Policing the system of needs: Hegel, political economy, and the police of the market
1998; Routledge; Volume: 24; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1016/s0191-6599(98)00009-6
ISSN1873-541X
Autores Tópico(s)Political Philosophy and Ethics
ResumoClick to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes NOTES 1. Translators note to G. W. F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, trans. T. M. Knox (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1942), p. 360. The more recent translation, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, ed. Allen Wood and translated by H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), is truer to the original in this respect. See the editor's note on p. 450. 2. Translators note to G. W. F. Hegel, Lectures on Natural Right and Political Science: The First Philosophy of Right: Heidelberg, 1817–1818, trans. J. Michael Stewart and Peter C. Hodgson (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), p. 207. 3. To give but one example, the Hegel Dictionary by Michael Inwood contains no separate entry for this most important of integrating institutions in Hegel's political philosophy, and only a brief mention in the entry for ‘Civil Society’. Michael Inwood, A Hegel Dictionary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992). 4. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, paras. 188, 236, 248, 249. 5. Manfred Riedel, Between Tradition and Revolution: The Hegelian Transformation of Political Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). 6. The first official use of the concept occurred in December 1714 in Queen Anne's appointment of Commissioners of Police for Scotland, a body of men charged with the task of the general administration of the country. Thereafter the word gradually seeps into the English language and begins to feature in legal and Parliamentary texts in the late-eighteenth century. By 1829 it had become a common enough term to warrant the establishment of an institutionalised force known as the police. For a longer discussion see Mark Neocleous, ‘Policing and Pin-making: Adam Smith, Police and the State of Prosperity’, Policing and Society, forthcoming 1998. 7. Franz-Ludwig Knemeyer, ‘Polizei’, Economy and Society, 9(2) (1980), pp. 173–195. See also David Bayley, ‘The Police and Political Development in Europe’, in Charles Tilly (Ed.), The Formation of National States in Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 360; Michel Foucault, ‘Omnes et Singulatim: Towards a Criticism of “Political Reason”’, in S. McMurrin (Ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 249. 8. On this point generally see Keith Tribe, ‘Cameralism and the Science of Government’, Journal of Modern History, 56 (1984), pp. 263–284; Keith Tribe, Governing Economy: The Reformation of German Economic Discourse 1750–1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 35–91. 9. Joseph von Sonnenfels, Grundsätze der Policey, Handlung und Finanz (1765); Johann Heinrich Gottlob von Justi, Staatswirthschaft (1755). Both cited in Small, The Cameralists:The Pioneers of German Social Polity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1909), pp. 327, 490. 10. Small, The Cameralists, pp. 16, 18, 414, 421, 431–435, 493. Also see George Rosen, ‘Cameralism and the Concept of Medical Police’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 27 (1953), pp. 21–42, 24. 11. Small, The Cameralists, pp. 305–307. See also Mack Walker, ‘Rights and Functions: The Social Categories of Eighteenth-Century German Jurists and Cameralists’, Journal of Modern History, 50 (1978), pp. 234–251; Tribe, Governing Economy, Chap. 4. 12. Von Justi cited in Small, The Cameralists, pp. 307, 459. Von Justi's recommendations for the policing of prosperity are reproduced in Small, pp. 332–393. 13. In the Preface to the Philosophy of Right he criticises Fichte for extending passport regulations to the point where people should have their images painted on their passports. In the earlier lectures of 1817–1819 he insists that ‘police supervision must go no further than is necessary’, in the process attacking Fichte's state in which people cannot go out without their identity papers: ‘such a state becomes a world of galley slaves, where each is supposed to keep his fellow under constant supervision’. Hegel, Lectures on Natural Right and Political Science, para. 119. See J. G. Fichte, The Science of Rights (1796), trans A. E. Kroeger (London: Trubner and Co., 1889), pp. 378–379. Raymond Plant interprets Hegel's reference to ‘recent theories, carried partly into effect’ (cited in G. Lasson (Ed.), Schriften zur Politik und Rechtsphilosophie (Leipzig: Felix Meiner, 1923), p. 220), as a reference to cameralism, on the grounds that it refers to those who understand the state through the machine metaphor (discussed below). Plant, Hegel (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1973), p. 115. 14. Pasquale Pasquino, ‘Theatrum Politicum: The Genealogy of Capital—Police and the State of Prosperity’, in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (Eds), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), p. 112. 15. David F. Lindenfeld, The Practical Imagination: The German Sciences of State in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), gives the number of students enrolled in courses in ‘Natural law’, ‘State Law and Politics’, ‘Police Science’ and ‘Cameral Encyclopedia’ (p. 105). 16. Joseph Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1954), p. 160. Tribe, Governing Economy, p. 71. Tribe writes (p. 60): ‘The reader who seeks precision, originality, and theoretical elaboration in the writings of eighteenth-century Cameralism is doomed to disappointment and frustration … Cameralism is almost, but not quite, like a large stick of rock—wherever one bites into it, one encounters the same terms, definitions, and redefinitions’. 17. Vivienne Brown, Adam Smith's Discourse: Canonicity, Commerce and Conscience (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 154. 18. Adam Smith, Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, ed. R. H. Campbell, A. S. Skinner and W. B. Todd (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1979), pp. 77, 79, 137. 19. Ibid., pp. 80, 151, 512, 679, 681, 683. 20. Adam Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence, ed. R. L. Meek, D. D. Raphael and P. G. Stein (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1982); see esp. pp. 5–6, 331–333, 398, 486–487. 21. Brown, Adam Smith’s Discourse, pp. 154–155. 22. While it must be recognised that ‘mercantilism’ is a term which implies far more homogeneity among a group of writers than there really was—the result of Smith's imposition of this category on a very disparate group of writers—it is perhaps still worth registering the fact that for many commentators cameralism is the German form of mercantilism. The index entry for cameralism in Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World System II:Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600–1750 (New York: Academic Press, 1980), sums this up perfectly. It reads: ‘Cameralism, see Mercantilism’. For other examples see Louise Sommer, ‘Cameralism’, in Edwin Seligman (Ed.) Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (London: Macmillan, 1930, rev. ed. 1937), pp. 158–161: ‘Cameralism is properly the German and Austrian variety of mercantilism’ (p. 159); Marc Raeff, The Well-Ordered Police State: Social and Institutional Change Through Law in the Germanies and Russia, 1600–1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983): ‘It is usually and quite correctly asserted that mercantilism, by whatever definition, inspired the economic theory and practice of cameralism’ (p. 92); Rosen, ‘Cameralism and the Concept of Medical Police’, p. 23, also suggests that cameralism is ‘the more politically-oriented, specifically German form’ of mercantilism (p. 23); Foucault makes a similar connection in his ‘Omnes et Singulatim’, p. 249; also see Melchior Palyi, ‘The Introduction of Adam Smith on the Continent’, in John Clarke (Ed.), Adam Smith, 1776–1926 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928), p. 192. For more subtle accounts see Hans-Joachim Braun, ‘Economic Theory and Policy in Germany 1750–1800’, Journal of European Economic History, 4(2) (1975), pp. 301–322; Small, The Cameralists, pp. 7–15; Tribe, Governing Economy, pp. 66, 74, 81; and Tribe, ‘Cameralism and the Science of Government’, pp. 265, 272. 23. Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence, 5, 398. 24. Smith, Wealth of Nations, 456, 540, 687–688. 25. See Michael Shapiro, Reading “Adam Smith”: Desire, History and Value (London: Sage, 1993), pp. 9–12, 53. 26. Norman Waszek, The Scottish Enlightenment and Hegel's Account of ‘Civil Society’ (London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), pp. 111, 128. 27. Lectures on Natural Right and Political Science, para. 101; Elements of the Philosophy of Right, para. 189. 28. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, para. 189. 29. There are a variety of reasons why this has happened. The ‘history of political ideas’ approach has a tendency to oversimplify quite complex relationships between writers and their forebears in general. Marxists have found it convenient to stress a Smith–Hegel nexus. Marx's comment that ‘Hegel adopts the standpoint of political economy’ (Marx, ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts’, in Marx, Early Writings trans. Rodney Livingstone and Gregor Benton (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975), p. 386), is one which Marxists have been too quick to appropriate uncritically, since on an unsophisticated reading it appears to conveniently conflate two of Marxism's opponents into one ‘camp’. Conversely, those who wish to appropriate Hegel for liberal thought have likewise tried to suggest that Hegel was really just adopting some of Smith's ideas on the market, which proves that he must have been a good liberal. 30. Waszek, Scottish Enlightenment and Hegel's Account, p. 77: ‘it is no exaggeration to describe the introduction of Smithian doctrines as a main watershed in the development of the teaching of political economy in Germany’. Likewise Palyi, ‘The Introduction of Adam Smith on the Continent’, p. 180. For a general discussion see Tribe, Governing Economy, Chap. 7. 31. An eminent historian of economic thought such as Mark Blaug sees fit to grant him just two passing references in his 700 page Economic Theory in Retrospect (London: Heinemann, 1964). 32. The key work here has been Paul Chamley, Economie Politique et Philosophie chez Steuart et Hegel (Paris, 1963). 33. See Raymond Plant, ‘Hegel and Political Economy’, New Left Review, (1977), pp. 103 and 104, Bernard Cullen, Hegel's Social and Political Thought (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1979), pp. 34–37. Both build very much on Chamley, ibid. 34. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, para. 189. 35. Sir James Steuart, An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy (1767), ed. Andrew Skinner (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1966), p. 217. 36. Steuart, Inquiry, pp. 16, 122. See also pp. 25, 200, 300, 325. 37. Steuart, Inquiry, p. 143. He adds: ‘were public spirit, instead of private utility, to become the spring of action in the individuals of a well-governed state, I apprehend, it would spoil all’. 38. Steuart, Inquiry, p. 80; see also p. 300. 39. Steuart, Inquiry, p. 77. 40. Steuart, Inquiry, p. 156. 41. Elements of the Philosophy of Right, para. 244. 42. G. W. F. Hegel, Jenenser Realphilosophie, Vol. I, ed. J. Hoffmeister (Leipzig: Felix Meiner, 1932), pp. 239–240; G. W. F. Hegel, Jenenser Realphilosophie, Vol. II, ed. J. Hoffmeister (Leipzig: Felix Meiner, 1932), p. 323. For a discussion see Plant, Hegel, 111–116. 43. Karl Rosenkranz, Hegel’s Leben (Berlin, 1841), cited in George Lukacs, The Young Hegel, trans. Rodney Livingstone (London: Merlin, 1975), p. 170. 44. For example, Steuart's image of the economy as a machine is found in von Justi, Gesemalte Politische und Finanzschriften (Leipzig, 1761), p. 86. It is only fair to point out however that the image of government as a machine was far from unusual in the seventeenth century—in The Social Contract, for example, Rousseau describes monarchy as a system in which ‘all the springs of the machine are in the same hands’. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract and Discourses (London: Dent & Sons, 1973), p. 221. For discussion of this see Geraint Parry, ‘Enlightened Government and its Critics in Eighteenth-Century Germany’, The Historical Journal, 6(2), pp. 178–192, 182–183; Leonard Krieger, An Essay on the Theory of Enlightened Despotism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), p. 40. 45. In a note to paragraph 17 of his Foundations of Police, Commerce and Finance. See Small, The Cameralists, p. 496. On Steuart's links and possible links with cameralism see S. R. Sen, The Economics of Sir James Steuart (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1957), p. 152; Plant, Hegel, 114–115; Laurence Dickey, Hegel: Religion, Economics, and the Politics of Spirit, 1770–1807 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 197; Tribe, Governing Economy, pp. 134–138. 46. William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 4 (London: Dawsons, 1966), p. 162. 47. Sir William Mildmay's The Police of France (1763) did a good job of summarising the range of policing institutions which existed in France and the powers possessed by the lieutenant de police for Paris. The range of institutions included 48 commissaires de police with a combination of judicial and executive powers who kept a register of all hotels and lodging houses with detailed information on their residents, 21 inspecteurs de police with an army of spies, exempts de police who were to enforce the regulations for the maintenance of order, soldiers quartered in Paris and a range of archers divided into brigades under the command of a brigadier who marched through Paris virtually all day. See Leon Radzinowicz, A History of English Criminal Law and its Administration from 1750, Vol. 3: Cross-Currents in the Movement for the Reform of the Police (London: Stevens and Sons, 1956), pp. 539–574. See also Bayley, ‘Police and Political development in Europe’, pp. 343–345. On the eve of the revolution the Registers of the lieutenants contained some 20,000 names of ‘suspect and depraved characters’. 48. John Fielding, ‘Circular “To the Acting Magistrates” Oct 19, 1772’, Appendix 1 of Radzinowicz, History of English Criminal Law, pp. 482–484; Extracts from Such of the Penal Laws, as Particularly Relate to the Peace and Good Order of this Metropolis (1761, revised ed. 1768), cited in Radzinowicz, History of English Criminal Law, pp. 1–6 49. See for example Steuart, Inquiry, pp. 79–81. 50. Monthly Review, 36, 1767, cited by Steuart, Inquiry, p. 4. See also Andrew Skinner, ‘Biographical Sketch’ and ‘Analytical Introduction’ to Steuart, Inquiry, pp. xlvi–xlvii, lxxxii, and his A System of Social Science: Papers Relating to Adam Smith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. 285. 51. Steuart, Inquiry, pp. 4–5. As Schumpeter puts it, ‘there is something un-English (which is not merely Scottish) about his views and his mode of presentation’; History of Economic Analysis, p. 176. 52. Waszek, Scottish Enlightenment and Hegel’s Account, 133. 53. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, para. 189. 54. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, Preface, p. 10. 55. Waszek, Scottish Enlightenment and Hegel’s Account, 8. 56. Riedel, Between Tradition and Revolution, 147.
Referência(s)