BOOKS
307
being understood, advanced and considered as a proposal for the
amendment of the
respublica
[or polity]. ... " Though goals, by means
of Oakeshott's mysterious "political" transformation, somehow suffer
a sea-change and become rules, the goal is clearly the begetter of the
rule.
Oakeshott also stumbles, I think. on the notion of desirability, a
word he is continually advancing as
the
criterion for amending rules.
Desirable, one wonders, with regard to what? Desirability must at least
imply some vague standard of judgment that hints at a larger purpose.
Surely, in amending the rules of civil association, one of the considera–
tions that should hover over the debate is a necessarily vague notion of
justice or fairness. (Oakeshott himself says that in the past "great
disparities of wealth were an impediment. ..
to
the enjoyment of civil
association.") Civil association, Oakeshott says, is a "fiduciary rela–
tionship."
If
numerous citizens, correctly or not, think these rules
unfair and unjust, then they will no longer feel obligated
to
abide by
them and the polity will be in danger of collapse. We can say, then, that
the rules of civil association are "supported" by a general sense of the
polity's benign purposiveness-that the polity is, in the words of
Bernard Crick, "improving, reformist, [and] ameliorative.... "
The polity is also "supported" by one goal that all citizens have in
common: defense of the realm.
It
may be misguided to say, as Harold
Lasswell does, that thinking seriously about government means clari–
fying one's views "about the proper
goals
[emphasis his] of the
political system," yet if the rules of civil association are to remain in
effect the citizens must agree on the goal of defense. Though Oakeshott
does say that warfare has often transformed states into enterprise
associations, he would add that the goal of defense is not intrinsic to
the state in its "ideal character," a phrase he is forever resorting to
when he wants to stress that he is theorizing, not dealing in historical
realities. For goals pertain to enterprise association, which is, as he
says, "categorically discrete" from civil association.
But to argue that they are categorically discrete is to say very little
indeed. Oakeshott's distinction between civil and enterprise association
is,
tout court,
a logical distinction-no more, no less.
It
does not allow
him to launch attacks on those who pay too much attention to
substantive questions, a tactic he often employs, thereby disconcert–
ingly switching from the analytical to the hortatory. How, for exam–
ple, should we regard the following sentences, found in the midst of his
theoretical disquisition? "Thus, engagement in politics entails a
disciplined imagination.
It
is to put by for another occasion the cloudy
