PARTAIGENOSSE PHILOSOPHER

(In my book, this entry naturally follows the one titled Philosophy Has No Agenda. [See my posting of May 2^nd, 2012.])

Parteigenosse Philosopher? I don’t think so!

Let me first make a big exception. During the times of revolutions, regime changes, and transformations of the social order on a giant scale, it is the duty of every citizen to take sides, to become politically active, to join the party of his (or her) choice, or to organize one himself (herself). Giovanni Gentile, the greatest Italian philosopher of the twentieth century, had become a fascist in a time of turmoil and of public enthusiasm over the new, exciting alternative to the putrid status quo, but eventually must have become disillusioned--- if not in the “dottrina del fascismo,” which he himself had helped to formulate, then in the way it was being implemented in his Italy.

But I am not talking about the times of turmoil, but about the times of stability and normal continuity which can be best characterized as political “business as usual.” And, with this qualifier, let me proceed with what I intend to say on this subject.

As an appetizer, here is a most enlightening quotation from Marcus Aurelius’ Thoughts (Book I): “From my governor (I learned) to be neither of the green nor of the blue party, nor a partisan.”

This is so obvious! Party membership in single-party totalitarian societies like the Soviet Union, was only a matter of political conformity as required by the State. No ideology-- just the lip service, to present a united façade to the rest of the world, as everyone was only too aware of this to take offense or to make an issue of it. On the other hand party membership in multi-party democracies and especially in the two-party situation as practiced in the United States means something else. Playing leaders and followers maybe? A totalitarian envy? Oh no! Please forgive me for such an awful and distasteful suspicion! These people just love picking up a certain issue which divides the two parties, and by sticking to it they make their choice… Or, perhaps, they are so anxious to join a particular party for the sake of membership, that they support whichever issues their party is standing for regardless of what they had thought about them before their party had called them into her ranks. We could go on and on, because there are a million reasons (all boiling down to one or two!) why people in democratic societies like to join political parties…

With all these partisan issues forming a party platform and a specific agenda, it is easy to conclude that the agenda drives the party member, making him or her dependent on it and depriving them of the right to form a different opinion. If you do have a different opinion, then get out of the party, as nobody is holding you to your party membership, which you have chosen for yourself. This is a fair assessment of the situation. One cannot really complain about one’s party running away from him or her, when the initial choice to join the party had been made by the individual for certain reasons, either intellectual or practical and psychological: to belong, and to conform.

Well, we know why people join political parties, and the question is no longer why at all, but why an independent thinker would want to do so. I repeat that forming a party yourself is different from joining a party of others, but even when you do it yourself, you still necessarily become a slave of your party’s agenda and thus lose your independence even under the best possible scenario.

This is not to say that losing your independence is such a social disaster or an individual catastrophe. Many people just do not want to be independent, which implies a certain isolation from the rest of society, and the loss of an opportunity to become a “club member.” No, as I said before, they want to belong, and they hold the value of the company of others higher than that of their own company.

The solution to this dilemma for those who seek company yet do not wish to surrender their individuality is of course to join such clubs which offer you company of a non-obligatory intellectual surrender. There are so many collective activities that provide such a compromise, but, mind you, joining a political party is not one of them. If you join a party half-heartedly, hoping to compartmentalize your intellectual inclinations, to separate your personal convictions from the political agenda of your party, joining a party is a dishonest act on your part. If you are a seeker of the truth, a doubter of conventional courses, an intellectual adventurer, etc., then welcome to the philosophy club, but stay away from the political parties, which are all and always for activists, but never for thinkers.

Parteigenosse philosopher? I don’t think so.