Comprehending conservatism: A new framework for analysis

Journal of Political Ideologies

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 359-365

  Müller, Jan Werner ^a  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

METHODOLOGY; POLITICAL IDEOLOGY; POLITICAL SYSTEM;

EID: 33750840839     PISSN: 13569317     EISSN: 14699613     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13569310600924012     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. I wish to thank Erika A. Kiss, Olivier Remaud and Andreas Rod̈der for comments and suggestions. This research note attempts to refine and develop further themes and distinctions I first dealt with in A Dangerous Mind: Carl Schmitt in Post-War European Thought (London and New Haven: Yale UP, 2003).
2. Michael Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 319.
3. See for instance Ted Honderich, Conservatism: Burke, Nozick, Bush, Blair? (London: Pluto Press, 2005).
4. Quoted in Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory, op cit, Ref 2, p. 317.
5. Mark C. Henrie, 'Understanding traditionalist conservatism', in: Peter Berkowitz (Ed.), Varieties of Conservatism in America (Stanford: Hoover Institution, 2004), pp. 3-30.
6. See in particular Panajotis Kondylis, Konservativismus: Geschichtlicher Gehalt und Untergang (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1986).
7. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, in L. G. Mitchell (Ed.) (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1993), p. 21.
8. Samuel P. Huntington, 'Conservatism as an ideology', APSR, 51, 1957, pp. 454-473.
9. Michael Oakeshott, 'One being conservative', in Rationalism in Politics (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1991), pp. 407-437; here p. 408.
10. I leave here aside the values contained in and derived from negative philosophical anthropologies, as most clearly spelled out by Carl Schmitt in the twentieth century. See my A Dangerous Mind on this question.
11. Albert Hirschman, The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1991).
12. Clearly de Maistre's case is more complicated than this brief sketch can suggest; in particular, one has to be careful to distinguish between the history of the word reaction during de Maistre's time, when it began to acquire its current political meaning, and reactionary as an analytical category. See Jean Starobinksi, Action and Reaction: The Life and Adventures of a Couple, trans. Sophie Hawkes and Jeff Fort (New York, Zone Books, 2003), pp. 327-328.
13. Francis Fukuyama, 'The neoconservative moment', The National Interest (Summer 2004), pp. 57-68.