Customer Reviews

Vindication of Natural Society, A

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

 

 

The redoubtable Edmund Burke is widely known as the man who layed down the philosophical foundations of modern conservatism. Thus, it may come as a great surprise to discover that he penned what may very well be one of the earliest clear expositions of philosophical anarchism in the Western tradition. While scholars may always dispute over the issue of whether or not the "Vindication" was meant as a serious work or a satire, the book's status as a landmark is incontestable.

In this terse tract, Burke sets out to apply the same rationalistic standards to the realm of politics that 18th century Deists like Lord Bolingbroke applied to the doctrines of revealed religion. As Deists upheld the distinction between natural( i.e. rational) and artificial (irrational or faith-based) religion, Burke seeks to defend natural (anarchistic or voluntaristic) society against that which is dominated by the brute engine of government.

Although modern conservatives may also give their full support to the idea that the unrestrained employment of reason undermines the basis of both religion and government, it is infidel anarchists who will derrive the greatest value from his insights. For those wise enough to allow the light of reason to be their guide, the "Vindication" serves as a powerful indictment of government and the innumerable crimes that it has perpetrated on mankind wherever it has existed.

If indeed the work is a satire, it would seem that it has done far more damage to Burke's cause than he would ever have imagined. Not only did the tract serve as a great inspiration to William Godwin, the man who, in less than four decades from the time of this book's publication, authored one of the definitivie works of philosophical anarchism, but it will certainly serve the ends of anarchists for many years to come, as they continue to wage war against the religion of politics with many of the same weapons that Burke has so eloquently furnished for us.

This is a very unusual book. Even before readers begin discussing the content of the book, they find themselves in vigorous debate over the intentions of its author. I am the third reviewer so far to post his thoughts on amazon. One believes that this book contains important political insights, the other derides him for attempting to make such a case. I decided to ignore these issues and read the book in order to understand what was being expressed. I found it very enjoyable.

Now, the title is a bit misleading. The author in no way truly "vindicates" natural society. The book consists more of a series of brilliant critiques of what the author calls "political" or "civil society" the purpose of which is to compare this arrangement to the state of nature, or "natural society."

The first 20 or so pages documents several wars which were carried out by political states for trivial purposes. In particular he discusses the military campaigns of Egypt, Greece, and Rome. The prose is very lucid and engaging. He uses phrases like "great Carnage", "Rage of Conquest" "...poured out Seas of Blood in their Formation and in their Destruction." These enlightening details culminate with the fascinating conclusion, "I charge the whole of these Effects on political Society. ... [T]hat Political Society is justly chargeable with much the greatest Part of this Destruction of the Species."

The next 20 or so pages discusses 3 political systems: despotisms (empires), aristocracy, and democracy. These three systems, the author concludes, differ but in name. All are clear historical examples of tyranny.

So this book is not so much a defense of the state of nature than it is a critique of government, or poltitical institutions generally. Only in a select few passages does the author mention the moral superiority of the "natural society." Overall, I found them largely unconvincing. For example, Burke argues that because there were no wants in the natural state, life was simpler, and thus happier.

Satire or not, I enjoyed this short little book. But you will not find a robust Rousseauian defense of the natural state in here. You will find, however, a clear and lucid argument against government. And it is because of this that I rated the book the way I did.

I was a little startled by an earlier review of this work that suggested that Burke's parody of Bolingbroke could possibly be taken seriously as a work of political insight. And although there have been scholars who have suggested (without supporting evidence) that Burke meant the work to be taken seriously, it is difficult for anyone familiar with Burke's later writings to regard "Vindication" as anything other than a rather dismal parady. The later writings all display qualities sadly lacking in this work, especially the subtlety of thought and nuanced insights featured in "The Reflections on the French Revolution." Anyone who could take this work seriously merely displays a kind of political obtuseness that goes against the very sophistacated, practice-rooted political thinking exemplified by Burke. It is rather laughable that a radical thinker like Godwin should have mined Burke's parody for insights. It demonstrates all to well the essential shallowness of radical political thought.