingThemselvesintheFoot…IhavealreadyassertedabovethatIdonotseethepointofD&K’slessoninbasiceconomic
terminology.Itdoesnottaketheirownargumentsforwardandultimatelycomesacrossasa
rhetoricalployaimedatshowingthelegaltheoristthatheisoutofhisdepthinthis
discussion.Iwillnowsubstantiatethisassertionbyshowingthattheonlyrealachievement
ofthewholeployistoofferaneasierwayofmakingthepointthatIendeavouredtomake
inmyODHintervention.Inthisregard,theycanbeconsideredtohaveshotthemselves
pointlesslyandthoughtlesslyinthefoot.
IraisedanargumentregardingredistributiondeficitsinEuropeandconsideredit
importanttocorroborateitwithanargumentregardingtheabsenceofanyparalysingor
fatallydebilitatingconditionof‘economicscarcity’thatwouldprecludebetterredistribution
inEurope.WhatD&KaretellingmeisthatIshouldnothaveraisedthecorroborative
argumentregarding“economicscarcity,”consideringthat“economicscarcity”isa
conceptuala-prioriofscientificeconomicthinkingthatmustbepresupposedinallquestions
ofsocialdistribution.However,byproposingtheacceptanceof“economicscarcity”asana-
priorithatnecessarilyinformsallquestionsofredistribution,theyeffectivelyreduceittoan
emptyterm(anemptysignifier,ifyouwish)withnodeterminedsignificanceforanyspecific
questionofeconomicredistribution.If“economicscarcity”isalwaysaroundasaresultofa
presupposedconstellationofinfinitedesireandlimitedresources,thosewhoareseriously
concernedwithspecificredistributionquestionsmayaswellreplywithashrugofa
shoulder:Allright,weknowthatalready,butpleasejustallowusnowtogetonwith
lookingatthespecificsofrelativeabundanceandpressingneedinordertoseehowone
mightalleviatethehardshipandfrustrationthatinvariablyspawnpatternsofserioussocial
malaise(suchasreligiousradicalisation).
Torephrasethissomewhat:myargumentregardingtheconstructedstatusofall
notionsof“economicscarcity”wasanendeavourtogetitoutofthewaysoastofreeup
thequestionofeconomicredistribution.ButitwouldappearthatIshouldthankD&Kfor
doingthismuchmoreeffectivelythanIimaginedpossibleatthetime.Itseemsitwasall
alongmewhotookthequestionofeconomicscarcitymuchtooseriouslybyseekingto
deconstructit.ItisD&Kwhoreallyrenderthetermirrelevantbyturningtheassertionofits
prevalenceintoaninvariablyvalidpropositionandthereforeintoanon-proposition.So,
10
nowthatwehavethenon-issueofeconomicscarcitywellandtrulyoutofourway,letus
moveontotheeconomicredistributionquestionandtheordoliberalresponsetoit.
OrdoliberalismandSocialSecurityPoliticsLetmebeginthissectionbyreturningtotherestofthepassagefromD&K’sreactionwhich
wasalreadypartlyquotedabove:
IfVDWhadreadtheseoriginaltextsoratleastthecontributionsofscholarswithadeepunderstandingofGermanordoliberalism(suchasViktorVanberg),hewouldprobablyhavestartedquestioninghisownassumptionsabouttheordoliberalprogram.Theordoliberals,especiallymembersoftheFreiburgSchool,wereveryconsciousoftheneedtoincludeastrongsocialwelfareelementintheirprogram.Afterall,thereweremillionsofwarwidows,orphans,refugees,expelleesandpeoplewhohadbeenbombedoutwhocouldnotbeneglectedorexposedtotheharshwindsofacompetitivemarketeconomy.InhisGrundsätzederWirtschaftspolitik(1952),WalterEucken,themostprominentproponentoftheFreiburgSchool,acknowledgesexplicitlythestate’sroleinimplementingsocialpolicies.Hesubsumesthemundertheexpression“specialsocialpolicy”(SpezielleSozialpolitik),whichisintendedtoattenuatesocialmisfortuneandeconomictragediesthatcannotbebalancedthroughprivateinsuranceorindividualassets.
Toproceed,allowmetounderlinethatODHclearlyacknowledgesandcommends
thehermeneutictransformationofordoliberalthinkinginthepost-waryearsthatallowedit
toembracesocialpoliticalpoliciesthatwerenotpartofitsoriginalconceptualscheme.It
onlylamentsthewaythesepost-warordoliberalssubsequentlyappearedtohavelostthis
hermeneuticcapacitytorespondtonewhistoricalcircumstances.Pleaseconsideragainthe
followingpassages:
ThefunctionalsynthesisofProtestantordo-liberalconcernswithfairandvirtuouscompetition,ontheonehand,andCatholicsocialwelfareconcerns,ontheother,thatgaverisetoahighlyefficientsocialmarketeconomy(sozialeMarktwirtschaft)inpost-warGermany,nevertookrootinthesesouthernEuropeancountries(vanderWalt,2016:88).Inthisrespect,Germanpost-warordo-liberalismhadcertainlynotcompletelylostitshermeneuticcapacityforunderstandingitselfdifferentlyinthecourseoftime(acorehermeneuticcapacityaccordingtoGadamer,forwhomhumanunderstandingalwaysconsistsinunderstandingdifferently).Thefilteredordefaultordo-liberalismthatemergedfromthepoliticsofEuropeanmarketintegrationhasevidentlylostthiscapacityforrenewedcontextualself-understanding;hence,forinstance,itsblindexportationofausteritydemandstocountriesforwhichthesedemandsareill-suited(ibid.:92).
IshallreturntothelastthreelinesofthesecondpassagequotedherewhenIshift
thefocustothequestionofordoliberalismandEuropebelow.Sufficeitfornowtonote
11
againthewell-knowncompromisebetweenaProtestantconcernwithvirtuouscompetition
andindividualfreedom,ontheonehand,andaCatholicconcernwithsocialsecurity,onthe
other.ThiscompromisespawnedtheuniqueconceptofsozialeMarkwirtschaftinpost-war
Germany.ItisespeciallywelldiscussedinpublicationsofChristianJoerges(e.g.2010),to
whichmyunderstandingofthishistoryismuchindebted.Severalscholarsnevertheless
note,however,thatsocialsecuritypolicies,eventotheextentthattheywereintegrated
intoordoliberalthinkinginthepost-waryears,remainedaFremdkörper(foreignbody)in
ordoliberaleconomictheory.Mostoratleastmanytheoristsassociatedwiththetradition
continuedtoviewexpansivesocialsecurityconcernswithsuspicion(Lechevalier,2015:58).
IdonotthinkEucken’sworkcanbecompletelyexemptedinthisregard.His
GrundsätzederWirtschaftspolitik(FoundationsofPoliticalEconomy)repeatedlyattributes
problemsofsocialsecuritytomonopolyformationandthedistortionoffreecompetitionby
powerfulprivateactors,andpayslittleattentiontotheneedforamoreexpansivesocial
politics(Eucken,2004:13,124-126,314-318);hencealsohisverypoignantobservations
regardingtheneedforaneconomicconstitutionthatwouldsecurethefreecompetition
withoutwhichthefundamentalrightsprotectionsguaranteedbypoliticalconstitutions–
thatis,liberaldemocraticconstitutions–wouldoftenremainlittlemorethanformal
guaranteesthathardlyoffersubstantiveprotection(ibid.:48-53).Thereisindeedmuchto
besaidforandlearnedfromhisobservationsinthisregard,especiallyfromthepointof
viewofconstitutionaltheoristswhohavecometorecognisethehorizontaleffectof
fundamentalrights–theconstitutionalregulationoftheprivatesphere–asthekeyconcern
ofcontemporaryconstitutionallaw(see,e.g.,vanderWalt,2014).
Again,Eucken’sacuteconcernwithprivatepowerasthemainthreattoliberal
democracyistrulyinstructive.However,byandlargehistranslationofsocialsecurity
concernsintoaconcernwithadequateanti-trustorcompetitionlawisnotlikelytoconvince
theoristsofsocialdemocracy(orsocialdemocratsmoregenerally)thathewassufficiently
sensitivetothepersistenceofdestructivelevelsofsocialinequalityincontemporary
capitalisticsocieties.Hisrecognitionoftheneedforaspecialorexceptionalsocialpolitics
(SpezielleSozialpolitik)thatD&Kinvoke,onlyunderlinesthis.Perhapsoneshouldbe
relievedtoknowthatleadingordoliberaltheoristsacknowledgetheneedforsocialsecurity
measuresinthewakeofexceptional“economictragedies,”asD&Kputit.However,the
convictionamongcommittedsocialdemocratsthatsocialinequalityis,atbest,onlypartially
12
addressedbyadequatecompetitionlaw,willalwaysrenderthemdeeplyscepticalofEucken
andtheordoliberalapproachoutlinedhere.Onlyifoneispreparedtotakearatherblunt
Marxisthardlinethatconsiderscapitalismitselfassuchan‘economictragedy’–ahardline
withwhichfewsocialdemocratswouldbecomfortable–mightEucken’s“exceptionalsocial
politics”begintomeasureuptothevastdimensionsofsocialinsecuritythatamereresort
tofaircompetitionlawcannothopetoaddress.
Fromaregularsocialdemocraticperspective,however,theresorttorigorous
competitionlawforpurposesofaddressingallquestionsofsocialmalaisepivotsona
flagrantunderestimationoftheissuesathand.Thissocialdemocraticpointofviewwould
demandamuchmoreincisiveunderstandingofthenotionofan‘adequatelibertyto
compete’ifthisnotionweretobetakenasthekeytoalleconomicredistributionquestions.
Itwouldalsodemandamuchbroaderconceptionofcompetitionlawthanthatwhichis
currentinordoliberallegalandeconomictheory.Oneshoulddismisstheideathatanti-
socialmonopoliesaretheexclusivedomainofexcessivelypowerfulcompanies.Oneshould
begintothinkofthemonopolisingtendenciesentrenchedintheveryorganisationofcivil
societyinthebroadestsenseoftheword.Monopolisingtendenciesbeginwithdistributions
ofeducation,recreationandhousingfacilities.Itisthedistributionofallthesefacilitiesthat
excludesmassesofpeopleatbirthfromcompetingfreelywiththosewhohappenedtobe
bornontherightsideoftherailwayline.Wereordoliberalstoextendthefocusoftheir
Ordnungspolitiktothesesystemicoriginsofeconomicmonopolisation,theywouldbeginto
realisethatSozialpolitikisnotspeziellePolitik,butanongoingandfundamentalconcern
withthesustenanceofadequatelevelsofsocialequalityineverywalkoflife.
OrdoliberalismandEuropeD&Kwrite:
ThesovereignFrenchgovernment(thatwouldcertainlyopposeVDW’simplicitclaimofbeinginfluencedbyanordoliberalagendasetbytheGermans)decidedpriortothefinancialcrisisnottosupportthe[banlieues]sufficiently.Instead,itchose,forexample,nottotaxtherich(whichisinlinewithVDW)aswellastospendresourcespreferablyonalarge,Bismarckian-stylewelfarestateknowntoperpetuatesocialstratification,withtheinhabitantsofthecitéscertainlybeingonverylowstrata.
Whenonereadsthispassage,onehasreasontowonderwithsomedismaywhether
D&KhavebeentakinganynoticeofthepressingpoliticalproblemsthatplaguedFrancein
13
recentyears.Hadtheydoneso,theywouldperhapsnothavetalkedsogliblyabouta
“sovereignFrenchgovernment…thatwouldcertainlyopposeVDW’sclaimofbeing
influencedbyanordoliberalagendasetbyGermans.”Nooneinhisorherrightmindwould
thinkofthecurrentFrenchgovernmentas“influencedbyanordoliberalagendasetby
Germans,”andIsurelyhavenotsuggestedanythingofthekind.Whateveryonewhoknows
alittleaboutcurrentFrenchpoliticsunderstandswell,however,isthatsuccessiveFrench
governmentshavebeenstrugglingtoescapefromanEU-imposedausteritypoliticsthat
neitherconvincednor“influenced”them.6Thisisoneofthemainreasonswhyanti-EU
politicsissoprominentinFrance,bothonthefarrightandonthefarleft.Thisisthereason
whytheworkers’unionsinFrancearesoEuro-sceptic.Thisisalsothemainnarrativebehind
thedismalfailureofFrançoisHollande’scentre-leftgovernmentinrecentyears.Amain
pillarofHollande’selectioncampaignwastonegotiatetherelaxationofEUausterity
measureswiththeleadersofEUMemberStatessuchasGermanyandtheNetherlands,who
wereinsistingonthesemeasures.Hefailedandhisgovernmentfounderedeversince.7
D&K’sobservationregardingFrance’s“large,Bismarckian-stylewelfarestateknown
toperpetuatesocialstratification,”quotedabove,certainlymeritsfurtherreflection.There
isabroadperceptioncurrentinFrancethatFrance’sheavilycentralisedsocialandpolitical
structuresareinneedofreform.TheastoundingelectionofEmmanuelMacronasthe
eighthPresidentoftheFifthRepublicisinlargepartduetohisannouncedwillingnessto
bringaboutthesereforms.Onecanleaveasidethequestionwhetheronenowhasacaseat
handofapossiblefutureFrenchleaderwhois“influencedbyanordoliberalagendasetby
Germans.”Iwillaskadifferentoneinstead:SupposeFrancewouldwanttopersistinthe
yearstocomewitholdgovernmentaltraditions–callthemColbertism,callthemdirigisme,
onecanevencallthemBismarckianwereonetoforgetthatthesetraditionswerearoundin
FrancelongbeforeBismarck8–thatformanyreasonsdonotcomplywithordoliberal
principlesofgovernment.Whatwouldhappenthen?
6Theso-calledMerkozyyearscouldbeanexceptioninthisregard(e.g.Lechevalier,2015:74).7ThosewhohavenotbeenfollowingthesedevelopmentsinrecentyearswillfindasoberingsummaryinSergeHalimi(2017:1,16,17).8ThesuggestionhereisnotthatBismarckianmodesofcentralisedsocialwelfaregovernment,Colbertismanddirigismearethesameinallrespects,buttheyarecertainlycomparablewithregardtothecentralisedstatismcommontothemall.
14
Forthesestate-centredtraditionsofgovernmenttobecomeremotelyassuccessful
astheywereinthe“thirtygloriousyears”after1945,futureFrenchgovernmentswould
havetobeunshackledfromtheespeciallyGerman-drivenausteritydemandsthattheEUis
currentlyimposingonFrance.9ThesamewouldbethecaseifFrancewantedtoreform
thesetraditionsinawaythatwouldnotimplyawholesaleforfeitureofitsown
governmentaltraditions.Isthereanychancethatapoliticallyandculturallymore
heterogeneousandhospitableEUmayonedaycometoacceptandaccommodatethis
“otherFrance”orthis“differentFrance”(nottomentionapossibleotheranddifferent
Greece,etc.)?OraretheoptionsEuropeisfacingreducedtoeitherFrancebecoming
anotherGermanyandtheFrenchgoodGermans,ontheonehand,ortheEUfallingapart,
ontheother?IstheunderlyingmessageherereallythatthisGermanwayistheonlyway?
MustEuropereallybecomeanenlargedGermany?Judgingbythefirstsignssentoutbythe
determinedyoungMacron,Europemaywellneedtoplotadifferentcourseintheyearsto
come.10
AusteritynotanOrdoliberalthought?D&KmaywishtorespondtoallthistalkofEU-imposedordoliberalausteritydemandson
Franceasfundamentallymiscued,consideringthattherootsoftheausteritythinkingthat
havetakentheworldeconomyhostagetowardstheendofthetwentiethcenturydonot
haveordoliberalorigins.Thisisclearlytheirsuggestionwhentheywrite:
Theideasconcerningausterityactuallyoriginatedinthe1980sinThatcher’sBritainandReagan’sAmerica,wheretheconceptofaminimalstate,propagatedbylibertarianeconomistslikeFriedrichAugustvonHayek,MiltonFriedmanandMurrayRothbard,receivedmuchattention.Fromthere,theirideasslowlyspilledoverintothestatesoftheEuropeancontinent.Inotherwords,therecipesthatarebeingappliedinEurope(includingCatholicPoland),butalsointheUStodayarenotordoliberal,butlibertarianorneoliberal.Thedistinctionbetweentheseliberalschoolsofthoughtismuchmorecomplexthanthinkingofordoliberalismas‘neoliberalismwithrules.’Attheheartofthedistinctionliestheroleofthestate.ItseemsthatVDWinterestinglychosenottodigdeeperintothesecrucialdifferences,ashisselectionofreferencesindicates(seeendnote15).
The“endnote15”towhichtheyreferconcernsmyreferencestoaconsiderablelist
ofscholarswhohavemadethemistakeofnothavingdugdeeperintothecrucial
9SeeMacron(2016:79)foraclearaffirmationoftheneedforstateinvestmentintheeconomy.Hismaineconomicadvisor,JeanPisani-Ferry,isnotanordoliberal,butamoderateKeynesian(seeSchubert,2017).10Macronisindeedsendingoutstrongsignalsthatheintendstohonourthesetraditions(2016:48).
15
differencesbetweenordoliberalism,neoliberalismandlibertarianism.Hadallthesescholars
dugdeeperintothesedifferences,D&Ksuggest,theywouldnothaveattributedausterity
politicstoordoliberalism,buttotherealculprits,namely,neoliberalismandlibertarianism.
Andofcourse,thenIwouldalsonothavebeenledastrayregardingthesecrucial
differences.
Now,consideringthispredicamentofsomanyscholarsouttherebeingsoill
informedaboutthecrucialdifferencesbetweenordoliberalism,neoliberalismand
libertarianismandabouttherealoriginsofausterityeconomics,itwouldseemtomethat
theremaywellbearealincentiveforordoliberalsthemselvestoreallyclearupthis
confusion,especiallyiftheyfeeluncomfortablewithbeingassociatedwiththeausterity
politicsthattheEUisimposingonitsMemberStates.Whydon’tthose“scholarswitha
deepunderstandingofGermanordoliberalism(suchasViktorVanberg)”publishan
unambiguousstatementthatordoliberalismshouldnotbeassociatedwiththeausterity
economicsthatneoliberalismandlibertarianismhavebeenimposingontheworldinrecent
years.Consideringtheirdeepunderstandingofthemovementandtheirintimatefamiliarity
withitskeytexts–andconsideringthattheywillundoubtedlyberecognisedas
authoritativespokesmenforthetradition–theyareclearlyinthebestpositiontoclearup
thispervasivemisunderstandingthatisshared,oneshouldnote,byJürgenHabermas.11
Suchacategoricalclarificationwillalsogivethemtheopportunitytodissociatethemselves
fromtheSchäublesofthisworld,whomustalsohavegottentheirausterityideas–seethe
epigraphabove–fromneoliberalsandlibertariansandnotfromthem.Andonecanalso
stronglyrecommendthattheymakeuseofthesameopportunitytodenouncethe
unforgivingattitudesoftheGermangovernmentandtheGermanmediaintheongoing
Greekcrisis.Wereprominentordoliberalscholarswhocanspeakauthoritativelyonbehalf
oftheFreiburgSchooltodothis,theymightwellbesurprisedhowreadythescholars
mentionedinmyendnote15willbetorevisetheirpositions.Untilthishappens,however,
theymustexpectthatthoseofuswhoaresupposedlyunabletodiscernthesubtle
differencesanddistinctionstowhichD&Kallude,willcontinuetoassociateordoliberalism
withausterityforreasonsthatlookadequatelyplausibletous.
11 See Habermas (2016): “Und da sich die Bundesregierung seit 2010 über den Europäischen Rat mit denordoliberalenVorstellungenihrerSparpolitikgegenFrankreichunddieSüdeuropäerdurchsetzt[...]”
16
Thereasonthatthisassociationlooksadequatelyplausibletomeconcernsthevery
roleofthestatetowhichD&Kallude.Oneiswellawarethatonecandistinguish
ordoliberalismfromclassicalliberalismonthebasisoftheformer’sconvictionregardingthe
activerolethestatemustplayinsustainingatrulyliberalmarketandpreventingitfrom
cartelformationsthatdistortfreecompetition.Classicalliberalismisclearlydifferentinthis
regard,consideringitsmuchcloseradherencetolaissez-faireprinciples.Takingone’skey
fromanexpressionofAlexanderRüstow,onemaywelldistinguishthedeismofclassical
liberalism,andthedeontologyoftheordoliberals(VanderWalt,2014:246-252).Andtothe
extentthatneoliberalismandlibertarianismarebothclosertothedeismofclassical
liberalism,theysurelydonotfitwellintothedeontologicalapproachoftheordoliberals.
Butthisiswheretheimportantdifferencebetweenthemends,asfarasIunderstandthe
matter.Fortherest,theordoliberalswouldseemtobeasapprehensiveofgovernmental
practicesthatthreatenpricestabilityandundistortedcompetitionasanyotherbranchof
“minimalstate”liberalismmaybe.Theinfusionofmoneyintoaneconomythroughthe
procurationofeitherstateorprivatedebtthatisnotwarrantedbyequivalentlevelsof
savings,wouldappeartobekeyamongtheseobjectionablepracticesaccordingtothem.
ThisishowIand,Ibelieve,manyotherscholarsunderstandthematter.Andifwearejust
wronginthisregard,Iamsurewewouldalljustbeverygratefultobecorrectedbyscholars
witha“deep[er]understanding”oftheordoliberaltradition.12
OrdoliberalismandProtestantismAssumingthatausteritypoliticsreflectsapredominantlyProtestantapproachtomonetary
stability,istheunderlyingmessageoftheordoliberalsreallythatthisProtestantwayisthe
onlyway?D&Kwillsurelyobjectvociferouslytothiswayofputtingthequestion.They
objecttomyassociationofordoliberalismwithProtestantism.However,theythemselves
12Onemaybehardpressedtofindexpressreferencestonotionsof‘austerity’inordoliberaltexts,Iassume,buttheprinciplesofmonetarypoliticsthatEuckenelaboratesinGrundsätzederWirtschaftspolitik(thesafeguardingofthepricemechanismasthefoundationalprincipleofeconomicgovernment[2004:255];theresultingneedtoavoidmonetaryinstabilityasfaraspossible,irrespectiveofquestionsregardingthejusticeofthesystem[ibid.:257];theexplanationofmonetaryinstabilitywithreferencetothecreationofmoneybybanks[throughcreditprovisionthatisnotcorroboratedbysavings],andtheneedtoavoidthis[ibid.:258];theneedtosustainmonetarystabilitywithacurrencyconstitution[Währungsverfassung]thatoperatesautomaticallywithoutinterferencefromcentralbanksorgovernmentauthorities[ibid.:257];andthedismissalofKeynesian[ibid.:286]orotherformsofKonjunkturpolitik(ibid.:308–312))wouldneverthelessseemtolaydowntheblueprintforamonetarypoliticsthatcanforallpracticalpurposesbeconsidered‘austere’(orattheveryleasthavethepotentialtodeliverconsistentlyaustereoutcomes).
17
unabashedlyassociatethecoreideasofearlyordoliberalthinkingwithaProtestantismthat
onlylaterbecame“enriched”(!)witha“Catholicsocialperspective.”Theywrite:
RegardingtheconnectionbetweenordoliberalismandProtestantism,VDW’sargumentremainsdubiousaswell…[W]hilemanyearlyscholarsfromFreiburgwereundoubtedlyinfluencedbyProtestantism,theyareonlyonefractionwithinGermanordoliberalism.EspeciallyafterLudwigErhardandAlfredMüller-ArmackenrichedtheideasfromFreiburgwithaCatholicsocialperspectivetoformthesocialmarketeconomy,thesupposeddominanceofProtestantthinkinginordoliberalismthatcontinuesuntiltodayisdoubtful.
ThisobservationthatLudwigErhardandAlfredMüller-Armack–bothProtestants,
oneshouldnote13–enrichedtheideasfromFreiburgwitha“Catholicsocialperspective”
evidentlymakestwointerestingconcessions:1)TheessentialFreiburgthinkingwas
Protestantinitsorientation.2)Inthepost-waryears,thisessentiallyProtestantthinkingof
theFreiburgSchoolwasenrichedbyasocialperspectivethatwasessentiallyofCatholic
origin.Now,onereallywonderswhatexactlyD&Kfindsodubiousaboutthelinkbetween
ordoliberalismandProtestantismthatIinvokeinmyNPinterventioniftheyarepreparedto
basicallyconcedethepointthemselves,astheydohere.Onealsomarvelsathowprepared
theyaretoconcedeinthesamebreaththatthesocialperspectivethatwentintothesocial
marketeconomycannotbeattributedtothecoreideasaroundwhichthethinkingofthe
FreiburgSchooldeveloped,buthadtobeimportedlaterfromCatholicbackgrounds.Little
moreneedtobeaddedinresponsehere,apartfromunderlininganumberofpointstoclear
uptheconfusionthatD&Karecreatingwiththeseconcessions.
Firstly,theCatholicinfluenceontheordoliberalsduringthepost-waryearsiswell
knownandsurelynotdeniedorignoredinmyODHintervention(2016:88).Secondly,
anyonewhowouldliketochallengemyviewregardingthenonethelesscloseoreven
essentiallinkbetweenProtestantismandordoliberalismfirmly,shouldperhapsalso
considerthesourcesonwhichIrelyandbereadytochallengethesesourcesaswell.Inthis
respect,IwouldsincerelyliketohearwhetherD&KwouldliketochallengePhilipManow’s
argumentsregardingdieprotestantischeTiefengrammatikdesOrdoliberalismus,andifso,
onwhatgroundstheywoulddoso.Thelackofcounter-argumentthatD&Kdisplayhere
13ForMüller-Armack,seeJosefHien’sreferenceinthisissuetoDieterHaselbach’sobservationthatMüller-Armack’s“Protestantconfessionwasnotwithoutimpactonhisscientificwork.”AsforErhard,hehadaCatholicfatherandaProtestantmother,butErhardandhissiblingswereallbaptisedasProtestants.SeeLudwigErhardZentrum(2017).
18
becomesglaringlyconspicuouswhenoneconsidersthemeticulouswayinwhichManow
unpacksboththehistoricalanddogmaticlinksbetweenordoliberalismandProtestantism.
Beitasitmay,noneoftheaboveobservationsinanelysuggestthattherenever
wereProtestantswithstrongsocialsensibilitiesorCatholicswithstrongindividualisticand
competition-orientedsensibilities,bothinGermanyandinFrance(aswellaselsewhere).
Surely,admirersandfollowersofWalterEucken,whosetheoriesincorporatedsomuch
fromMaxWeber’sconcernwithIdealtypen,couldhavebeenexpectedtorespondalittle
morediscerninglytothispartofmyODHintervention.
“AHuntington-TypeClash”ofCivilisations?D&KconcludetheirresponsetomyODHinterventionwiththispassage:
WeconcludewithsomeremarksonVDW’svisionofjihadistterrorismresultingfromaHuntington-typeclashof(de-hermeneuticised)religionsorquasi-religions.Whilewemainlyaccusetheauthorofasuperficial(de-hermeneutic!)readingofordoliberalismandtheFreiburgSchoolofeconomics,weobservethesameproblemwiththeideaofde-hermeneuticisedIslam.VDW’spositionissomewhatreminiscentofGillesKepelinhisdebatewithOlivierRoyonwhetherthecurrentthreatsposedbyterrorismresultfromaradicalisationofIslamorfromanIslamicisationofradicalism(e.g.NewYorkTimes,2016).14Combinedwithde-hermeneuticisation,thiswouldentailIslam–somewhatmechanically–becoming“morefundamentalist(…)andlessinterpretive”(p.80);theargumentovertheradicalisationofIslamthereforebecomesoversimplified,astheprocessofradicalisationisnotexplained.Roy,ontheotherhand,arguesmorepsychologicallyandplacesgreateremphasisonindividualbehaviour.Followinghislineofreasoning,aspecificcombinationofindividualtraitsandenvironmentalinfluencescausesradicalisation.Thisisnotsimplemechanics,butcanbetracedbacktoconcretecauses.Inaddition,Royconsiderstheterrorists’religiousbeliefsinthecontextofajihadismthatisstrictlymarginaltoIslam.
ThesamequestionthatIhaveposedabovewithreferencetoManowmustagainbe
posedhere.DoD&KreallywishtotakeissuewithNavidKermani’sintimateknowledgeof
themoderndevelopmentoftheIslamreligiononwhichIrelyinODH?Ifso,whataretheir
arguments?TheirsparsereferencetotheKepel–Roydebatedoesnotseemtoofferany
clearlineofcontentionthatsignificantlychallengestheviewsItookfromKermani.Itis
noteworthythatCharlotteHeath-Kelly,inherresponsetoODH,towhichIturnlaterbelow,
reliesonKepelandBernardLewisforanexpressconfirmationofthemodernisationthesis
14Forapopularaccountofthedebate,seeNewYorkTimes(2016).Forintroductionstotheworksofeachscholar,seeRoy(2004)andKepel(2006).
19
thatIgleanedfromKermani’swritings.D&K,withlittleargumentationtobackthemup,
simplysuggestRoy’sviewsshouldbegivenpreferencehere.
IfRoyisright,andthereareindeedgoodreasonstohonourhisarguments,VDW’sclashofreligionsstoryisindeedinaccuratefrombothends.
OneshouldnotethatthisisD&K’sclosingparagraphandsentence.Theysimply
leavethesceneoftheargumentwiththiscavalierfinalstatement.Whatmaybetheir
consideredreasonsfordoingso?WhatarethegoodreasonsforassumingRoy,andRoy
alone,isrighthere,andKermaniandKepel(andLewis,andallotherswhodisagreewith
Roy)aresimplywrong?OnwhatexpertiseorimmersedreadingareD&Krelyingfortheir
astoundinglyauthoritativeassessmentoftherelativemeritsoftheseauthorsandthestate
ofthedebatebetweenthem?Wouldanyonewhoisreallyimmersedinthisdebatecometo
suchaquickandfacileconclusion?Butmanymorequestionsaboundhere:Whydothey
imputea“clashofreligions”storytoODHwhenthereisnottheslightestevidenceofany
focusedintentiontoputforwardsuchastoryinit?WhyisitthatD&Kcannotseethatthe
thesisregardingthemodernradicalisationofIslamplaysalmostnoroleinmyODH
argumentsapartfromfurnishingitwiththeconceptwithwhichIproceedtoanalyse
WesternorEuropeanframesofmind?15Whycan’ttheyseethatthewholelineofargument
inODH(regardingthesocio-economicdistressandfrustrationthatcontributetoreligious
radicalisation)resonatesinmanyrespectsasmuchwiththepsychological“Islamicisationof
Radicalism”argumentthattheyattributetoRoyasitdoeswiththebroadersemantic
“radicalisationofIslam”argumentattributabletoKepel(andothers)?
Frankly,Icannotseewhyoneshouldsubscribeexclusivelytoeitheroftheselinesof
arguments,andsuspect(asanon-expertinthisspecificdebate,nodoubt,butasasocial
sciencescholarwithmanyyearsofexperienceofthiskindofdebate)thatmanyexpertsin
thefieldwouldprobablywanttoconsiderbothargumentsworthyofconsiderationfor
purposesofunderstandingacomplexdevelopmentwithmultipleelementsandfacets.But
again,itissimplyastoundinghowD&K,whodonotcountasexpertsinthefield,asfarasI
candiscern,simplybegintopromoteoneofthesecompetingargumentsforpurposesof
15Afterhavingdedicatingroughlytwoparagraphs(outoftwenty-fivepages)tointroducingtheconcept,Iwrote:“Itis,however,notwiththede-hermeneuticisationofIslamicculturesthatIwishtotakeissueinwhatfollows.Iwouldliketolook,instead,atthevastandincreasingdehermeneuticisationthathastakenrootinEuropeansocieties.”
20
endingtheirresponsewithaloudpartingshot.16Itisbesttosayaslittleaspossibleabout
thiskindofscholarship.Butoneshouldnote–perhapsforthebenefitofstudentsand
futurescholars–thesadlackofscholarlycuriosityandresponsibilitythatallowsthemso
easilytoforegocarefulengagementandargumentation.Ileaveittothereaderstoconsider
thiswellandjudgeitforthemselves,butD&Ksurelydonotleavemewiththeimpression
thattheyhaveengagedwiththeRoy-Kepeldebateforthesakeofgettingtothebottomof
itandarticulatingacarefullyconsideredopinionaboutit.Theimpressionwithwhichthey
leavemeisthattheysimplydraggedinthedebatebyitscoattailsforthesakeofending
theirpiecewithsomesortofrhetoricalcrescendo.Theysurelydonotleavemewiththe
impressionthattheyarestillguidedbyscholarlycuriosityandthewishtoofferacarefuland
responsiblepointofview.
WhenIlookbackatalltheaspectsoftheirresponsetomyODHinterventionwith
whichItookissueabove,itstrikesmethatalackofarealconcernwithcurious,carefuland
responsiblescholarshipburdensalmosteverylineofwhattheyhavewritteninreactionto
myODHintervention.Iusetheword“reaction”hereinordertoavoidtheword“response”
now.Iamleftwiththeimpressionthattheyhavenotarguedwithmeorrespondedtome.
Mysenseisthattheyhavesentmeareactiondevoidofbotharesponseandthe
responsibilitythatconditionsaresponse.AndthisleadsmetothefinalpointthatIwishto
makewithregardtoD&K’sreactiontomyODHintervention.Theyendupportraying
ordoliberalthinkingasdevoidofresponsibility.Imaynothavethe“deepunderstanding”of
ordoliberalthinkingthatD&Kexpectfromtheirinterlocutors,butIhavereadenoughof
Eucken’sworkandenoughaboutittoknowthathewasaformidablycourageousand
responsiblepersonandscholar.Onemaywanttodifferwithhimonmanypoints,buthis
workcannotbeconsidered“irresponsible.”AndthisissadlyexactlywhatD&Kendupdoing
intheirreactiontomyODHintervention.Theyportraytheordoliberaltraditionasaschool
ofthoughtwithnosenseofhistoricalresponsibility,asIwillshowinwhatfollows.
OrdoliberalismIsNotResponsible…
16IfD&Ktookrecoursetotheconditionalmodeofthephrase“IfRoyisright”tosuggesttheyarenottakingsideshere,asIcontend,theywouldsurelybestrippingthiswholeconcludingparagraphoftheonlybitofcontrivedsubstance–Roy’sargumentand“thegoodreasonsforhonouringit”–onwhichithangs.
21
“OrdoliberalismIsNotResponsibleforJihadistTerrorisminEurope,”readsthetitleofD&K’s
replytomyODHintervention.Theexplanationforthistitlewouldseemtorestonthe
denialofachainofcausallinksbetweenjihadterrorismandordoliberalismthatthey
attributetomyODHintervention.Thefollowingpassagesputforwardtheiressential
contentionsinthisregard:
WestronglydoubtthatthesimplemechanicsofVDW’sargumentsupporttheassertionthat–withorwithoutaprocessofde-hermeneuticisation–Protestantethicsledtoordoliberalism,whichresultedinanimposedausterityinFranceandultimatelyjihadistterrorism.Thiscausalchainisnotonlyhighlyquestionable,butalsoitsunderlyingassumptionsare,infact,inaccurate.VDWassertsthatalackofresources(oratleasttheprevailingbeliefin“economicscarcity”)hassubstantiallycontributedtothesocialunrestinMolenbeek,Belgium,orthecitésaroundParis.Theresultingsocioeconomicgrievancesallegedlyspawnedterrorism.Whilethisclaimmaypossiblyhavesomemerit,thoughthemono-causalityofitisatleastquestionable,VDWfalselyaccusesordoliberaleconomictheoryofade-politicisation(or,howheputsit,de-hermeneuticisation)ofthenotionofresourcescarcity.
Anyhonestattempttocometogripswiththesepassageswouldsurelywanttoask
whethertheirauthorsconsidertheirreadingofmyODHinterventionanexpressionofgood
faithandasincereintentiontoengagewiththeessentialthoughtsthattheintervention
putsforward.HaveD&Kaskedthemselvesforamomentwhetheranyonewithareasonably
developedsenseofwhatcountsasagoodsocialtheoreticallineofargumentwouldcome
upwiththesyllogisticsequence“Protestantethicsledtoordoliberalism;ordoliberalism
resultedinimposedausterity;austerityresultedinjihadism;Protestantethicsand
ordoliberalismthuscausedjihadism”?
Or,toputthequestiondifferently,doD&Kreallyconsideritgoodscholarlypractice
toreduceanargumenttoasimplisticcaricatureforpurposesofconsideringthemselves
unchallengedbyit,andsimplynotaddressedbyit?Torephrasethequestiononemore
timesoastobringintoplaytheessentialpointthatIwishtomakehere:Isitasignofeither
scholarlyorsocialresponsibility–ofowninguptoone’sresponsibility–whenonereduces
thequestionofresponsibilitytoanarrowconsiderationofwhetheronecanbeidentifiedas
anexclusiveanddirectcauseinamechanistic“mono-causal”sequenceofconsequences?
Oristheinclinationtoconsiderresponsibilityinthesetermsnotindeedthesignofthewish
toabsolveoneselffromresponsibilityasfaraspossible,thatis,fromallbutthemostdirect
formsofcausalinvolvement.IfthisiswhatisgoingoninD&K’sreactiontomyODH
22
intervention,doestheretort“Ordoliberalismisnotresponsible…”notindeedamounttoa
confirmationofirresponsibility?Wouldthesignofsocialresponsibilityinatimeofcrisis–
thecrisisofreligiousradicalisationamongyoungpeoplethatleadstobarbarousactsof
jihadismincluded–notmuchratherbereflectedinthewillingnesstoconsiderthemany
waysinwhichexistingmodesofthinkinganddoing,includingone’sown,maybe
contributingtothecrisisinwaysthatarenotunambiguouslyevident?
IshallleaveittothereadertodecidewhetherD&K’sportrayalofmyargumentsis
fairandaccurate.Formypart,Icannotseewhyanyonewithasoundmindwouldwantto
arguethatProtestantismledtoordoliberalism,ordoliberalismresultedinausterity,and
austeritycausedjihadism.WhatIcanimaginesomeonearguing,however,andwhatI
believeIarguedoratleastendeavouredtoargue,issomethingtothefollowingeffect:
Ordoliberalism’sconsiderationofasystemoffairandvirtuouscompetitionasthemost
crucialconcernofstatepoliticscanbetracedtotheProtestantethicsofhardworkand
frugalitythatMaxWeberalreadyidentifiedaskeytotheriseofmoderncapitalism.Tothe
extentthatthetraditionofordoliberalthinkingbyandlargeconsidersitssocial
responsibilityrestrictedtothesustenanceoffairandvirtuouscompetition,itsurelydoes
notaddressorofferameaningfulresponsetoquestionsregardingextensiveeconomic
redistributionthatmightfacilitatetheincisiveanddeepsocialreconstructionneededfor
improvingtheconditionsofsocialmalaisethatevidentlypromptradicalanti-socialconduct
suchasreligiousextremismandreligiouslyinspiredterrorism.Sofar,thereisnomentionin
thislineofargumentof,oranyallusionto,acausalconnection–letalonethe“mono-
causal”connectionthatD&Kimputetome17–betweenordoliberalismandthesocial
conditionsthatareconducivetoanti-socialbehaviour.Atstakeismerelyanobservation
regardingordoliberalism’sfailuretoofferameaningfulresponsetotheseconditions(and
indeedthenanobservationregardingafailuretorespondandafailuretotake
responsibility).
Onlythen–havingobservedthisordoliberalfailuretorespond–doesmyargument
tightenitsscrewsforpurposesofinvokinganordoliberal“legacy.”Thelegacyinvokedhere,
oneshouldnoteclearly,isneverthelessnotjihadterrorism,but“Europe’sstatesof
17D&Kwrite:“Theresultingsocioeconomicgrievancesallegedlyspawnedterrorism.Whilethisclaimmaypossiblyhavesomemerit,thoughthemono-causalityofitisatleastquestionable…”
23
emergency.”Andthegistofthispartoftheargumentisthis:Ifoneactivelyandeffectively
promotes–oratleastpassivelybutconspicuouslycondones,therebycontributing
effectivelytotheentrenchingof–anausteritypoliticsthatinhibitsincisive,timelyand
ongoingameliorativeresponsestoseriousconditionsofsocialmalaise,onecertainlyalso
contributesveryeffectivelytotheneedforurgentoremergencyresponseswhenthe
situationgetsoutofhand.Underthesecircumstances,itbecomesaccurateandaptto
consideranensuingstateofemergencya“legacy.”Again,Iwishtoleaveittothereaderto
judge,butIpersonallyandhonestlydonotthinkthereisanythinginthisargumentthat
suggestsordoliberalismisthecause,letalonethe“mono-cause,”ofjihadterrorism.Itrusta
briefrecollectionofthefollowingpassagefromODHcanserveasahelpfulstartingpointfor
thereassessmentthatIconsidernecessaryhere:
Theperspectiveelaboratedinthisarticlecertainlyrequiresawillingnessfromreadersandinterlocutorstoreconsiderdominantviewsoflookingattheproblemorcrisisthatoneisfacinghere.ThesuggestionthatoneoftherootsofthecurrentwaveofjihadterrorinEuropecanbetracedtoaEuropeanfundamentalismthatisasextremeastheIslamicfundamentalismbehindtheterrorism,maywellcomeacrossascounter-intuitiveandevenscandaloustosomereaders….ThisperspectiveisneverthelessputforwardhereforthesakeofopeningupotherwaysofthinkingaboutthecrisisEuropeisfacingtoday.Itshouldalsobestressedthattheendeavourtoopenupadifferentperspectivehereisnotatallaccompaniedbytheclaimthatitoffersacomprehensiveorconclusivesolutiontothecrisisathand.Itisjustafirststeptowardsthinkingdifferentlyaboutthiscrisis.18
Againstthebackgroundofthispassage,butalsoinviewofthewayinwhichI
structuredmyargumentsinODH,Isincerelybelievetheimputationofamonocausal
argumenttomyODHinterventionrestsonaconstructionofsomeonewhoprefersnotto
takeresponsibilityundercircumstancesinwhichallresponsiblepersonsandparties
involvedwoulddoso,andcandoso,withouthavingtoadmitblame,letaloneexclusive
blame.Ifthisisindeedthepreferenceofordoliberals,ordoliberalsareindeed“not
responsible,”asD&Ksuggest.Andthisleavesonetopondertheworryingpossibilitythat
Europeanpoliticsmaybedeeplyinfluencedbyawayofthinkingthatisquiteevidently
unconcernedbyitsownirresponsibility,awayofthinking,moreover,thatwouldevidently
nolongerbeworthyofWalterEucken’sformidablelegacy.
ConstructiveInvitationstoThinkFurther
18Theemphasison“oneoftheroots”isaddedhere.
24
TheobservationsregardinganordoliberallackofresponsibilitywithwhichSectionIends
abovecanallbetracedtothedisciplinaryrefusaltothinkthatIinvokeearlierinthesection.
WhenIturnnowtowhatIdeemtheconstructiveinvitationstothinkfurthersenttomeby
JosefHien,CharlotteHeath-Kelly,Emmanuel-PierreGuittet,FilipedosReisandBenKamis,I
wouldlikewiseliketolinktheseinvitationstothinkfurthertoawillingnesstotake
responsibilityandtoalertEuropeanpoliticstosomeofitsmostworryingfeatures.Iwill
addresseachoftheseinvitationsindividuallyinthissection.
Hien,ResurgentGermanOrdoliberalism&Europe’sIdeationalMonoculturesIthankJosefHienforsubstantiatingthekeyargumentsregardingordoliberalisminEurope
advancedinmyODHinterventionandfordoingsowithreferencetoarichbackgroundof
knowledgeandreadingthatIcanonlyadmireandfromwhichIstandtolearnmuchstill.I
wishtopauseheretoreflectonlyonthethreeelementsofhisresponsefromwhichIhave
alreadylearnedmuchandwhichIalsodeemworthyofmuchfurtherthoughtandreflection
thanthatwhichisimmediatelypossibleinwhatfollows.Thefirstpointconcernsmyfailure
tonotethespecificcontextoftheresurgenceofordoliberalisminGermanysincethe1980s,
andtheimpressionIcreatethatordoliberalismhascontinuouslydominatedGerman
economicandpoliticalthinkinginthewakeofWorldWarII.Thesecondconcernstheasyet
unconfirmedstatusofthehypothesisthatordoliberalismspreadfromGermanytoEurope
throughtheEuropeanUnionTreaties.Andthethirdpertainstomyfailuretonotetheother
fundamentalismsandideationalmonoculturesspawnedbytheresurgenceofordoliberalism
inGermanyandEuropesincethe1980s.
MyODHinterventionhasindeednotbeenattentivetothefactthatordoliberalism
hasnotjustalwaysbeenaroundinGermany,butalsoenjoyedaveryspecificresurgence
sincethe1980s.ThefirstresponsetoHien’sobservationsinthisregardshouldbetojust
admittoalackofadequateknowledgeofthesespecificsofthehistoryofordoliberal
thinkinginpost-warGermany.Iassumedthattheprominenceofordoliberalthinkinginthe
developmentofGermany’ssocialmarketeconomyduringtheyearsafterthewaralso
amountedtoarelativelydominantpositionforitinGermanpoliticalthinkingthroughout
thisperiodandamgratefulforHien’scorrectioninthisregard.Ialsofindthedevelopments
thatheexploresandputsforwardaspossiblereasonsfortheresurgenceofordoliberal
25
thinkingsincethe1980sandespeciallyinthe1990s–theeconomicproblemsinthewakeof
Germany’sre-unification,thechangesthatthere-unificationcausedintheelectoral
landscape,andthemassiveprivatizationofstate-ownedcompanies,landandhousingstock
–cogent.Theyallalsooffersignificantfoodforthought.Oneofthefirstpromptsforfurther
reflectiononthishistorythatcomestomindinthisregard,surelyconcernsthequestion
whetherthefutureofEuropeandEuropeanintegrationshouldbeheldhostagebythe
uniqueexigenciesoftheGermanre-unification.
Thisofcoursealreadyleadsonetothequestionoftheunconfirmedstatusofany
contentionthatordoliberalisminfiltratedtherestofEurope,oratleasttheEU,throughits
incorporationintheTreatiesoftheEU,notablytheMaastrichtTreaty,aswellasthrough
theStabilityandGrowthPactof1998/9andtheFiscalCompactof2012.Iamhappyto
accept,asHiensuggests,thatthecontroversyaroundtheMaastrichtTreatyisstill
unresolvedasaresultoftheembargooncrucialarchivematerial.Iamalsohappytoaccept,
ashesuggestsfurther,thattheinfluentialideasandlinesofthoughtthatledtoabroad
acceptanceofthegovernmentalprinciplesincorporatedintheStabilityandGrowthPact
andtheFiscalCompactamongEUMemberStatesmaywellhaveincludedneoliberal
convictionsthattookrootintheseMemberStatesindependentlyofanyGermanor
ordoliberalinfluence.IneverthelesswishtoofferinresponsehereanArendtianregardfor
thewayperceptionsandappearancescountinpolitics(vanderWalt,2012).Theperception
thatordoliberalprinciplesandaGermanhardlineonausterityeconomicsareentrenchedin
theEUtreatiesandotherEUinstruments,andviathisentrenchmentimposedontherestof
theEU,hasbecomesopervasive–aquicklookattherelevantliteratureandjournalism
confirmsthisveryreadily19–thatithasbecomeapoliticalrealitythatcannolongerbe
dismissedasamyth.Thispoliticalrealityisfurthercorroboratedbythestridentwayin
whichGermanpoliticalleadersadvocatetheirausterityvisionsfortherestofEurope(see
againtheepigraphabove).
Againstthisbackground,theriseofotherideationalmonoculturesinEurope–such
asthosereflectedinthenotionofacontre-attaquedel’Empirelatincontemplatedby
Agambenandtheanti-ProtestantstatementsvoicedbyGreekpoliticianstowhichHien
refers–shouldsurprisenoone.Theideaofacontre-attaquelatinislargelyamythwithvery
19Seeagainthepublicationscitedinfootnote15ofmyODHintervention.
26
littlepoliticalpurchase,asthelackofsupportforGreeceandempathywithitsplightfrom
thesideofotherSouthernEuropeancountriesmakesalltooclear.However,thefactthat
oneofEurope’sleadingphilosophersdiscernspotentialinthismythforsomeemancipatory
releasehere,shouldgiveuspauseforcarefulreflectionontherealstateofEuropean
politics.HowlongwilltheleadersofEurope,whohavethepowertobringaboutan
imaginativeandsignificanthermeneuticchangeoffundamentalpoliticalperceptionsin
Europe,allowthealreadysignificantdistrustbetweentheNorthandtheSouthtodeepen?
Howlongwilltheyriskthepossibledevelopmentofnewgeopoliticalalliancesthatwillsend
theidealoftheever-closerunionofthepeoplesofEuropetotherubbishheapofhalf-
bakedideologicalexperiments?Thesequestionsareespeciallypertinentinatimewhenthe
mostpowerfulnationonearthapparentlynolongerseesanyreasonforsupportingthe
furtherintegrationofEurope,asitdidinthepast.IbelieveitisthemeritofHien’sresponse
tomyODHinterventiontoopenuptheselinesofthought,insteadofclosingthemdown,
andhedeservesnotonlymyappreciation,buttheappreciationofeveryonewhoascribesto
theidealofatrulypoliticalintegrationofEuropeandthereforeresiststherealityofan
imposedmarketintegrationthatisgraftedonrulesfavouredbythestrongestplayersinthis
market.
Heath-KellyandtheMilitarisedFundamentalismofForeignInterventionCharlotteHeath-Kellywrites:
VanDerWalt’spiececouldbestrengthenedbyanengagementwithadifferentfeatureofEurocentricfundamentalism:thepersistentmilitaryinterventionism,borneofthehistoricalcolonialfigurationsofmanyWesternEuropeanstates,whichdirectlycontributestotheformationofmilitantgroupsandstructurestheircounter-hegemonicideology.WhileVanDerWalthighlightstheeconomicfundamentalismofneoliberalism,themilitarisedfundamentalismofforeigninterventionisanequally,ifnotmore,prominentcontributingfactortopoliticalviolence.
Heath-Kellyunpacksthekeycontentionputforwardherewithampleevidenceofthe
directlyparallelrelationbetweenWesternmilitaryinterventionismandthecounter-
hegemonicideologiesofmilitantgroupsthateventuallytranslateintoactsofterrorism.And
itisinthisregardthatshepointsout“anunintentionalreproductionofcertainaspectsof
theEuropeanfundamentalistdiscourse–especiallythesilencingoftheself-explanationof
militancybyitsperpetrators,andtheroleofmilitarisedforeignpolicyincausingterrorism”-
inmyODHintervention.Thepointshemakeshereemanatesfromafineandclosereading
27
ofmytextanditisworthwhilequotinginfullwhatIconsiderthesharpendofher
contentioninthisregard:
ButIcriticizetheunintentionalreproductionofcertainaspectsoftheEuropeanfundamentalistdiscourse–especiallythesilencingoftheself-explanationofmilitancybyitsperpetrators,andtheroleofmilitarisedforeignpolicyincausingterrorism[-invanderWalt’stext].Thisreproductionofdiscursivesilencesisespeciallyevidentinthearticle’sdiscussionofairstrikesandtheSyriaconflict.VdWistechnicallycorrectwhenheoutlinesthe‘increasedbombing’ofSyriawhichfollowedtheParisattacks;however,thisallusion-by-defaulttopreviousFrenchbombingsisnotenoughifwewanttounderstandthereciprocalviolentfundamentalismsofEuropeandmilitantstruggle.TheFrenchairstrikesbeganinSyriaonSeptember27th,2015(twomonthsbeforeISISattackedParis)aspartofadominantFrenchforeignpolicytowardstheMiddleEast–reinforcinganddeveloping“[France’s]self-perceptionasagreatpower”(Ramani,2015).Twomonthslater,ISISgunmenwerereportedtoshout“ThisisforSyria!”totheassembledaudienceintheBataclantheatrebeforeopeningfire(ITVNews,2015).Giventhisexplanationbytheperpetrators,andthesocialscientificresearchwhichconnectsinterventionismwithamilitantresponse,weshouldexplorethislinkbetweenthemilitaristfundamentalismofEuropeandtheUnitedStatesandthewaveofterroristbombings.ButforallthenotableanalysisofEuropeanneoliberalandculturalfundamentalismwithinvanderWalt’sdiscussionofterrorismandcounter-terrorism,hisarticlesilencesthevoiceoftheParisperpetrators-andofISISandAlQaeda’spoliticaljustificationsmorebroadly–inregardtotheWesternmilitaryinterventionismandneo-colonialismwhichdrivestheirmilitantresponse.
Letmebeginbyjustconcedingthepoint.Ifullyagreethatmytextdoesreproduce
thediscursivesilencethatHeath-Kellydiscernshere.Iamgratefultoherforpointingthis
out,butalsoforgraciouslyallowingthequalifying“unintentional”intoherobservationof
thisreproduction,forIalsoneedtoconcedethatthereisnothinginmytextthatexpressly
warrantsthisgraciousqualification.Ineverthelesswishtoconfirmthatmyreproductionof
thisdiscursivesilencewasindeedunintentional.AndperhapsHeath-Kellywillalso
graciouslyallowmetocutmyselfalittlemoreslackherebyaddingthequalification
“inevitable,”consideringthatthelinkbetweenEurope’seconomicfundamentalismandits
statesofemergencyisalreadyquiteabigfishtofryforonecriticalintervention.Havingsaid
this,however,letmeagainstressthatHeath-Kelly’spointiswelltaken,butperhapsonly
withonesmall,but,tomymind,significantexception:Istruggletocometotermswiththe
contentionthatmy“articlesilencesthevoiceoftheParisperpetrators.”Frankly,Isenseno
needandexperiencenowishtogivetheBataclanperpetratorsthemselvesanykindof
voice.Onesimplystarestoodirectlyintoamind-numbingfailureofbasichumanityhereto
wanttogiveahearingtothevoiceoftheperpetratorsthemselves(inthesamewaythatI
donotexperiencetheremotestwishtogiveadirectvoicetoanyonewhoissuesorexecutes
28
anordertodropabombonciviliansettlements).Fortherest,however,Ifullycomprehend
theneedtopayattentiontothediscursivesilenceHeath-Kellypointsoutandtodulyselect
itasaguidingprincipleofcriticalinquiry,asshedoesinherresponsetomyNPintervention.
Furthertothis,oneshouldalsopursuefurtherthepossibilityofsignificantlinks
betweenEurope’seconomicfundamentalismanditsfundamentalistmilitary
interventionism.Theremaywellbemuchmoreatstakeherethatwarrantscareful
attention,butIshallonlypointoutonelineofquestioningthatseemsimportanttopursue
furtherinthisregard,namely,thelinkbetween–whatonemightcall–adomestic
sovereigntydeficit,ontheonehand,andforeignsovereigntyexcesses,ontheother.One
should,forinstance,questioninthisregardallthereasonsforFrance’scommencementof
airstrikesinSyriainSeptember2015andpayspecificattentiontothequestionwhether
Hollande’sdecisiontoactforcefullyabroadwasnotatleastpartlymotivatedbyanattempt
tocompensateforthepervasiveperceptionofthedomesticpoliticalparalysisintowhichhis
governmentdescendedinthewakeofhisfailuretomakegoodonhiselectoralpromiseto
renegotiatethedebilitatingausteritymeasuresoftheStabilityandGrowthPact.
Thisisofcourseonlyalineofquestioningandnotofcontention,anditisdoubtful
whetheritwillproduceenoughevidencesoonenoughtosupportafirmcontestationinthe
nearfuture.Itneverthelessremainsaquestionthatcriticalinquirymustkeepopenand
alive(Ramani,2015),20consideringthefrequencywithwhichthefundamentalisms–the
humanrightsandlibertyfundamentalisms!–thatinformedWesternmilitary
interventionisminthepast,cameacrossasalltoomixedupwithcynicalcompensatory
and/ordistractionstrategies.
Guittet,Agamben’sPessimismandtheTimeofHermeneuticsEmmanuel-PierreGuittet’sresponsetomyNPinterventionoffersapoignantandperceptive
descriptionofthe“risk-soakedsecurityimaginary”withwhichcontemporarymodesof
politicalsovereigntypresentthemselvesasaninevitablesystemof“precautionary
governmentalprocesses”forwhichnoalternativeexists.Hedescribesthesheer
anthropologicalpessimismthatinformsthisreductionofpoliticstoprecautionandrisk-
20SamuelRamani(2015),towhomHeath-Kellyrefers,issurelyalsodoingthis.Heobservesthefollowing:“AsPresidentFrancoisHollanderemainsdeeplyunpopular,anaggressiveforeignpolicytowardsSyriacouldrallynationalist sentiment and underscore Hollande’s leadership credentials ahead of the 2017 presidentialelections.”
29
managementaccuratelyandforcefully,andIcanfullyendorsefrommysidetheresonances
thathediscernsbetweenhiscriticalengagementwiththissecuritisationofpoliticsandthe
technocraticreductionofpoliticsthatIdescribeasaprocessofdehermeneutisation.21
However,Guittetalsocautionsagainstanycriticalengagementwiththissecuritisationof
thepoliticalthatcorroboratesitsunderlyingpessimism,insteadofchallengingit,andfinds
signsofthiscorroborationinmyrelianceonAgamben’swork.Guittetwrites:
Nonetheless,encapsulatingtheseissuesinananxiousreadingofpoliticsundertheauthorityofAgamben’sHomoSacerseriesofworkasVanderWaltdoesinhispiece(2016),wherepoliticalhopeishopeless,andinscribingtheminapessimisticandimpoverishedunderstandingofsocietalpractice,isitselfdangerous(Guittet,2008).Politicsisadoomedenterprisefromthestart.Itisablessingandacurseatthesametime(Agamben,1990).Strangelyenough,VanderWalt’spreviousarticle(2015)islessguidedbythegloomypictureofthepresentstateofthingsonecanfindinAgamben,andperhapsmoreattunedtotheItalianthinker’sclassicismashisworkfraughtwithriddlesforhisLatinistandmedievalistpeers.
IwillnotaddressherethequestionwhetherAgamben’sHomoSacerseriesofworkis
indeedinformedby“apessimisticandimpoverishedunderstandingofsocietalpractice.”
Thatwilltakeustoofarawayfromthequestionthatismoreimmediatelyatstakehere,
namely,whethermyrelianceonAgamben’sworkreproducesthe“pessimisticand
impoverishedunderstandingofsocietalpractice”thatGuittetattributestohis“HomoSacer
seriesofwork.”Iwouldliketoaddressthisquestionbycommencingwiththisobservation:
EvenifoneweretoconcludethattheHomoSacerseriesofworkis“inscrib[ed]…ina
pessimisticandimpoverishedunderstandingofsocietalpractice,”itwouldstillbevery
possibletofindinthisseriesofworksignificantinsightsthatmayhelponetotranscend
whateverpessimismorimpoverishedunderstandingmaybeatworkhere.Itshouldbe
notedthatnotonlymy“LiteraryException”contributiontoNewPerspectives(vanderWalt,
2015),butalsomyODHinterventionturnsmuchmoreonareadingofAgamben’slater
workTheTimeThatRemains.However,inbothcasesIfindthekeyformyreadingofThe
TimeThatRemainsinanimportantpassagefromHomoSacerontheAristoteliandistinction
betweenactualityandpotentiality.ItisonthebasisofthispassagethatIdiscernafurther
developmentofAgamben’sthoughtinHomoSacer,orevenaresponsetoit,inTheTime
ThatRemains.Anditisthisfurtherdevelopmentorresponsethatbecomescentraltomy
argumentsinboththe“LiteraryException”articleandmyODHintervention.
21Seeagainfootnote2above.
30
Now,thisrelianceonTheTimeThatRemainsmaynotgetmeoffthehookasregards
the“pessimisticandimpoverishedunderstandingofsocietalpractice”thatbothersGuittet
forheseemstoattributepessimismalsotothe“optimistic”readingofAgamben’slater
workbySergeiProzorov.Guittetwrites:
Whileretrievingthequestionsofpotentiality,redemptionandsalvation,Prozorovre-assignsAgambentoaratherpessimisticunderstandingoftime–aJudeo-Christianunderstandingoflineartime,onecouldsay–wherehopes,butmostlyfears,areassociatedwithpredictionsoftheendoftheworld:theworsethingsget,thebetterthepotentialresults.
IcannotengagewithProzorov’sreadingofAgambenhere.Sufficeittosaythatmy
readingofTheTimeThatRemainspivotsonakeythoughtthatcanbeextractedfromSt.
Paul’shosmeinstructiontotheearlyChristiancommunities.Atissueinthisthoughtisnota
concernwiththeendoftheworld,butanindefinitepostponementofthisconcernwhich
largelyrendersitirrelevantasfarasterrestrialpoliticalengagementisconcerned.Itisthe
indefinitepostponementoftheendoftimethatallowsfor“thetimethatremains,”thatis,
thetimewithwhichwecanandmustconcernourselveswithoutinvokingtheperfectjustice
thatistheexclusiveprerogativeofGod’sfinalreckoningattheendoftime.ItisthisPauline
postponementofGod’sjusticethatallowsfortimetogoon,fortimetoremain,andthusfor
atimeinwhichmortalbeingscanengageinamodestsecularpoliticsthatbefitstheirpartial
andlimitedwisdom.Thisisthetimeofhermeneutics,forhermeneuticswillonlyendwhen
God’sfinalmessageleaveshisfingerorforeheadwithadigitalperfectionandimmediacy
thatwillneitherrequirenortolerateanyinterpretationortranslation;similarlybiblical
hermeneuticsalsoonlygainedimportancewhenJesushadbeenawaylongenoughto
warranttheassumptionthathewouldnotbereturningallthatsoon.22
Thecontemplationofatimethatwillbeallowedtoremainandendureaslongasno
gnostically-deludedmortalengagestooapocalypticallywithdisastrousconceptionsof
perfectjusticeandholytruth,evidentlywarrantslittlereasonformuchoptimism.However,
itdoesallowforacreativepoliticsthatrefusestogiveupontheideaoffuturesthatcanbe
significantlydifferentfromthepresent,whilealsorefusingtoentertaintheideathatany
oneofthesefutureswillcometorealisethegoodsocietyforgood.Thesetwoparameters,
22ThisisasomewhatfreeinferencefromthefactthathermeneuticsplayednosignificantroleintheearlyChristiancommunities,giventheirconcernwithadirect(extra-textual)experienceofJesus(seeSherrat,2006:42).
31
takenfromMarcelGauchet(2002:9-14),23demarcatethespaceandopportunityfora
politicsinwhichhumanintelligence,courageandresourcefulnessmaystillplayenoughofa
roletoendowfutureexistenceonearthwithadequatelevelsofdignity.
DosReisandtheTechnocraticTransformationoftheExceptionintoaZoneofExtra-LegalExpertiseFearthattheavoidanceofapocalypsemaywellstilltranslateintoaninfiniteeschatonthat
renderstheabsenceofthegoodsocietyalltooclear,whileerasingallhopefordifferent
futures(thatmay,atleastfromtimetotime,changethedécorofdesperation),is
neverthelesshardlysurprisinginthetimeswelive.Thisfearisevidentlyalreadyspeakingits
mindonthelastpagesofmyODHintervention,butitreallybeginstohaunttheheartwhen
onereadsFilipedosReis’sophisticatedaccountofthewaysinwhichcontemporarymodes
ofgovernanceclosedownhermeneuticspacebyerasingthedifferencebetweenstatesof
exceptionandregularruleoflaw.DosReis’descriptionofthisprocessisindeednothingless
thananexactingaccountofhowtheavoidanceofapocalypsetranslatesintoaneschatonin
atimeoftechnocraticjuridification.
DosReis’analysisofthisprocessoftechnocraticjuridificationtakesitscuefrom
FleurJohns’conceptionofanon-legalitythatdoesnotconstituteanillegality,butacertain
extra-legality.DosReiswrites:
ForJohns,statesofexceptiondonotcreatespacesofillegality,butratherof“extra-legality”.Extra-legalityisnot“necessarilyidentifiedwiththetransgressionoflaw”asitrathergives“shapetoadomain,situationorsetofforcesoutsidethelaw,whethertemporarilyorpermanently.Extra-legaldomainsare,nonetheless,jurisdictions.Thatis,theyarespacesfromwhichtheauthorityofthelawgetsspokenorperformed.”
Itiswell-knownthattheconceptofthestateofexceptionhasbeencontemplated
beforeintermsofacomplexofcontinuityanddiscontinuitybetweenthelegalandthe
extra-legalortheconstituentandtheconstitutedpower.TheSchmitt-Kelsendebateisa
standardpointofreferenceinthisregard,fromtheperspectiveofwhichSchmittismostly
associatedwiththeconcernwithan(atleastpartly)extra-legalconstituentpower,while
Kelsenismostlyconsideredthechampionofacompletelyintra-legalconstitutedpower.
23IamindebtedtoarecentacademicexchangewithPanuMinkinnen,EmiliosChristodoulidisandChrisDoudevanTroostwijkforbringingthisimportantbooktomyattention.
32
Thepictureismuchmorecomplexthanthiselementarydelineationsuggests.24Sufficeit
neverthelesstojustobserveherethekeyconcernoftheoristswhosescholarlyendeavours
remaininspiredbythepossibilityofanextra-legalconstituentpower.Forthem,theconcern
withconstituentpowerisaconcernwithafuturethatisnotentirelypre-determinedbythe
past.Inotherwords,thescholarlyconcernwithconstituentpowerentailsanintellectual
resistancetoanendoftimethatpromisesnosignificantfuture.
Whetherthisresistancetoeschatonandeschatologyrequiresasimpleendorsement
ofSchmitt’sandadismissalofKelsen’sthinkingisdoubtful.Sufficeitneverthelessto
observethattheadamantinsistencethatconstituentpowershouldnotbereducedto
constitutedpowercontemplatesarupturebetweenlawandpolitics–andbetweenthe
legalandtheextra-legal–thatnotonlydemands,butalsoconditionsthepossibilityofa
creativehermeneuticinterventionwithoutwhichthechanceofsignificantlydifferent
futuresisnolongerthinkable.Itisthispossibilityofatrulyconstituentpoliticalrupturethat
thetechnocraticjuridificationofpoliticsseekstoclosedowncompletelyinourtime.Dos
Reisdescribesthisjuridificationwithreferencetocollaborationsbetweensecurityandlegal
experts(andhumanrightsexpertstoboot!)thataimtodesignasecuritylawthatnotonly
governsfuturecases,butalsoitsownfuturedevelopment.Hereisoneofthekey
descriptionsthatheoffersofthisprocess:
Here,adepoliticisingeffectrunsintwodirections.First,althoughtherehasbeensignificanthumanrightsadvocacyinthecontextofcounter-terroristmeasures(e.g.withregardtodetentionandpracticesof‘terrorlists’),strugglesoverthe‘rightfulness’ofthesemeasureswereoftencarriedonoutsidetherealmofabroaderpublicandwithinhighlycomplexlegalvocabulariesbetweenlegalexpertsworkingforhumanrightsadvocacy,ontheonehand,andthoseworkingfornationalsecurityagenciesontheother.Second,thelattergroupofexpertsattemptstotransformdiscussionsaboutrightsandthepunishmentofpastterroristactsintoadiscussionaboutpre-emptivecounter-terroristmeasures.Inthisregard,theyappeartobetryingtogivethefightagainstterrorisma‘carteblanche’toestablishvariousexceptionalmeasures.Thissignifiesnotonlyashiftinthetemporalityoflaw,i.e.towardsafuture-orientedlaw,butalsoinstitutionalisesarelatedbureaucracyandthusperpetuatesstatesofemergencyasitcreatesademandfortechnocraticriskexpertise.
Onecanhardlyhopeforamoreaccuratedescriptionofhowtheavoidanceof
apocalypseturnsintoanasphyxiatingembraceofeschatonthantheoneofferedinthis
24FormorenuancedviewsofKelsen’sposition,seeVanOoyen(2008:XIX),Chiassoni(2013:137),andNavarro(2013:88).
33
passage.DosReiscommendsmyNPinterventionforcontributingtotheunderstandingof
thisprocess.TheresonancebetweenwhathehasinmindandwhatIwasgettingatinmy
interventionisevident,butitisreallyIwhomustthankhimforofferingamoreprecise
vocabulary–whichIcertainlydidnotcommandatthetimeofarticulatingtheNP
intervention–andforthinkingthroughsomeofthemostdisconcertingissuesthatareat
stakehere.
Kamis,EpistemologyandthePersonalBenKamisbeginshisresponsetomyNPinterventionwithadescriptionofthemanywaysin
whichhisandmyresearchinterestsandfocusesoverlapandIcertainlyalsonoticethis
commongroundfrommyside.Ineverthelesswishtohighlightonepassageofhisresponse
thatsituatesmyODHinterventioninaframeworkofthinkinginwhichitdoesnotfitas
comfortablyashethinks.Kamiswrites:
Theargumentprogressesthroughallthewaypointsonewouldexpect:Agamben,Calvin(viaWeber),Gadamer.AndthebasicintuitionthatthestateisbetterunderstoodasthethuggishenforcerofthemarketratherthananarenaofcomplexinterestsandsubjectivemotivationsthatarenegotiatedinmoreorlessdemocraticorbureaucraticproceduresstronglyrecallsanestablishedtraditioninleftistpoliticaleconomythatrunsfromLenintoJessop.Inshort,thoseunfamiliarwithsuchcritiquesofstate-marketlinkagesandEurope’sengagementwithIslamwilllearnmuch.Thoseofusinthechoir,however,haveheardthissermonbefore.
Thelastlineofthispassagecanperhapsbeconsideredthemoststinginginan
otherwiseveryfriendlyresponse.IcanonlysaythatIcertainlyendeavouredtodoalittle
betterthanrepeatingawell-knownsermon,butacceptthatmanyreadersmightnotbe
convincedinthisregard.IaccordinglyalsoacceptthatKamismayhavewell-considered
reasonsforcountinghimselfamongthem.Iamthereforeespeciallygratefultohimfor
valiantlymovingontoidentifymypersonaltouchtothesermonasatleastonereasonfor
takingnoticeofit.Inwhatfollows,Ishallrelyonhisgenerouseffortinthisregardfor
purposesofbrieflyputtingforwardagainalineofthinkingthatIhavedevelopedina
numberofpreviousarticles,including“TheLiteraryException”.Iwishtodosoforpurposes
oftakingtheresponsesthatIhavedevelopedabove–especiallythosetoDosReisand
Guittet–onestepfurther.BeforeIdoso,however,IwouldalsoliketopointoutthatIdo
notquitesharethebasicintuition“thatthestateisbetterunderstoodasthethuggish
enforcerofthemarketratherthananarenaofcomplexinterestsandsubjective
motivations,”etc.thatmaybeattributabletoalonglineofleftistthinking.Icertainly
34
welcomebeingassociatedwithleftistthinking,butwouldprefertobeassociatedwithan
equallylonglineofleftistthinkingthatattachesmuchimportancetotheemancipatory
potentialofthemodernstateinanage–ourage–oframpantcivilsocietyabductionsof
publicinterest.
LetmeneverthelessreturnnowtoKamis’generousengagementwiththepersonal
touchthat,atleastaccordingtohim,savesmyODHinterventionfromredundancy.Idiscern
inthisendeavourathoughtthatIconsiderprofound-muchtooprofound,infact,tobe
bestowedonthepersonalreflectionsonthefreshlydeclaredstateofemergencyinFrance
onthemorningof14NovemberthatIslippedintotheopeningparagraphsofmyODH
intervention.Kamisinvokesinthisregardthecurioustensionbetweenthemeta-theoretical
ormethodologicalrecognitionofpersonalexperienceasa“commonsourceofinspiration
[of]greatwork,”ontheonehand,andtherefusal–especiallyevidentinGermanytoday–
toallowsuchpersonalexperiencesintoscholarlydissertationsandwriting.Inotherwords,
themixedmessageofcurrentsocialscientificmethodologyisthis:Byallmeansrelyon
personalexperiences–itoftenleadstogreatwork,but“[just]don’ttalkaboutthatsortof
thinginyourwriting.”Thereasonsforthismethodologicalexclusionofpersonalexperience
fromscholarlywritingarethreefold:1)noonecaresaboutwhatwethink,asthescholarly
communityisonlyinterestedinwhatwecandemonstrate;2)passionateorpersonal
engagementwithone’ssubjectmatterinterfereswithscholarlyanalysis;and3)reflections
ofpersonalexperiencesinscholarshipareploystodeflectcriticism,consideringthatthey
renderallcriticismpersonaloradhominem.
IamnotallthatsurethatmyODHinterventiondefiesthesepotentialpointsof
criticism,asKamisgenerouslysuggests.ManyreadersmayindeedfeelthatIexposedthe
interventiontoexactlythesepointsofcriticismbyinsertingmypersonalreflectionson14
NovemberintotheopeningparagraphinthewayIdid.AthrowawaystatementinD&K’s
reactiontomyintervention–“Clearly,therecentterroristattacksinFranceandBelgium
madeastrongimpressionuponhisresearchendeavours”–maywellhaveatouchofthis
criticisminit.Bethatasitmay,thereallyinterestingpointthatKamisraiseshereconcerns
thecontradictionorparadoxthatinformsthekindofacademiccritiqueheoutlinesinthe
passageabove.Ontheonehand,thecritiquereflectsanawarenessthatapersonal
experienceorinclinationmaywellconstituteanimportantimpetusforsocialscientific
research.Ontheotherhand,itinsiststhatsuchanexperienceorinclinationsshouldnotbe
35
articulatedaspartoftheresearchundertaken,giventhatsuchanarticulationexposesthe
researchertooneormoreofthethreelinesofcriticismthatKamispointsout:alackof
objectivity,weakanalysis,andobstructionofduecriticism.
Now,Ilargelyactuallyendorsethesocialscientificdemandthatpersonal
considerationsandexperienceshouldnotbecometooconspicuouslyorprominentlypartof
socialscientificpredication,forallthreeofthereasonsKamispointsout,andperhapseven
forsomeothers.However,theparadoxthatKamishighlightsremainsintriguing.Whyisitso
thatsocialscientificresearchmustreturntothedimensionofpersonalexperiencefor
inspirationonlytotakeleaveofitasquicklyaspossible?Itwouldappearthatsocial
scientificresearchhastwointrinsicdirectionsortrajectories:aharkingbacktothepersonal,
ontheonehand,andatakingleaveofit,ontheother.Itsself-understandingisfurther
largelyinformedbytheinsistencethatonetrajectoryshoulderaseorsuppresstheother
trajectory,notwithstandingitsirreducibledependenceonitandtheconcomitantneedto
revisititwithoutacknowledgingit.Butagain,whyisthisso?Whyisthepersonalso
indispensableforandyetsointolerabletosocialscientificinquiry?
Onewaytomakesenseofthisparadoxoftwoopposingtrajectories,ofwhichone
mustbesuppressedforthesakeoftheother,butneverthelessnotentirelyeliminatedfor
reasonsofalsodependingonthatwhichmustbesuppressed,istocasttheparadoxinterms
oftherelationbetweendisorder,ontheonehand,andthecreationoforder,ontheother.
Castingtheproblematicatstakehereinthesetermsallowsonetorelatetheproblematic
relationbetweensocialscienceandthepersonaldirectlytotheordoliberalconcernwith
creatinganorderofliberty.Theaimofthediscussionthatfollowsnowisindeedtoleadthis
engagementwithKamisbacktomysuspicion–voicedatthebeginningofmyresponseto
D&K–thatanexclusiveconcernwithestablishinganorderoflibertyisboundtoturnoutto
beanauthoritarianandilliberalconcernwithorder.
Ordoliberalism,LiberalDemocracyandAuthoritarianLiberalismCreatingorderissimplynotpossibleatallunlessthereissomedisorderthatcanbeputinto
order.Creatingorderis,nevertheless,byitsverydesignandpurpose,anendeavourto
retreatfromdisorder.Endeavourstoestablishorderare,forthisreason,neverlikelyto
lingertoolongwiththedisorderfromwhichtheorderseekstodistanceitself.Anelement
ofsuppressionthusseemsinevitablehere.Notonlymustdisorderbesubjectedtodesigns
36
oforder,butitmustalsobelargelysuppressedbythesedesignsiftheyaretobeeffective,
orsoitseems.Perhapsthisindeedexplainstheparadoxicalrelationbetweensocialscience
andpersonalitywell,consideringthatsocialsciencemaybedeemedawayofordering
personallife,asMichelFoucault’sreflectionsonsocialsciencesuggest(Foucault,1984:3-4,
83-85).
However,theinclinationtosuppressdisorder,inadditiontosubjectingittodesigns
oforder,onlymakessensefromtheperspectiveofanormativeprivilegingoforderover
disorder.Onlywhenoneconsidersorderintrinsicallygoodanddisorderintrinsicallybad
doesitbecomeimperativenotonlytosubjectdisordertoorder,butalsotosuppressand
eradicatedisorderasfarasfeasible.Intheabsenceofsuchnormativeprivileging,itwould
bequitepossibletoconsiderorderanddisorderasmutuallyco-constitutive.Fromthe
perspectiveofsuchmutualco-constitutionality,anypracticalneedtosubjectdisorderto
orderwouldnothavetobeaccompaniedbyasupplementaryendeavourtosuppressand
denydisorder.Onemay,forgoodreasons,wanttotidyupatoddler’sroomfromtimeto
time,evenasfrequentlyaspossible,butoneneednotdeprivethechildofthespontaneity
andlibertytomakeagoodmessofthingsagain,unlessoneconsidersthismessintrinsically
abominable.
Whenoneforegoesthenormativeprivilegingoforderoverdisorder,onemaywell
arriveatanunderstandingofsocietalorganisationthatisquitesimilartomanagingbutnot
suppressingtheeternalpotentialforchaosinatoddler’sroom.Itisthisapproachtothe
organisationofsocialspacethatinformsaseriesofargumentsregardingtherelation
betweenlawandliteraturethatIputforwardin“TheLiteraryException”andanumberof
otherrecentpublications.Theargumentsdevelopedinthesepublicationspivotona
constructionoftherelationbetweenlawandpoetryintermsoftwooppositetrajectoriesof
language,withlawbeingthetrajectoryoflanguagethatseekstodistanceitselffromthe
chaosthatensuesfromadisruptiveevent,andpoetrybeingthetrajectoryoflanguagethat
harksbacktoadisruptiveeventandevensolicitsit,notwithstanding–andperhapsforthe
sakeof–thechaosthateruptswithit.Lawandpoetrymaythusbeconsideredlinguistic
foraforsociety’srespectiveneedsforbothorderanddisorder.Inanotherrecentpiece,I
offeredthisgraphicdepictionofthisinverserelationbetweenlawandpoetrythatdepicts
theinverseparallelrelationbetweenthem–themorelegalthelanguage,thelesspoeticit
37
is–intermsofthetwotrianglesthatresultfromadiagonaldivisionofarectangular
spectrum(vanderWalt,2016:134).
Thediagnosisofreligiousradicalisationofferedin“TheLiteraryException”concerns
thesuggestionthattheexcessivefocusonlegalandeconomicintegrationattheexpenseof
othermodesofsocietalintegrationintheEU,deprivesespeciallyyoungpeopleinEuropeof
poeticrelieffromdominantpatternsofsocialorder;hencetherecoursetobizarreformsof
religiousradicalisationnotonlyamongeconomicallydisadvantaged,butalsoamong
relativelyaffluentindividuals.Oneneednotgointothemeritsofthisargumenthere,butit
warrantsmentioninginpassingthatitsurelydefiesanyallegationthatmyOHDintervention
entertainsa“mono-causal”understandingofreligiousradicalisationthatattributesit
exclusivelytosocio-economicdeprivation.25
Beitasitmay,theexistentialyearningforarelieffromtheestablishedsocialorder
maybearguedtofinditspurestormostsublimeexpressioninpoetic–andindeedhighly
‘personal’–challengestoestablishedpatternsoflinguisticmeaning,butpoetry,inthestrict
senseoftheword,issurelynotitsonlyexpression.Well-functioningliberaldemocratic
institutions–undertheauspicesofwhichdemocracyistrulyfree–allowforpolitical
transitionproceduresandcrisisresolutionpracticesthattolerateconsiderablechallengesto
existingorders.Ofconcern,here,arenotonlyrelativelyopenelectionproceduresthatallow
forconsiderablechallengestoestablishedsocialorders(challengesthatearlymodern
democraciesstilltriedtosuppressbylinkingtherighttovotetoownershipofproperty),but
alsoallowancesforotherdisruptivesocialpracticessuchastherighttostrike.AlainSupiot
evidentlycontemplatespreciselysuchanunderstandingoftherighttostrikewhenhe
writesaboutthepathologicalmutationofdemocraticenergiesthatpredictablyresultsfrom
25Seeendnote2above.
38
thesuppressionofcollectiveactionandtherighttostrike(Supiot,2010:73).Strikeactionis
notjustaninstrumentinthepursuitofworkers’interests,Supiotsuggests,butitisalsoa
formofenergeticdemocraticexpressionthatislikelytoseekmoredestructiveformsof
releaseifitweretobesuppressedandbanishedfromsociallife.
Atstakehereisarecognitionofthepoeticinclinationthatinformsatrulyliberal
democraticspirit.Oneshouldrecognisethelivingpoetrythateruptswhencommitted
collectiveactionburstsintosongandtheexistentialritualofrhythmicrefusal.Allowancefor
thislivingpoetry–andforpersonalgriefandfrustrationtothusbecomeasignificantpublic
concern–isultimatelywhatdistinguishesliberaldemocracyfromauthoritarian
institutionalisationsofliberty.ItisfromtheperspectiveofthisdistinctionthatInowwishto
concludeallmyobservationsherewithareferencetotheordoliberalconcernwithorder
withwhichmyresponsetoD&Kcommencedabove.
Thepoeticliberaldemocraticspiritinvokedhere,andtheconcomitanttoleranceofa
primordialresistancetoorderasaconstitutiveelementoforder,arelargelyabsentfromthe
sociallandscapeoftheEUtoday.ThesuppressionoftherighttostrikebytheCourtof
JusticeoftheEuropeanUnion(CJEU)intwoepochaljudgmentsin2007mayforthisreason
beconsideredasymbolicexpressionoftheEU’sexcessiveorpredominantconcernwithan
economicorderofundistortedcompetitionasthesoleorpredominantmodeofEuropean
integration.26TherearemanysocialandlegaltheoriststhatconsiderthisEUlandscapea
victoryofordoliberalthinking.Severalofthemalsopointoutanoldproximitybetweenthe
ordoliberalthinkersofWeimarandtheconservativerevolutionafootatthetime,noting
especiallyHermannHeller’sobservationregardingthe“authoritarianliberalism”ofsomeof
hiscontemporaries(Manow,2001;Wilkinson,2015).
Shouldtoday’sordoliberalswishtodismissthisoldlinkasamyth,orshouldtheyat
leastwishtoseverittoday,orshowthattheyhavealreadysevereditinrecent
years/decades,theywouldappeartohavequiteabitofpersuadingtodo,consideringthe
considerablenumberofscholarsouttherewhoevidentlydonotsharethe“deep
26ThetwoCJEUrulings(earlierreferredtoasECJrulings)atstakehereareLavalandViking.SeeEUCaseC-341/05[2007](Laval)andEUCaseC-438/05[2007](Viking).Inboththesejudgments,theCJEUrecognisedtherighttostrike,butsubordinatedittothefreedomofmovementofgoodsandservicesintheEU.Foramoreextensive discussion of these cases, see Van derWalt (2014: 334-360). For the dominance of the politicaleconomyofmarketintegrationintheEUandacritiqueoftheCJEU’s(ortheECJ’s)roleinthisone-sidedpushformarketintegration,seeFritzScharpf(2009;2010).
39
understanding”ofordoliberalthinkingthatallegedlygoesaroundinFreiburg.Whata
refreshingandliberatingdisorderwouldnotensueinscholarlycirclesifdyedinthewool
ordoliberalscameouttowrong-footsomanyofusbydenouncingausterity,Germany’s
treatmentofGreece,andtheCJEU’ssubordinationoftherighttostriketothefree
movementofgoodsandservices;if,inotherwords,theycameouttoshowusthewaytoa
differentEurope,acreativeandpoeticEuropethatcanembracedisorderaspartandparcel
ofvibrantliberaldemocracies;aEuropethathasanadequateregardforthewaysinwhich
establishedorderbrutallydisqualifiessomanyfromparticipatingin“undistorted”
competition;aEuropethatcanputtwoandtwotogethertoarriveatthesimplerealisation
thatthisdisqualificationhasalwaysbeenthemajorsourceofdistortedcompetitionbothin
Europeandintherestoftheworld.JustacoupleofprominentarticlesbytheVanbergsof
thisworld(orofFreiburg)wouldsurelydothetrick.Untilsuchatimeasthiscomestopass,
however,manyofuswouldhavetobeforgivenforsearchingforlinksbetweenthe
increasinglyauthoritariansignatureofcontemporaryEurope’smarketorderandthe
authoritarianliberalismofoldEurope.Andthoseofuswhodosowillalsohavetobe
forgivenforbeginningthissearchwithcontemporaryschoolsofeconomicthinkingthatstill
marchunflinchinglyunderthebannerofWeimarordoliberalism,especiallywhenthis
confidentmarchbeginstoshowsignsofadisconcertingirresponsibility.
Bibliography
• Chiassoni,Pierluigi(2013),‘WienerRealism’,inLuísDuarted’Almeidaetal.(eds.)KelsenRevisited,Oxford/Portland,Oregon:HartPublishing.
• Eucken,Walter(2004),GrundsätzederWirtschaftspolitik,Tübingen:MohrSiebeck.• Foucault,Michel(1994),‘TruthandJuridicalForms’,inEssentialWorksofFoucault,1954to1984,
London:PenguinBooks.• Gauchet,Marcel(2002)Ladémocratiecontreelle-même,Paris:Gallimard.• Habermas,Jurgen(2016),‘DieSpielertretenab’,DieZeit,09/07/2016.• Halimi,Serge(2017),‘Etcettefoisencorelepiègeduvoteutile,’LeMondeDiplomatique,April2017.
• Joerges,Christian(2010),‘EuropanachdemOrdoliberalismus:EinePhilippika’,PostneoliberaleRechtsordnung?SuchprozesseinderKrise,43(4):394-406.
• Kuhn,Thomas(1970),TheStructureofScientificRevolutions,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.• Lechevalier,Arnaud(2015),‘EuckenunderthePillow:TheOrdoliberalImprintonSocialEurope’,in
ArnaudLechevalier&JanWielogh(eds.)SocialEurope-ADeadEnd:WhattheEurozoneCrisisIsDoingtoEurope’sSocialDimension,Copenhagen:DJØF.
• Lewis,Paul(ed.)(2004),TransformingEconomics.PerspectivesontheCriticalRealistProject,London:Routledge.
40
• LudwigErhardZentrum(2017),‘Vita-Privat’,LudwigErhardZentrum.Availableat-http://www.ludwig-erhard-zentrum.de/en/ludwig-erhard/vita.html-Accessed26/07/2017.
• Macron,Emmanuel(2016),Révolution,Paris:XOEditions.• Manow,Philip(2001)‘OrdoliberalismusalsökonomischeOrdnungstheologie’,Leviathan,29(2):179–
183.• Navarro,Pablo(2013),‘TheEfficacyofConstitutionalNorms’,inLuísDuarted’Almeidaetal.(eds.)
KelsenRevisited,Oxford/Portland,Oregon:HartPublishing.• Polanyi,Karl(1975),TheGreatTransformation,NewYork:RinehartandCompany.• Ramani,Samuel(2015),‘WhyFranceIsSoDeeplyEntangledinSyria’,TheWashingtonPost,
19/11/2015.Availableathttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/19/why-france-is-so-deeply-entangled-in-syria/-Accessed05/05/2017.
• Robbins,Lionel(1932),AnEssayontheNatureandSignificanceofEconomicScience,London:Macmillan.
• Scharpf,Fritz(2008),‘TheOnlySolutionIstoRefusetoComplywithECJRulings’,SocialEurope:TheJournaloftheEuropeanLeft,4(1):16-21.
• Scharpf,Fritz(2010),‘TheAsymmetryofEuropeanIntegration,orWhytheEUCannotBea“SocialMarketEconomy”’,Socio-EconomicReview,8(2):211–250.
• Schäuble,Wolfgang(2010),‘APlantoTackleEurope’sDebtMountain’,Europe’sWorld,01/10/2010.Availableathttp://europesworld.org/2010/10/01/a-plan-to-tackle-europes-debt-mountain/#.WXiap8Z7Gds-Accessed26/07/2017.
• Schubert,Christian(2017),‘DerMannhinterMacron’,FrankfurterAllgemeineZeitung,24/07/2017.• Sherrat,Yvonne(2006),ContinentalPhilosophyofSocialScience,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.• Supiot,Alain(2010),L’EspritdePhiladelphie,Paris:Seuil.• VanderWalt,Johan(2012),‘LawandtheSpaceofAppearanceinArendt’sThought’,inMarco
GoldoniandChristopherMcCorkindale(eds.)HannahArendtandtheLaw,Oxford:HartPublishing.• VanderWalt,Johan(2014),TheHorizontalEffectRevolutionandtheQuestionofSovereignty,
Berlin/Boston:DeGruyter.• VanderWalt,Johan(2016),‘LeDroit,cequiestgagnéàlatraduction’,inPascalAncelandLuc
Heuschling(eds.)LaTransnationalisationdel’EnseignementduDroit,Brussels:Larcier.• VanderWalt,Johan(2016),‘WhenOneReligiousExtremismUnmasksAnother:Reflectionson
Europe’sStatesofEmergencyasaLegacyofOrdo-LiberalDe-hermeneuticisation’,NewPerspectives:InterdisciplinaryJournalofCentralandEasternEuropeanPoliticsandInternationalRelations,24(1):79-101.
• VanOoyen,RobertChr.(2008),‘DieFunktionderVerfassungsgerichtsbarkeitinderpluralistischenDemokratieunddieKontroverseumden“HüterderVerfassung”’,inHansKelsen,WersollderHüterderVerfassungsein,Tübingen:MohrSiebeck.
• Wilkinson,Michael(2015),‘AuthoritarianLiberalismintheEuropeanConstitutionalImagination:SecondTimeasFarce?’,EuropeanLawJournal,21(3):313-339.