142
PARTISAN REVIEW
and all the uncountable means of adaptation by which human beings
have proved so often
to
be masters of their destinies in ways govern–
ments cannot even comprehend.
Given this manifest disapproval of the use of "formal law, ordinance, and
administrative regulation," one would expect from a distinguished histo–
rian of sociological theory a discussion of the merits or otherwise of Max
Weber's theories concerning why the modern world appears ro be going in
this direction. But no; instead we get an account of the rival intellectual
traditions which favor or condemn this trend.
His traditionalism is nevertheless superior to Oakeshott's even if it
fails to explore in depth the forces which oppose it; at least it recognizes that
it is one way of doing things, among others-instead of wavering between
the doctrine that it is the right way because there can be no other, and the
view that tradition is a very clever automatic pilot who is better than the
human ones . Furthermore, Nisbet knows his enemies, while Oakeshott
seems all too willing to include in his pantheon all philosophers as long as
they have been dead for a sufficiently long time-then squaring their views
with his own by insisting (against all plausibility) that thinkers such as
Plato or Kant simply did not intend what they said to be seriously
implemented. Nisbet, for instance, disapproves of Plato for the usual
reasons. Some of his other dislikes, however, are more original and interest–
ing . For instance, he clearly thinks that our conventional wisdom overrates
the Renaissance:
Despite the widespread conviction that the Italian Renaissance was an
illustrious age of philosophy, it was in fact as sterile in this regard as it
was
In
sCience .
Or again, he dislikes Roman Law. He does not see the primary significance
of its diffusion in the West in "its manifold uses in commerce and trade, "
which he says he does not question, but in another sphere:
Roman Law as we know it in the Institutes of Justinian is predomin–
antly the law of a strong military state.
How, in the end, are we to assess this contribution to the understand–
ing of our social predicament? One's main worry concerns its intellectualist
and Manichean approach: two traditions of thought confront each other,
one good and one bad . This really important division cuts across conven–
tional party lines: pluralist-conservatives and anarchists are both together,
and jointly on the side of the angels .
