The Essence of Burkean Argument

Edmund Burke, an 18th-century politician and philosopher, served as a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons of Great Britain for almost 30 years. Today, he is remembered as a voice of moderation, tradition, and political prudence. His sober analysis of the American and French revolutions remains his most known contribution to political thought, both in his time and ours.

As a practitioner and non-academic philosopher, his style differs from the typical philosophical works written in the form of academic articles or books. Instead, his philosophy can be discerned in his speeches and letters. He is not always clear or consistent with his statements. Moreover, reading Burke, it is difficult not to acknowledge that his message, his defense of tradition, is difficult to apply outside of the Commonwealth context. However, this particularism is part and parcel of Burke’s message. Some of his most important contributions include criticism of pure rationalism, defense of tradition, defense of social hierarchy, and political prudence.

Metaphysics has no place in politics.

Burke is critical of absolutes and universalisms in politics and government administration. Abstract theories, usually designed in comfortable and secluded cabinets of intellectuals, are unable to grasp the complexity of a state and, therefore, unable to propose a comprehensive solution to its problems. “Metaphysics,” as Burke calls it, in political theory or morality, tends to be one-sided and reductionist because morality is not a straight mathematical line. It changes with time and allows exceptions and modifications in different contexts. It requires nuance, which abstractions fail to provide. It is the same with the liberties and freedoms in society as they differ from country to country, according to each nation’s temperament and depending on the circumstances. These freedoms are not absolute, as the excess of liberty harms society, but so is the shortage of it, as it is necessary to keep peace and order in a state – an idea that some liberal Enlightenment thinkers did not understand¹.

In the 18th century, Burke clearly saw that pure rationalism would eventually reject everything society was based on: religion, morality, and responsibility (nowadays, this is manifested in the popularity of new sophists—postmodernist thinkers). Burke foresaw that these Enlightenment ideas would lead to the eventual subversion of the state itself, which rests on tradition and Christianity². Today, this trend is prominent among postcolonial thinkers and activists who zealously reject the statehood of Canada and the United States.

The abstractions, even carefully elaborated by the most intelligent people of the day, by definition, are simplistic and reductionist. They are perfect at addressing two or three areas of social and political life while ignoring and failing the others. These abstract theories are exciting for the population and are much easier to sell than the complex, cumbersome, and imperfect structures rooted in the history of trial and error. Burke wrote, “If you were to contemplate society in but one point of view, all these simple modes of polity are captivating. In effect, each would answer its single end much more perfectly than the more complex can attain all its complex purposes.”³ Perhaps, the Enlightenment thinkers saw the state as a giant mechanism that could be fixed or reinvented. Instead, society resembles a living organism, a natural ecosystem with myriad invisible interdependencies. As removing one species will unpredictably affect all the other ones in the area and beyond, the reforms in one area might lead to unforeseen consequences in the other. Therefore, reforms should be approached with caution and flexibility instead of radicalism and dogmaticism. Burke summarized this as follows: “The nature of man is intricate; the objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity: and therefore no simple disposition or direction of power can be suitable either to man’s nature or to the quality of his affairs.”⁴

Tradition

By contrast, tradition is complex and more reliable than metaphysical ideas. For Burke, tradition is the accumulation of wisdom over centuries, and the government is the repository of it manifested through hereditary monarchy, division of parliament, and the presence of aristocracy.

In this sense, the French Revolution was a (failed) attempt to abruptly break with everything Burke considers essential for a free, thriving, and peaceful society. He contrasts it with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, a revolution of tradition aimed at restoring the old social contract, which, according to the philosopher, provided for more liberty.

Burke is visibly biased towards his own country, which he openly acknowledges. He admits that the British monarchy is based on prejudices, but he cherishes these prejudices. In fact, for Burke, the older these prejudices are, the better solutions they tend to provide. This test by time and people is the most reliable demonstration of their benefit and utility. It is wise to continue practicing them and to continue doing what works. They provide the ability for the statespeople to make decisions effectively, with reference to the deep context accumulated over the centuries of the history of Great Britain⁵.

Interestingly, Nassim Nicholas Taleb echoes this approach by considering time synonymous with volatility, as the more time passes, the more exposure to events and disorder the system receives. Such an exposure, coupled with adaptability, is an example of its antifragility. Taleb writes: “Consider that if you can suffer limited harm and are antifragile to small errors, time brings the kind of errors or reverse errors that end up benefiting you. This is simply what your grandmother calls experience. The fragile breaks with time⁶.”

Social Hierarchy is Natural

For Burke, social hierarchy is natural. Any attempts to destroy the aristocracy are futile and harmful to society. Aristocracy plays an essential role in the state, as it is represented by the most educated people, successful traders, innovators, and merchants, people with dignity and courage. Together with the clergy and popular class, the aristocracy can establish a government aligned with human nature. Any attempts to establish complete equality in a society are destined to fail⁷. Burke writes: “Those who attempt to level never equalize. In all societies consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers, therefore, only change and pervert the natural order of things: they load the edifice of society by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground…⁸”

For this reason, Burke praises the division of the British Parliament into three parts: the Sovereign, House of Commons, and House of Lords, which allows the representation of both aristocracy and ordinary people, with the assent from the Crown. However, it remains unclear how this aristocracy’s hereditary nature can be superior to merit-based recognition. In this sense, Canada’s Senate offers an even better representation of truly distinguished people from every province and territory.

Political Prudence

Burke further showcases his brilliance in imperial governance through his ‘Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies’ and ‘A Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol.’ Again, for him, political decisions should be made based on reality, not abstractions. When persuading the House of Commons on his vision of the American Revolution, Burke refers to material, cultural, and identitarian factors that make compromise and concessions the best course of action for his country. Materially, American colonies cannot be ruled directly from London due to the geographical distance. It is impossible and foolish to think there is an effective way of doing it from thousands of kilometers away and when divided by the ocean. In addition, American colonies were demographically, industrially, and economically developed. The use of force by Britain will lead to disaster, and even in case of victory, will not lead to sustainable long-term peace. Second, Americans are educated and well-versed in law and jurisprudence; competing with them will be hard or impossible, and Britain will lose the legal and rhetorical war. Third, liberty and religion are engrained in American identity, giving them more passion for defending their independence from the unfair intrusions from the metropolis. It is preposterous to expect that the United Kingdom will be able to keep the colonies by force and collect their taxes.

Instead, in his typical manner, he argues that stubborn principles and pride have no place in this question. London should allow for exceptions and more autonomy to the American colonies. It is, according to Burke, the big advantage of an empire over a nation-state. In an empire, it is acceptable and expected to provide different levels of liberty, autonomy, and rights to different colonies depending on the circumstances. It is illogical to impose the same principle on all the colonies, ignoring their unique contexts and needs. Politicians should not apply strict mathematical formulas (popular among the Enlightenment thinkers) but instead act based on real political situations.

If Britain gave the American colonies the right to rule themselves as they wished, it would preserve the British monarchy on these territories and would make Britain even greater than it was. The American population will remain loyal to London, and the more prosperous America becomes, the more prosperous Great Britain will be. Burke reminds his colleagues that it is not the laws on taxation that fill the government coffers, not the laws on conscription that make the army. Instead, it is people’s support and belief that do all that.

If the British elites had listened to his sage advice, history would have taken a different turn. His approach would have prevented many other conflicts worldwide, including contemporary ones. For example, the Burkean approach to America can be applied in Eastern Europe in relation to the Polish-Ukrainian memory wars and, more importantly, in the Russo-Ukrainian war. Similar to the Great Britain of Burke’s time, Russia failed to take a pragmatic approach to its relations with Ukraine and was totally unable to assess Ukraine’s material conditions when planning its invasion. Burke is a prudent, realistic, and pragmatic thinker foreign to the ideas of naive rationalists of the time.

1. Burke, Edmund. 1789. Reflections on the Revolution in France. ↩︎
2. Burke, Edmund. 1756. A Vindication of Natural Society. ↩︎
3. Burke, Edmund. 1789. Reflections on the Revolution in France. ↩︎
4. ibid ↩︎
5. ibid ↩︎
6. Taleb, Nassim N. 2012. Antifragile. Random House, p.13 ↩︎
7. Burke, Edmund. 1756. An Appeal from the New to the Old Wigs. ↩︎
8. Burke, Edmund. 1789. Reflections on the Revolution in France. ↩︎