1

IrresponsibleOrdoliberalismandtheImperialisticFantasyThatWeAllMightBecomeGoodGermansOneDayAResponsetoDoldandKrieger,Hien,Heath-Kelly,Guittet,DosReisandKamisJohanvanderWaltUniversityofLuxembourg&UniversityofPretoria

Germany’spolicyofexpansionaryfiscalconsolidationbymeansofbindingfiscalrulesissettingapositiveexampleforothereurozonecountries,butthatalonewon’tsuffice.Alltheeurozonegovernmentsneedtodemonstrateconvincinglytheirowncommitmenttofiscalconsolidationsoastorestoretheconfidenceofmarkets,nottospeakoftheirowncitizens....Germany’scourseofgrowth-friendlydeficitreductioninconjunctionwithitssuggestionsforastrengtheningofEurope’sfiscalframeworkcouldserveasablueprintforEuropeaneconomicgovernance.

WolfgangSchäuble(2010).1OverviewWhatfollowsisareplytothecriticalresponsesofMalteDoldandTimKrieger,JosefHien,

CharlotteHeath-Kelly,EmmanuelPierreGuittet,FilipedosReisandBenKamistomy2016

NewPerspectivesintervention‘WhenOneReligiousExtremismUnmasksAnother:

ReflectionsonEurope’sStatesofEmergencyasaLegacyofOrdo-liberalDe-

hermeneuticisation’(hereafterODH–for“OrdoliberalDehermeneutisation”2).Myreplywill

bedividedintotwomainparts.ThefirstpartwillfocusonwhatIwillcall‘adisciplinary

instructionnottothink.’ThesecondwillfocusonwhatIwillcall‘constructiveinvitationsto

thinkfurther.’ThefirstpartfocusesonDoldandKrieger’sarguments.Thesecondfocuses

predominantlyonthoseoftherestoftheinterlocutorslistedabove.Whatultimately

emergesoutofthissecondsectionisareflectionontheneedtoconsiderbothorderand

disorderasconstitutiveelementsofhumanfreedom,andtosustainthetensionbetween

them.Ofconcern,here,Iargue,isafreedomthatrefusestobesubjectedconclusivelyto

any“orderofliberty”thataliberalgovernmentingeneralandanordoliberalgovernmentin

particularmaywishtoestablish.

1SeeLechevalier(2015:77,footnote15).2Iwillresorttothemoreelegantterm“dehermeneutisation”(insteadofde-hermeneuticisation)fromnowon.IamindebtedtoChrisEngertforsuggestingthisimprovement.

2

ItwillverysoonbecomecleartothereaderthatIconsiderDoldandKrieger’s

responsetomyODHinterventionanexampleofparticularlypoorscholarship,soImayas

wellsayithere.Ihavespentmuchtimeinwhatfollowsrespondingcarefullytoagood

numberoftheircontentions.Manyofthesecontentionsmaywellbeconsiderednotto

meritalltheattentionIhavegiventothem.Ihaveneverthelessengagedwiththem

meticulouslyfortworeasonsthatIconsiderimportant.Firstly,IwishtostateclearlythatI

generallyconsidertheworkofordoliberalscholarsinterestingandimportant.WereItojust

brushoffDoldandKrieger’sresponsewithoutfurtheradoasasadcaseofscholarly

irresponsibility,Iwouldsurelyclosedownthepossibilityofmoreconstructiveacademic

exchangeswiththemand/orotherordoliberalsinthefuture.Inotherwords,byresponding

carefullyandmeticulouslytoDoldandKrieger,Ihopetohavekeptalivethepossibilityof

futureacademicexchangeswithordoliberalswhomaybemorewillingtoengageina

properscholarlydebate.

ThesecondreasonforengagingextensivelywithDoldandKrieger’sresponse

concernsthewayinwhichtheirresponsenotonlydismissesmyODHinterventionasdevoid

ofvaluablescholarlyinsight,butalsomisrepresentsitscentralthesisasavastly

oversimplifiedcausalargument.Themeticulousresponsetothisdismissaland

misrepresentationthatfollowsseekstoofferthereadersofDoldandKrieger’sresponsean

efficientopportunitytoassessbothcarefullyandquicklywhetherthelackofscholarly

insightandoversimplifiedcausalreasoningthatDoldandKrieger(D&K,fromnowon)

imputetoODH,isaproductoftheirimagination,orafairevaluationofmytext.IfIdidnot

providetheirreadersthisopportunity,D&Kmightwellsucceedinhavinganeasylastword,

andaperniciousoneatthat.Intheacceleratedworldinwhichwelivetoday,fewreadersof

D&K’sresponsearelikelytotakethetimetogobacktomytexttodeterminecarefully

whethertheircontentionsaresoundandfair.

Ihavegoodreasontosaythis.D&Khaveobtainedadviceandcommentsfrom

respectedscholarssuchasBrigitteYoungandVolkerBerghahnbeforesendingtheir

responseoffforpublication.IfinditsurprisingthatthesescholarsdidnotadviseD&Kto

reconsideranumberofconspicuousweaknessesthatshouldhavebecomeevidentfroma

readingofD&K’stextalone.Butthesescholarswouldhavehadmanymorereasonsfor

advisingD&Ktoreconsideralmostalloftheircontentionshadtheygonetothetroubleof

comparingD&K’stextcarefullywithmine.Now,ifevenfriendlymentorsorcolleaguesdid

3

nothavethetime,energyorscholarlyinclinationtocompareD&K’sresponsecarefullywith

myODHintervention,howmanyotherreaderscanoneexpecttogotothistrouble?Thisis

whyIconsideritnecessarytorespondalmostlineforlinetoD&K’sresponseinwhat

follows.Icitethemextensivelyineachcasesothatthereadercanseequickly,clearlyand

accuratelywhatisatstake.

ItiswithregretthatIendupdedicatingmuchlesstimeandspaceinwhatfollowsto

theresponsesofHien,Heath-Kelly,Guittet,DosReisandKamisthantheseresponses

deserve.Ihavegainedmuchinsightfromtheseresponsesandwishtothanktheauthorsfor

thetimetheytooktorespondintelligentlyandconstructivelytomyODHintervention.I

trusttheywillconsidermylimitedresponsestothemasplausiblebeginningsoffurther

debateswhichwemayhaveinthefuture.Spaceconstraintspreventedmefromtaking

thingsfurtherthanIhavedonehere,butItrusttherewillsoonbeopportunitiestorevisit

thecompellingissuestheyraise.

ADisciplinaryInstructionNottoThink[SubtitleLevel1]D&KcommencetheirresponsetomyODHinterventionwithabriefperfunctoryremark

aboutmy“excellent”scholarshipinthefieldoflegaltheory,butdosoonlytocontinuewith

thesuggestionthatIshouldbetterconstrainmyscholarlyinquiriestothefieldoflegal

theory,because,astheysay,“juxtaposingone’sownexpertiseupondisjointedfragmentsof

lesswellunderstoodresearchfromotherfieldsdoesnotnecessarilylenditselftoconvincing

scholarship.”Theycontinuewiththissuggestionasfollows:

VDW’sargumentin[ODH]restscruciallyuponassumptionsaboutthecurrenteconomiccrisis,ordoliberalismandthegenesisofterrorism;however,theauthorfailstodemonstratevaluableacademicexpertiseinthesetopics.WestronglydoubtthatthesimplemechanicsofVDW’sargumentsupporttheassertionthat–withorwithoutaprocessofde-hermeneuticisation–Protestantethicsledtoordoliberalism,whichresultedinanimposedausterityinFranceandultimatelyjihadistterrorism.Thiscausalchainisnotonlyhighlyquestionable,butalsoitsunderlyingassumptionsare,infact,inaccurate.

Havingshotoffthisopeningsalvoaboutmyfailuretodemonstratevaluable

academicexpertiseregardingthe“economiccrisis,ordoliberalismandthegenesisof

terrorism,”theyproceedtoinstructmeontheproperconceptualdistinctionbetween

4

“economicscarcity”and“redistribution.”Iwillpresentlylookmorecloselyattheir

contentionsregardingthisdistinction.Beforedoingso,however,Ialsowishtodraw

attentiontoanotherremarkregardingmyexpertisethattheymakealittlelaterintheir

reactiontomyNPintervention.D&Kwrite:

Unfortunately,mostwritingsbyordoliberalscholarswerenevertranslatedfromGermanintoEnglish.IfVDWhadreadtheseoriginaltextsoratleastthecontributionsofscholarswithadeepunderstandingofGermanordoliberalism(suchasViktorVanberg),hewouldprobablyhavestartedquestioninghisownassumptionsabouttheordoliberalprogram.

Now,onecannothelpwonderingabitabouttheintellectualclimatethatencourages

astatementlikethistospillsoinnocentlyintoanacademicargument.Letmenevertheless

saynomorethantheveryleastthatrequiresbeingsaidinresponsehere.D&Ksuggestthat

IwouldnothavemademyincorrectassumptionsaboutordoliberalismhadIbeenableto

readtheoriginalGermantextsofthisGermantraditionofeconomicthinking,ortheworks

ofGermanscholarswithadeepunderstandingofthetradition.Theproblemcannotlie

here,however,formyGermanisnotsoshabbyastheyseemtoassume.Iwillsurelynotcall

myselfanexpertonorconnoisseurofordoliberalthinking,butIhavereadareasonable

selectionofprimaryordoliberaltextswithouthavingtorelyontranslationsandhave

supplementedthesereadingswithagoodnumberofsecondarytexts,severalofthemalso

inGermanandwrittenbyGermanscholarswhomitwouldbedifficulttoaccusesobrazenly

ofnothavinga“deep[enough]understandingofGermanordoliberalism.”

So,consideringthatIhavedonequiteabitofsolidhomework,myfailuretoarriveat

a“deepunderstandingofGermanordoliberalism”islikelytobeattributabletosomeother

failureorfailuresonmypart.Thefirstmaywellconcernaninabilitytocomprehendthe

reductionofsocialpoliticstotheorderingofaneconomicsystemoffreecompetitionthat

manyscholarsattributetotheordoliberalschoolofeconomicthinking.Ishallpresently

returntoaddressthispointmoresquarely.Asecondfailuremaybeattributabletonothing

lessthanapsychologicalresistanceto“adeepunderstanding”ofanyconcernwithorder–

economicorderincluded–thatrefusestosustainadueregardforthelimitsoforderand

theconstitutiverolethatdisorderplaysinthesustenanceofastableorder.Icomebackto

thissecond‘failure’towardstheendofalltheresponsestomyinterlocutorsthatfollow.

Sufficeitthereforetojustobservefornowthatmyfailuretoarriveata“deep[enough]

understanding”ofGermanordoliberalismmaywellrelatetomydistrustofalltheoretical

5

endeavoursthatreducesocial-theoreticalinquirytoinstrumentalconcernswiththe

sustenanceoforder.Suchendeavours,Isuspect(andcannothelpsuspecting),takeafirst

steptowardsatechnocraticreductionofgovernmenttothepursuitofpreselectedsocial

goalsthattoleratesnofurtherquestioningof,andresistanceto,thispreselection.Ibelieve

thebetrayalofliberaldemocracyandtheroadtoauthoritarianisminvariablystarthere.

TheotherreasonformyfailuretounderstandGermanordoliberalismdeeply

enough,mayofcourserelatetotheinadequateunderstandingofeconomictheory,assuch,

thatD&Kattributetomeinthefirstpassagequotedabove.Imustofcourseconcedehere

thatIhavenoformaltrainingineconomicsandthatthismaywellbeasignificanthindrance

toarrivingata“deepunderstandingofGermanordoliberalism,”oranadequatelyadvanced

understandingthatmightbeworthyofenteringintoadiscussionwiththehallowedcircles

ofFreiburgeconomicthinking.Iwouldneverthelessliketoatleastexplaininwhatfollows

whyIamleftsomewhatpuzzledbyseveralaspectsofD&K’sresponsetomyarguments,and

especiallybytheEconomics101classtowhichtheyhavetreatedme.

Allowmetobeginwiththeeconomicsclass.IfailtograspwhatexactlyD&Ksought

toteachmewiththeirdistinctionbetweeneconomicscarcityandeconomicredistribution

and,moreimportantly,whytheyarenotthemselvessomewhatworriedbythewaythey

drawthisdistinction.Theirinvocationofthedistinction,firstly,doesnotseemtomakeany

pointapartfromtellingmethatIamoutofmydepthinthefieldofscientificeconomic

inquiry.Secondly,itrevealsanunderstandingofthescienceofeconomicsthatisremarkably

outoftouchwithcontemporarythinkingaboutthestatusofsocialscience.Thirdly,itwould

appeartohingeonaconceptionofscientificinquirythatrendersitblindtoitsown

disciplinarypresuppositionsandforthisreasondoomsittoaself-imposedthoughtlessness.

Andfourthly,itdoesalloftheaboveonlytoendupendorsingandstrengtheningthe

argumentregardingeconomicscarcityandeconomicredistributionthatIputforwardin

ODH.Underthefirstthreesub-headingsthatfollow,Iunpackthesecondandthirdpoint

separatelyandthefirstandfourthtogether.ThereafterIturntoanumberoftheother

puzzlingcontentionsthatD&KmakeinresponsetoODH.

TheScienceofEconomicsandtheLinguisticTurn[SubtitleLevel2]SohereareD&Kinstructingthelegaltheoristwithadisciplinedanddisciplinarydefinitionof

economicscarcity:

6

Ineconomictheory,thescarcityproblemresultsfromthefactthatwhileresourcesarelimitedinamount,peopleneverthelessdesiretheminaninfiniteamount.

TheirdefinitionderivesfromLionelRobbins’(1932)definitionofeconomicsas“the

sciencewhichstudieshumanbehaviourasarelationshipbetweenendsandscarcemeans

whichhavealternativeuses.”3D&Kattributetheendorsementofthisdefinitionto“most

economists.”Theyalsoattributetothismajorityofeconomiststhebeliefthat“scarcity,in

thefirstplace,isnotamentalornormativeconstruct.”Andwiththisinvocationofthe

dominantdefinitionofeconomicscarcityineconomictheory,theymoveontodismissing

myargumentregardingeconomicscarcityasasocialandmentalconstructionthatissubject

to,andconditionedby,interpretationandreinterpretation.Inotherwords,mywholeODH

argumentfallsflat,theyseemtosay,becauseitskeypointthat“economicscarcity”is

conditionedbyinterpretationandhermeneuticsissimplyspurious.This,ofcourse,relieves

meoftheburdenofaddinganythingtothedehermeneuticisationargumentthatIput

forwardinODH,fortheyconcedeandconfirmthepointintheclearestofterms.Theyonly

takeissue,itseems,withthefactthatIdeemitimportanttoputforwardanargumentthat

theyconsideraself-evidentpointofdepartureofalltheirtheoreticalendeavours.Relieving

meoftheburdensofmyargumentsbytakingthemontheirownshoulders–shooting

themselvesinthefoot,inshort–ultimatelybecomesamainfeatureoftheirendeavours,as

weshallseebelow.

LetmeneverthelessretracethedehermeneuticisationtowhichD&Kadmitso

blithely.Accordingtothem,“mosteconomists”considereconomicscarcityatranscendent

realitythatreceivesanimmaculatebirthintohumanlanguage.Itstranscendenceshatters

alltracesoflinguisticimmanence(‘linguisticimmanence’referringtothelinguistic

recognitionthatnolanguageescapesitself,nolanguageescapesitsownlinguisticstatus,

andnocomponentoflanguagemakessenseoutsideconventionalrelationswithother

languagecomponents).Inaccordancewiththisdismissalofthenotionoflinguistic

immanence,thescienceofeconomicsconsidersitselfleftwithnochoiceastohowthis

‘reality’ofeconomicscarcitythatentersitfrombeyondistobeaccommodatedand

communicatedfurther.

3IhavetakenthisreferencedirectlyfromDoldandKriegerandhavenotyetconsultedthesource.

7

Thisfaithintranscendenceistrulyremarkableinatimesuchusoursthatisso

pervasivelyburdenedbytherecognitionoftheconventionalconstraintsthatlanguage

imposesonculturalandsocialunderstanding.Itisespeciallyremarkablegiventhatmany

andperhapseven“most”socialscientistswhoreflectmeta-theoreticallyontheirown

disciplinaryinquirieswouldprobablyfinditdifficulttodaytoarguetheirwayaroundthe

irreduciblelinguisticityoftheirscientificendeavours.4Thesocialscientific‘realists’or

‘positivists’ofoldhavesurelynotdisappearedfromthefaceoftheearth,buttheyno

longercommandthesceneandmostlikelynolongerconstitutea‘majority’ofanykind.

This,ofcourse,doesnotmaketherealistswrongandthelinguisticbrigaderight.Butitdoes

meanthatsocialscienceisexposedtoameta-theoreticalormeta-disciplinary

indeterminacythatitcannotwishaway.And,withthisindeterminacycomesthecallfor

socialsciencetoconstantlythinkreflectivelyaboutitsconstitutiveboundariesand,

therefore,tothink.Thelinguisticturninthesocialsciencessurelycannotclaimthevictory

ofhavinglaunchedscientificinquiryonabetterwaytotruthwithoutmakingamockeryof

itsowninsights.Butitcanclaimthemeritofhavingwokenupscientificinquirytothe

imperativeofconstantlyreconsideringandrethinkingitsfoundationalconceptsand

principles.ItiswiththisbackgroundinmindthatIwishtoengagewithD&K’sinvocationof

“mosteconomists”asregardsthisfaithintranscendent“economicscarcity.”

ThoughtlessEconomicScience[SubtitleLevel2]D&K’suseoftheword“most”wouldseemtoallowforthepossibilitythattherearesome

economistswhodonotsharethisfaith,buttheyareevidentlynotbotheredbythese

others.ToputthisintermsthatThomasKuhnmadesalient:theremaybesomeeconomists

whoareengaginginabnormalscientificinquiriesandforwhomeconomicthinkingbegins

witharegardforthewayinwhichthenotionof‘infinitedesire’doesnotconstituteaself-

evidentpointofdepartureforeconomicthinking,butD&Karenotinterestedinthem

(Kuhn,1970).Theseothereconomistsmaywellhaveahistoricalregardforthewaythe

notionof“infinitedesire”isconditionedbyaconstellationofmodernconceptionsofhuman

4Themaindevelopmentsinmeta-theoreticalreflectiononsocialscienceandthehumanitiesthatmakedenialsofthelinguisticityofsocialtheorydifficulttodayarerelatedtotheimpactofhermeneutics(Gadamer,Ricoeur),pragmatistandpost-analyticaltheoryoflanguage(Rorty,Davidson)andpost-structuralists(Derrida,Foucault,Lyotard)onlatetwentiethcenturysocialtheory.Thislinguisticturnappearstohaveenteredeconomicthinkingunderthebannerof‘criticalrealism.’SeetheessayscollectedinPaulLewis(2004).

8

individualitythatwasunthinkableinapremodernagewhenarangeofAristotelianand/or

Thomistbeliefsconditionedtheessentialtermsofsocialcooperation,noneofwhich

cateredtonotionsof“infinitedesire.”Theymayalsohavearegardforthewayinwhichthe

demiseoftheseAristotelianandThomistworldviewswasasocio-culturalpreconditionfor

theriseofmodernconceptionsofindividualityasanagentorsourceof“infinitedesire.”

Furthertothis,theymayalsohavearegardforthewaythisdemiseitselfwasconditioned

andexactedbythetechnologicaltransformationofmethodsofproductionandcommercial

exchange.IammostcertainlynotstagingamoralargumenthereforareturntoAristotelian

andThomistviewsofcommunityandsociety.Iamonlymakingthepointthataninvocation

ofatranscendent‘economicscarcity’thatisunconditionedbycontingentconventional

frameworksofsocialconstructionbecomesratherfar-fetchedwhenthesehistorical

developmentsaretakenintoconsideration.

IamnottheeconomistinthisdiscussionandIwillnotattempttoprovidea

bibliographyhereofeconomistswhoarecurrentlychallengingthenotionof‘transcendent

scarcity.’However,Iamquiteconfidentthatonewouldnotsearchlongtocomeupwitha

significantlistandthatthescholarshiparoundtheworkofKarlPolanyimaywellprovide

productiveleadsforidentifyingsuch‘abnormal’economicinquiries.5Letmeagainstress

thatIamnotintheleastproposingthisminorityor‘abnormal’viewamongeconomistsas

theconclusively‘correct’or‘better’pointofdepartureforeconomictheory.Iamonly

suggestingthatafailuretobearitinmindasaconstitutiveboundaryorlimitwithinthefield

ofeconomicinquiryreducesthestudyofeconomicstoadisciplinaryandconceptualclosure

withintheconfinesofwhichthetaskofrethinkingfundamentalassumptionsand

propositionsbecomesimpossible.Thisishowscientificandtheoreticalenterprisesbecome

thoughtless.Thinkingbeginswiththeregardfortheirreducibleindeterminacyof

fundamentaltheoreticalassumptions.Again,thisinnowayimpliesarejectionofthese

fundamentalassumptions.Butitrequiresanopenintellectualitythatseeksandwelcomes

pertinentchallenges,anditisthisopenintellectualitythatisentirelymissingfromD&K’s

dismissalofmyargumentsregarding“economicscarcity.”

5ThereasonwhyIbelieveasearchforaconceptofeconomicscarcitythatrelatesscarcitytoconcretesocialconceptionsofneedandthusoffersasignificantalternativetoanabstractlyconceivednotionof‘infinitedesire’thatreflectsnosocialembeddedness,relatesexactlytoPolanyi’s(1975)reflectionsonembeddedeconomies.

9

ShootingThemselvesintheFoot…IhavealreadyassertedabovethatIdonotseethepointofD&K’slessoninbasiceconomic

terminology.Itdoesnottaketheirownargumentsforwardandultimatelycomesacrossasa

rhetoricalployaimedatshowingthelegaltheoristthatheisoutofhisdepthinthis

discussion.Iwillnowsubstantiatethisassertionbyshowingthattheonlyrealachievement

ofthewholeployistoofferaneasierwayofmakingthepointthatIendeavouredtomake

inmyODHintervention.Inthisregard,theycanbeconsideredtohaveshotthemselves

pointlesslyandthoughtlesslyinthefoot.

IraisedanargumentregardingredistributiondeficitsinEuropeandconsideredit

importanttocorroborateitwithanargumentregardingtheabsenceofanyparalysingor

fatallydebilitatingconditionof‘economicscarcity’thatwouldprecludebetterredistribution

inEurope.WhatD&KaretellingmeisthatIshouldnothaveraisedthecorroborative

argumentregarding“economicscarcity,”consideringthat“economicscarcity”isa

conceptuala-prioriofscientificeconomicthinkingthatmustbepresupposedinallquestions

ofsocialdistribution.However,byproposingtheacceptanceof“economicscarcity”asana-

priorithatnecessarilyinformsallquestionsofredistribution,theyeffectivelyreduceittoan

emptyterm(anemptysignifier,ifyouwish)withnodeterminedsignificanceforanyspecific

questionofeconomicredistribution.If“economicscarcity”isalwaysaroundasaresultofa

presupposedconstellationofinfinitedesireandlimitedresources,thosewhoareseriously

concernedwithspecificredistributionquestionsmayaswellreplywithashrugofa

shoulder:Allright,weknowthatalready,butpleasejustallowusnowtogetonwith

lookingatthespecificsofrelativeabundanceandpressingneedinordertoseehowone

mightalleviatethehardshipandfrustrationthatinvariablyspawnpatternsofserioussocial

malaise(suchasreligiousradicalisation).

Torephrasethissomewhat:myargumentregardingtheconstructedstatusofall

notionsof“economicscarcity”wasanendeavourtogetitoutofthewaysoastofreeup

thequestionofeconomicredistribution.ButitwouldappearthatIshouldthankD&Kfor

doingthismuchmoreeffectivelythanIimaginedpossibleatthetime.Itseemsitwasall

alongmewhotookthequestionofeconomicscarcitymuchtooseriouslybyseekingto

deconstructit.ItisD&Kwhoreallyrenderthetermirrelevantbyturningtheassertionofits

prevalenceintoaninvariablyvalidpropositionandthereforeintoanon-proposition.So,

10

nowthatwehavethenon-issueofeconomicscarcitywellandtrulyoutofourway,letus

moveontotheeconomicredistributionquestionandtheordoliberalresponsetoit.

OrdoliberalismandSocialSecurityPoliticsLetmebeginthissectionbyreturningtotherestofthepassagefromD&K’sreactionwhich

wasalreadypartlyquotedabove:

IfVDWhadreadtheseoriginaltextsoratleastthecontributionsofscholarswithadeepunderstandingofGermanordoliberalism(suchasViktorVanberg),hewouldprobablyhavestartedquestioninghisownassumptionsabouttheordoliberalprogram.Theordoliberals,especiallymembersoftheFreiburgSchool,wereveryconsciousoftheneedtoincludeastrongsocialwelfareelementintheirprogram.Afterall,thereweremillionsofwarwidows,orphans,refugees,expelleesandpeoplewhohadbeenbombedoutwhocouldnotbeneglectedorexposedtotheharshwindsofacompetitivemarketeconomy.InhisGrundsätzederWirtschaftspolitik(1952),WalterEucken,themostprominentproponentoftheFreiburgSchool,acknowledgesexplicitlythestate’sroleinimplementingsocialpolicies.Hesubsumesthemundertheexpression“specialsocialpolicy”(SpezielleSozialpolitik),whichisintendedtoattenuatesocialmisfortuneandeconomictragediesthatcannotbebalancedthroughprivateinsuranceorindividualassets.

Toproceed,allowmetounderlinethatODHclearlyacknowledgesandcommends

thehermeneutictransformationofordoliberalthinkinginthepost-waryearsthatallowedit

toembracesocialpoliticalpoliciesthatwerenotpartofitsoriginalconceptualscheme.It

onlylamentsthewaythesepost-warordoliberalssubsequentlyappearedtohavelostthis

hermeneuticcapacitytorespondtonewhistoricalcircumstances.Pleaseconsideragainthe

followingpassages:

ThefunctionalsynthesisofProtestantordo-liberalconcernswithfairandvirtuouscompetition,ontheonehand,andCatholicsocialwelfareconcerns,ontheother,thatgaverisetoahighlyefficientsocialmarketeconomy(sozialeMarktwirtschaft)inpost-warGermany,nevertookrootinthesesouthernEuropeancountries(vanderWalt,2016:88).Inthisrespect,Germanpost-warordo-liberalismhadcertainlynotcompletelylostitshermeneuticcapacityforunderstandingitselfdifferentlyinthecourseoftime(acorehermeneuticcapacityaccordingtoGadamer,forwhomhumanunderstandingalwaysconsistsinunderstandingdifferently).Thefilteredordefaultordo-liberalismthatemergedfromthepoliticsofEuropeanmarketintegrationhasevidentlylostthiscapacityforrenewedcontextualself-understanding;hence,forinstance,itsblindexportationofausteritydemandstocountriesforwhichthesedemandsareill-suited(ibid.:92).

IshallreturntothelastthreelinesofthesecondpassagequotedherewhenIshift

thefocustothequestionofordoliberalismandEuropebelow.Sufficeitfornowtonote

11

againthewell-knowncompromisebetweenaProtestantconcernwithvirtuouscompetition

andindividualfreedom,ontheonehand,andaCatholicconcernwithsocialsecurity,onthe

other.ThiscompromisespawnedtheuniqueconceptofsozialeMarkwirtschaftinpost-war

Germany.ItisespeciallywelldiscussedinpublicationsofChristianJoerges(e.g.2010),to

whichmyunderstandingofthishistoryismuchindebted.Severalscholarsnevertheless

note,however,thatsocialsecuritypolicies,eventotheextentthattheywereintegrated

intoordoliberalthinkinginthepost-waryears,remainedaFremdkörper(foreignbody)in

ordoliberaleconomictheory.Mostoratleastmanytheoristsassociatedwiththetradition

continuedtoviewexpansivesocialsecurityconcernswithsuspicion(Lechevalier,2015:58).

IdonotthinkEucken’sworkcanbecompletelyexemptedinthisregard.His

GrundsätzederWirtschaftspolitik(FoundationsofPoliticalEconomy)repeatedlyattributes

problemsofsocialsecuritytomonopolyformationandthedistortionoffreecompetitionby

powerfulprivateactors,andpayslittleattentiontotheneedforamoreexpansivesocial

politics(Eucken,2004:13,124-126,314-318);hencealsohisverypoignantobservations

regardingtheneedforaneconomicconstitutionthatwouldsecurethefreecompetition

withoutwhichthefundamentalrightsprotectionsguaranteedbypoliticalconstitutions–

thatis,liberaldemocraticconstitutions–wouldoftenremainlittlemorethanformal

guaranteesthathardlyoffersubstantiveprotection(ibid.:48-53).Thereisindeedmuchto

besaidforandlearnedfromhisobservationsinthisregard,especiallyfromthepointof

viewofconstitutionaltheoristswhohavecometorecognisethehorizontaleffectof

fundamentalrights–theconstitutionalregulationoftheprivatesphere–asthekeyconcern

ofcontemporaryconstitutionallaw(see,e.g.,vanderWalt,2014).

Again,Eucken’sacuteconcernwithprivatepowerasthemainthreattoliberal

democracyistrulyinstructive.However,byandlargehistranslationofsocialsecurity

concernsintoaconcernwithadequateanti-trustorcompetitionlawisnotlikelytoconvince

theoristsofsocialdemocracy(orsocialdemocratsmoregenerally)thathewassufficiently

sensitivetothepersistenceofdestructivelevelsofsocialinequalityincontemporary

capitalisticsocieties.Hisrecognitionoftheneedforaspecialorexceptionalsocialpolitics

(SpezielleSozialpolitik)thatD&Kinvoke,onlyunderlinesthis.Perhapsoneshouldbe

relievedtoknowthatleadingordoliberaltheoristsacknowledgetheneedforsocialsecurity

measuresinthewakeofexceptional“economictragedies,”asD&Kputit.However,the

convictionamongcommittedsocialdemocratsthatsocialinequalityis,atbest,onlypartially

12

addressedbyadequatecompetitionlaw,willalwaysrenderthemdeeplyscepticalofEucken

andtheordoliberalapproachoutlinedhere.Onlyifoneispreparedtotakearatherblunt

Marxisthardlinethatconsiderscapitalismitselfassuchan‘economictragedy’–ahardline

withwhichfewsocialdemocratswouldbecomfortable–mightEucken’s“exceptionalsocial

politics”begintomeasureuptothevastdimensionsofsocialinsecuritythatamereresort

tofaircompetitionlawcannothopetoaddress.

Fromaregularsocialdemocraticperspective,however,theresorttorigorous

competitionlawforpurposesofaddressingallquestionsofsocialmalaisepivotsona

flagrantunderestimationoftheissuesathand.Thissocialdemocraticpointofviewwould

demandamuchmoreincisiveunderstandingofthenotionofan‘adequatelibertyto

compete’ifthisnotionweretobetakenasthekeytoalleconomicredistributionquestions.

Itwouldalsodemandamuchbroaderconceptionofcompetitionlawthanthatwhichis

currentinordoliberallegalandeconomictheory.Oneshoulddismisstheideathatanti-

socialmonopoliesaretheexclusivedomainofexcessivelypowerfulcompanies.Oneshould

begintothinkofthemonopolisingtendenciesentrenchedintheveryorganisationofcivil

societyinthebroadestsenseoftheword.Monopolisingtendenciesbeginwithdistributions

ofeducation,recreationandhousingfacilities.Itisthedistributionofallthesefacilitiesthat

excludesmassesofpeopleatbirthfromcompetingfreelywiththosewhohappenedtobe

bornontherightsideoftherailwayline.Wereordoliberalstoextendthefocusoftheir

Ordnungspolitiktothesesystemicoriginsofeconomicmonopolisation,theywouldbeginto

realisethatSozialpolitikisnotspeziellePolitik,butanongoingandfundamentalconcern

withthesustenanceofadequatelevelsofsocialequalityineverywalkoflife.

OrdoliberalismandEuropeD&Kwrite:

ThesovereignFrenchgovernment(thatwouldcertainlyopposeVDW’simplicitclaimofbeinginfluencedbyanordoliberalagendasetbytheGermans)decidedpriortothefinancialcrisisnottosupportthe[banlieues]sufficiently.Instead,itchose,forexample,nottotaxtherich(whichisinlinewithVDW)aswellastospendresourcespreferablyonalarge,Bismarckian-stylewelfarestateknowntoperpetuatesocialstratification,withtheinhabitantsofthecitéscertainlybeingonverylowstrata.

Whenonereadsthispassage,onehasreasontowonderwithsomedismaywhether

D&KhavebeentakinganynoticeofthepressingpoliticalproblemsthatplaguedFrancein

13

recentyears.Hadtheydoneso,theywouldperhapsnothavetalkedsogliblyabouta

“sovereignFrenchgovernment…thatwouldcertainlyopposeVDW’sclaimofbeing

influencedbyanordoliberalagendasetbyGermans.”Nooneinhisorherrightmindwould

thinkofthecurrentFrenchgovernmentas“influencedbyanordoliberalagendasetby

Germans,”andIsurelyhavenotsuggestedanythingofthekind.Whateveryonewhoknows

alittleaboutcurrentFrenchpoliticsunderstandswell,however,isthatsuccessiveFrench

governmentshavebeenstrugglingtoescapefromanEU-imposedausteritypoliticsthat

neitherconvincednor“influenced”them.6Thisisoneofthemainreasonswhyanti-EU

politicsissoprominentinFrance,bothonthefarrightandonthefarleft.Thisisthereason

whytheworkers’unionsinFrancearesoEuro-sceptic.Thisisalsothemainnarrativebehind

thedismalfailureofFrançoisHollande’scentre-leftgovernmentinrecentyears.Amain

pillarofHollande’selectioncampaignwastonegotiatetherelaxationofEUausterity

measureswiththeleadersofEUMemberStatessuchasGermanyandtheNetherlands,who

wereinsistingonthesemeasures.Hefailedandhisgovernmentfounderedeversince.7

D&K’sobservationregardingFrance’s“large,Bismarckian-stylewelfarestateknown

toperpetuatesocialstratification,”quotedabove,certainlymeritsfurtherreflection.There

isabroadperceptioncurrentinFrancethatFrance’sheavilycentralisedsocialandpolitical

structuresareinneedofreform.TheastoundingelectionofEmmanuelMacronasthe

eighthPresidentoftheFifthRepublicisinlargepartduetohisannouncedwillingnessto

bringaboutthesereforms.Onecanleaveasidethequestionwhetheronenowhasacaseat

handofapossiblefutureFrenchleaderwhois“influencedbyanordoliberalagendasetby

Germans.”Iwillaskadifferentoneinstead:SupposeFrancewouldwanttopersistinthe

yearstocomewitholdgovernmentaltraditions–callthemColbertism,callthemdirigisme,

onecanevencallthemBismarckianwereonetoforgetthatthesetraditionswerearoundin

FrancelongbeforeBismarck8–thatformanyreasonsdonotcomplywithordoliberal

principlesofgovernment.Whatwouldhappenthen?

6Theso-calledMerkozyyearscouldbeanexceptioninthisregard(e.g.Lechevalier,2015:74).7ThosewhohavenotbeenfollowingthesedevelopmentsinrecentyearswillfindasoberingsummaryinSergeHalimi(2017:1,16,17).8ThesuggestionhereisnotthatBismarckianmodesofcentralisedsocialwelfaregovernment,Colbertismanddirigismearethesameinallrespects,buttheyarecertainlycomparablewithregardtothecentralisedstatismcommontothemall.

14

Forthesestate-centredtraditionsofgovernmenttobecomeremotelyassuccessful

astheywereinthe“thirtygloriousyears”after1945,futureFrenchgovernmentswould

havetobeunshackledfromtheespeciallyGerman-drivenausteritydemandsthattheEUis

currentlyimposingonFrance.9ThesamewouldbethecaseifFrancewantedtoreform

thesetraditionsinawaythatwouldnotimplyawholesaleforfeitureofitsown

governmentaltraditions.Isthereanychancethatapoliticallyandculturallymore

heterogeneousandhospitableEUmayonedaycometoacceptandaccommodatethis

“otherFrance”orthis“differentFrance”(nottomentionapossibleotheranddifferent

Greece,etc.)?OraretheoptionsEuropeisfacingreducedtoeitherFrancebecoming

anotherGermanyandtheFrenchgoodGermans,ontheonehand,ortheEUfallingapart,

ontheother?IstheunderlyingmessageherereallythatthisGermanwayistheonlyway?

MustEuropereallybecomeanenlargedGermany?Judgingbythefirstsignssentoutbythe

determinedyoungMacron,Europemaywellneedtoplotadifferentcourseintheyearsto

come.10

AusteritynotanOrdoliberalthought?D&KmaywishtorespondtoallthistalkofEU-imposedordoliberalausteritydemandson

Franceasfundamentallymiscued,consideringthattherootsoftheausteritythinkingthat

havetakentheworldeconomyhostagetowardstheendofthetwentiethcenturydonot

haveordoliberalorigins.Thisisclearlytheirsuggestionwhentheywrite:

Theideasconcerningausterityactuallyoriginatedinthe1980sinThatcher’sBritainandReagan’sAmerica,wheretheconceptofaminimalstate,propagatedbylibertarianeconomistslikeFriedrichAugustvonHayek,MiltonFriedmanandMurrayRothbard,receivedmuchattention.Fromthere,theirideasslowlyspilledoverintothestatesoftheEuropeancontinent.Inotherwords,therecipesthatarebeingappliedinEurope(includingCatholicPoland),butalsointheUStodayarenotordoliberal,butlibertarianorneoliberal.Thedistinctionbetweentheseliberalschoolsofthoughtismuchmorecomplexthanthinkingofordoliberalismas‘neoliberalismwithrules.’Attheheartofthedistinctionliestheroleofthestate.ItseemsthatVDWinterestinglychosenottodigdeeperintothesecrucialdifferences,ashisselectionofreferencesindicates(seeendnote15).

The“endnote15”towhichtheyreferconcernsmyreferencestoaconsiderablelist

ofscholarswhohavemadethemistakeofnothavingdugdeeperintothecrucial

9SeeMacron(2016:79)foraclearaffirmationoftheneedforstateinvestmentintheeconomy.Hismaineconomicadvisor,JeanPisani-Ferry,isnotanordoliberal,butamoderateKeynesian(seeSchubert,2017).10Macronisindeedsendingoutstrongsignalsthatheintendstohonourthesetraditions(2016:48).

15

differencesbetweenordoliberalism,neoliberalismandlibertarianism.Hadallthesescholars

dugdeeperintothesedifferences,D&Ksuggest,theywouldnothaveattributedausterity

politicstoordoliberalism,buttotherealculprits,namely,neoliberalismandlibertarianism.

Andofcourse,thenIwouldalsonothavebeenledastrayregardingthesecrucial

differences.

Now,consideringthispredicamentofsomanyscholarsouttherebeingsoill

informedaboutthecrucialdifferencesbetweenordoliberalism,neoliberalismand

libertarianismandabouttherealoriginsofausterityeconomics,itwouldseemtomethat

theremaywellbearealincentiveforordoliberalsthemselvestoreallyclearupthis

confusion,especiallyiftheyfeeluncomfortablewithbeingassociatedwiththeausterity

politicsthattheEUisimposingonitsMemberStates.Whydon’tthose“scholarswitha

deepunderstandingofGermanordoliberalism(suchasViktorVanberg)”publishan

unambiguousstatementthatordoliberalismshouldnotbeassociatedwiththeausterity

economicsthatneoliberalismandlibertarianismhavebeenimposingontheworldinrecent

years.Consideringtheirdeepunderstandingofthemovementandtheirintimatefamiliarity

withitskeytexts–andconsideringthattheywillundoubtedlyberecognisedas

authoritativespokesmenforthetradition–theyareclearlyinthebestpositiontoclearup

thispervasivemisunderstandingthatisshared,oneshouldnote,byJürgenHabermas.11

Suchacategoricalclarificationwillalsogivethemtheopportunitytodissociatethemselves

fromtheSchäublesofthisworld,whomustalsohavegottentheirausterityideas–seethe

epigraphabove–fromneoliberalsandlibertariansandnotfromthem.Andonecanalso

stronglyrecommendthattheymakeuseofthesameopportunitytodenouncethe

unforgivingattitudesoftheGermangovernmentandtheGermanmediaintheongoing

Greekcrisis.Wereprominentordoliberalscholarswhocanspeakauthoritativelyonbehalf

oftheFreiburgSchooltodothis,theymightwellbesurprisedhowreadythescholars

mentionedinmyendnote15willbetorevisetheirpositions.Untilthishappens,however,

theymustexpectthatthoseofuswhoaresupposedlyunabletodiscernthesubtle

differencesanddistinctionstowhichD&Kallude,willcontinuetoassociateordoliberalism

withausterityforreasonsthatlookadequatelyplausibletous.

11 See Habermas (2016): “Und da sich die Bundesregierung seit 2010 über den Europäischen Rat mit denordoliberalenVorstellungenihrerSparpolitikgegenFrankreichunddieSüdeuropäerdurchsetzt[...]”

16

Thereasonthatthisassociationlooksadequatelyplausibletomeconcernsthevery

roleofthestatetowhichD&Kallude.Oneiswellawarethatonecandistinguish

ordoliberalismfromclassicalliberalismonthebasisoftheformer’sconvictionregardingthe

activerolethestatemustplayinsustainingatrulyliberalmarketandpreventingitfrom

cartelformationsthatdistortfreecompetition.Classicalliberalismisclearlydifferentinthis

regard,consideringitsmuchcloseradherencetolaissez-faireprinciples.Takingone’skey

fromanexpressionofAlexanderRüstow,onemaywelldistinguishthedeismofclassical

liberalism,andthedeontologyoftheordoliberals(VanderWalt,2014:246-252).Andtothe

extentthatneoliberalismandlibertarianismarebothclosertothedeismofclassical

liberalism,theysurelydonotfitwellintothedeontologicalapproachoftheordoliberals.

Butthisiswheretheimportantdifferencebetweenthemends,asfarasIunderstandthe

matter.Fortherest,theordoliberalswouldseemtobeasapprehensiveofgovernmental

practicesthatthreatenpricestabilityandundistortedcompetitionasanyotherbranchof

“minimalstate”liberalismmaybe.Theinfusionofmoneyintoaneconomythroughthe

procurationofeitherstateorprivatedebtthatisnotwarrantedbyequivalentlevelsof

savings,wouldappeartobekeyamongtheseobjectionablepracticesaccordingtothem.

ThisishowIand,Ibelieve,manyotherscholarsunderstandthematter.Andifwearejust

wronginthisregard,Iamsurewewouldalljustbeverygratefultobecorrectedbyscholars

witha“deep[er]understanding”oftheordoliberaltradition.12

OrdoliberalismandProtestantismAssumingthatausteritypoliticsreflectsapredominantlyProtestantapproachtomonetary

stability,istheunderlyingmessageoftheordoliberalsreallythatthisProtestantwayisthe

onlyway?D&Kwillsurelyobjectvociferouslytothiswayofputtingthequestion.They

objecttomyassociationofordoliberalismwithProtestantism.However,theythemselves

12Onemaybehardpressedtofindexpressreferencestonotionsof‘austerity’inordoliberaltexts,Iassume,buttheprinciplesofmonetarypoliticsthatEuckenelaboratesinGrundsätzederWirtschaftspolitik(thesafeguardingofthepricemechanismasthefoundationalprincipleofeconomicgovernment[2004:255];theresultingneedtoavoidmonetaryinstabilityasfaraspossible,irrespectiveofquestionsregardingthejusticeofthesystem[ibid.:257];theexplanationofmonetaryinstabilitywithreferencetothecreationofmoneybybanks[throughcreditprovisionthatisnotcorroboratedbysavings],andtheneedtoavoidthis[ibid.:258];theneedtosustainmonetarystabilitywithacurrencyconstitution[Währungsverfassung]thatoperatesautomaticallywithoutinterferencefromcentralbanksorgovernmentauthorities[ibid.:257];andthedismissalofKeynesian[ibid.:286]orotherformsofKonjunkturpolitik(ibid.:308–312))wouldneverthelessseemtolaydowntheblueprintforamonetarypoliticsthatcanforallpracticalpurposesbeconsidered‘austere’(orattheveryleasthavethepotentialtodeliverconsistentlyaustereoutcomes).

17

unabashedlyassociatethecoreideasofearlyordoliberalthinkingwithaProtestantismthat

onlylaterbecame“enriched”(!)witha“Catholicsocialperspective.”Theywrite:

RegardingtheconnectionbetweenordoliberalismandProtestantism,VDW’sargumentremainsdubiousaswell…[W]hilemanyearlyscholarsfromFreiburgwereundoubtedlyinfluencedbyProtestantism,theyareonlyonefractionwithinGermanordoliberalism.EspeciallyafterLudwigErhardandAlfredMüller-ArmackenrichedtheideasfromFreiburgwithaCatholicsocialperspectivetoformthesocialmarketeconomy,thesupposeddominanceofProtestantthinkinginordoliberalismthatcontinuesuntiltodayisdoubtful.

ThisobservationthatLudwigErhardandAlfredMüller-Armack–bothProtestants,

oneshouldnote13–enrichedtheideasfromFreiburgwitha“Catholicsocialperspective”

evidentlymakestwointerestingconcessions:1)TheessentialFreiburgthinkingwas

Protestantinitsorientation.2)Inthepost-waryears,thisessentiallyProtestantthinkingof

theFreiburgSchoolwasenrichedbyasocialperspectivethatwasessentiallyofCatholic

origin.Now,onereallywonderswhatexactlyD&Kfindsodubiousaboutthelinkbetween

ordoliberalismandProtestantismthatIinvokeinmyNPinterventioniftheyarepreparedto

basicallyconcedethepointthemselves,astheydohere.Onealsomarvelsathowprepared

theyaretoconcedeinthesamebreaththatthesocialperspectivethatwentintothesocial

marketeconomycannotbeattributedtothecoreideasaroundwhichthethinkingofthe

FreiburgSchooldeveloped,buthadtobeimportedlaterfromCatholicbackgrounds.Little

moreneedtobeaddedinresponsehere,apartfromunderlininganumberofpointstoclear

uptheconfusionthatD&Karecreatingwiththeseconcessions.

Firstly,theCatholicinfluenceontheordoliberalsduringthepost-waryearsiswell

knownandsurelynotdeniedorignoredinmyODHintervention(2016:88).Secondly,

anyonewhowouldliketochallengemyviewregardingthenonethelesscloseoreven

essentiallinkbetweenProtestantismandordoliberalismfirmly,shouldperhapsalso

considerthesourcesonwhichIrelyandbereadytochallengethesesourcesaswell.Inthis

respect,IwouldsincerelyliketohearwhetherD&KwouldliketochallengePhilipManow’s

argumentsregardingdieprotestantischeTiefengrammatikdesOrdoliberalismus,andifso,

onwhatgroundstheywoulddoso.Thelackofcounter-argumentthatD&Kdisplayhere

13ForMüller-Armack,seeJosefHien’sreferenceinthisissuetoDieterHaselbach’sobservationthatMüller-Armack’s“Protestantconfessionwasnotwithoutimpactonhisscientificwork.”AsforErhard,hehadaCatholicfatherandaProtestantmother,butErhardandhissiblingswereallbaptisedasProtestants.SeeLudwigErhardZentrum(2017).

18

becomesglaringlyconspicuouswhenoneconsidersthemeticulouswayinwhichManow

unpacksboththehistoricalanddogmaticlinksbetweenordoliberalismandProtestantism.

Beitasitmay,noneoftheaboveobservationsinanelysuggestthattherenever

wereProtestantswithstrongsocialsensibilitiesorCatholicswithstrongindividualisticand

competition-orientedsensibilities,bothinGermanyandinFrance(aswellaselsewhere).

Surely,admirersandfollowersofWalterEucken,whosetheoriesincorporatedsomuch

fromMaxWeber’sconcernwithIdealtypen,couldhavebeenexpectedtorespondalittle

morediscerninglytothispartofmyODHintervention.

“AHuntington-TypeClash”ofCivilisations?D&KconcludetheirresponsetomyODHinterventionwiththispassage:

WeconcludewithsomeremarksonVDW’svisionofjihadistterrorismresultingfromaHuntington-typeclashof(de-hermeneuticised)religionsorquasi-religions.Whilewemainlyaccusetheauthorofasuperficial(de-hermeneutic!)readingofordoliberalismandtheFreiburgSchoolofeconomics,weobservethesameproblemwiththeideaofde-hermeneuticisedIslam.VDW’spositionissomewhatreminiscentofGillesKepelinhisdebatewithOlivierRoyonwhetherthecurrentthreatsposedbyterrorismresultfromaradicalisationofIslamorfromanIslamicisationofradicalism(e.g.NewYorkTimes,2016).14Combinedwithde-hermeneuticisation,thiswouldentailIslam–somewhatmechanically–becoming“morefundamentalist(…)andlessinterpretive”(p.80);theargumentovertheradicalisationofIslamthereforebecomesoversimplified,astheprocessofradicalisationisnotexplained.Roy,ontheotherhand,arguesmorepsychologicallyandplacesgreateremphasisonindividualbehaviour.Followinghislineofreasoning,aspecificcombinationofindividualtraitsandenvironmentalinfluencescausesradicalisation.Thisisnotsimplemechanics,butcanbetracedbacktoconcretecauses.Inaddition,Royconsiderstheterrorists’religiousbeliefsinthecontextofajihadismthatisstrictlymarginaltoIslam.

ThesamequestionthatIhaveposedabovewithreferencetoManowmustagainbe

posedhere.DoD&KreallywishtotakeissuewithNavidKermani’sintimateknowledgeof

themoderndevelopmentoftheIslamreligiononwhichIrelyinODH?Ifso,whataretheir

arguments?TheirsparsereferencetotheKepel–Roydebatedoesnotseemtoofferany

clearlineofcontentionthatsignificantlychallengestheviewsItookfromKermani.Itis

noteworthythatCharlotteHeath-Kelly,inherresponsetoODH,towhichIturnlaterbelow,

reliesonKepelandBernardLewisforanexpressconfirmationofthemodernisationthesis

14Forapopularaccountofthedebate,seeNewYorkTimes(2016).Forintroductionstotheworksofeachscholar,seeRoy(2004)andKepel(2006).

19

thatIgleanedfromKermani’swritings.D&K,withlittleargumentationtobackthemup,

simplysuggestRoy’sviewsshouldbegivenpreferencehere.

IfRoyisright,andthereareindeedgoodreasonstohonourhisarguments,VDW’sclashofreligionsstoryisindeedinaccuratefrombothends.

OneshouldnotethatthisisD&K’sclosingparagraphandsentence.Theysimply

leavethesceneoftheargumentwiththiscavalierfinalstatement.Whatmaybetheir

consideredreasonsfordoingso?WhatarethegoodreasonsforassumingRoy,andRoy

alone,isrighthere,andKermaniandKepel(andLewis,andallotherswhodisagreewith

Roy)aresimplywrong?OnwhatexpertiseorimmersedreadingareD&Krelyingfortheir

astoundinglyauthoritativeassessmentoftherelativemeritsoftheseauthorsandthestate

ofthedebatebetweenthem?Wouldanyonewhoisreallyimmersedinthisdebatecometo

suchaquickandfacileconclusion?Butmanymorequestionsaboundhere:Whydothey

imputea“clashofreligions”storytoODHwhenthereisnottheslightestevidenceofany

focusedintentiontoputforwardsuchastoryinit?WhyisitthatD&Kcannotseethatthe

thesisregardingthemodernradicalisationofIslamplaysalmostnoroleinmyODH

argumentsapartfromfurnishingitwiththeconceptwithwhichIproceedtoanalyse

WesternorEuropeanframesofmind?15Whycan’ttheyseethatthewholelineofargument

inODH(regardingthesocio-economicdistressandfrustrationthatcontributetoreligious

radicalisation)resonatesinmanyrespectsasmuchwiththepsychological“Islamicisationof

Radicalism”argumentthattheyattributetoRoyasitdoeswiththebroadersemantic

“radicalisationofIslam”argumentattributabletoKepel(andothers)?

Frankly,Icannotseewhyoneshouldsubscribeexclusivelytoeitheroftheselinesof

arguments,andsuspect(asanon-expertinthisspecificdebate,nodoubt,butasasocial

sciencescholarwithmanyyearsofexperienceofthiskindofdebate)thatmanyexpertsin

thefieldwouldprobablywanttoconsiderbothargumentsworthyofconsiderationfor

purposesofunderstandingacomplexdevelopmentwithmultipleelementsandfacets.But

again,itissimplyastoundinghowD&K,whodonotcountasexpertsinthefield,asfarasI

candiscern,simplybegintopromoteoneofthesecompetingargumentsforpurposesof

15Afterhavingdedicatingroughlytwoparagraphs(outoftwenty-fivepages)tointroducingtheconcept,Iwrote:“Itis,however,notwiththede-hermeneuticisationofIslamicculturesthatIwishtotakeissueinwhatfollows.Iwouldliketolook,instead,atthevastandincreasingdehermeneuticisationthathastakenrootinEuropeansocieties.”

20

endingtheirresponsewithaloudpartingshot.16Itisbesttosayaslittleaspossibleabout

thiskindofscholarship.Butoneshouldnote–perhapsforthebenefitofstudentsand

futurescholars–thesadlackofscholarlycuriosityandresponsibilitythatallowsthemso

easilytoforegocarefulengagementandargumentation.Ileaveittothereaderstoconsider

thiswellandjudgeitforthemselves,butD&Ksurelydonotleavemewiththeimpression

thattheyhaveengagedwiththeRoy-Kepeldebateforthesakeofgettingtothebottomof

itandarticulatingacarefullyconsideredopinionaboutit.Theimpressionwithwhichthey

leavemeisthattheysimplydraggedinthedebatebyitscoattailsforthesakeofending

theirpiecewithsomesortofrhetoricalcrescendo.Theysurelydonotleavemewiththe

impressionthattheyarestillguidedbyscholarlycuriosityandthewishtoofferacarefuland

responsiblepointofview.

WhenIlookbackatalltheaspectsoftheirresponsetomyODHinterventionwith

whichItookissueabove,itstrikesmethatalackofarealconcernwithcurious,carefuland

responsiblescholarshipburdensalmosteverylineofwhattheyhavewritteninreactionto

myODHintervention.Iusetheword“reaction”hereinordertoavoidtheword“response”

now.Iamleftwiththeimpressionthattheyhavenotarguedwithmeorrespondedtome.

Mysenseisthattheyhavesentmeareactiondevoidofbotharesponseandthe

responsibilitythatconditionsaresponse.AndthisleadsmetothefinalpointthatIwishto

makewithregardtoD&K’sreactiontomyODHintervention.Theyendupportraying

ordoliberalthinkingasdevoidofresponsibility.Imaynothavethe“deepunderstanding”of

ordoliberalthinkingthatD&Kexpectfromtheirinterlocutors,butIhavereadenoughof

Eucken’sworkandenoughaboutittoknowthathewasaformidablycourageousand

responsiblepersonandscholar.Onemaywanttodifferwithhimonmanypoints,buthis

workcannotbeconsidered“irresponsible.”AndthisissadlyexactlywhatD&Kendupdoing

intheirreactiontomyODHintervention.Theyportraytheordoliberaltraditionasaschool

ofthoughtwithnosenseofhistoricalresponsibility,asIwillshowinwhatfollows.

OrdoliberalismIsNotResponsible…

16IfD&Ktookrecoursetotheconditionalmodeofthephrase“IfRoyisright”tosuggesttheyarenottakingsideshere,asIcontend,theywouldsurelybestrippingthiswholeconcludingparagraphoftheonlybitofcontrivedsubstance–Roy’sargumentand“thegoodreasonsforhonouringit”–onwhichithangs.

21

“OrdoliberalismIsNotResponsibleforJihadistTerrorisminEurope,”readsthetitleofD&K’s

replytomyODHintervention.Theexplanationforthistitlewouldseemtorestonthe

denialofachainofcausallinksbetweenjihadterrorismandordoliberalismthatthey

attributetomyODHintervention.Thefollowingpassagesputforwardtheiressential

contentionsinthisregard:

WestronglydoubtthatthesimplemechanicsofVDW’sargumentsupporttheassertionthat–withorwithoutaprocessofde-hermeneuticisation–Protestantethicsledtoordoliberalism,whichresultedinanimposedausterityinFranceandultimatelyjihadistterrorism.Thiscausalchainisnotonlyhighlyquestionable,butalsoitsunderlyingassumptionsare,infact,inaccurate.VDWassertsthatalackofresources(oratleasttheprevailingbeliefin“economicscarcity”)hassubstantiallycontributedtothesocialunrestinMolenbeek,Belgium,orthecitésaroundParis.Theresultingsocioeconomicgrievancesallegedlyspawnedterrorism.Whilethisclaimmaypossiblyhavesomemerit,thoughthemono-causalityofitisatleastquestionable,VDWfalselyaccusesordoliberaleconomictheoryofade-politicisation(or,howheputsit,de-hermeneuticisation)ofthenotionofresourcescarcity.

Anyhonestattempttocometogripswiththesepassageswouldsurelywanttoask

whethertheirauthorsconsidertheirreadingofmyODHinterventionanexpressionofgood

faithandasincereintentiontoengagewiththeessentialthoughtsthattheintervention

putsforward.HaveD&Kaskedthemselvesforamomentwhetheranyonewithareasonably

developedsenseofwhatcountsasagoodsocialtheoreticallineofargumentwouldcome

upwiththesyllogisticsequence“Protestantethicsledtoordoliberalism;ordoliberalism

resultedinimposedausterity;austerityresultedinjihadism;Protestantethicsand

ordoliberalismthuscausedjihadism”?

Or,toputthequestiondifferently,doD&Kreallyconsideritgoodscholarlypractice

toreduceanargumenttoasimplisticcaricatureforpurposesofconsideringthemselves

unchallengedbyit,andsimplynotaddressedbyit?Torephrasethequestiononemore

timesoastobringintoplaytheessentialpointthatIwishtomakehere:Isitasignofeither

scholarlyorsocialresponsibility–ofowninguptoone’sresponsibility–whenonereduces

thequestionofresponsibilitytoanarrowconsiderationofwhetheronecanbeidentifiedas

anexclusiveanddirectcauseinamechanistic“mono-causal”sequenceofconsequences?

Oristheinclinationtoconsiderresponsibilityinthesetermsnotindeedthesignofthewish

toabsolveoneselffromresponsibilityasfaraspossible,thatis,fromallbutthemostdirect

formsofcausalinvolvement.IfthisiswhatisgoingoninD&K’sreactiontomyODH

22

intervention,doestheretort“Ordoliberalismisnotresponsible…”notindeedamounttoa

confirmationofirresponsibility?Wouldthesignofsocialresponsibilityinatimeofcrisis–

thecrisisofreligiousradicalisationamongyoungpeoplethatleadstobarbarousactsof

jihadismincluded–notmuchratherbereflectedinthewillingnesstoconsiderthemany

waysinwhichexistingmodesofthinkinganddoing,includingone’sown,maybe

contributingtothecrisisinwaysthatarenotunambiguouslyevident?

IshallleaveittothereadertodecidewhetherD&K’sportrayalofmyargumentsis

fairandaccurate.Formypart,Icannotseewhyanyonewithasoundmindwouldwantto

arguethatProtestantismledtoordoliberalism,ordoliberalismresultedinausterity,and

austeritycausedjihadism.WhatIcanimaginesomeonearguing,however,andwhatI

believeIarguedoratleastendeavouredtoargue,issomethingtothefollowingeffect:

Ordoliberalism’sconsiderationofasystemoffairandvirtuouscompetitionasthemost

crucialconcernofstatepoliticscanbetracedtotheProtestantethicsofhardworkand

frugalitythatMaxWeberalreadyidentifiedaskeytotheriseofmoderncapitalism.Tothe

extentthatthetraditionofordoliberalthinkingbyandlargeconsidersitssocial

responsibilityrestrictedtothesustenanceoffairandvirtuouscompetition,itsurelydoes

notaddressorofferameaningfulresponsetoquestionsregardingextensiveeconomic

redistributionthatmightfacilitatetheincisiveanddeepsocialreconstructionneededfor

improvingtheconditionsofsocialmalaisethatevidentlypromptradicalanti-socialconduct

suchasreligiousextremismandreligiouslyinspiredterrorism.Sofar,thereisnomentionin

thislineofargumentof,oranyallusionto,acausalconnection–letalonethe“mono-

causal”connectionthatD&Kimputetome17–betweenordoliberalismandthesocial

conditionsthatareconducivetoanti-socialbehaviour.Atstakeismerelyanobservation

regardingordoliberalism’sfailuretoofferameaningfulresponsetotheseconditions(and

indeedthenanobservationregardingafailuretorespondandafailuretotake

responsibility).

Onlythen–havingobservedthisordoliberalfailuretorespond–doesmyargument

tightenitsscrewsforpurposesofinvokinganordoliberal“legacy.”Thelegacyinvokedhere,

oneshouldnoteclearly,isneverthelessnotjihadterrorism,but“Europe’sstatesof

17D&Kwrite:“Theresultingsocioeconomicgrievancesallegedlyspawnedterrorism.Whilethisclaimmaypossiblyhavesomemerit,thoughthemono-causalityofitisatleastquestionable…”

23

emergency.”Andthegistofthispartoftheargumentisthis:Ifoneactivelyandeffectively

promotes–oratleastpassivelybutconspicuouslycondones,therebycontributing

effectivelytotheentrenchingof–anausteritypoliticsthatinhibitsincisive,timelyand

ongoingameliorativeresponsestoseriousconditionsofsocialmalaise,onecertainlyalso

contributesveryeffectivelytotheneedforurgentoremergencyresponseswhenthe

situationgetsoutofhand.Underthesecircumstances,itbecomesaccurateandaptto

consideranensuingstateofemergencya“legacy.”Again,Iwishtoleaveittothereaderto

judge,butIpersonallyandhonestlydonotthinkthereisanythinginthisargumentthat

suggestsordoliberalismisthecause,letalonethe“mono-cause,”ofjihadterrorism.Itrusta

briefrecollectionofthefollowingpassagefromODHcanserveasahelpfulstartingpointfor

thereassessmentthatIconsidernecessaryhere:

Theperspectiveelaboratedinthisarticlecertainlyrequiresawillingnessfromreadersandinterlocutorstoreconsiderdominantviewsoflookingattheproblemorcrisisthatoneisfacinghere.ThesuggestionthatoneoftherootsofthecurrentwaveofjihadterrorinEuropecanbetracedtoaEuropeanfundamentalismthatisasextremeastheIslamicfundamentalismbehindtheterrorism,maywellcomeacrossascounter-intuitiveandevenscandaloustosomereaders….ThisperspectiveisneverthelessputforwardhereforthesakeofopeningupotherwaysofthinkingaboutthecrisisEuropeisfacingtoday.Itshouldalsobestressedthattheendeavourtoopenupadifferentperspectivehereisnotatallaccompaniedbytheclaimthatitoffersacomprehensiveorconclusivesolutiontothecrisisathand.Itisjustafirststeptowardsthinkingdifferentlyaboutthiscrisis.18

Againstthebackgroundofthispassage,butalsoinviewofthewayinwhichI

structuredmyargumentsinODH,Isincerelybelievetheimputationofamonocausal

argumenttomyODHinterventionrestsonaconstructionofsomeonewhoprefersnotto

takeresponsibilityundercircumstancesinwhichallresponsiblepersonsandparties

involvedwoulddoso,andcandoso,withouthavingtoadmitblame,letaloneexclusive

blame.Ifthisisindeedthepreferenceofordoliberals,ordoliberalsareindeed“not

responsible,”asD&Ksuggest.Andthisleavesonetopondertheworryingpossibilitythat

Europeanpoliticsmaybedeeplyinfluencedbyawayofthinkingthatisquiteevidently

unconcernedbyitsownirresponsibility,awayofthinking,moreover,thatwouldevidently

nolongerbeworthyofWalterEucken’sformidablelegacy.

ConstructiveInvitationstoThinkFurther

18Theemphasison“oneoftheroots”isaddedhere.

24

TheobservationsregardinganordoliberallackofresponsibilitywithwhichSectionIends

abovecanallbetracedtothedisciplinaryrefusaltothinkthatIinvokeearlierinthesection.

WhenIturnnowtowhatIdeemtheconstructiveinvitationstothinkfurthersenttomeby

JosefHien,CharlotteHeath-Kelly,Emmanuel-PierreGuittet,FilipedosReisandBenKamis,I

wouldlikewiseliketolinktheseinvitationstothinkfurthertoawillingnesstotake

responsibilityandtoalertEuropeanpoliticstosomeofitsmostworryingfeatures.Iwill

addresseachoftheseinvitationsindividuallyinthissection.

Hien,ResurgentGermanOrdoliberalism&Europe’sIdeationalMonoculturesIthankJosefHienforsubstantiatingthekeyargumentsregardingordoliberalisminEurope

advancedinmyODHinterventionandfordoingsowithreferencetoarichbackgroundof

knowledgeandreadingthatIcanonlyadmireandfromwhichIstandtolearnmuchstill.I

wishtopauseheretoreflectonlyonthethreeelementsofhisresponsefromwhichIhave

alreadylearnedmuchandwhichIalsodeemworthyofmuchfurtherthoughtandreflection

thanthatwhichisimmediatelypossibleinwhatfollows.Thefirstpointconcernsmyfailure

tonotethespecificcontextoftheresurgenceofordoliberalisminGermanysincethe1980s,

andtheimpressionIcreatethatordoliberalismhascontinuouslydominatedGerman

economicandpoliticalthinkinginthewakeofWorldWarII.Thesecondconcernstheasyet

unconfirmedstatusofthehypothesisthatordoliberalismspreadfromGermanytoEurope

throughtheEuropeanUnionTreaties.Andthethirdpertainstomyfailuretonotetheother

fundamentalismsandideationalmonoculturesspawnedbytheresurgenceofordoliberalism

inGermanyandEuropesincethe1980s.

MyODHinterventionhasindeednotbeenattentivetothefactthatordoliberalism

hasnotjustalwaysbeenaroundinGermany,butalsoenjoyedaveryspecificresurgence

sincethe1980s.ThefirstresponsetoHien’sobservationsinthisregardshouldbetojust

admittoalackofadequateknowledgeofthesespecificsofthehistoryofordoliberal

thinkinginpost-warGermany.Iassumedthattheprominenceofordoliberalthinkinginthe

developmentofGermany’ssocialmarketeconomyduringtheyearsafterthewaralso

amountedtoarelativelydominantpositionforitinGermanpoliticalthinkingthroughout

thisperiodandamgratefulforHien’scorrectioninthisregard.Ialsofindthedevelopments

thatheexploresandputsforwardaspossiblereasonsfortheresurgenceofordoliberal

25

thinkingsincethe1980sandespeciallyinthe1990s–theeconomicproblemsinthewakeof

Germany’sre-unification,thechangesthatthere-unificationcausedintheelectoral

landscape,andthemassiveprivatizationofstate-ownedcompanies,landandhousingstock

–cogent.Theyallalsooffersignificantfoodforthought.Oneofthefirstpromptsforfurther

reflectiononthishistorythatcomestomindinthisregard,surelyconcernsthequestion

whetherthefutureofEuropeandEuropeanintegrationshouldbeheldhostagebythe

uniqueexigenciesoftheGermanre-unification.

Thisofcoursealreadyleadsonetothequestionoftheunconfirmedstatusofany

contentionthatordoliberalisminfiltratedtherestofEurope,oratleasttheEU,throughits

incorporationintheTreatiesoftheEU,notablytheMaastrichtTreaty,aswellasthrough

theStabilityandGrowthPactof1998/9andtheFiscalCompactof2012.Iamhappyto

accept,asHiensuggests,thatthecontroversyaroundtheMaastrichtTreatyisstill

unresolvedasaresultoftheembargooncrucialarchivematerial.Iamalsohappytoaccept,

ashesuggestsfurther,thattheinfluentialideasandlinesofthoughtthatledtoabroad

acceptanceofthegovernmentalprinciplesincorporatedintheStabilityandGrowthPact

andtheFiscalCompactamongEUMemberStatesmaywellhaveincludedneoliberal

convictionsthattookrootintheseMemberStatesindependentlyofanyGermanor

ordoliberalinfluence.IneverthelesswishtoofferinresponsehereanArendtianregardfor

thewayperceptionsandappearancescountinpolitics(vanderWalt,2012).Theperception

thatordoliberalprinciplesandaGermanhardlineonausterityeconomicsareentrenchedin

theEUtreatiesandotherEUinstruments,andviathisentrenchmentimposedontherestof

theEU,hasbecomesopervasive–aquicklookattherelevantliteratureandjournalism

confirmsthisveryreadily19–thatithasbecomeapoliticalrealitythatcannolongerbe

dismissedasamyth.Thispoliticalrealityisfurthercorroboratedbythestridentwayin

whichGermanpoliticalleadersadvocatetheirausterityvisionsfortherestofEurope(see

againtheepigraphabove).

Againstthisbackground,theriseofotherideationalmonoculturesinEurope–such

asthosereflectedinthenotionofacontre-attaquedel’Empirelatincontemplatedby

Agambenandtheanti-ProtestantstatementsvoicedbyGreekpoliticianstowhichHien

refers–shouldsurprisenoone.Theideaofacontre-attaquelatinislargelyamythwithvery

19Seeagainthepublicationscitedinfootnote15ofmyODHintervention.

26

littlepoliticalpurchase,asthelackofsupportforGreeceandempathywithitsplightfrom

thesideofotherSouthernEuropeancountriesmakesalltooclear.However,thefactthat

oneofEurope’sleadingphilosophersdiscernspotentialinthismythforsomeemancipatory

releasehere,shouldgiveuspauseforcarefulreflectionontherealstateofEuropean

politics.HowlongwilltheleadersofEurope,whohavethepowertobringaboutan

imaginativeandsignificanthermeneuticchangeoffundamentalpoliticalperceptionsin

Europe,allowthealreadysignificantdistrustbetweentheNorthandtheSouthtodeepen?

Howlongwilltheyriskthepossibledevelopmentofnewgeopoliticalalliancesthatwillsend

theidealoftheever-closerunionofthepeoplesofEuropetotherubbishheapofhalf-

bakedideologicalexperiments?Thesequestionsareespeciallypertinentinatimewhenthe

mostpowerfulnationonearthapparentlynolongerseesanyreasonforsupportingthe

furtherintegrationofEurope,asitdidinthepast.IbelieveitisthemeritofHien’sresponse

tomyODHinterventiontoopenuptheselinesofthought,insteadofclosingthemdown,

andhedeservesnotonlymyappreciation,buttheappreciationofeveryonewhoascribesto

theidealofatrulypoliticalintegrationofEuropeandthereforeresiststherealityofan

imposedmarketintegrationthatisgraftedonrulesfavouredbythestrongestplayersinthis

market.

Heath-KellyandtheMilitarisedFundamentalismofForeignInterventionCharlotteHeath-Kellywrites:

VanDerWalt’spiececouldbestrengthenedbyanengagementwithadifferentfeatureofEurocentricfundamentalism:thepersistentmilitaryinterventionism,borneofthehistoricalcolonialfigurationsofmanyWesternEuropeanstates,whichdirectlycontributestotheformationofmilitantgroupsandstructurestheircounter-hegemonicideology.WhileVanDerWalthighlightstheeconomicfundamentalismofneoliberalism,themilitarisedfundamentalismofforeigninterventionisanequally,ifnotmore,prominentcontributingfactortopoliticalviolence.

Heath-Kellyunpacksthekeycontentionputforwardherewithampleevidenceofthe

directlyparallelrelationbetweenWesternmilitaryinterventionismandthecounter-

hegemonicideologiesofmilitantgroupsthateventuallytranslateintoactsofterrorism.And

itisinthisregardthatshepointsout“anunintentionalreproductionofcertainaspectsof

theEuropeanfundamentalistdiscourse–especiallythesilencingoftheself-explanationof

militancybyitsperpetrators,andtheroleofmilitarisedforeignpolicyincausingterrorism”-

inmyODHintervention.Thepointshemakeshereemanatesfromafineandclosereading

27

ofmytextanditisworthwhilequotinginfullwhatIconsiderthesharpendofher

contentioninthisregard:

ButIcriticizetheunintentionalreproductionofcertainaspectsoftheEuropeanfundamentalistdiscourse–especiallythesilencingoftheself-explanationofmilitancybyitsperpetrators,andtheroleofmilitarisedforeignpolicyincausingterrorism[-invanderWalt’stext].Thisreproductionofdiscursivesilencesisespeciallyevidentinthearticle’sdiscussionofairstrikesandtheSyriaconflict.VdWistechnicallycorrectwhenheoutlinesthe‘increasedbombing’ofSyriawhichfollowedtheParisattacks;however,thisallusion-by-defaulttopreviousFrenchbombingsisnotenoughifwewanttounderstandthereciprocalviolentfundamentalismsofEuropeandmilitantstruggle.TheFrenchairstrikesbeganinSyriaonSeptember27th,2015(twomonthsbeforeISISattackedParis)aspartofadominantFrenchforeignpolicytowardstheMiddleEast–reinforcinganddeveloping“[France’s]self-perceptionasagreatpower”(Ramani,2015).Twomonthslater,ISISgunmenwerereportedtoshout“ThisisforSyria!”totheassembledaudienceintheBataclantheatrebeforeopeningfire(ITVNews,2015).Giventhisexplanationbytheperpetrators,andthesocialscientificresearchwhichconnectsinterventionismwithamilitantresponse,weshouldexplorethislinkbetweenthemilitaristfundamentalismofEuropeandtheUnitedStatesandthewaveofterroristbombings.ButforallthenotableanalysisofEuropeanneoliberalandculturalfundamentalismwithinvanderWalt’sdiscussionofterrorismandcounter-terrorism,hisarticlesilencesthevoiceoftheParisperpetrators-andofISISandAlQaeda’spoliticaljustificationsmorebroadly–inregardtotheWesternmilitaryinterventionismandneo-colonialismwhichdrivestheirmilitantresponse.

Letmebeginbyjustconcedingthepoint.Ifullyagreethatmytextdoesreproduce

thediscursivesilencethatHeath-Kellydiscernshere.Iamgratefultoherforpointingthis

out,butalsoforgraciouslyallowingthequalifying“unintentional”intoherobservationof

thisreproduction,forIalsoneedtoconcedethatthereisnothinginmytextthatexpressly

warrantsthisgraciousqualification.Ineverthelesswishtoconfirmthatmyreproductionof

thisdiscursivesilencewasindeedunintentional.AndperhapsHeath-Kellywillalso

graciouslyallowmetocutmyselfalittlemoreslackherebyaddingthequalification

“inevitable,”consideringthatthelinkbetweenEurope’seconomicfundamentalismandits

statesofemergencyisalreadyquiteabigfishtofryforonecriticalintervention.Havingsaid

this,however,letmeagainstressthatHeath-Kelly’spointiswelltaken,butperhapsonly

withonesmall,but,tomymind,significantexception:Istruggletocometotermswiththe

contentionthatmy“articlesilencesthevoiceoftheParisperpetrators.”Frankly,Isenseno

needandexperiencenowishtogivetheBataclanperpetratorsthemselvesanykindof

voice.Onesimplystarestoodirectlyintoamind-numbingfailureofbasichumanityhereto

wanttogiveahearingtothevoiceoftheperpetratorsthemselves(inthesamewaythatI

donotexperiencetheremotestwishtogiveadirectvoicetoanyonewhoissuesorexecutes

28

anordertodropabombonciviliansettlements).Fortherest,however,Ifullycomprehend

theneedtopayattentiontothediscursivesilenceHeath-Kellypointsoutandtodulyselect

itasaguidingprincipleofcriticalinquiry,asshedoesinherresponsetomyNPintervention.

Furthertothis,oneshouldalsopursuefurtherthepossibilityofsignificantlinks

betweenEurope’seconomicfundamentalismanditsfundamentalistmilitary

interventionism.Theremaywellbemuchmoreatstakeherethatwarrantscareful

attention,butIshallonlypointoutonelineofquestioningthatseemsimportanttopursue

furtherinthisregard,namely,thelinkbetween–whatonemightcall–adomestic

sovereigntydeficit,ontheonehand,andforeignsovereigntyexcesses,ontheother.One

should,forinstance,questioninthisregardallthereasonsforFrance’scommencementof

airstrikesinSyriainSeptember2015andpayspecificattentiontothequestionwhether

Hollande’sdecisiontoactforcefullyabroadwasnotatleastpartlymotivatedbyanattempt

tocompensateforthepervasiveperceptionofthedomesticpoliticalparalysisintowhichhis

governmentdescendedinthewakeofhisfailuretomakegoodonhiselectoralpromiseto

renegotiatethedebilitatingausteritymeasuresoftheStabilityandGrowthPact.

Thisisofcourseonlyalineofquestioningandnotofcontention,anditisdoubtful

whetheritwillproduceenoughevidencesoonenoughtosupportafirmcontestationinthe

nearfuture.Itneverthelessremainsaquestionthatcriticalinquirymustkeepopenand

alive(Ramani,2015),20consideringthefrequencywithwhichthefundamentalisms–the

humanrightsandlibertyfundamentalisms!–thatinformedWesternmilitary

interventionisminthepast,cameacrossasalltoomixedupwithcynicalcompensatory

and/ordistractionstrategies.

Guittet,Agamben’sPessimismandtheTimeofHermeneuticsEmmanuel-PierreGuittet’sresponsetomyNPinterventionoffersapoignantandperceptive

descriptionofthe“risk-soakedsecurityimaginary”withwhichcontemporarymodesof

politicalsovereigntypresentthemselvesasaninevitablesystemof“precautionary

governmentalprocesses”forwhichnoalternativeexists.Hedescribesthesheer

anthropologicalpessimismthatinformsthisreductionofpoliticstoprecautionandrisk-

20SamuelRamani(2015),towhomHeath-Kellyrefers,issurelyalsodoingthis.Heobservesthefollowing:“AsPresidentFrancoisHollanderemainsdeeplyunpopular,anaggressiveforeignpolicytowardsSyriacouldrallynationalist sentiment and underscore Hollande’s leadership credentials ahead of the 2017 presidentialelections.”

29

managementaccuratelyandforcefully,andIcanfullyendorsefrommysidetheresonances

thathediscernsbetweenhiscriticalengagementwiththissecuritisationofpoliticsandthe

technocraticreductionofpoliticsthatIdescribeasaprocessofdehermeneutisation.21

However,Guittetalsocautionsagainstanycriticalengagementwiththissecuritisationof

thepoliticalthatcorroboratesitsunderlyingpessimism,insteadofchallengingit,andfinds

signsofthiscorroborationinmyrelianceonAgamben’swork.Guittetwrites:

Nonetheless,encapsulatingtheseissuesinananxiousreadingofpoliticsundertheauthorityofAgamben’sHomoSacerseriesofworkasVanderWaltdoesinhispiece(2016),wherepoliticalhopeishopeless,andinscribingtheminapessimisticandimpoverishedunderstandingofsocietalpractice,isitselfdangerous(Guittet,2008).Politicsisadoomedenterprisefromthestart.Itisablessingandacurseatthesametime(Agamben,1990).Strangelyenough,VanderWalt’spreviousarticle(2015)islessguidedbythegloomypictureofthepresentstateofthingsonecanfindinAgamben,andperhapsmoreattunedtotheItalianthinker’sclassicismashisworkfraughtwithriddlesforhisLatinistandmedievalistpeers.

IwillnotaddressherethequestionwhetherAgamben’sHomoSacerseriesofworkis

indeedinformedby“apessimisticandimpoverishedunderstandingofsocietalpractice.”

Thatwilltakeustoofarawayfromthequestionthatismoreimmediatelyatstakehere,

namely,whethermyrelianceonAgamben’sworkreproducesthe“pessimisticand

impoverishedunderstandingofsocietalpractice”thatGuittetattributestohis“HomoSacer

seriesofwork.”Iwouldliketoaddressthisquestionbycommencingwiththisobservation:

EvenifoneweretoconcludethattheHomoSacerseriesofworkis“inscrib[ed]…ina

pessimisticandimpoverishedunderstandingofsocietalpractice,”itwouldstillbevery

possibletofindinthisseriesofworksignificantinsightsthatmayhelponetotranscend

whateverpessimismorimpoverishedunderstandingmaybeatworkhere.Itshouldbe

notedthatnotonlymy“LiteraryException”contributiontoNewPerspectives(vanderWalt,

2015),butalsomyODHinterventionturnsmuchmoreonareadingofAgamben’slater

workTheTimeThatRemains.However,inbothcasesIfindthekeyformyreadingofThe

TimeThatRemainsinanimportantpassagefromHomoSacerontheAristoteliandistinction

betweenactualityandpotentiality.ItisonthebasisofthispassagethatIdiscernafurther

developmentofAgamben’sthoughtinHomoSacer,orevenaresponsetoit,inTheTime

ThatRemains.Anditisthisfurtherdevelopmentorresponsethatbecomescentraltomy

argumentsinboththe“LiteraryException”articleandmyODHintervention.

21Seeagainfootnote2above.

30

Now,thisrelianceonTheTimeThatRemainsmaynotgetmeoffthehookasregards

the“pessimisticandimpoverishedunderstandingofsocietalpractice”thatbothersGuittet

forheseemstoattributepessimismalsotothe“optimistic”readingofAgamben’slater

workbySergeiProzorov.Guittetwrites:

Whileretrievingthequestionsofpotentiality,redemptionandsalvation,Prozorovre-assignsAgambentoaratherpessimisticunderstandingoftime–aJudeo-Christianunderstandingoflineartime,onecouldsay–wherehopes,butmostlyfears,areassociatedwithpredictionsoftheendoftheworld:theworsethingsget,thebetterthepotentialresults.

IcannotengagewithProzorov’sreadingofAgambenhere.Sufficeittosaythatmy

readingofTheTimeThatRemainspivotsonakeythoughtthatcanbeextractedfromSt.

Paul’shosmeinstructiontotheearlyChristiancommunities.Atissueinthisthoughtisnota

concernwiththeendoftheworld,butanindefinitepostponementofthisconcernwhich

largelyrendersitirrelevantasfarasterrestrialpoliticalengagementisconcerned.Itisthe

indefinitepostponementoftheendoftimethatallowsfor“thetimethatremains,”thatis,

thetimewithwhichwecanandmustconcernourselveswithoutinvokingtheperfectjustice

thatistheexclusiveprerogativeofGod’sfinalreckoningattheendoftime.ItisthisPauline

postponementofGod’sjusticethatallowsfortimetogoon,fortimetoremain,andthusfor

atimeinwhichmortalbeingscanengageinamodestsecularpoliticsthatbefitstheirpartial

andlimitedwisdom.Thisisthetimeofhermeneutics,forhermeneuticswillonlyendwhen

God’sfinalmessageleaveshisfingerorforeheadwithadigitalperfectionandimmediacy

thatwillneitherrequirenortolerateanyinterpretationortranslation;similarlybiblical

hermeneuticsalsoonlygainedimportancewhenJesushadbeenawaylongenoughto

warranttheassumptionthathewouldnotbereturningallthatsoon.22

Thecontemplationofatimethatwillbeallowedtoremainandendureaslongasno

gnostically-deludedmortalengagestooapocalypticallywithdisastrousconceptionsof

perfectjusticeandholytruth,evidentlywarrantslittlereasonformuchoptimism.However,

itdoesallowforacreativepoliticsthatrefusestogiveupontheideaoffuturesthatcanbe

significantlydifferentfromthepresent,whilealsorefusingtoentertaintheideathatany

oneofthesefutureswillcometorealisethegoodsocietyforgood.Thesetwoparameters,

22ThisisasomewhatfreeinferencefromthefactthathermeneuticsplayednosignificantroleintheearlyChristiancommunities,giventheirconcernwithadirect(extra-textual)experienceofJesus(seeSherrat,2006:42).

31

takenfromMarcelGauchet(2002:9-14),23demarcatethespaceandopportunityfora

politicsinwhichhumanintelligence,courageandresourcefulnessmaystillplayenoughofa

roletoendowfutureexistenceonearthwithadequatelevelsofdignity.

DosReisandtheTechnocraticTransformationoftheExceptionintoaZoneofExtra-LegalExpertiseFearthattheavoidanceofapocalypsemaywellstilltranslateintoaninfiniteeschatonthat

renderstheabsenceofthegoodsocietyalltooclear,whileerasingallhopefordifferent

futures(thatmay,atleastfromtimetotime,changethedécorofdesperation),is

neverthelesshardlysurprisinginthetimeswelive.Thisfearisevidentlyalreadyspeakingits

mindonthelastpagesofmyODHintervention,butitreallybeginstohaunttheheartwhen

onereadsFilipedosReis’sophisticatedaccountofthewaysinwhichcontemporarymodes

ofgovernanceclosedownhermeneuticspacebyerasingthedifferencebetweenstatesof

exceptionandregularruleoflaw.DosReis’descriptionofthisprocessisindeednothingless

thananexactingaccountofhowtheavoidanceofapocalypsetranslatesintoaneschatonin

atimeoftechnocraticjuridification.

DosReis’analysisofthisprocessoftechnocraticjuridificationtakesitscuefrom

FleurJohns’conceptionofanon-legalitythatdoesnotconstituteanillegality,butacertain

extra-legality.DosReiswrites:

ForJohns,statesofexceptiondonotcreatespacesofillegality,butratherof“extra-legality”.Extra-legalityisnot“necessarilyidentifiedwiththetransgressionoflaw”asitrathergives“shapetoadomain,situationorsetofforcesoutsidethelaw,whethertemporarilyorpermanently.Extra-legaldomainsare,nonetheless,jurisdictions.Thatis,theyarespacesfromwhichtheauthorityofthelawgetsspokenorperformed.”

Itiswell-knownthattheconceptofthestateofexceptionhasbeencontemplated

beforeintermsofacomplexofcontinuityanddiscontinuitybetweenthelegalandthe

extra-legalortheconstituentandtheconstitutedpower.TheSchmitt-Kelsendebateisa

standardpointofreferenceinthisregard,fromtheperspectiveofwhichSchmittismostly

associatedwiththeconcernwithan(atleastpartly)extra-legalconstituentpower,while

Kelsenismostlyconsideredthechampionofacompletelyintra-legalconstitutedpower.

23IamindebtedtoarecentacademicexchangewithPanuMinkinnen,EmiliosChristodoulidisandChrisDoudevanTroostwijkforbringingthisimportantbooktomyattention.

32

Thepictureismuchmorecomplexthanthiselementarydelineationsuggests.24Sufficeit

neverthelesstojustobserveherethekeyconcernoftheoristswhosescholarlyendeavours

remaininspiredbythepossibilityofanextra-legalconstituentpower.Forthem,theconcern

withconstituentpowerisaconcernwithafuturethatisnotentirelypre-determinedbythe

past.Inotherwords,thescholarlyconcernwithconstituentpowerentailsanintellectual

resistancetoanendoftimethatpromisesnosignificantfuture.

Whetherthisresistancetoeschatonandeschatologyrequiresasimpleendorsement

ofSchmitt’sandadismissalofKelsen’sthinkingisdoubtful.Sufficeitneverthelessto

observethattheadamantinsistencethatconstituentpowershouldnotbereducedto

constitutedpowercontemplatesarupturebetweenlawandpolitics–andbetweenthe

legalandtheextra-legal–thatnotonlydemands,butalsoconditionsthepossibilityofa

creativehermeneuticinterventionwithoutwhichthechanceofsignificantlydifferent

futuresisnolongerthinkable.Itisthispossibilityofatrulyconstituentpoliticalrupturethat

thetechnocraticjuridificationofpoliticsseekstoclosedowncompletelyinourtime.Dos

Reisdescribesthisjuridificationwithreferencetocollaborationsbetweensecurityandlegal

experts(andhumanrightsexpertstoboot!)thataimtodesignasecuritylawthatnotonly

governsfuturecases,butalsoitsownfuturedevelopment.Hereisoneofthekey

descriptionsthatheoffersofthisprocess:

Here,adepoliticisingeffectrunsintwodirections.First,althoughtherehasbeensignificanthumanrightsadvocacyinthecontextofcounter-terroristmeasures(e.g.withregardtodetentionandpracticesof‘terrorlists’),strugglesoverthe‘rightfulness’ofthesemeasureswereoftencarriedonoutsidetherealmofabroaderpublicandwithinhighlycomplexlegalvocabulariesbetweenlegalexpertsworkingforhumanrightsadvocacy,ontheonehand,andthoseworkingfornationalsecurityagenciesontheother.Second,thelattergroupofexpertsattemptstotransformdiscussionsaboutrightsandthepunishmentofpastterroristactsintoadiscussionaboutpre-emptivecounter-terroristmeasures.Inthisregard,theyappeartobetryingtogivethefightagainstterrorisma‘carteblanche’toestablishvariousexceptionalmeasures.Thissignifiesnotonlyashiftinthetemporalityoflaw,i.e.towardsafuture-orientedlaw,butalsoinstitutionalisesarelatedbureaucracyandthusperpetuatesstatesofemergencyasitcreatesademandfortechnocraticriskexpertise.

Onecanhardlyhopeforamoreaccuratedescriptionofhowtheavoidanceof

apocalypseturnsintoanasphyxiatingembraceofeschatonthantheoneofferedinthis

24FormorenuancedviewsofKelsen’sposition,seeVanOoyen(2008:XIX),Chiassoni(2013:137),andNavarro(2013:88).

33

passage.DosReiscommendsmyNPinterventionforcontributingtotheunderstandingof

thisprocess.TheresonancebetweenwhathehasinmindandwhatIwasgettingatinmy

interventionisevident,butitisreallyIwhomustthankhimforofferingamoreprecise

vocabulary–whichIcertainlydidnotcommandatthetimeofarticulatingtheNP

intervention–andforthinkingthroughsomeofthemostdisconcertingissuesthatareat

stakehere.

Kamis,EpistemologyandthePersonalBenKamisbeginshisresponsetomyNPinterventionwithadescriptionofthemanywaysin

whichhisandmyresearchinterestsandfocusesoverlapandIcertainlyalsonoticethis

commongroundfrommyside.Ineverthelesswishtohighlightonepassageofhisresponse

thatsituatesmyODHinterventioninaframeworkofthinkinginwhichitdoesnotfitas

comfortablyashethinks.Kamiswrites:

Theargumentprogressesthroughallthewaypointsonewouldexpect:Agamben,Calvin(viaWeber),Gadamer.AndthebasicintuitionthatthestateisbetterunderstoodasthethuggishenforcerofthemarketratherthananarenaofcomplexinterestsandsubjectivemotivationsthatarenegotiatedinmoreorlessdemocraticorbureaucraticproceduresstronglyrecallsanestablishedtraditioninleftistpoliticaleconomythatrunsfromLenintoJessop.Inshort,thoseunfamiliarwithsuchcritiquesofstate-marketlinkagesandEurope’sengagementwithIslamwilllearnmuch.Thoseofusinthechoir,however,haveheardthissermonbefore.

Thelastlineofthispassagecanperhapsbeconsideredthemoststinginginan

otherwiseveryfriendlyresponse.IcanonlysaythatIcertainlyendeavouredtodoalittle

betterthanrepeatingawell-knownsermon,butacceptthatmanyreadersmightnotbe

convincedinthisregard.IaccordinglyalsoacceptthatKamismayhavewell-considered

reasonsforcountinghimselfamongthem.Iamthereforeespeciallygratefultohimfor

valiantlymovingontoidentifymypersonaltouchtothesermonasatleastonereasonfor

takingnoticeofit.Inwhatfollows,Ishallrelyonhisgenerouseffortinthisregardfor

purposesofbrieflyputtingforwardagainalineofthinkingthatIhavedevelopedina

numberofpreviousarticles,including“TheLiteraryException”.Iwishtodosoforpurposes

oftakingtheresponsesthatIhavedevelopedabove–especiallythosetoDosReisand

Guittet–onestepfurther.BeforeIdoso,however,IwouldalsoliketopointoutthatIdo

notquitesharethebasicintuition“thatthestateisbetterunderstoodasthethuggish

enforcerofthemarketratherthananarenaofcomplexinterestsandsubjective

motivations,”etc.thatmaybeattributabletoalonglineofleftistthinking.Icertainly

34

welcomebeingassociatedwithleftistthinking,butwouldprefertobeassociatedwithan

equallylonglineofleftistthinkingthatattachesmuchimportancetotheemancipatory

potentialofthemodernstateinanage–ourage–oframpantcivilsocietyabductionsof

publicinterest.

LetmeneverthelessreturnnowtoKamis’generousengagementwiththepersonal

touchthat,atleastaccordingtohim,savesmyODHinterventionfromredundancy.Idiscern

inthisendeavourathoughtthatIconsiderprofound-muchtooprofound,infact,tobe

bestowedonthepersonalreflectionsonthefreshlydeclaredstateofemergencyinFrance

onthemorningof14NovemberthatIslippedintotheopeningparagraphsofmyODH

intervention.Kamisinvokesinthisregardthecurioustensionbetweenthemeta-theoretical

ormethodologicalrecognitionofpersonalexperienceasa“commonsourceofinspiration

[of]greatwork,”ontheonehand,andtherefusal–especiallyevidentinGermanytoday–

toallowsuchpersonalexperiencesintoscholarlydissertationsandwriting.Inotherwords,

themixedmessageofcurrentsocialscientificmethodologyisthis:Byallmeansrelyon

personalexperiences–itoftenleadstogreatwork,but“[just]don’ttalkaboutthatsortof

thinginyourwriting.”Thereasonsforthismethodologicalexclusionofpersonalexperience

fromscholarlywritingarethreefold:1)noonecaresaboutwhatwethink,asthescholarly

communityisonlyinterestedinwhatwecandemonstrate;2)passionateorpersonal

engagementwithone’ssubjectmatterinterfereswithscholarlyanalysis;and3)reflections

ofpersonalexperiencesinscholarshipareploystodeflectcriticism,consideringthatthey

renderallcriticismpersonaloradhominem.

IamnotallthatsurethatmyODHinterventiondefiesthesepotentialpointsof

criticism,asKamisgenerouslysuggests.ManyreadersmayindeedfeelthatIexposedthe

interventiontoexactlythesepointsofcriticismbyinsertingmypersonalreflectionson14

NovemberintotheopeningparagraphinthewayIdid.AthrowawaystatementinD&K’s

reactiontomyintervention–“Clearly,therecentterroristattacksinFranceandBelgium

madeastrongimpressionuponhisresearchendeavours”–maywellhaveatouchofthis

criticisminit.Bethatasitmay,thereallyinterestingpointthatKamisraiseshereconcerns

thecontradictionorparadoxthatinformsthekindofacademiccritiqueheoutlinesinthe

passageabove.Ontheonehand,thecritiquereflectsanawarenessthatapersonal

experienceorinclinationmaywellconstituteanimportantimpetusforsocialscientific

research.Ontheotherhand,itinsiststhatsuchanexperienceorinclinationsshouldnotbe

35

articulatedaspartoftheresearchundertaken,giventhatsuchanarticulationexposesthe

researchertooneormoreofthethreelinesofcriticismthatKamispointsout:alackof

objectivity,weakanalysis,andobstructionofduecriticism.

Now,Ilargelyactuallyendorsethesocialscientificdemandthatpersonal

considerationsandexperienceshouldnotbecometooconspicuouslyorprominentlypartof

socialscientificpredication,forallthreeofthereasonsKamispointsout,andperhapseven

forsomeothers.However,theparadoxthatKamishighlightsremainsintriguing.Whyisitso

thatsocialscientificresearchmustreturntothedimensionofpersonalexperiencefor

inspirationonlytotakeleaveofitasquicklyaspossible?Itwouldappearthatsocial

scientificresearchhastwointrinsicdirectionsortrajectories:aharkingbacktothepersonal,

ontheonehand,andatakingleaveofit,ontheother.Itsself-understandingisfurther

largelyinformedbytheinsistencethatonetrajectoryshoulderaseorsuppresstheother

trajectory,notwithstandingitsirreducibledependenceonitandtheconcomitantneedto

revisititwithoutacknowledgingit.Butagain,whyisthisso?Whyisthepersonalso

indispensableforandyetsointolerabletosocialscientificinquiry?

Onewaytomakesenseofthisparadoxoftwoopposingtrajectories,ofwhichone

mustbesuppressedforthesakeoftheother,butneverthelessnotentirelyeliminatedfor

reasonsofalsodependingonthatwhichmustbesuppressed,istocasttheparadoxinterms

oftherelationbetweendisorder,ontheonehand,andthecreationoforder,ontheother.

Castingtheproblematicatstakehereinthesetermsallowsonetorelatetheproblematic

relationbetweensocialscienceandthepersonaldirectlytotheordoliberalconcernwith

creatinganorderofliberty.Theaimofthediscussionthatfollowsnowisindeedtoleadthis

engagementwithKamisbacktomysuspicion–voicedatthebeginningofmyresponseto

D&K–thatanexclusiveconcernwithestablishinganorderoflibertyisboundtoturnoutto

beanauthoritarianandilliberalconcernwithorder.

Ordoliberalism,LiberalDemocracyandAuthoritarianLiberalismCreatingorderissimplynotpossibleatallunlessthereissomedisorderthatcanbeputinto

order.Creatingorderis,nevertheless,byitsverydesignandpurpose,anendeavourto

retreatfromdisorder.Endeavourstoestablishorderare,forthisreason,neverlikelyto

lingertoolongwiththedisorderfromwhichtheorderseekstodistanceitself.Anelement

ofsuppressionthusseemsinevitablehere.Notonlymustdisorderbesubjectedtodesigns

36

oforder,butitmustalsobelargelysuppressedbythesedesignsiftheyaretobeeffective,

orsoitseems.Perhapsthisindeedexplainstheparadoxicalrelationbetweensocialscience

andpersonalitywell,consideringthatsocialsciencemaybedeemedawayofordering

personallife,asMichelFoucault’sreflectionsonsocialsciencesuggest(Foucault,1984:3-4,

83-85).

However,theinclinationtosuppressdisorder,inadditiontosubjectingittodesigns

oforder,onlymakessensefromtheperspectiveofanormativeprivilegingoforderover

disorder.Onlywhenoneconsidersorderintrinsicallygoodanddisorderintrinsicallybad

doesitbecomeimperativenotonlytosubjectdisordertoorder,butalsotosuppressand

eradicatedisorderasfarasfeasible.Intheabsenceofsuchnormativeprivileging,itwould

bequitepossibletoconsiderorderanddisorderasmutuallyco-constitutive.Fromthe

perspectiveofsuchmutualco-constitutionality,anypracticalneedtosubjectdisorderto

orderwouldnothavetobeaccompaniedbyasupplementaryendeavourtosuppressand

denydisorder.Onemay,forgoodreasons,wanttotidyupatoddler’sroomfromtimeto

time,evenasfrequentlyaspossible,butoneneednotdeprivethechildofthespontaneity

andlibertytomakeagoodmessofthingsagain,unlessoneconsidersthismessintrinsically

abominable.

Whenoneforegoesthenormativeprivilegingoforderoverdisorder,onemaywell

arriveatanunderstandingofsocietalorganisationthatisquitesimilartomanagingbutnot

suppressingtheeternalpotentialforchaosinatoddler’sroom.Itisthisapproachtothe

organisationofsocialspacethatinformsaseriesofargumentsregardingtherelation

betweenlawandliteraturethatIputforwardin“TheLiteraryException”andanumberof

otherrecentpublications.Theargumentsdevelopedinthesepublicationspivotona

constructionoftherelationbetweenlawandpoetryintermsoftwooppositetrajectoriesof

language,withlawbeingthetrajectoryoflanguagethatseekstodistanceitselffromthe

chaosthatensuesfromadisruptiveevent,andpoetrybeingthetrajectoryoflanguagethat

harksbacktoadisruptiveeventandevensolicitsit,notwithstanding–andperhapsforthe

sakeof–thechaosthateruptswithit.Lawandpoetrymaythusbeconsideredlinguistic

foraforsociety’srespectiveneedsforbothorderanddisorder.Inanotherrecentpiece,I

offeredthisgraphicdepictionofthisinverserelationbetweenlawandpoetrythatdepicts

theinverseparallelrelationbetweenthem–themorelegalthelanguage,thelesspoeticit

37

is–intermsofthetwotrianglesthatresultfromadiagonaldivisionofarectangular

spectrum(vanderWalt,2016:134).

Thediagnosisofreligiousradicalisationofferedin“TheLiteraryException”concerns

thesuggestionthattheexcessivefocusonlegalandeconomicintegrationattheexpenseof

othermodesofsocietalintegrationintheEU,deprivesespeciallyyoungpeopleinEuropeof

poeticrelieffromdominantpatternsofsocialorder;hencetherecoursetobizarreformsof

religiousradicalisationnotonlyamongeconomicallydisadvantaged,butalsoamong

relativelyaffluentindividuals.Oneneednotgointothemeritsofthisargumenthere,butit

warrantsmentioninginpassingthatitsurelydefiesanyallegationthatmyOHDintervention

entertainsa“mono-causal”understandingofreligiousradicalisationthatattributesit

exclusivelytosocio-economicdeprivation.25

Beitasitmay,theexistentialyearningforarelieffromtheestablishedsocialorder

maybearguedtofinditspurestormostsublimeexpressioninpoetic–andindeedhighly

‘personal’–challengestoestablishedpatternsoflinguisticmeaning,butpoetry,inthestrict

senseoftheword,issurelynotitsonlyexpression.Well-functioningliberaldemocratic

institutions–undertheauspicesofwhichdemocracyistrulyfree–allowforpolitical

transitionproceduresandcrisisresolutionpracticesthattolerateconsiderablechallengesto

existingorders.Ofconcern,here,arenotonlyrelativelyopenelectionproceduresthatallow

forconsiderablechallengestoestablishedsocialorders(challengesthatearlymodern

democraciesstilltriedtosuppressbylinkingtherighttovotetoownershipofproperty),but

alsoallowancesforotherdisruptivesocialpracticessuchastherighttostrike.AlainSupiot

evidentlycontemplatespreciselysuchanunderstandingoftherighttostrikewhenhe

writesaboutthepathologicalmutationofdemocraticenergiesthatpredictablyresultsfrom

25Seeendnote2above.

38

thesuppressionofcollectiveactionandtherighttostrike(Supiot,2010:73).Strikeactionis

notjustaninstrumentinthepursuitofworkers’interests,Supiotsuggests,butitisalsoa

formofenergeticdemocraticexpressionthatislikelytoseekmoredestructiveformsof

releaseifitweretobesuppressedandbanishedfromsociallife.

Atstakehereisarecognitionofthepoeticinclinationthatinformsatrulyliberal

democraticspirit.Oneshouldrecognisethelivingpoetrythateruptswhencommitted

collectiveactionburstsintosongandtheexistentialritualofrhythmicrefusal.Allowancefor

thislivingpoetry–andforpersonalgriefandfrustrationtothusbecomeasignificantpublic

concern–isultimatelywhatdistinguishesliberaldemocracyfromauthoritarian

institutionalisationsofliberty.ItisfromtheperspectiveofthisdistinctionthatInowwishto

concludeallmyobservationsherewithareferencetotheordoliberalconcernwithorder

withwhichmyresponsetoD&Kcommencedabove.

Thepoeticliberaldemocraticspiritinvokedhere,andtheconcomitanttoleranceofa

primordialresistancetoorderasaconstitutiveelementoforder,arelargelyabsentfromthe

sociallandscapeoftheEUtoday.ThesuppressionoftherighttostrikebytheCourtof

JusticeoftheEuropeanUnion(CJEU)intwoepochaljudgmentsin2007mayforthisreason

beconsideredasymbolicexpressionoftheEU’sexcessiveorpredominantconcernwithan

economicorderofundistortedcompetitionasthesoleorpredominantmodeofEuropean

integration.26TherearemanysocialandlegaltheoriststhatconsiderthisEUlandscapea

victoryofordoliberalthinking.Severalofthemalsopointoutanoldproximitybetweenthe

ordoliberalthinkersofWeimarandtheconservativerevolutionafootatthetime,noting

especiallyHermannHeller’sobservationregardingthe“authoritarianliberalism”ofsomeof

hiscontemporaries(Manow,2001;Wilkinson,2015).

Shouldtoday’sordoliberalswishtodismissthisoldlinkasamyth,orshouldtheyat

leastwishtoseverittoday,orshowthattheyhavealreadysevereditinrecent

years/decades,theywouldappeartohavequiteabitofpersuadingtodo,consideringthe

considerablenumberofscholarsouttherewhoevidentlydonotsharethe“deep

26ThetwoCJEUrulings(earlierreferredtoasECJrulings)atstakehereareLavalandViking.SeeEUCaseC-341/05[2007](Laval)andEUCaseC-438/05[2007](Viking).Inboththesejudgments,theCJEUrecognisedtherighttostrike,butsubordinatedittothefreedomofmovementofgoodsandservicesintheEU.Foramoreextensive discussion of these cases, see Van derWalt (2014: 334-360). For the dominance of the politicaleconomyofmarketintegrationintheEUandacritiqueoftheCJEU’s(ortheECJ’s)roleinthisone-sidedpushformarketintegration,seeFritzScharpf(2009;2010).

39

understanding”ofordoliberalthinkingthatallegedlygoesaroundinFreiburg.Whata

refreshingandliberatingdisorderwouldnotensueinscholarlycirclesifdyedinthewool

ordoliberalscameouttowrong-footsomanyofusbydenouncingausterity,Germany’s

treatmentofGreece,andtheCJEU’ssubordinationoftherighttostriketothefree

movementofgoodsandservices;if,inotherwords,theycameouttoshowusthewaytoa

differentEurope,acreativeandpoeticEuropethatcanembracedisorderaspartandparcel

ofvibrantliberaldemocracies;aEuropethathasanadequateregardforthewaysinwhich

establishedorderbrutallydisqualifiessomanyfromparticipatingin“undistorted”

competition;aEuropethatcanputtwoandtwotogethertoarriveatthesimplerealisation

thatthisdisqualificationhasalwaysbeenthemajorsourceofdistortedcompetitionbothin

Europeandintherestoftheworld.JustacoupleofprominentarticlesbytheVanbergsof

thisworld(orofFreiburg)wouldsurelydothetrick.Untilsuchatimeasthiscomestopass,

however,manyofuswouldhavetobeforgivenforsearchingforlinksbetweenthe

increasinglyauthoritariansignatureofcontemporaryEurope’smarketorderandthe

authoritarianliberalismofoldEurope.Andthoseofuswhodosowillalsohavetobe

forgivenforbeginningthissearchwithcontemporaryschoolsofeconomicthinkingthatstill

marchunflinchinglyunderthebannerofWeimarordoliberalism,especiallywhenthis

confidentmarchbeginstoshowsignsofadisconcertingirresponsibility.

Bibliography

• Chiassoni,Pierluigi(2013),‘WienerRealism’,inLuísDuarted’Almeidaetal.(eds.)KelsenRevisited,Oxford/Portland,Oregon:HartPublishing.

• Eucken,Walter(2004),GrundsätzederWirtschaftspolitik,Tübingen:MohrSiebeck.• Foucault,Michel(1994),‘TruthandJuridicalForms’,inEssentialWorksofFoucault,1954to1984,

London:PenguinBooks.• Gauchet,Marcel(2002)Ladémocratiecontreelle-même,Paris:Gallimard.• Habermas,Jurgen(2016),‘DieSpielertretenab’,DieZeit,09/07/2016.• Halimi,Serge(2017),‘Etcettefoisencorelepiègeduvoteutile,’LeMondeDiplomatique,April2017.

• Joerges,Christian(2010),‘EuropanachdemOrdoliberalismus:EinePhilippika’,PostneoliberaleRechtsordnung?SuchprozesseinderKrise,43(4):394-406.

• Kuhn,Thomas(1970),TheStructureofScientificRevolutions,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.• Lechevalier,Arnaud(2015),‘EuckenunderthePillow:TheOrdoliberalImprintonSocialEurope’,in

ArnaudLechevalier&JanWielogh(eds.)SocialEurope-ADeadEnd:WhattheEurozoneCrisisIsDoingtoEurope’sSocialDimension,Copenhagen:DJØF.

• Lewis,Paul(ed.)(2004),TransformingEconomics.PerspectivesontheCriticalRealistProject,London:Routledge.

40

• LudwigErhardZentrum(2017),‘Vita-Privat’,LudwigErhardZentrum.Availableat-http://www.ludwig-erhard-zentrum.de/en/ludwig-erhard/vita.html-Accessed26/07/2017.

• Macron,Emmanuel(2016),Révolution,Paris:XOEditions.• Manow,Philip(2001)‘OrdoliberalismusalsökonomischeOrdnungstheologie’,Leviathan,29(2):179–

183.• Navarro,Pablo(2013),‘TheEfficacyofConstitutionalNorms’,inLuísDuarted’Almeidaetal.(eds.)

KelsenRevisited,Oxford/Portland,Oregon:HartPublishing.• Polanyi,Karl(1975),TheGreatTransformation,NewYork:RinehartandCompany.• Ramani,Samuel(2015),‘WhyFranceIsSoDeeplyEntangledinSyria’,TheWashingtonPost,

19/11/2015.Availableathttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/19/why-france-is-so-deeply-entangled-in-syria/-Accessed05/05/2017.

• Robbins,Lionel(1932),AnEssayontheNatureandSignificanceofEconomicScience,London:Macmillan.

• Scharpf,Fritz(2008),‘TheOnlySolutionIstoRefusetoComplywithECJRulings’,SocialEurope:TheJournaloftheEuropeanLeft,4(1):16-21.

• Scharpf,Fritz(2010),‘TheAsymmetryofEuropeanIntegration,orWhytheEUCannotBea“SocialMarketEconomy”’,Socio-EconomicReview,8(2):211–250.

• Schäuble,Wolfgang(2010),‘APlantoTackleEurope’sDebtMountain’,Europe’sWorld,01/10/2010.Availableathttp://europesworld.org/2010/10/01/a-plan-to-tackle-europes-debt-mountain/#.WXiap8Z7Gds-Accessed26/07/2017.

• Schubert,Christian(2017),‘DerMannhinterMacron’,FrankfurterAllgemeineZeitung,24/07/2017.• Sherrat,Yvonne(2006),ContinentalPhilosophyofSocialScience,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity

Press.• Supiot,Alain(2010),L’EspritdePhiladelphie,Paris:Seuil.• VanderWalt,Johan(2012),‘LawandtheSpaceofAppearanceinArendt’sThought’,inMarco

GoldoniandChristopherMcCorkindale(eds.)HannahArendtandtheLaw,Oxford:HartPublishing.• VanderWalt,Johan(2014),TheHorizontalEffectRevolutionandtheQuestionofSovereignty,

Berlin/Boston:DeGruyter.• VanderWalt,Johan(2016),‘LeDroit,cequiestgagnéàlatraduction’,inPascalAncelandLuc

Heuschling(eds.)LaTransnationalisationdel’EnseignementduDroit,Brussels:Larcier.• VanderWalt,Johan(2016),‘WhenOneReligiousExtremismUnmasksAnother:Reflectionson

Europe’sStatesofEmergencyasaLegacyofOrdo-LiberalDe-hermeneuticisation’,NewPerspectives:InterdisciplinaryJournalofCentralandEasternEuropeanPoliticsandInternationalRelations,24(1):79-101.

• VanOoyen,RobertChr.(2008),‘DieFunktionderVerfassungsgerichtsbarkeitinderpluralistischenDemokratieunddieKontroverseumden“HüterderVerfassung”’,inHansKelsen,WersollderHüterderVerfassungsein,Tübingen:MohrSiebeck.

• Wilkinson,Michael(2015),‘AuthoritarianLiberalismintheEuropeanConstitutionalImagination:SecondTimeasFarce?’,EuropeanLawJournal,21(3):313-339.