The Philosopher's Voice: Philosophy, Politics, and Language in the Nineteenth Century (review)

This fine work compares the political philosophies of four German philosophers whose collective careers spanned the first century after the American and French revolutions: Kant (1764-1802), Fichte (1762-1814), Hegel (1770-1831), and Marx (1818-1883). Anyone familiar with these philosophers' works knows they disagreed about many issues, including how if at all a philosopher can help bring about social change. Moreover, we routinely identify Marx as the most active proponent of social change. Fiala preserves these understandings. He argues quite convincingly, though, that each of the others was also committed to making his discipline a relevant player in the contemporary liberation drama. To accomplish this, he analyzes and compares how each delineated the philosopher's political role. This role, they all agreed, involves using language politically (the philosopher's voice) to enhance people's legitimate freedom. Studying each philosopher's approach sequentially, Fiala produces what might be thought of as a classical symphony in four movements. The theme of freedom is present throughout different variations. In the first movement it is heard mostly in the higher registers (Kant). In the second movement it is transmuted into nationalistic bombast (Fichte), and this gives way in the third to rich orchestral renditions (Hegel). In the finale, the horns and percussion are in full command (Marx). Be warned, however, that this musical metaphor has limits, especially because it disregards the crucial question of who is in the audience—what Fiala calls "the political location of the philosopher's voice" (14, 237).

The dual challenge these philosophers faced was to determine how and to whom a philosopher can speak to advance enlightenment and freedom. Toward this end each had to come to terms with the discontinuity between addressing political issues and remaining loyal to philosophy's standards of rationality. This they did by reflecting, if not theorizing, on the diverse uses of language in order to identify those best suited to the philosopher's voice. This task required distinguishing the appropriate linguistic roles of poetry at one end of the spectrum, politics at the other, and philosophy as a kind of intermediary between words and action (155-57). Kant, the master of constructivist methodology, made Rousseau's social contract theory, with its emphasis on the general will, the basis for a kingdom of ends that could achieve perpetual peace (39, 53). His audience, he believed, consisted of any and all citizens able to understand and critique impartially the subtle implications of his transcendental ruminations (60ff.). Hegel, like Kant, was an employee of the state; far more than Kant, though, he identified the present and future participants in the state bureaucracy, including the monarch, as the primary audience for his lessons about freedom (143-51). Fichte found the German language to be uniquely well suited for speaking about freedom and accordingly took his audience to be the as yet nonexistent German people as a whole. So doing, he undermined the distinction between philosophical and political speech. Marx continued but restructured Fichte's activism (178, 205): instead of ignoring the dichotomy of classes within society, he spoke not to the elite and/or bourgeoisie whom his predecessors had addressed but to workers destined to become the proletariat (186, 216, 217).

Each of these philosophers, then, adopted freedom or enlightenment or both as his objective and saw the philosopher's voice as a catalyst toward its achievement (70, 76, 85, 176). They had markedly different views, however, about how the philosopher could help bring this about. Kant counted on philosophy to educate mankind, the categorical imperative to counter Machiavellian politics, and freedom of speech to render rebellion unnecessary (30, 36-37, 70, 71). Fichte, having persuaded himself that he knew the truth and was thus obliged to educate the German people, viewed rhetoric as embodied philosophy, and believed an authoritarian state could best maximize freedom...