Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T21:46:41.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Deliberative Sublime: Edmund Burke on Disruptive Speech and Imaginative Judgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2017

ROB GOODMAN
ROB GOODMAN*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
*
Rob Goodman is a Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, Columbia University, 420 W. 118th St., 710 International Affairs Building, Mail Code 3320, New York, NY 10027 (rg2803@columbia.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Is there a case to be made for the value, amidst relatively settled institutions, of unsettling speech—speech characterized by excess, impropriety, and even the uncanny? Much of contemporary deliberative theory would answer in the negative. This article, however, proposes that we can derive a defense of the deliberative value of immoderate speech from an unlikely source: Edmund Burke's theory and practice of the rhetorical sublime. Burke's account of the sublime was developed in response to an eighteenth-century discourse of civility that anticipated the anti-rhetorical strand of contemporary deliberative theory. By reconstructing Burke's response, we can recover a forceful defense of rhetoric in the present. For Burke, the disruptive practice of sublime speech can provoke circumstantial judgment, overcoming deliberators’ aversions to judging. Drawing on Burke's rhetorical practice alongside his aesthetic and linguistic theory, this article upholds a central role in deliberation for rhetoric, even in its unruly and excessive aspects.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 112 , Issue 2 , May 2018 , pp. 267 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author would like to thank Ashraf Ahmed, Christopher Berry, Philip Hamburger, Turkuler Isiksel, David Johnston, Carl Knight, Jennifer London, Alison McQueen, Melissa Schwartzberg, Nadia Urbinati, and several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this article.The author would also like to thank attendees of the 2017 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, and of the 2016 Princeton University Graduate Conference in Political Theory, Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference, and Braga Colloquium in the History of Moral and Political Philosophy.

References

REFERENCES

Abizadeh, Arash. 2007. “On the Philosophy/Rhetoric Binaries: Or, Is Habermasian Discourse Motivationally Impotent?” Philosophy and Social Criticism 33 (4): 445–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M.. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Allen, Danielle. 2004. Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1992. Lectures on Kant's Political Philosophy, eds. Beiner, Ronald. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ashfield, Andrew, and de Bolla, Peter, eds. 1996. The Sublime: A Reader in British Eighteenth-Century Aesthetic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beiner, Ronald. 1983. Political Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bejan, Teresa M. 2017. Mere Civility: Disagreement and the Limits of Toleration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1996a. “Introduction: The Democratic Moment and the Problem of Difference.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 3–18.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1996b. “Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 67–94.Google Scholar
Bessette, Joseph M. 1994. The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Blair, Hugh. 2005. Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, eds. Ferreira-Buckley, Linda and Halloran, S. Michael. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Bourke, Richard. 2015. Empire and Revolution: The Political Life of Edmund Burke. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bromwich, David. 2014. The Intellectual Life of Edmund Burke: From the Sublime and Beautiful to American Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bullard, Paddy. 2011. Edmund Burke and the Art of Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1887a. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas Concerning the Sublime and Beautiful. In The Works of the Right Honorable Edmund Burke. Vol. 1. London: John C. Nimmo, 67–262.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1887b. A Representation to His Majesty. In Works. Vol. 2. 537–76.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1887c. An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs. In Works. Vol. 4. 57–216.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1887d. “Letter to a Noble Lord.” In Works. Vol. 5. 171–232.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1887e. “Speech in General Reply: Ninth Day.” In Works. Vol. 12. 335–400.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1887f. “Speech in Opening the Impeachment: First Day.” In Works. Vol. 9. 329–95.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1887g. “Speech on American Taxation.” In Works. Vol. 2. 1–80.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1887h. “Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies.” In Works. Vol. 2. 99–186.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1887i. “Speech on Mr. Fox's East India Bill.” In Works. Vol. 2. 431–536.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1887j. “Speech on the Nabob of Arcot's Private Debts.” In Works. Vol. 3. 1–210.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1887k. “Speech to the Electors of Bristol.” In Works. Vol. 2. 89–98.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1887l. Reflections on the Revolution in France. In Works. Vol. 3. 231–563.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1960. The Correspondence of Edmund Burke. Vol. 2, ed. Sutherland, Lucy S.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, Ross. 2014. “Revisiting Burke's Critique of Enthusiasm.” History of Political Thought 35 (2): 317–44.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 1996. Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2009. “Rhetoric and the Public Sphere.” Political Theory 37 (9): 323–50.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1997. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, eds, Bohman, James and Rehg, William. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 67–92.Google Scholar
Craiutu, Aurelian. 2016. Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
De Bruyn, Frans. 2012. “‘Expressive Uncertainty’: Edmund Burke's Theory of the Sublime and Eighteenth Century Conceptions of Metaphor.” In The Science of Sensibility: Reading Burke's Philosophical Enquiry, eds. Vermeir, Koen and Deckard, Michael Funk. New York: Springer, 265–82.Google Scholar
Doran, Robert. 2015. The Theory of the Sublime from Longinus to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dowe, William. 1857. Junius, Lord Chatham. New York: Miller, Orton.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2010. “Rhetoric in Democracy: A Systemic Appreciation.” Political Theory 38 (3): 319–39.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1994. “Political Language: The Use and Abuse of Rhetoric.” In Apocalypse Postponed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1998. “Deliberation as Discussion.” In Deliberative Democracy, ed. Elster, Jon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 44–68.Google Scholar
Frank, Jason. 2014. “‘Delightful Horror’: Edmund Burke and the Aesthetics of Democratic Revolution.” In The Aesthetic Turn in Political Thought, ed. Kompridis, Nikolas. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 3–28.Google Scholar
Garsten, Bryan. 2006. Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garsten, Bryan. 2011. “The Rhetoric Revival in Political Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 14: 159–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, John. 2008. Political Communication and Deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2001. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander. 1987. “Federalist No. 70.” In The Federalist Papers, ed. Kramnick, Isaac. New York: Penguin, 402–8.Google Scholar
Hampsher-Monk, Iain. 1988. “Rhetoric and Opinion in the Politics of Edmund Burke.” History of Political Thought 9 (3): 455–84.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1985a. “Of Eloquence.” In Essays Moral, Political, and Literary, ed. Miller, Eugene F.. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 97–110.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1985b. “Of the Standard of Taste.” In Essays Moral, Political, and Literary, ed. Miller, Eugene F.. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 226–52.Google Scholar
Jetñil-Kijiner, Kathy. 2014. “A Poem to My Daughter.” Accessed July 6, 2017. www.kathyjetnilkijiner.com/united-nations-climate-summit-opening-ceremony-my-poem-to-my-daughter/.Google Scholar
Kapust, Daniel, and Schwarze, Michelle A.. 2016. “The Rhetoric of Sincerity: Cicero and Smith on Propriety and Political Context.” American Political Science Review 110 (1): 100–11.Google Scholar
Landemore, Hélène. 2013. “On Minimal Deliberation, Partisan Activism, and Teaching People how to Disagree.” Critical Review 25 (3): 210–25.Google Scholar
Landwehr, Claudia. 2015. “Democratic Meta-Deliberation: Towards Reflective Institutional Design.” Political Studies 63 (S1): 38–54.Google Scholar
Leach, Jim. 2010. “Civility in a Fractured Society.” Accessed July 6, 2017. www.neh.gov/about/chairman/speeches/civility-in-fractured-society-excerpts.Google Scholar
Lock, F. P. 1998. Edmund Burke. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Madison, James. 1987. “Federalist No. 58.” In The Federalist Papers, ed. Kramnick, Isaac. New York: Penguin, 347–51.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1987. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation.” Political Theory 15 (3): 338–68.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane, Bohman, James, Chambers, Simone, Christiano, Thomas, Fung, Archon, Parkinson, John, Thompson, Dennis F., and Warren, Mark E.. 2012. “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, eds. John Parkinson and Mansbridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–26.Google Scholar
Obama, Barack. 2011. “Obama's Remarks in Tucson.” Accessed July 6, 2017. www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/politics/13obama-text.html.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A. 1985. “The Varieties of Whiggism from Exclusion to Reform.” In Virtue, Commerce, and History: Essays on Political Thought and History, Chiefly in the Eighteenth Century, ed. Pocock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 215–310.Google Scholar
Potkay, Adam S. 1994. The Fate of Eloquence in the Age of Hume. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Prior, James. 1878. Life of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke. London: Bell & Sons.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2005. Political Liberalism: Expanded Edition. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, Christopher. 2012. “Burke as Rhetorician and Orator.” In The Cambridge Companion to Edmund Burke, eds. Dwan, David and Insole, Christopher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–52.Google Scholar
Remer, Gary. 1999. “Political Oratory and Conversation: Cicero Versus Deliberative Democracy.” Political Theory 27 (1): 39–64.Google Scholar
Remer, Gary. 2000. “Two Models of Deliberation: Oratory and Conversation in Ratifying the Constitution.” Journal of Political Philosophy 8 (1): 68–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts-Miller, Patricia. 2005. “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 8 (3): 459–76.Google Scholar
Ryan, Cressida. 2012. “Burke's Classical Heritage: Playing Games with Longinus.” In The Science of Sensibility: Reading Burke's Philosophical Enquiry, eds. Vermeir, Koen and Deckard, Michael Funk. New York: Springer, 225–46.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, John. 2006. John Wilkes: The Lives of a Libertine. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1985. Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres, ed. Bryce, J.C.. Indianapolis: Liberty Classics.Google Scholar
Spragens, Thomas A. 1990. Reason and Democracy. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Strachan, J. Cherie, and Wolf, Michael R.. 2012. “Introduction to Political Civility.” PS: Political Science and Politics 45 (3): 401– 4.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 2002. “The Law of Group Polarization.” Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2): 175–95.Google Scholar
Supporting the Designation of a National Day of Civility. 2017. H.Res.400. 115th Congress.Google Scholar
Trenchard, John. 1995. “Of Eloquence, Considered Politically.” In Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters. Vol. 2, ed. Hamowy, Ronald. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 727–33.Google Scholar
Yack, Bernard. 2006. “Rhetoric and Public Reasoning: An Aristotelian Understanding of Political Deliberation.” Political Theory 34 (4): 417–38.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar