Schleiermachian Sociology And A Critique of Ideology

“Individualism sees man only in relation to himself, but collectivism does not see man at all, it sees only ‘society’. With the former man’s face is distorted, with the latter it is masked… …Modern individualism has essentially an imaginary basis...modern collectivism is essentially illusory....”-- (Between Man and Man, Martin Buber, 1947, Macmillan, p. 200).

“The subject no longer revolves around the object in our critical epistemological system; rather, the object now revolves around the subject. This altering shift has occurred because the object has shown itself to be an imposter.”—Anonymous

The critical philosopher should be aware that the strict distinctions between the State, Society, Church, and Education are only for the purposes of organization and analysis. A person could be a physician employed by a state university and who is religious moving seamlessly through each sphere of civil society routinely. There is a violence of abstract idealization in the process of analysis that distorts the observed object by minimizing how these spheres overlap and interact dynamically, or dialectically in everyday experience. There are two meanings of “critique” used in Critical Theory: 1.) Critique focused on the conditions for the possibility of knowledge. 2.) Critique as examining systems of constraint. We have extensively discussed a Neo-Kantian critique of knowledge using the concept of ideological paradigms. The critique of systems of constraint is best exemplified in the critique of Originalism and Textualism. These two types of critiques will also overlap in this present analysis of society by applying the concept of ideological paradigms as we examine the power of society to construct social reality through a coercive system of illusions.

Christian theologians recognize Schleiermacher as the founder of modern theological ethics. A necessary condition for a moral agent is that she is free to choose between moral and immoral action. However, we are only “free in as far as we can act from our own inner being; we are not free in as far as we can be determined by the objective whole, of which we are an integral part” (Munro, p. 231). Material existence is not viewed inferior as in Platonic Idealism. Most modern Western legal systems understand that the person is not in control in all circumstances; therefore, actions are judged by a person’s conscious “intention,” the nature of the action, and circumstances of the action. In this theological model the individual, or person is believed to be created in the image of G-d as a self-determining and self-authenticating being that is the center of finite existence acting as a “mirror of the universe” (Munro, p. 139). Consequently, by Natural Law humanity is endowed with human rights. Schleiermacher believed “…a person should be an individual ‘without violating the laws of humanity’, that ‘each human being should represent humanity in his own way’, and that what is valuable is a person’s ‘distinctive being and its relation to humanity’ “ (Stanford Encyclopedia: Schleiermacher). Through human reason and volition the foundation of ethics is established and the entire cosmos is given meaning. Schleiermachian teleology views human beings not as accidental to existence, but indispensable to achieving ethical purpose of the cosmos.

As Martin Buber noted, collectivism and individualism are polar opposites between which society swings from one extreme to the other extreme. Christian Pietism is inherently individualistic. Schleiermacher adds community as an important organ of balance to enhance the greater good of society:

”Society…is the union of men for individual organizing activity. The aim of social fellowship is the mutual culture of individuals. It proceeds upon the recognition of personal rank and grades of culture and enlightenment; and its sphere is boundless as the intercourse of humanity. It is in no way limited by the State; for persons of similar tastes and education, no matter to what nation they belong, are drawn more closely to one another than they are to persons of their own nationality who occupy a lower plane of thought and life. Friendship, hospitality, courtesy, are some of the manifestations of this organism or community” (Munro, p. 242).

Amazingly, Schleiermacher’s view of German society in the early 1800 is in many ways more politically progressive than America is today. Schleiermacher was committed to the welfare of humanity and respected cultural diversity while encouraging intercultural exchange and discourse to gain valuable insights into life for the greater good. He did not believe any one society had a monopoly on truth and that other cultural perspectives are life enriching. Schleiermacher held the same cosmopolitan views for cultural diversity in religion. He defended the Jews from discrimination and exploitation that forced them to be baptized to obtain legal rights. Schleiermacher advocated the abolition of capital punishment as revengeful and viewed the death penalty as deeply un-Christian. Criminals instead should be educated and reformed for re-entry into civil society as productive citizens. If the State or civil society is itself corrupted, reform must come from the individual member of society for reform, not revolution in the Schleiermachian view.

Even more surprising is Schleiermacher’s pre-Marxist view on labor in his 1799 essay Toward a Theory of Sociable Conduct. Remember, Karl Marx was not born until 1818! Schleiermacher is not Marxist, but a proto-Marxist! Great Britain did not start legislating a series of English Factory Acts to regulate worker’s rights until 1833 through 1864 (Marx, Capital Vol. 1, chapter 10, sec. 6). Schleiermacher was concerned about three major issues with labor: existential de-humanization, spiritlessness, and the total scientization of life by instrumental reason:

”…Schleiermacher implicitly criticizes modern division of labor on the grounds that it blinkers people, inhibiting their development of their own individuality and their sense for the individuality of others...Second, in On Religion (1799) he criticizes the deadeningly repetitive labor that is typical of modern economies as an obstacle to spiritual, and in particular religious, self-development...Third, in On Religion and the Soliloquies(1800) he criticizes the hedonism, utilitarianism, and materialism of the modern age for preventing people’s spiritual and religious self-development. His proposed solution here is mainly the sort of revival of a vibrant religious and moral life for which On Religion and the Soliloquies plead” (Ibid.).

Schleiermacher was the first male proto-feminist and encouraged women to enter areas of society traditionally male dominated. He wrote in a short essay, Idea for a Catechism of Reason for Noble Ladies (1798), to “Let yourself covet men’s culture, art, wisdom, and honor.” Amazingly, in his Confidential Letters Concerning Friedrich Schlegel’s Lucinde, he encouraged “women to seek sexual fulfillment, and to free themselves from inhibitions about discussing sex” in 1800!  He viewed women as an even greater benefit to society when they are allowed to contribute intellectually and spiritually. He thought women are the moral counter to violence and cruelty within society based on their personal experiences of having limited freedoms. He wrote in Idea for a Catechism, “You should not bear false witness for men. You should not beautify their barbarism with words and works”(Ibid.).