Dialectical monism, also known as dualistic monism, is an ontological position that holds that reality is ultimately a unified whole, distinguishing itself from monism by asserting that this whole necessarily expresses itself in dualistic terms.
For the dialectical monist, the essential unity is that of
complementary polarities, which, while opposed in the realm of
experience and perception, are co-substantial in a transcendent sense.
Principles
To establish its premises, dialectical monism may posit a Universal Dialectic, which is seen as the fundamental principle of existence. The concept is similar to that of the Taiji or "Supreme Ultimate" in Taoism, the "Purusha-Prakriti" in Samkhya, and duality-in-unity of Shiva-Shakti in Tantra. Advocates assert that Taoism as well as some forms of Buddhism are based on an approach consistent with or identical to dialectical monism.
Ideas relating to "teleological evolution" are important in some progressive
interpretations of dialectical monism. However, this element has not
always been present historically, and is generally not present in
contemporary dialectical monisms such as Taoism. It is important to note
that teleological tendencies in dialectical monism can significantly
differ from other variants of teleology if dialectical progression is
linked to materialism, because such an interpretation is a naturalistic progression rather than a result of design or consciousness. However, non-materialistic philosophies exist that also are dialectical monisms, such as Actual Idealism.
Some variants of dialectical monism adhere to the view that all
conditions exist at all times in unity, and our consciousness separates
them into dualistic forms. Other views maintain that the nature of
dialectical synthesis dictates that the flow of change will tend toward a
"spiral-shaped progression" rather than a perpetual non-progressive
(repetitive) circling of history. For these dialectical monists, this
explains the fact of physical self-organization
in Nature, as well as the observed tendency for human societies to
achieve gradual "progress" over time. These teleological variants may be
referred to as "progressive dialectical monism."
As a monism, dialectical monism is opposed to traditional dualism
despite its emphasis on "twoness." In dialectical monism, the
appearance of duality is seen as arising from the mind's need to impose
divisions and boundaries upon an essentially unified whole. Thus, for
the dialectical monist, reality is ultimately one but can only be experienced in terms of division.
Furthermore, dialectical monism might also be termed "plural monism," for it recognizes the dependently originated
existence of a multiplicity of entities, which Taoism calls "the ten
thousand things." Dialectical monism does not deny that the plurality of
things in existence are "real," but points out that physical reality
itself is mind-dependent. (see Taoism and Zen).
History
Dialectical monism has been mentioned in Western literature, although infrequently. Jean-Paul Sartre
used the term on at least one occasion. Sartre may have used the term
"dialectical monism" to when inferring what he saw as absurd in the
dogma of a Marxist–Leninist
non-dualistic interpretation of the dialectic, in which any
oppositional view point was claimed to be non-dialectical rather than
part of the dialectic itself.
Although the term has never been used outside the West, advocates maintain
that dialectical monism has a much greater presence in Eastern
traditions. A wide number of Taoist sources are cited, especially those
that relate to the Taiji or yin and yang concepts. In addition, several Buddhist works are seen as containing strong elements of dialectical monism.
Buddhist influences
The Heart Sutra provides a notable expression of dialectical monism:
"Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness."
However, it is sometimes held that the Buddhist elements of dialectical monism are more accurately characterized as non-dualistic
since they deny any fundamental sort of creative principle or "one
thing," such as that posited by dialectical monism. See the Buddhist
philosophy of emptiness.
In response, dialectical monists might reply that theirs is a
"positive expression of nondualism," as opposed to the "negative"
expression implied by the qualifier non in nondualism.
Nagarjuna,
principal developer of the emptiness doctrine in Buddhism, had a
perspective consistent with a broad dialectical monism that was based on
the following statement attributed to the Buddha:
"By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a
polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the
origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment,
'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When
one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right
discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to
one."
- Saṃyutta Nikāya 12:15
Western influences
Pre-Socratic
Heraclitus is a notable early exception to the Eastern monopoly on dialectical monism:
"By cosmic rule, as day yields night, so winter summer,
war peace, plenty famine. All things change. Fire penetrates the lump of
myrrh, until the joining bodies die and rise again in smoke called
incense." (fragment 36)
"Men do not know how that which is drawn in different
directions harmonises with itself. The harmonious structure of the world
depends upon opposite tension like that of the bow and the lyre."
Post-Socratic
One must realize that war is shared and Conflict is Justice, and that all things come to pass in accordance with conflict. — Cited by Origen, Contra Celsum VI.28 (Diels-Kranz fragment 80)
It is wise, not listening to me but to the report (λόγος), to agree that all things are one. — Cited by Hippolytus, Refutatio IX.9.1 (Diels-Kranz fragment 50)
Parallels in Aztec philosophy
In its article on Aztec philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Aztec (Nahua) metaphysics as a form of dialectical monism:
Although essentially processive and devoid of any
permanent order, the ceaseless becoming of the cosmos is nevertheless
characterized by an overarching balance, rhythm, and regularity: one
provided by and constituted by teotl... Dialectical polar monism holds that: (1) the cosmos and its contents are substantively and formally identical with teotl; and (2) teotl presents itself primarily as the ceaseless, cyclical oscillation of polar yet complementary opposites.
Teotl's process presents itself in multiple
aspects, preeminent among which is duality. This duality takes the form
of the endless opposition of contrary yet mutually interdependent and
mutually complementary polarities that divide, alternately dominate, and
explain the diversity, movement, and momentary arrangement of the
universe. These include: being and not-being, order and disorder, life
and death, light and darkness, masculine and feminine, dry and wet, hot
and cold, and active and passive. Life and death, for example, are
mutually arising, interdependent, and complementary aspects of one and
the same process.
Dao De Jing references
Chapter 42 of the Dao De Jing outlines a number-based cosmology that may be consistent with dialectical monism:
"The Tao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced
Three; Three produced All things. All things leave behind them the
Obscurity (out of which they have come), and go forward to embrace the
Brightness (into which they have emerged), while they are harmonised by
the Breath of Vacancy."
"What men dislike is to be orphans, to have little
virtue, to be as carriages without naves; and yet these are the
designations kings and princes use for themselves. So it is that some
things are increased by being diminished, and others are diminished by
being increased."
Several other chapters (including Chapter 1) make reference to concepts consistent with dialectical monism.
Contemporary references
Eastern Philosophy
"Really,
the fundamental, ultimate mystery - the only thing you need to know to
understand the deepest metaphysical secrets - is this: that for every
outside there is an inside and for every inside there is an outside, and
although they are different, they go together."
— Alan Watts
Shakespeare
"... for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
— William Shakespeare, Hamlet. Act II, scene ii 245
"I
am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is
unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for
that person it is unclean." Romans 14:14
Thelema
In a more contemporary area, the idea of dialectical monism is expressed in the central book of Thelema, Liber AL vel Legis:
"None... and two. For I am divided for love's sake, for
the chance of union. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of
division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all."
— Liber AL vel Legis, ch. 1, verses 28-30
"The world exists as two, for only so can there be known
the Joy of Love, whereby are Two made One. Aught that is One is alone,
and has little pain in making itself two, that it may know itself, and
love itself, and rejoice therein."
— Aleister Crowley, "The Comment Called D"
In Thelema, the transcendent unity is often referred to as "None" or "Nothing":
"By Light shall ye look upon yourselves, and behold All
Things that are in Truth One Thing only, whose name hath been called No
Thing..."
—Aleister Crowley, De Lege Libellum
"... let it be ever thus; that men speak not of Thee as
One but as None; and let them speak not of thee at all, since thou art
continuous!"
—Liber AL vel Legis, ch. 1, verse 27
Sartre on Marxism
"It is dualist because it is monist.
Marx’s ontological monism consisted in affirming the irreducibility of
Being to thought, and, at the same time, in reintegrating thoughts with
the real as a particular form of human activity."
—Jean-Paul Sartre, Critique of Dialectical Reason, Vol. 1. Theory of Practical Ensembles
In Sartre's seminal work, the Critique of Dialectical Reason,
it is shown how the essential dualism of Marx corresponds to a
heightened synthesis, referring to totality, which is the monism that
grounds the theses and antitheses of Marxism.
Native American
"The
Universe, which controls all life, has a female and male balance that
prevalent throughout our Sacred Grandmother, the Earth. This balance has
to be acknowledged and become the determining factor in all of one’s
decisions, be they spiritual, social, healthful, educational or
economical."
—Russell Means
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasibleargument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument. It is well known as a fallacy,
though some consider that it is used in a cogent form when all sides of
a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given
context. Other authors consider it a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.
Forms
Appeals to authorities
Historically,
opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a
valid argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources, with some holding that it is a strong or at least valid argument and others that it is weak or an outright fallacy.
If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument.
Use in science
Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority as authority has no place in science. Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:
One
of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from
authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong.
Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.
One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923, when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made, that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956, scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority, despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23. Even textbooks with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24 based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.
This seemingly established number generated confirmation bias among researchers, and "most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter's number, virtually always did so". Painter's "influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence", and scientists who obtained the accurate number modified or discarded their data to agree with Painter's count.
A more recent example involved the "When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality"
paper, published in 2014. The paper was a fraud based on forged data,
yet concerns about it were ignored in many cases due to appeals to
authority. One analysis of the affair notes that "Over and over again,
throughout the scientific community and the media, LaCour’s
impossible-seeming results were treated as truth, in part because of the
weight [the study's co-author] Green's name carried".
One psychologist stated his reaction to the paper was "that's very
surprising and doesn't fit with a huge literature of evidence. It
doesn't sound plausible to me... [then I pull it up and] I see Don Green
is an author. I trust him completely, so I'm no longer doubtful". The
forger, LaCour, would use appeals to authority to defend his research:
"if his responses sometimes seemed to lack depth when he was pressed for
details, his impressive connections often allayed concerns", with one
of his partners stating "when he and I really had a disagreement, he
would often rely on the kind of arguments where he’d basically invoke
authority, right? He's the one with advanced training, and his adviser
is this very high-powered, very experienced person...and they know a lot
more than we do".
Much like the erroneous chromosome number taking decades to
refute until microscopy made the error unmistakable, the one who would
go on to debunk this paper "was consistently told by friends and
advisers to keep quiet about his concerns lest he earn a reputation as a
troublemaker", up until "the very last moment when multiple 'smoking
guns' finally appeared", and he found that "There was almost no
encouragement for him to probe the hints of weirdness he’d uncovered".
Appeals to non-authorities
Fallacious arguments from authority are also frequently the result of citing a non-authority as an authority. The philosophers Irving Copi and Carl Cohen
characterized it as a fallacy "when the appeal is made to parties
having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand".
An example of the fallacy of appealing to an authority in an unrelated field would be citing Albert Einstein as an authority for a determination on religion when his primary expertise was in physics.
It is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.
As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument
are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.
Other related fallacious arguments assume that a person without status or authority is inherently reliable. For instance, the appeal to poverty is the fallacy of thinking that someone is more likely to be correct because they are poor.
When an argument holds that a conclusion is likely to be true precisely
because the one who holds or is presenting it lacks authority, it is a
fallacious appeal to the common man.
Cognitive bias
The
argument from authority is based on the idea that a perceived authority
must know better and that the person should conform to their opinion.
This has its roots in psychological cognitive biases such as the Asch effect. In repeated and modified instances of the Asch conformity experiments,
it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood
of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the
subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was
incorrect.
Further, humans have been shown to feel strong emotional pressure
to conform to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the
experiments by another group of researchers found that "Participants
reported considerable distress
under the group pressure", with 59% conforming at least once and
agreeing with the clearly incorrect answer, whereas the incorrect answer
was much more rarely given when no such pressures were present.
Another study shining light on the psychological basis of the fallacy as it relates to perceived authorities are the Milgram experiments, which demonstrated that people are more likely to go along with something when it is presented by an authority.
In a variation of a study where the researchers did not wear lab coats,
thus reducing the perceived authority of the tasker, the obedience
level dropped to 20% from the original rate, which had been higher than
50%. Obedience is encouraged by reminding the individual of what a
perceived authority states and by showing them that their opinion goes
against this authority.
Scholars have noted that certain environments can produce an ideal situation for these processes to take hold, giving rise to groupthink.
In groupthink, individuals in a group feel inclined to minimize
conflict and encourage conformity. Through an appeal to authority, a
group member might present that opinion as a consensus and encourage the
other group members to engage in groupthink by not disagreeing with
this perceived consensus or authority. One paper about the philosophy of mathematics notes that, within academia,
If...a
person accepts our discipline, and goes through two or three years of
graduate study in mathematics, he absorbs our way of thinking, and is no
longer the critical outsider he once was...If the student is unable to
absorb our way of thinking, we flunk him out, of course. If he gets
through our obstacle course and then decides that our arguments are
unclear or incorrect, we dismiss him as a crank, crackpot, or misfit.
Corporate environments are similarly vulnerable to appeals to perceived authorities and experts leading to groupthink, as are governments and militaries.
In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning:
an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This
often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is
hidden, or at least not easily apparent.
In modern vernacular usage, however, begging the question is often used to mean "raising the question" or "suggesting the question". Sometimes it is confused with "dodging the question", an attempt to avoid it.
The phrase begging the question originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of the Latinpetitio principii, which in turn was a mistranslation of the Greek for "assuming the conclusion".
History
The original phrase used by Aristotle from which begging the question
descends is: τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς (or sometimes ἐν ἀρχῇ) αἰτεῖν, "asking for the
initial thing." Aristotle's intended meaning is closely tied to the
type of dialectical argument he discusses in his Topics,
book VIII: a formalized debate in which the defending party asserts a
thesis that the attacking party must attempt to refute by asking
yes-or-no questions and deducing some inconsistency between the
responses and the original thesis.
In this stylized form of debate, the proposition that the
answerer undertakes to defend is called "the initial thing" (τὸ ἐξ
ἀρχῆς, τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ) and one of the rules of the debate is that the
questioner cannot simply ask for it (that would be trivial and
uninteresting). Aristotle discusses this in Sophistical Refutations and in Prior Analytics book II, (64b, 34–65a 9, for circular reasoning see 57b, 18–59b, 1).
The stylized dialectical exchanges Aristotle discusses in the Topics included rules for scoring the debate, and one important issue was precisely the matter of asking for the initial thing—which
included not just making the actual thesis adopted by the answerer into
a question, but also making a question out of a sentence that was too
close to that thesis (for example, PA II 16).
The term was translated into English from Latin in the 16th century. The Latin version, petitio principii, "asking for the starting point", can be interpreted in different ways. Petitio (from peto), in the post-classical context in which the phrase arose, means assuming or postulating, but in the older classical sense means petition, request or beseeching. Principii, genitive of principium, means beginning, basis or premise (of an argument). Literally petitio principii means "assuming the premise" or "assuming the original point".
The Latin phrase comes from the Greek τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ αἰτεῖσθαι (to en archei aiteisthai, "asking the original point") in Aristotle's Prior Analytics II xvi 64b28–65a26:
Begging or assuming the point at
issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) [of] failing
to demonstrate the required proposition. But there are several other
ways in which this may happen; for example, if the argument has not
taken syllogistic form at all, he may argue from premises which are less
known or equally unknown, or he may establish the antecedent by means
of its consequents; for demonstration proceeds from what is more certain
and is prior. Now begging the question is none of these. [...] If,
however, the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that
they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he
is begging the point at issue.... [B]egging the question is proving
what is not self-evident by means of itself...either because predicates
which are identical belong to the same subject, or because the same
predicate belongs to subjects which are identical.
Aristotle's distinction between apodictic science and other forms of non-demonstrative knowledge rests on an epistemology and metaphysics wherein appropriate first principles become apparent to the trained dialectician:
Aristotle's advice in S.E.
27 for resolving fallacies of Begging the Question is brief. If one
realizes that one is being asked to concede the original point, one
should refuse to do so, even if the point being asked is a reputable
belief. On the other hand, if one fails to realize that one has conceded
the point at issue and the questioner uses the concession to produce
the apparent refutation, then one should turn the tables on the
sophistical opponent by oneself pointing out the fallacy committed. In
dialectical exchange it is a worse mistake to be caught asking for the
original point than to have inadvertently granted such a request. The
answerer in such a position has failed to detect when different
utterances mean the same thing. The questioner, if he did not realize he
was asking the original point, has committed the same error. But if he
has knowingly asked for the original point, then he reveals himself to
be ontologically confused: he has mistaken what is non-self-explanatory
(known through other things) to be something self-explanatory (known
through itself). In pointing this out to the false reasoner, one is not
just pointing out a tactical psychological misjudgment by the
questioner. It is not simply that the questioner falsely thought that
the original point, if placed under the guise of a semantic equivalent,
or a logical equivalent, or a covering universal, or divided up into
exhaustive parts, would be more persuasive to the answerer. Rather, the
questioner falsely thought that a non-self-explanatory fact about the
world was an explanatory first principle. For Aristotle, that certain
facts are self-explanatory while others are not is not a reflection
solely of the cognitive abilities of humans. It is primarily a
reflection of the structure of noncognitive reality. In short, a
successful resolution of such a fallacy requires a firm grasp of the
correct explanatory powers of things. Without a knowledge of which
things are self-explanatory and which are not, the reasoner is liable to
find a question-begging argument persuasive.
— Scott Gregory Schreiber, Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations
Thomas Fowler believed that Petitio Principii would be more properly called Petitio Quæsiti, which is literally "begging the question".
Definition
To "beg the question" is to put forward an argument whose validity requires that its own conclusion be true.
Also called petitio principii, the fallacy is an attempt to support a claim with a premise that itself presupposes the claim. It is an attempt to prove a proposition while simultaneously taking the proposition for granted.
Given the single variable C (claim), "begging the question" is an attempt to assert that C → C. In two variables, C (claim) and P (premise), it attempts to pass (C → P) → C as the valid claim P → C. This is a form of circular reasoning, and may involve any number of variables.
When the fallacy involves only a single variable, it is sometimes called a hysteron proteron (Greek for "later earlier"), a rhetorical device, as in the statement:
"Opium induces sleep because it has a soporific quality."
A similar example:
"Everyone wants this new Hero Man action figure because it's the hottest toy this season."
This form of the fallacy may not be immediately obvious. Linguistic
variations in syntax, sentence structure and literary device may conceal
it, as may other factors involved in an argument's delivery. It may
take the form of an unstated premise which is essential but not
identical to the conclusion, or is "controversial or questionable for
the same reasons that typically might lead someone to question the
conclusion":
...[S]eldom is anyone going to
simply place the conclusion word-for-word into the premises ... Rather,
an arguer might use phraseology that conceals the fact that the
conclusion is masquerading as a premise. The conclusion is rephrased to
look different and is then placed in the premises.
— Paul Herrick
For example, one can obscure the fallacy by first making a statement
in concrete terms, then attempting to pass off an identical statement,
delivered in abstract terms, as evidence for the original. One could also "bring forth a proposition expressed in words of Saxon origin, and give as a reason for it the very same proposition stated in words of Norman origin", as here:
"To allow every man an unbounded freedom of speech must always
be, on the whole, advantageous to the State, for it is highly conducive
to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a
liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments."
When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in more than one step, some authors dub it circulus in probando (reasoning in a circle) or, more commonly, circular reasoning.
Begging the question is not considered a formal fallacy (an argument that is defective because it uses an incorrect deductive step). Rather, it is a type of informal fallacy that is logically valid but unpersuasive, in that it fails to prove anything other than what is already assumed.
Related fallacies
Closely connected with begging the question is the fallacy of circular reasoning (circulus in probando), a fallacy in which the reasoner begins with the conclusion. The individual components of a circular argument can be logically valid
because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and does
not lack relevance. However, circular reasoning is not persuasive
because a listener who doubts the conclusion also doubts the premise
that leads to it.
Begging the question is similar to the complex question (also known as trick question or fallacy of many questions):
a question that, to be valid, requires the truth of another question
that has not been established. For example, "Which color dress is Mary
wearing?" may be fallacious because it presupposes that Mary is wearing a
dress. Unless it has previously been established that her outfit is a
dress, the question is fallacious because she could be wearing pants
instead.
Another related fallacy is ignoratio elenchi or irrelevant conclusion:
an argument that fails to address the issue in question, but appears to
do so. An example might be a situation where A and B are debating
whether the law permits A to do something. If A attempts to support his
position with an argument that the law ought to allow him to do the thing in question, then he is guilty of ignoratio elenchi.
Contemporary usage
Some contemporary English speakers use begs the question (or equivalent rephrasings thereof) to mean "raises the question", "invites the question", "suggests the question", etc. Such preface is then followed with the question, as in:
[...] personal letter delivery is at an all-time low... Which begs the question: are open letters the only kind the future will know?
Hopewell's success begs the question: why aren't more companies doing the same?.
[Universal access to all-female schools is] an appeal bound to
elicit sympathy, especially from guilty liberals, but it begs the
question of whether the daughters of the rich benefit from single-sex
education.
Spending the summer travelling around India is a great idea, but it does beg the question of how we can afford it.
Prescriptivist
grammarians and people versed in philosophy, logic, and law object to
such usage as incorrect, or at best, unclear. This is because, it is
claimed, the classical sense of Aristotelian logic is the correct one.
Modern republicanism is a guiding political philosophy of the United States that has been a major part of American civic thought since its founding. It stresses liberty and unalienable individual rights as central values, it recognizes the sovereignty of the people as the source of all authority in law; rejects monarchy, aristocracy
and hereditary political power, expects citizens to be virtuous and
faithful in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption. American republicanism was articulated and first practiced by the Founding Fathers
in the 18th century. For them, "republicanism represented more than a
particular form of government. It was a way of life, a core ideology, an
uncompromising commitment to liberty, and a total rejection of
aristocracy."
Republicanism includes guarantees of rights that cannot be repealed by a majority vote. Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the "tyranny of the majority"
in a democracy, and suggested the courts should try to reverse the
efforts of the majority of terminating the rights of an unpopular
minority.
The term 'republicanism' is derived from the term 'republic', but the two words have different meanings. A 'republic'
is a form of government (one without a hereditary ruling class);
'republicanism' refers to the values of the citizens in a republic.
Two major parties have used the term in their name – the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson (founded in 1793, and often called the 'Jeffersonian Republican Party'), and the current Republican Party, founded in 1854 and named after the Jeffersonian party.
The
colonial intellectual and political leaders in the 1760s and 1770s
closely read history to compare governments and their effectiveness of
rule. The Revolutionists were especially concerned with the history of liberty in England and were primarily influenced by the "country party" (which opposed the court party that held power). Country party philosophy relied heavily on the classical republicanism
of Roman heritage; it celebrated the ideals of duty and virtuous
citizenship in a republic. It drew heavily on ancient Greek city-state
and Roman republican examples. The country party shared some of the political philosophy of Whiggism
as well as Tory critics in England which roundly denounced the
corruption surrounding the "court party" in London centering on the
royal court. This approach produced a political ideology Americans
called "republicanism", which was widespread in colonial America by
1775. "Republicanism was the distinctive political consciousness of the entire Revolutionary generation." J.G.A. Pocock explained the intellectual sources in America:
The Whig canon and the
neo-Harringtonians, John Milton, James Harrington and Sidney, Trenchard,
Gordon and Bolingbroke, together with the Greek, Roman, and Renaissance
masters of the tradition as far as Montesquieu, formed the
authoritative literature of this culture; and its values and concepts
were those with which we have grown familiar: a civic and patriot ideal
in which the personality was founded in property, perfected in
citizenship but perpetually threatened by corruption; government
figuring paradoxically as the principal source of corruption and
operating through such means as patronage, faction, standing armies
(opposed to the ideal of the militia); established churches (opposed to
the Puritan and deist modes of American religion); and the promotion of a
monied interest – though the formulation of this last concept was
somewhat hindered by the keen desire for readily available paper credit
common in colonies of settlement.
American republicanism was centered on limiting corruption and greed.
Virtue was of the utmost importance for citizens and representatives.
Revolutionaries took a lesson from ancient Rome; they knew it was
necessary to avoid the luxury that had destroyed the empire.
A virtuous citizen was one who ignored monetary compensation and made a
commitment to resist and eradicate corruption. The republic was sacred;
therefore, it was necessary to serve the state in a truly
representative way, ignoring self-interest and individual will.
Republicanism required the service of those who were willing to give up
their own interests for a common good. According to Bernard Bailyn, "The
preservation of liberty rested on the ability of the people to maintain
effective checks on wielders of power and hence in the last analysis
rested on the vigilance and moral stamina of the people. ... " Virtuous
citizens needed to be strong defenders of liberty and challenge the
corruption and greed in government. The duty of the virtuous citizen
became a foundation for the American Revolution.
Cause of revolution
The commitment of Patriots to republican values was a key intellectual foundation of the American Revolution. In particular, the key was Patriots' intense fear of political corruption and the threat it posed to liberty. Bernard Bailyn
states, "The fact that the ministerial conspiracy against liberty had
risen from corruption was of the utmost importance to the colonists." In 1768 to 1773 newspaper exposés such as John Dickinson's series of "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania"
(1767–68) were widely reprinted and spread American disgust with
British corruption. The patriot press provided emphasized British
corruption, mismanagement, and tyranny.
Britain was increasingly portrayed as corrupt and hostile and that of a
threat to the very idea of democracy; a threat to the established
liberties that colonists enjoyed and to colonial property rights. The
greatest threat to liberty was thought by many to be corruption – not
just in London but at home as well. The colonists associated it with
luxury and, especially, inherited aristocracy, which they condemned.
Historian J.G.A. Pocock
argues that Republicanism explains the American Revolution in terms of
virtuous Republican resistance to British imperial corruption.
Historian Sarah Purcell studied the sermons preached by the New
England patriot clergy in 1774–1776. They stirred up a martial spirit
justified war against England. The preachers cited New England's Puritan
history in defense of freedom, blamed Britain's depravity and
corruption for the necessity of armed conflict. The sermons called on
soldiers to behave morally and in a "manly" disciplined fashion. The
rhetoric not only encouraged heavy enlistment, but helped create the
intellectual climate the Patriots needed to fight a civil war. Historian Thomas Kidd
argues that during the Revolution active Christians linked their
religion to republicanism. He states, "With the onset of the
revolutionary crisis, a major conceptual shift convinced Americans
across the theological spectrum that God was raising up America for some
special purpose."
Kidd further argues that "new blend of Christian and republican
ideology led religious traditionalists to embrace wholesale the concept
of republican virtue."
Historian Gordon Wood has tied the founding ideas to American exceptionalism:
"Our beliefs in liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and the
well-being of ordinary people came out of the Revolutionary era. So too
did our idea that we Americans are a special people with a special
destiny to lead the world toward liberty and democracy." Americans were the protectors of liberty, they had a greater obligation and destiny to assert republican virtue. In Discourse of 1759
Jonathan Mayhew states "An absolute submission to our prince, or
whether disobedience and resistance may not be justified able in some
cases ... to all those who bear the title of rulers in common but only
to those who actually perform the duty of rulers by exercising a
reasonable and just authority for the good of human society." The notion
that British rulers were not virtuous, nor exercising their authority
for the "good of human society" prompted the colonial desire to protect
and reestablish republican values in government. This need to protect
virtue was a philosophical underpinning of the American Revolution.
... a government by its citizens in
mass, acting directly and personally, according to rules established by
the majority; and that every other government is more or less
republican, in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of
this ingredient of the direct action of the citizens. Such a government
is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I
doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England
township. The first shade from this pure element, which, like that of
pure vital air, cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers
of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by
representatives chosen ... for such short terms as should render secure
the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should
consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic, which is
practicable on a large scale of country or population ... we may say
with truth and meaning, that governments are more or less republican as
they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in
their composition; and believing, as I do, that the mass of the
citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially,
that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people, are less
injurious than those from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to
that composition of government which has in it the most of this
ingredient.
The Founding Fathers discoursed endlessly on the meaning of
"republicanism." John Adams in 1787 defined it as "a government, in
which all men, rich and poor, magistrates and subjects, officers and
people, masters and servants, the first citizen and the last, are
equally subject to the laws."
Virtue vs. commerce
The open question, as Pocock suggested, of the conflict between personal economic interest (grounded in Lockean liberalism) and classical republicanism, troubled Americans. Jefferson and Madison roundly denounced the Federalists for creating a national bank as tending to corruption and monarchism; Alexander Hamilton
staunchly defended his program, arguing that national economic strength
was necessary for the protection of liberty. Jefferson never relented
but by 1815 Madison switched and announced in favor of a national bank,
which he set up in 1816.
John Adams often pondered the issue of civic virtue. Writing Mercy Otis Warren
in 1776, he agreed with the Greeks and the Romans, that, "Public Virtue
cannot exist without private, and public Virtue is the only Foundation
of Republics." Adams insisted, "There must be a positive Passion for the
public good, the public Interest, Honor, Power, and Glory, established
in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government,
nor any real Liberty. And this public Passion must be Superior to all
private Passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be
happy to sacrifice their private Pleasures, Passions, and Interests, nay
their private Friendships and dearest connections, when they Stand in
Competition with the Rights of society."
Adams worried that a businessman might have financial interests
that conflicted with republican duty; indeed, he was especially
suspicious of banks. He decided that history taught that "the Spirit of
Commerce ... is incompatible with that purity of Heart, and Greatness of
soul which is necessary for a happy Republic." But so much of that
spirit of commerce had infected America. In New England, Adams noted,
"even the Farmers and Tradesmen are addicted to Commerce." As a result,
there was "a great Danger that a Republican Government would be very
factious and turbulent there."
Other influences
A second stream of thought growing in significance was the classical liberalism of John Locke, including his theory of the "social contract". This had a great influence on the revolution as it implied the inborn right of the people to overthrow their leaders should those leaders betray the agreements implicit in the sovereign-follower relationship. Historians find little trace of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influence in America. In terms of writing state and national constitutions, the Americans used Montesquieu's
analysis of the ideally "balanced" British Constitution. But first and
last came a commitment to republicanism, as shown by many historians
such as Bernard Bailyn and Gordon S. Wood.
Historiography
For
a century, historians have debated how important republicanism was to
the Founding Fathers. The interpretation before 1960, following
Progressive School historians such as Charles A. Beard, Vernon L. Parrington and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr., downplayed rhetoric as superficial and looked for economic motivations. Louis Hartz refined the position in the 1950s, arguing John Locke was the most important source because his property-oriented liberalism supported the materialistic goals of Americans.
In the 1960s and 1970s, two new schools emerged that emphasized
the primacy of ideas as motivating forces in history (rather than
material self-interest). Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood from Harvard formed the "Cambridge School"; at Washington University the "St. Louis School" was led by J.G.A. Pocock. They emphasized slightly different approaches to republicanism. However, some scholars, especially Isaac Kramnick and the late Joyce Appleby,
continue to emphasize Locke, arguing that Americans are fundamentally
individualistic and not devoted to civic virtue. The relative importance
of republicanism and liberalism remains a topic of strong debate among
historians, as well as the politically active of present day.
New Nation: The Constitution
The
Founding Fathers wanted republicanism because its principles guaranteed
liberty, with opposing, limited powers offsetting one another. They
thought change should occur slowly, as many were afraid that a
"democracy" – by which they meant a direct democracy
– would allow a majority of voters at any time to trample rights and
liberties. They believed the most formidable of these potential
majorities was that of the poor against the rich. They thought democracy could take the form of mob rule that could be shaped on the spot by a demagogue.
Therefore, they devised a written Constitution that could be amended
only by a super majority, preserved competing sovereignties in the
constituent states, gave the control of the upper house (Senate) to the states, and created an Electoral College,
comprising a small number of elites, to select the president. They set
up a House of Representatives to represent the people. In practice the
electoral college soon gave way to control by political parties. In
1776, most states required property ownership to vote, but most citizens
owned farms in the 90% rural nation, so it was not a severe
restriction. As the country urbanized and people took on different work,
the property ownership requirement was gradually dropped by many
states. Property requirements were gradually dismantled in state after
state, so that all had been eliminated by 1850, so that few if any
economic barriers remained to prevent white, adult males from voting.
"Republican" as party name
In
1792–93 Jefferson and Madison created a new "Democratic-Republican
party" in order to promote their version of the doctrine. They wanted to
suggest that Hamilton's version was illegitimate. According to Federalist Noah Webster,
a political activist bitter at the defeat of the Federalist party in
the White House and Congress, the choice of the name
"Democratic-Republican" was "a powerful instrument in the process of
making proselytes to the party. ... The influence of names on the mass
of mankind, was never more distinctly exhibited, than in the increase of
the democratic party in the United States. The popularity of the
denomination of the Republican Party, was more than a match for the
popularity of Washington's character and services, and contributed to
overthrow his administration." The party, which historians later called the Democratic-Republican Party, split into separate factions in the 1820s, one of which became the Democratic Party.
After 1832, the Democrats were opposed by another faction that named
themselves "Whigs" after the Patriots of the 1770s who started the American Revolution. Both of these parties proclaimed their devotion to republicanism in the era of the Second Party System.
Republican motherhood
Under the new government after the revolution, "republican motherhood" became an ideal, as exemplified by Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren. The first duty of the republican woman was to instill republican values in her children, and to avoid luxury and ostentation.
Two generations later, the daughters and granddaughters of these
"Republican mothers" appropriated republican values into their lives as
they sought independence and equality in the workforce. During the
1830s, thousands of female mill workers went on strike to battle for
their right to fair wages and independence, as there had been major pay
cuts. Many of these women were daughters of independent land owners and
descendants of men who had fought in the Revolutionary War; they
identified as "daughters of freemen". In their fight for independence at
the mills, women would incorporate rhetoric from the revolution to
convey the importance and strength of their purpose to their corporate
employers, as well as to other women. If the Revolutionary War was
fought to secure independence from Great Britain,
then these "daughters of freemen" could fight for the same republican
values that (through striking) would give them fair pay and
independence, just as the men had.
National debt
Jefferson and Albert Gallatin
focused on the danger that the public debt, unless it was paid off,
would be a threat to republican values. They were appalled that Hamilton
was increasing the national debt and using it to solidify his
Federalist base. Gallatin was the Republican Party's chief expert on
fiscal issues and as Treasury Secretary under Jefferson and Madison
worked hard to lower taxes and lower the debt, while at the same time
paying cash for the Louisiana Purchase and funding the War of 1812.
Burrows says of Gallatin:
His own fears of personal dependency and his small-shopkeeper's
sense of integrity, both reinforced by a strain of radical republican
thought that originated in England a century earlier, convinced him that
public debts were a nursery of multiple public evils – corruption,
legislative impotence, executive tyranny, social inequality, financial
speculation, and personal indolence. Not only was it necessary to
extinguish the existing debt as rapidly as possible, he argued, but
Congress would have to ensure against the accumulation of future debts
by more diligently supervising government expenditures.
Andrew Jackson believed the national debt was a "national curse" and
he took special pride in paying off the entire national debt in 1835.
Politicians ever since have used the issue of a high national debt to
denounce the other party for profligacy and a threat to fiscal soundness
and the nation's future.
Democracy
Ellis
and Nelson argue that much constitutional thought, from Madison to
Lincoln and beyond, has focused on "the problem of majority tyranny."
They conclude, "The principles of republican government embedded in the
Constitution represent an effort by the framers to ensure that the
inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would
not be trampled by majorities."
Madison, in particular, worried that a small localized majority might
threaten inalienable rights, and in "Federalist #10" he argued that the
larger the population of the republic, the more diverse it would be and
the less liable to this threat. Jefferson warned that "an elective despotism is not the government we fought for."
As late as 1800, the word "democrat" was mostly used to attack an opponent of the Federalist party. Thus, George Washington
in 1798 complained, "that you could as soon scrub the blackamoor white,
as to change the principles of a profest Democrat; and that he will
leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country." The Federalist Papers
are pervaded by the idea that pure democracy is actually quite
dangerous, because it allows a majority to infringe upon the rights of a
minority.
Thus, in encouraging the states to participate in a strong centralized
government under a new constitution and replace the relatively weak Articles of Confederation, Madison argued in Federalist No. 10
that a special interest may take control of a small area, e.g. a state,
but it could not easily take over a large nation. Therefore, the larger
the nation, the safer is republicanism.
By 1805, the "Old Republicans" or "Quids", a minority faction among Southern Republicans, led by Johan Randolph, John Taylor of Caroline and Nathaniel Macon,
opposed Jefferson and Madison on the grounds that they had abandoned
the true republican commitment to a weak central government.
Property rights
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
(1779–1845), made the protection of property rights by the courts a
major component of American republicanism. A precocious legal scholar,
Story was appointed to the Court by James Madison in 1811. He and Chief
Justice John Marshall made the Court a bastion of nationalism (along the lines of Marshall's Federalist Party) and a protector of the rights of property against runaway democracy. Story opposed Jacksonian democracy
because it was inclined to repudiate lawful debts and was too often
guilty of what he called "oppression" of property rights by republican
governments.
Story held that, "the right of the citizens to the free enjoyment of
their property legally acquired" was "a great and fundamental principle
of a republican government."
Newmyer (1985) presents Story as a "Statesman of the Old Republic" who
tried to rise above democratic politics and to shape the law in
accordance with the republicanism of Story's heroes, Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall, as well as the New England Whigs of the 1820s and 1830s, such as Daniel Webster.
Historians agree that Justice Story – as much or more than Marshall or
anyone else – did indeed reshape American law in a conservative
direction that protected property rights.
Military service
Civic
virtue required men to put civic goals ahead of their personal desires,
and to volunteer to fight for their country. Military service thus was
an integral duty of the citizen. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, "When citizen and soldier shall be synonymous terms, then you will be safe."
Scott (1984) notes that in both the American and French revolutions,
distrust of foreign mercenaries led to the concept of a national,
citizen army, and the definition of military service was changed from a
choice of careers to a civic duty.
Herrera (2001) explains that an appreciation of self-governance is
essential to any understanding of the American military character before
the Civil War. Military service was considered an important
demonstration of patriotism and an essential component of citizenship.
To soldiers, military service was a voluntary, negotiated, and temporary
abeyance of self-governance by which they signaled their responsibility
as citizens. In practice self-governance in military affairs came to
include personal independence, enlistment negotiations, petitions to
superior officials, militia constitutions, and negotiations regarding
discipline. Together these affected all aspects of military order,
discipline, and life.
Role of the South
In reaction to the Kansas–Nebraska Act
of 1854 that promoted democracy by saying new settlers could decide
themselves whether or not to have slavery, antislavery forces across the
North formed a new party. The party officially designated itself
"Republican" because the name resonated with the struggle of 1776. "In
view of the necessity of battling for the first principles of republican
government," resolved the Michigan state convention, "and against the
schemes of aristocracy the most revolting and oppressive with which the
earth was ever cursed, or man debased, we will co-operate and be known
as Republicans."
J. Mills Thornton argues that in the antebellum South the drive to
preserve republican values was the most powerful force, and led
Southerners to interpret Northern policies against slavery as a threat
to their republican values.
After the war, the Republicans believed that the Constitutional
guarantee of republicanism enabled Congress to Reconstruct the political
system of the former Confederate states. The main legislation was
explicitly designed to promote Republicanism.
Radical Republicans push forward, to secure not only citizenship for
freedmen through the 14th amendment, but to give them the vote through
the 15th amendment. They held that the republicanism meant that true
political knowledge was to be gained in exercising the right to vote and
organizing for elections. Susan B. Anthony and other advocates of woman suffrage said republicanism covered them too, as they demanded the vote.
Progressive Era
A
central theme of the progressive era was fear of corruption, one of the
core ideas of republicanism since the 1770s. The Progressives
restructured the political system to combat entrenched interests (for
example, through the direct election of Senators), to ban influences
such as alcohol that were viewed as corrupting, and to extend the vote
to women, who were seen as being morally pure and less corruptible.
Questions of performing civic duty were brought up in presidential campaigns and World War I. In the presidential election of 1888, Republicans emphasized that the Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland had purchased a substitute to fight for him in the Civil War, while his opponent General Benjamin Harrison had fought in numerous battles. In 1917, a great debate took place over Woodrow Wilson's
proposal to draft men into the U.S. Army after war broke out in Europe.
Many said it violated the republican notion of freely given civic duty
to force people to serve. In the end, Wilson was successful and the Selective Service Act of 1917 was passed.
Legal terminology
The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence,
but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which "guarantee[s]
to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What
exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is
uncertain. The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden (1849), declared that the definition of republic was a "political question"
in which it would not intervene. During Reconstruction the
Constitutional clause was the legal foundation for the extensive
Congressional control over the eleven former Confederate states; there
was no such oversight over the border slave states that had remained in
the Union.
In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank
(1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were
inherent to the idea of republic. The opinion of the court from In re Duncan (1891)
held that the "right of the people to choose their government" is also
part of the definition. It is also generally assumed that the clause
prevents any state from being a monarchy – or a dictatorship. Due to the
1875 and 1891 court decisions establishing basic definition, in the
first version (1892) of the Pledge of Allegiance, which included the word republic, and like Article IV which refers to a Republican form of government, the basic definition of republic
is implied and continues to do so in all subsequent versions, including
the present edition, by virtue of its consistent inclusion.
Democracy
In March 1861 in his famous First Inaugural Address,
Abraham Lincoln denounced secession as anarchy and explained that
majority rule had to be balanced by constitutional restraints in the
American system:
"A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and
limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of
popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free
people."
Over time, the pejorative connotations of "democracy" faded. By the
1830s, democracy was seen as an unmitigated positive and the term
"Democratic" was assumed by the Democratic Party and the term "Democrat" was adopted by its members. A common term for the party in the 19th century was "The Democracy." In debates on Reconstruction, Radical Republicans, such as Senator Charles Sumner,
argued that the republican "guarantee clause" in Article IV supported
the introduction by force of law of democratic suffrage in the defeated
South.
After 1800 the limitations on democracy were systematically
removed; property qualifications for state voters were largely
eliminated in the 1820s. The initiative, referendum, recall,
and other devices of direct democracy became widely accepted at the
state and local level in the 1910s; and senators were made directly electable by the people in 1913. The last restrictions on black voting were made illegal in 1965.
