Customer Reviews

The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy's View of History

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I really want to disagree with the reviewer below who said that this book is "overly academic" and "not interesting to someone without a serous research interest in Tolstoy". C'mon.

This is a HIGHLY readable book though probably only one that should be read after having read 'War and Peace'. In combination, the boring sections of 'War and Peace' and this book provide a pretty interesting dialogue and line of thought that can be comprehended by most anyone.....

This is a beautiful book and one that can be appreciated by tons the teeming multitudes and not just self-righteous undergraduates at small colleges in Massachusetts. Berlin is a very readable philosopher, which explains much of the reason WHY he is held in such esteem in the Anglo-American philosophical community....

Finally, who could ever say that this little tiny red book was worth neither the effort nor the expense. A must-buy.

This is perhaps the most famous essay ever written in the history of ideas. Berlin analyzes the mind of Tolstoy as revealed in 'War and Peace'. He uses a quotation from Aristochulus , "The hedgehog knows one big thing, but the fox knows many little things "He then categorizes various intellectual figures as hedgehogs or foxes. He says that Tolstoy was a fox who wanted to be a hedgehog. In other words Tolstoy longed to put all reality into one great explanatory system but his faithfulness to his own remarkable sense of perception led him to see everywhere the fine distinctions and individual differences which constitute his own richly varied world.
What is interesting is that Berlin himself was fundamentally a fox in the world of ideas. He believed that there could be no one fundamental system explaining all. He not simply reveled in the variety of ideas, but he thought in terms of values that ' ideal ends' even within the individual's own thought are incompatible. That is that it is not simply a question of the ' variety of the world' which confounds the system - builder but the ' inherent contradictions ' within it , which cannot be resolved into any great single Platonic or Hegelian system.
A celebrator of the variety of life and existence Berlin saw that Tolstoy could represent and create such variety in the highest possible way while still somehow wishing he were able to unite it all into one.
Apparently there is 'no unified field theory' in the world of history or the history of ideas , either.

Sir Isaiah Berlin has written a critical acclaim of the historic views of famous Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy as expressed in one of his masterpieces "War and Piece". In 'The Hedgehog and The Fox' (1953), Dr. Berlin compares and contracts the monist and pluralist historical philosophies. According to Archilochus "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." This can be interpreted that there is a philosophy of a single undiminished holistic truth or principle governing all history, or there is a myriad little ideas, truths and inclinations which together govern mens historical experience.

Tolstoy, according to Berlin, is a fox (whose talent is by the way in precisely being a fox), who is however convinced in the ways of the hedgehog. Tolstoy is at his greatest when he describes the subtle undertones of human existence, these barely perceptible little differences which makes living so full and colorful, range of emotions and feelings. He does not believe, however, that this is all that is, and insists on some ill-defined fundamental truth. This makes his writing wooden, unhistorical, and simplistic at times.

Berlin makes a perceptive observations on the interest of Tolstoy's in some of the figures of Counter-Enlightenment (such as Maestre and Vico). These proponents of the view of the world which denies all-pervasive powers of reductionist science and allocates the central place to a simple idea (e.g. Christian moral idea) are closer to Tolstoy; and from this point of view and interest Tolstoy's last "religious" period owes its inspiration. Berlin shows Tolstoy as a tragic genius riddled with contradictions and frustrations of misapprehension of his enormous talents in inability to say what he wanted to say the most - paint a true picture of human historical experience.

Style of Berlin's polemic is as always colorful, insightful, supremely observant and scholarly. Essay is no longer then 75 pages and would make for a delightful Sunday afternoon reading. Highly recommended!

In this essay, Isaiah Berlin discusses and interprets Tolstoy's view of history. In the process, he uses Tolstoy's enormous novel, WAR AND PEACE, as his major source. Those of you who have read WAR AND PEACE will remember the frequent theoretical passages that discuss the practice and philosophy of history. These passages provide Berlin with fodder for his examination.

Berlin claims that there are two broad categories of thinkers: hedgehogs and foxes. Hedgehogs single-mindedly pursue one ideological goal and organize their thoughts in relation to it. Foxes are knowledgeable in a number of areas but do not specialize in any one.

The basic claim of Berlin's essay is that Tolstoy is a fox masquerading as a hedgehog. Tolstoy desperately wants to believe in a single thing, but is thwarted by his own personality. This dynamic profoundly affects Tolstoy's view of history. As a fox, he exposes past philosophies of history as the oversimplifications they are. They do not sufficiently take into account the complexity of every event and of every individual. However, Tolstoy is unable to produce the positive theory of history which he demands of himself (i.e. he is unable to make himself a hedgehog).

Berlin's essay is a very innovative and interesting interpretation of an aspect of Tolstoy's thought that is frequently dismissed. It is also a work of literary and philosophical criticism. Its tone is academic, and if Tolstoy's own digressions in WAR AND PEACE bore you, you may not want to pick this book up. Given the interest, though, this book is a thought-provoking complement to the work of this sometimes enigmatic Russian author.

Berlin took up an idea from the Greek poet Archilocus, that the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog one big thing, and accordingly labeled as hedgehogs or foxes a parade of authors from antiquity to his own time. Plato, Dante, Dostoevsky, Ibsen, Proust and others thus become hedgehogs; Aristotle, Shakespeare, Moliére, Goethe, Pushkin, Balzac, Joyce and others foxes. It is tempting to criticize this as silly, and/or to challenge the labeling of some of the authors specified - for instance, if the examples named above are hedgehogs, then why not Pushkin also? Or vice versa. However, Berlin later said he had not intended to be taken seriously, but was merely proposing "a kind of enjoyable intellectual game".

The heart of the essay develops from the further assertion that Tolstoy's talents were those of a fox, but that his belief was that one ought to be a hedgehog. Berlin illustrates this with a wide-ranging analysis of War and Peace and Anna Karenina, with reference to the 18th century philosopher Joseph de Maistre and others, but only occasional reference to other examples of Tolstoy's writing. As Berlin approaches the conclusion of his essay, he writes, "Tolstoy was the least superficial of men: he could not swim with the tide without being drawn irresistibly beneath the surface to investigate the darker depths below; and he could not avoid seeing what he saw and doubting even that; he could close his eyes but not forget that he was doing so; his appalling, destructive sense of what was false frustrated this final effort at self-deception as it did all the earlier ones; and he died in agony, oppressed by the burden of his intellectual infallibility and his sense of perpetual moral error, the greatest of those who can neither reconcile, nor leave unreconciled, the conflict of what there is with what there ought to be".

It takes a while to unpack that long sentence. Having done so, Tolstoy lovers everywhere will recognize those words as a sincere appreciation of Tolstoy's whole life, especially the latter years, not just those during which he wrote War and Peace and Anna Karenina.

I had to read this book for a theory class and really enjoyed it. It was thought provoking and gave insight into different mentality. It pushes you to think beyond where you currently are and to take a look at your own thinking patterns, values etc....

Berlin's essay on Tolstoy's view of history may be as good as lit-crit gets. Rather than an literary allusion-laden comparison of War & Peace to other works by Tolstoy or to other authors, Berlin develops his insights through a close reading of War & Peace as a text. Also, this essay is unlike post-modern lit-crit, in which the field has become all rhetoric & little, if any, close attention to the 'meaning' of great works of literature. I had read Berlin's polysc 'claim to fame,' Four Essays on Liberty, before I browsed upon this short essay in a bookshop. I had not read War & Peace in its entirety -- I find Russian epic novels of 1200+pp hard to finish. The Russian names alone slow the narrative plot. I had read enough to understand the points of the essay.

Berlin analyzes Tolstoy's 'impersonal lectures upon grand historical forces' which accompany sweeping war scenes throughout War & Peace. These are interspersed between more intimate scenes of narrative -- dialogues, love scenes, personal events, character descriptions, etc. Berlin notes a strange irony of Tolstoy's genius. These abstract, single-minded lectures are in an 'omniscient voice'(presumably, Tolstoy's message or point-of-view). But this impersonal lecturing is unconvincing to Berlin. On the other hand, Tolstoy crafts from words multi-faceted, irrational, intimately-human insights through descriptions of characters, their motives, dreams, fears -- these emotions ring true. The effect of these diverse literary 'voices' is the real Tolstoy in War & Peace. The single-minded lecturer is contradicted by the literary-ventriloquist's ability to create a multitude of diverse personalities of characters with different viewpoints. In the end, Berlin concludes, these multi-faceted insights identify Tolstoy as a fox-like genius wishing to be a hedgehog in spite of himself.

Berlin's famous digression from War & Peace leads to his distinction between foxes & hedgehogs as human personality mind-sets. Foxes lack single-mindedness - they pursue a range of interests and dabble in whatever they find intriguing at a particular time. Hedgehogs are focused & disciplined and eventually seek an all-encompassing explanation. Foxes are polymathic, synthetic, & inconsistent; hedgehogs tend toward the theological and a single, absolute Truth or principle. In fairness, all of Berlin's allusions to Tolstoy's view of history could be deleted from this famous essay yet Berlin's insight regarding foxes & hedgehogs would still be provocative & relevant.

For those who found this essay insightful, 4 Essays on Liberty pursues a similar concern with 'positive liberty' & 'negative liberty.' Hedgehogs want desperately to maximize both ideals of liberty in an all-encompassing libertarian utopia. However, for Berlin, who champions the fox / individualist point-of-view in this analysis, the reality is that these political ideals are irreconcilable 'trade-offs' in political theory. He is fearful that too much positive liberty, empowering the State over the individual, increases risks of tyrannical abuse of human rights.
end of book review

personal digression on Berlin's distinction between foxes vs. hedgehogs & its significance to natural sciences, humanities, & architecture
Since my interest was less literary, rather more psychological, Berlin's distinctions between 'polymathic foxes' & 'single-minded hedgehogs', as kinds of thinkers (and approaches to truth), appealed to me as a student of philosophy & the history of ideas. Its insights are applicable to 20th C. natural science as a 'single-minded paradigm of absolute truth' vs. polymathic creators & scientists who compartmentalize the ahistorical Truth of Science, yet pursue an open-minded search for non-scientific, historical insights.

Foxes may often seem less consistent and undisciplined when compared to specialized scholars & scientists, i.e., 'hedgehogs' of our modern era. They are also often more interesting. We live in an era when specialization is encouraged and rewarded, while idiosyncratic, free-thinkers are rarely credited with their amateur achievements, outside of their field of 'relative' 'specialization. 'Hedgehog specialists', especially the mind-set of the researcher / scientist in the context of corporate, governmental, and academic institutions, are privileged. This is expected of all 'power' professionals where career is built upon specialization. Hedgehogs provide the stability & structure for socialized institutional knowledge. Conversely, foxes cannot structure institutional knowledge but foxes can excel in some leadership roles which demand creative synthesis of interdisciplinary knowledge. A consequence of the extraordinary, systematic expansion of technical and scientific knowledge, based upon specialization in the 20th C, has been an explosion of knowledge that is stunningly profound & that has enhanced the standard of life of billions of people.

In contrast, this explains why a profession that has been historically most 'fox-like' and the domain of broad generalists, architecture, has become less idiosyncratic & less an expression of the personality of individual architects. Architecture is largely subsumed by engineering in the 20th century, ie, Modernism. Historically, architecture was an abiding interest of thinkers with 'Renaissance minds' or super-foxes. Consider the polymathic geniuses of history -- Leonardo, Brunelleschi, Jefferson, Goethe, to name a few. There have still been great 'scientific' polymaths in our era -- Rudolph Steiner & Buckminister Fuller are examples. But in this age of scientific specialization, they have struggled, across specialized disciplines of the sciences, to achieve fame & recognition. Fuller's geodesic dome as a hemispherical array of trusses, i.e., is an architectural form based more upon scientific principles (geometric chemical bonding 'synergies') than upon historical architectural style. It is ironic that post-modernism in architecture has enlivened the profession with humor, wit, & personality, while it has debased lit-crit to often meaningless jargon & ideology.

The fox looks every which way when he runs across the fields, but the hedgehog focuses almost exclusively on his burrow.

So which was Leo Tolstoy, the author of War and Peace (Modern Library Classics)?

Along the way to examining this quetion, Isaiah Berlin raises some big questions himself about the nature of history, human experience, and whether our world is knowable.

This is a terrific essay, very clear and lucid. Isaiah Berlin's reasoned argument is a delight to the modern reader. It does not lose anything by being over 50 years old--in fact the whole discussion takes on a timeless quality. When you are reading Isaiah Berlin, you are under the spell of a great thinker and a great writer.

Berlin takes his title from the fragment of the Greek poet, Archilochus which says: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." Berlin concludes that Tolstoy is both together.

Human will and the progress of history cannot be explained by a specific line of scientific inquiry and discovery but by an expanded awareness of the flow of life experience. That's what Tolstoy is getting at according to Berlin.

"And the most important and most pervasive of these is the crucial line that divides the surface from the depths--on the one hand the world of perceptible, describable, and analysable data, both physical and psycological, . . . and on the other, the order which, as it were, contains and determines the structure of experience, the framework in which it--that is, we and all that we experience--must be conceived as being set, that which enters into our habits of thought, action, feeling, our emotions, hopes, wishes, ourways of talking, believing, reacting, being . . ."

We are all immersed in this medium, the flow of life. Tolsoty pportrays this vividly in certain passages of War and Peace (Modern Library Classics). His heroes Pierre, Prince Andrey and others arrive at moments of realization.

There are strong similarities between an epiphany about the flow of life and history and the realizations reached by Rousseau, Wordsworth, and Emerson.

A deep knowing of the flow of life was holistic, the "one big thing" which Tolstoy, the fox, was tending towards, though despite this "hedgehog" idea, Tolstoy always remains the fox because of his mastery of detail of the world in all its particulars. Tolstoy shows great mastery of concrete, particular details and descriptions, and the nuances of character.

Of course, in later life Tolstoy became converted to a form of Christianity based on the Sermon on the Mount. In The Kingdom of God is Within You & What is Art? (New Edition) (see my review), a book which influenced Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Tolstoy explains these views at great length, arguing there for pacifism, and presenting a deep-seated antipathy toward government of any kind, and the Orthodox Church as currently constituted.

Isaiah Berlin, who was born in Riga, Latvia and moved to St. Petersburg, Russia where, as a child, he witnessed the Russian Revolution. Berlin was a political philosopher and historian of ideas. He is considered one of the greatest minds of the Twentieth Century. He is especially well-known for his argument against ideological totalitarianism of every kind in Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford Paperbacks).

An easy read--written in extremely beautiful language--that makes one re-think of the world and society around.

An easy read--written in extremely beautiful language--that makes one re-think of the world and society around.