BOOKS
61
every basic change in social organization: but just as he stresses the
continuity between the
technological
economy of capitalism and that of
collectivism which grows out of it, he believes that the traditions of
critical scientific inquiry and respect for individual difference, which
were once part of the ideology of capitalism, can in the same way be
taken over and
extended
as part of the heritage from the past. Dewey's
emphasis upon critical scientific inquiry is incompatible, of course, with
Burke's framework of "ideological homogeneity"; but Burke, fearful of
letting the authority of party dogma or metaphor meet the authority of
scientific method, must attribute to Dewey views he does not hold.· This
is always risky where "ideological homogeneity" has not yet found its
appropriate totalitarian political frame.
Burke contends that a key metaphor is more important in under-
standing an author than his arguments. I disagree emphatically. But his
assurance, (he tells us this in so many words) is based on the evidence
drawn from his own case. Let us follow his lead then and see what we
find. His key metaphor is "the bureaucratization of the imaginative."
The formula applies to everything. It is short-hand for the process by
which a possibility in being transformed into an actuality
necessarily
(i) excludes other possibilities, and (ii) falls short of or betrays the
pristine ideal. Taken in its own terms, what Burke is saying here is
either
a
truism or an absurdity: a truism, if it follows from the
defini-
tions
of possibility, actuality and ideal; an absurdity if it does not, since
ideas and ideals may be framed in such a way that they are not defeated
in being realized. However, we are not concerned with this metaphor
except as it provides a clue to Mr. Burke's thought. Why does he use it?
Because, he tells us, with direct references to Russia "people are thereby
kept from being too sensitively exposed to disillusionment as they are
affronted by the 'let-down' that necessarily occurs" when the real is
confronted with the ideal. Once people think in terms of this metaphor
"tendencies toward the negativistic, satanic, sectarian, disintegrative, and
'splintering' fall away." What a revealing juxtaposition of political and
moral terms! Learn how to use the formula "the bureaucratization of the
imaginative" and you will reconcile yourself to whatever is happening in
Russia, you will avoid sectarianism, shun negativistic 'splinter groups,'
and escape the curse of satan ism (did not Vyshinsky call the "Trot-
skyites" the 'spawn of the devil?)
!
Burke is extremely bitter about socialist critics of Russia, accuses
them of being Utopians and too prone to use the language of moral in-
dignation. In asserting that critics of Russia are Utopian, Burke must
first show that every major aspect of Russian policy from its treatment of
peasants, intellectuals, critical workers and communists to its relation-
ships with foreign countries and political parties, is necessary, i.e., un-
avoidable, given the program and concrete situation. To do this he must
argue his case on the basis of evidence. This he consistently refuses to do.
Re either adopts a relativism in which all facts are etherealized or he
invokes his favorite metaphor of bureaucratization to blanket the dis-
cussion. He begs every crucial question with a display of rhetorical
preciosity. Consequently, "Utopian" in his writing is merely a disparag-
ini epithet which he hurls at honest critics of Russia who refuse to
"move in" and "cash in" (the phrases are all Burke's) on the bureau-
cratic perspective. His own function consists in being an apologist, not
after the fact, but
before
the fact, of the latest piece of Stalinist brutality.
