man was social by nature, that reasonnhad precedence over will, and manncould comprehend, within limits, annordered, intelligible universe. Whennthis view is related to politics and thenswirl of revolutionary claims to naturalnrights, certain conclusions must follow.nThe French philosophes came forwardnwith radical democratic theses, championingnindividual natural rights andnpopular sovereignty. Burke’s politicsncame into relief as opposed to suchnradical views. He rejected out of handnthe claims to popular sovereignty, andndenied it as an inalienable right. Henproclaimed man’s place in the continuousnunfolding of the nation of whichnhe is a part, and recognized the developmentalnrole history plays in thenemergence of society, while affirming an”Human Nature . . . which is alwaysnthe same,” itself the touchstone ofnmorality and politics.nCanavan clarifies as few have donenthe main focus of Burke’s attack onndemocratic theory, which is its claim tonarbitrary will. “In Burke’s thought,”nCanavan argues, “arbitrary will wasnnever legitimate, because will was nevernsuperior to reason, not even in thensovereign Lord of the Universe.”nIt becomes the task of Canavan’s lastntwo chapters to demonstrate that innbasing so much of his politics on prescriptionnand providence Burke is notnsuccumbing to historicism and relativism.nWhile Burke argues in one placenthat the “sole authority” of the Britishnconstitution is that it has existed “timenout of mind,” it does not follow thatnthere are no transcendent standardsnupon which to judge the present ordernof any society. Prescription cannot turnninherently evil actions that contravenenhuman nature into morally good acts.nThe historical epoch in which we livenin itself is not sufficient to justify actsnagainst nature, as Burke clearly statednin his argument against the bogusn”geometrical morality” exercised bynHastings in India.nBurke writes in his Correspondencen(concerning the apparent success ofnthe French Revolution) that to continuenresisting a revolution that providencenhas permitted to succeed appearsnto be “perverse and obstinate.”nFor some scholars this amounts tonjustifying the revolution and givingnapproval to a new moral order, thusncondemning Burke to relativism.nCanavan answers by first clarifyingnwhat Burke’s teaching on providencenis, revealing that divine providence isnultimately mysterious; it is reasonable,nnot arbitrary and irrational; and then”ordinary march of providence” providesnthe basis for the rules of prudence,nwhich, for Burke, is the firstnamong virtues both political and moral.nCanavan argues that for Burke thensuccess of the French Revolution doesnnot indicate God’s will that evil shouldnprevail; unknown to the human mind,nthe revolution’s success may play a rolenin God’s design which remains to benrevealed. All that Burke may havenmeant by his remark was that revolutionnwas now a fait accompli.nCanavan’s researches reveal a Burkenwho is more than a practical politiciann— practical, yes; a politician, inescapably;nbut one whose practical politics isnself-consciously nourished by and rootednin a realist metaphysics, a Christiannmetaphysics.nOf course there are Burke’s frequentnremarks which disparage metaphysics.nAfter all, can the Burke who informs usnthat “I never govern myself, no rationalnman ever did govern himself, by abstractionsnand universals,” embrace anmetaphysics? Can he who claims thatn”Man acts from adequate motives relativento his interest, and not on metaphysicalnspeculations,” actually avoidnrelativism? Or he who purports thatn”Metaphysics cannot live without definition;nbut Prudence is cautious hownshe defines,” be a friend of Aristotle ornAquinas?nIt is obvious to any attentive readernof Burke that the metaphysics andnmetaphysicians Burke rails against arenrationalists, or empiricists utilizing deductivenarguments, both epitomized bynthe French philosophes who arbitrarilynimposed their deductive reasoningnupon a complex and recalcitrant reality.nIn fact, he grounds his refutation ofnthem on the metaphysics of Aristotle,nas Burke pointedly remarks in thenReflections: “The troll of their categoricalntable might have informed themn[the French philosophes and levellers]nthat there was something else besidesnsubstance and quantity. They mightnlearn from the catechism of metaphysicsnthat there were eight heads more innevery complex deliberation which theynhave never thought of … ” Thisnshould not be surprising from one whonnnrefers to Aristotle as the “great masternof reasoning.”n]oe Pappin III is an assistant dean atnEmory University.nNo Hope for thenHomelessnby Dan McMuirynThe Homeless in ContemporarynSociety, edited by Richard D.nBingham, Roy E. Green, andnSammis B. White, Newbury Park,nCA: Sage Publications.nThis book is a 272-page inventory ofnMother Hubbard’s cupboard. Almostnwithout exception, the contributednarticles treat the homeless as somenvague, faceless group, far distant fromnthe authors’ time and place. There isnnot even the degree of passion annastronomer brings to the study ofnJupiter’s rings. You get the feeling thatnyou are reading about amoebae. Worse,nmany of the authors are condescending.nYet this book is important because itnis one of the first books on the homelessnthe academic community has done fornthe general readership. As such it isndesigned to guide politicians andnplanners in the support of rational policies.nWith the decisions every largenAmerican community is now facingnconcerning the fate of the homeless, thenneed for reliable information and realisticnguides for planning is cmcial. It isnlamentable that this volume does notnprovide either.nThe book consists of 15 articlesnwhich are divided into two sections,nseven on “understanding homelessness”nand eight concerning “policy andnprogram options.” The articles in thenfirst section are intended to be objectivendescriptions. They are so vague andn”arm-chairish,” however, that they tendnto mislead rather than inform. In somenpieces there is not enough informationngiven even to mislead. These sentencesnare typical:nA home has several functions.nHome is a place where onencan rest and sleep, wash andnchange clothing.nA home of one’s own is anDECEMBER 1988139n
January 1975July 26, 2022By The Archive
Leave a Reply