In the age of social media politics, it is hard to find political content that feels relevant but is not grounded in reaction or fantasy. I consume a lot of political content and I often feel surrounded by outright conspiracies and promises of utopia.
Isaiah Berlin’s “The Crooked Timber of Humanity” is a collection of essays that together mount an argument against idealism. The title comes from a quote by Immanuel Kant, “out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.” Berlin opposes the notion of utopia, arguing that perfection, despite its conceptual possibility, is an irrational dream.
In the chapter “The Decline of Utopian Ideals in the West,” Berlin defines utopia as imagined by Western thinkers as a static, post-conflict, glamorous society. Berlin rejects utopian idealists such as Marx for being “optimistic prophets” selling a uniform vision of the world that rejects individuality and liberty, deferring instead to the supposedly higher moral and intellectual capacities of their leaders. Berlin pits Marx against Mills, who embraces individuality and liberty. Mills and Marx also disagree on the stance that there exists a single solution for all problems. This is a tested and proven failure. There is no place where the individual does not remain separated from the beliefs of the state, capable and competent enough to form their own opinions and disagree both rationally and irrationally. Marx’s failure does not need analysis of his solutions, but criticism of the belief that there exists a solution — an end state. “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.”
I see Berlin’s analysis is striking. I have never been in a classroom debate where everyone was on the same page. If they were, I would probably believe that they were trying to win over the professor. Consensus should feel uncomfortable, not aspirational.
Beyond the recognition that individual aspirations differ from those of the masses, the state cannot be treated as a universally equal actor. We may all aspire to happiness, but our understanding of happiness and the values which contribute to it are not universal. Berlin describes the development of independent German philosophy and culture through an intellectual counterculture movement called Sturm und Drang, which rejected France’s academic and social dominance. It is not that German philosophers despised the pursuit of happiness or cultural success, but that their cultural and material conditions contributed to the development of a distinct method of thinking. This is true of every independent community and culture. Berlin’s analysis of the history of ideas is not a critique, it is a showcase of how thought develops independently and uncontrollably. The comparison between French and German thought systems highlights the flaws in the belief that utopian ideals can be applied as a panacea, which can be applied easily to current politics.
When Tucker Carlson or Zarah Sultana advocate for peace in Ukraine without recognition or analysis of the aggression flowing out of Russia, they are acting as “optimistic prophets,” providing hope and idealism before evaluation. You may aspire for peace and security, but the assumption that the belief or that the methods to achieve peace and security are the same among all people, is naïve and justifies the appeasement of warmongers. When you reject the agency of either Russians or Ukrainians and instead opt for ideals that do not fit the actions or history of those states, you are replacing rational solutions with an imagination not grounded in political reality.
This type of political analysis feels more common now. Of course, I am unqualified to make that statement as a college student, but ideology feels like it has gone out the window. When I hear political analysis today, it feels more grounded in reactionary and idealistic thinking. When Trump calls himself the “peace president” and presents a list of eight peace agreements that he has tacked his name on, I ask, what’s next? When does politics start to feel more like systems built on well-constructed philosophies and less like blind optimism? Could we really have static peace?
I believe that Berlin’s argument is as important today as it was originally in 1959. It provides substance to the rational skepticism of utopias and the blind idealism offered by political actors every day. “The Crooked Timber of Humanity” is a rejection of the radical optimism pitched by the far left when they tell you that abolishing the wealthy and eradicating free markets will provide true freedom for the working class, or when the far right presents an ethno-fascist utopia that cures all ills through deportation and discrimination. “The Crooked Timber of Humanity” is a rejection of those who tell you that utopias existed only in the fuzzy memory of agrarian farming societies and of those who tell you there will be no more problems once we have achieved the singularity. Berlin embraces humanity and rejects the notion of a final solution for our problems. We must not seek perfection, rather improvement; there exists no static end to our dynamic world.
“The Crooked Timber of Humanity” is well-written and easily digestible. It relies heavily on references to other works; it is a book on the history of ideas. Berlin, however, explains each point he makes with clarity and precision. I recommend it to anyone looking to escape the reactionary cycle of everyday modern politics. For Colgate readers, it is available at Case-Geyer Library.
5/5
