Thesis Eleven Volume 128 Issue 1 2015 [Doi 10.1177%2F0725513615583307] MaleÂ EviÂ , S. -- Ernest...

8/18/2019 Thesis Eleven Volume 128 Issue 1 2015 [Doi 10.1177%2F0725513615583307] MaleÂ EviÂ , S. -- Ernest Gellner an…

1/7

Introduction

Ernest Gellner andhistorical sociology

Siniša MaleševićUniversity College, Dublin, Ireland

Ernest Gellner (1925–1995) was a major 20th-century social theorist. He was a multi-

lingual polymath whose work covered areas as diverse as historical sociology, social

theory, analytical philosophy, social anthropology, sociology of the Islamic world,

nationalism, psychoanalysis, postmodernism, civil society, East European transforma-

tions, kinship structures and the philosophy of history. During his lifetime Gellner was

recognized as an influential public intellectual and an important social and political

analyst. As John Hall (2010: vii) notes in his excellent biography of Gellner, when he

died the flags at Cambridge University were set at half mast, indicating his prominencenot solely within the university but also in British intellectual life. However, over the

past two decades his work has largely been neglected or confined to a single research

area – his theory of nationalism. In other words, despite the abundance of ideas, concepts

and theoretical models developed by Gellner, he is remembered today primarily as a

scholar of nationalism. Although there is no doubt that Gellner’s sophisticated and

original theory of nationalism has established him, together with Benedict Anderson, as

one of the ‘founding fathers’ of nationalism studies, Gellner’s contribution to social,

political and historical analysis is much richer than this specialized title would suggest.

In fact even his theory of nations and nationalism cannot be fully appreciated withoutdeeper insight into his philosophy of history and historical sociology, both of which are

shaped by his complex life experience.

Biographical sketch

Ernest Gellner was born in 1925 in Paris but grew up in the post-Habsburg world of inter-

war Prague. His parents, Rudolf and Anna, were secular, lower middle class but well

educated German-speaking Jews, who were loyal to the new Czechoslovakia and highly

supportive of Tomáš Masaryk’s liberal ideals. Young Ernest was exposed early to

Corresponding author:

Siniša Malešević, University College, Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Email: [email protected]

Thesis Eleven

2015, Vol. 128(1) 3–9

ª The Author(s) 2015Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0725513615583307the.sagepub.com

at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 6, 2015the.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav


2/7

intellectual debates, as his family often hosted gatherings of prominent Czech intel-

lectuals. In addition to German and Czech, Gellner became fluent in English as he

attended the Prague English grammar school. Although Gellner had a happy childhood,

filled with a broad-based education and diverse sporting activities (he excelled atskating, canoeing and mountaineering), the Nazi annexation of Sudetenland followed by

intense anti-Semitism in the German-controlled protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia

forced his family to emigrate to England in 1939.

Rudolf established a successful, plastic-making business in London, providing young

Ernest with the financial security to continue his studies. Nevertheless, Gellner relied on

his own intellectual strengths to win an Oxford scholarship, studying philosophy, eco-

nomics and politics at the Balliol Oxford College. Oxford philosophy in the late 1930s

and early 1940s was dominated by a Wittgensteinian philosophy of language, which

conflicted with Gellner’s already discernible materialist understanding of the social

world, and thus he turned his attention more to the social sciences. He completed his

undergraduate studies within two and a half years while also spending the second half of

1944 and part of 1945 as a soldier of the 1st Czechoslovak Armoured Brigade, which

played a substantive role in the siege of Dunkirk. Gellner was decorated for his military

effort, awarded the Military Memorial Medal from the Czech Ministry of Defence (Hall,

2010: 24). Although he aimed to return to Prague after the war, this proved difficult once

it became obvious that the new Czechoslovakia would remain under Soviet influence.

In 1947 Gellner was appointed lecturer in philosophy at the University of Edinburgh,

but after only two years moved to London where he took up a new position in the

Department of Sociology at the London School of Economics. He spent most of hisacademic career (35 years) at the LSE, where he held the unusual title of professor of

philosophy ‘with special reference to sociology’, which itself is testimony to his

unwillingness to conform and specialize. During this period he was engaged in several

fieldworks in Morocco, studying Berber kinship organization. These trips, which com-

bined scholarly activities with his love of mountaineering, proved crucial for collecting

data for his PhD thesis, which he completed in 1961 and later published as a book titled

Saints of the Atlas (1969). In 1974 Gellner was elected to the British Academy and

in 1984 he left LSE to take up a chair in social anthropology at the University of

Cambridge’s King’s College. Gellner was fascinated with the structural changes initiated by Gorbachev, and he spent his sabbatical leave in 1988/89 in Moscow in order to

analyse and explain these changes. In 1993 he retired from Cambridge and was invited

by George Soros to take up a post at the newly established Central European University

in Prague. Here Gellner headed up the Centre for the Study of Nationalism until his

sudden death in November 1995.

The key works

Gellner was a provocative and controversial author, and his books have received muchattention even beyond academia. This was already the case with his first book, Words

and Things (1959), which attracted a great deal of attention in the mass media. The book

represented an uncompromising attack on the Wittgenstein-influenced philosophy of

language as represented in works of leading British philosophers such as John Langshaw

4 Thesis Eleven 128(1)


http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/http://the.sagepub.com/


3/7

Austin, Gilbert Ryle and Antony Flew. As such it was deemed scandalous and Ryle

refused to have the book reviewed in the leading philosophical journal, Mind , which he

edited at that time. In response, Bertrand Russell wrote a letter of protest to the Times,

which precipitated lively debate within the pages of what was then the leading Britishnewspaper.

Although his second book, Thought and Change (1964), did not receive as much

attention, it was a more accomplished and mature work which laid the foundations for

Gellner’s theory of modernity. In this book he first demonstrated his ability to subtly

integrate a long-term historical perspective with specific sociological and philosophical

analyses of different social worlds. More specifically, here he articulated a distinct socio-

historical method which simultaneously analyses the historical sociology of particular

philosophical doctrines and ideologies (from Kantianism, utilitarianism and liberalism to

nationalism) while also attempting to explain their origin and social impact. In this way

he examines modernity as a highly contingent and fragile development sustained by two

key structural innovations: the promise of continuous economic growth and a structu-

rally generated nation-centric pull towards cultural uniformity.

In addition to maintaining a strong interest in philosophy and historical sociology,

Gellner was also an anthropologist who was particularly interested in North Africa and

Islam. These interests are highly visible in many of his publications, but two books in

particular stand out: Muslim Society (1981) and Saints of the Atlas (1969). While the

former focuses on general questions such as why the Islamic world remains

secularization-resistant, the latter brings together the results of his Moroccan field study

on Berber holy men. In his work on Maghrebian Islam he was deeply influenced by IbnKhaldun’s interpretation of the cyclical character of social order in North Africa.

Moreover, he was optimistic about modernization under Islam, arguing that the existence

of an authentic scriptural ‘high culture’ allows for a relatively painless process of

modernization. In his view the presence of a distinct literary tradition associated with the

Quran and Hadith could mobilize popular support around traditional symbolism without

provoking existential conflicts between modernity and cultural authenticity as in other

parts of the world.

Gellner’s sharp distinction between scriptural ‘high’ and popular folk Islam was also

to some extent replicated in his highly influential theory of nationalism as articulated inthe bestseller Nations and Nationalism (1983). Although the contours of his theory were

already present in Thought and Change, this book offered a distinct and quite novel

interpretation that not only emphasized the recent character of national identities, but

also attempted to explain why nationalism is compatible with modernity. Focusing on

the structural interdependence of modern technology, science, industry and mass edu-

cation, Gellner examined the emergence of cultural homogeneity through the prism of

industrial development. This argument was further refined in several books (Culture,

Identity and Politics, 1987; Encounters with Nationalism, 1994; and Nationalism, 1997)

where Gellner situates the rise of nationalist ideology within specific historical trans-formations defined by structural revolutions in production, cognition and coercion.

This strong interest in long-term social change stimulated publication of a book that

combined historical sociology and philosophy of history in charting the trajectory of

human development. In Plough, Sword and Book: The Structure of Human History

Maleš evic ́ 5




4/7

(1988) Gellner articulates a distinct trinitarian theory of historical change where the

modern industrial world is contrasted with agrarian and foraging societies. Much of the

book is centred on trying to explain the historical shift from the violent, torpid and

culturally heterogeneous empires of ‘Agraria’ towards the dynamic, relatively pros- perous and culturally homogenous nation-states of ‘Industria’. Although Gellner’s

ambition in this work was to champion a Weberian as opposed to a Marxist theory

of history, his principal arguments remained staunchly economist and rationalist

(Malešević, 2007: 140–67).

In this sense Gellner’s historical sociology was fully consistent with his philosophy,

which privileges rationalism and empiricism over relativism and phenomenology. There

is no doubt that Karl Popper was both a major influence on his work and also an intel-

lectual ally in the struggle against epistemologically idealist, relativist, and interactionist

approaches as exemplified by hermeneutics, existentialism, ethno-methodology, post-

modernism or poststructuralism. This Popperian influence is particularly visible in his

more philosophical opus including books such as The Devil in Modern Philosophy (1974),

Legitimation of Belief (1975), Spectacles and Predicaments (1980), Relativism and the

Social Sciences (1985) and Reason and Culture (1992).

Although Gellner was unwavering in his defence of liberalism, rationalism and

empiricism, as a social scientist he was never dismissive of alternative philosophies or

ideological persuasions. On the contrary, he displayed a genuine will to understand

contrasting worldviews on their own terms. Hence he engaged extensively in subtle

debates with Soviet Marxist-Leninist anthropologists, Freudian psychoanalysts and

postmodern relativists, among many others. For example, in Postmodernism, Reason and Religion (1992) and Language and Solitude (1998), he eloquently defends Enlight-

enment rationalism against religious fundamentalism and romantic relativism while also

acknowledging that ‘shared culture alone can endow life with order and meaning’

(Gellner, 1998: 186). In The Psychoanalytical Movement: Cunning of Unreason (1985)

Gellner analyses the impact of Freudian ideas and explores the closed systems of

initiation as well as the popular appeal of this falsification-resistant doctrine that pro-

mises individual-centred salvation. In a similar way, in State and Society in Soviet

Thought (1988) and Conditions of Liberty (1994), he dissects the influence of Marxist-

Leninist ideas in the communist world. What Gellner finds fascinating is that, unliketraditional societies where the lack of the sacred might cause societal collapse, in the

state socialist world it was the ‘over-sacralisation of the immanent’ rather than ‘elim-

ination of the transcendent’ that led to system collapse (Gellner, 1994: 40).

Engaging with Gellner

The principal aim of this special issue is to shed light on the broader scope of Gellner’s

work with a view to demonstrating the contemporary relevance of his ideas. More

specifically, the ambition is to engage with his key theories and concepts in philosophyof history and historical sociology and to assess whether they have withstood the test of

time. In this context all nine articles focus on different aspects of Gellner’s work.

Although the contributors find Gellner a highly original and inspiring social theorist, all

of the papers in the volume offer critical perspectives on Gellner’s ideas. In the spirit of





5/7

judicious inquiry that Gellner himself advocated, the contributions aim to critically

probe Gellner’s intellectual legacy.

The first three articles (by Schroeder, Aya and Hann) centre on Gellner’s episte-

mology which underpins his philosophy of history. Specifically, the contributors criti-cally explore Gellner’s views on cognition, rationalism, relativism and modernity. The

second group of articles (by Fibiger Bang, Kumar and Malešević) offer analyses of

Gellner’s historical sociology with a spotlight on his understanding of the pre-modern

world, empires, nation-states, nationalism and group solidarity. The final three papers

(by Riga, Ryan and McLennan) address the contemporary relevance of Gellner’s his-

torical sociology by looking at his analyses of the open society, the communist project,

Islam and secularism.

Ralph Schroeder’s opening paper, ‘Gellner, science, and globalization’, explores the

role of cognition, science and technology in Gellner’s philosophy of history. In particular

Schroeder is interested in how well Gellner’s arguments stand up in the context of two

recent developments: the criticisms levelled by global historians who, unlike Gellner, see

the rise of the West as essentially a 19th-century phenomenon, and the dramatically

changed character of consumer technologies which have embarked on a path of

unsustainable growth. Schroeder argues that Gellner’s diagnosis remains for the most

part sound and that what is needed is a much clearer distinction between science,

rationality and cognition while also focusing on the development of science and tech-

nology outside of western trajectories.

The focal point of Rod Aya’s contribution, ‘Gellner’s case against cognitive rela-

tivism’, is the logic of relativist reasoning. The aim is to extend Gellner’s rationalistempiricism so that both cultural and moral relativism are put under rigorous analytical

scrutiny. According to Aya, if there are no moral absolutes then ethical disputes are

likely to be resolved by coercive means, thus leading to tragic outcomes. In a similar

vein, if there is no objective knowledge then there are no general criteria to identify

factual evidence, which opens the way for a cognitive universe where all truth claims are

seen as equality valid and where the tribal rain dance and the meteorological forecast

have the same cognitive value.

Whereas Aya sees the Gellnerian perspective as highly resistant to contemporary

criticisms, Chris Hann is more sceptical. In his paper, ‘After ideocracy and civil society:Gellner, Polanyi and the new peripheralization of Central Europe’, Hann compares and

contrasts Gellner and Karl Polanyi’s philosophies of history. He argues that both the-

orists share a similar account of social change by positing the experience of industrial

revolution in Western Europe as the pivotal moment in human history. Hann finds the

two theoretical models, Polanyi’s ‘great transformation’ and Gellner’s ‘big ditch’ thesis,

complementary and equally Eurocentric in the sense that they reflect a similar personal

background on the part of two thinkers coming of age among the ruins of the Habsburg

world.

Peter Fibiger Bang’s contribution, ‘Platonism: Ernest Gellner, Greco-Roman societyand the comparative study of the pre-modern world’, makes strong connections

between Gellner’s philosophy of history and historical sociology. More to the point,

Bang explores how Gellner interprets Plato’s philosophy and how this particular inter-

pretation remains unusually fresh and persuasive in the context of recent studies on state

Maleš evic ́ 7




6/7

formation, elites, religion, and cosmopolitan cultures in the ancient world. In other

words, Gellner’s atypical synthesis of historical sociology and philosophy of history still

stimulates new ideas in a variety of research fields, including the history of the Greco-

Roman world.Krishan Kumar’s paper, ‘Once more and for the last time: Ernest Gellner’s later

thoughts on nations and empires’, situates Gellner’s influential theory of nationalism

within the broader 20th-century historical context characterized by the collapse of

empires and the rise of nation-states. Gellner is often contrasted with Elie Kedourie on

issues of empire and nation. Whereas Kedourie disliked nationalism and was more

attracted to empires, as they were generally sympathetic to cultural difference, Gellner

saw nationalism as an indispensable ingredient of modern industrial order which would

inevitably replace the old imperial world. However, Kumar shows that this image of

Gellner is too simplistic if not completely inaccurate, as Gellner was in fact much closer

to a Kedourian position on empire than ordinarily assumed.

While Kumar focuses on Gellner’s macro-historical sociology, Siniša Malešević’s

contribution, ‘Where does group solidarity come from? Gellner and Ibn Khaldun

revisited’, probes the foundations of Gellner’s micro-sociology. More specifically, as

Gellner was highly influenced by the work of Ibn Khaldun, the aim is to assess and

evaluate the models of group solidarity developed by both thinkers. The paper contrasts

Ibn Khaldun’s concept of asabiyah, which was originally linked to the nomadic lifestyle

of desert warriors, with Gellner’s more time-bound and economistic understanding of

group solidarity. Although both of these theoretical models are authoritative, neither

provides a convincing explanation of the origins of micro-group attachments. HenceMalešević articulates an alternative account that situates the origins and influence of

micro-solidarity in the longue duré e development of ideological and coercive forms of

social organization.

Lilliana Riga’s paper, ‘Ernest Gellner and the land of the Soviets’, analyses the legacy

of Gellner’s diagnoses of communism. Though he was often described as an anti-

communist, Gellner’s many writings on the Soviet socialist project were subtle and

often deeply appreciative of the complexities of the state socialist experience. In contrast

to his persistent dislike of western Marxist anthropology, Gellner was captivated by the

developments in Soviet anthropology. Moreover, as Riga demonstrates, he was also puzzled by the impact of official ideology in the Soviet world and he perceived

Marxism-Leninism as a developmental tool that sacralized everyday life, thus stifling the

rise of civil society.

Since Gellner posited a vibrant civil society as the cornerstone of liberal order, it is

also important to examine its origins and functions. Kevin Ryan’s contribution, ‘Gellner’s

genealogy of the open society: Biopolitics as fragment and remainder’, assesses the

foundations of the ‘open society’ as developed in Gellner’s opus. Even though Gellner is

regularly depicted as an intellectual antipode of Foucault, Ryan argues that both thinkers

were involved in a project typically associated with Foucault’s work on biopolitics and biopower. However, in contrast to Foucault, who was a fierce critic of the open society,

Gellner’s genealogy exhibits a strong normative commitment to liberal modernity, which

ultimately prevents him from applying the same critical approach to the open society that

he adopts when examining other social orders.





7/7

The final paper, by Gregor McLennan, ‘Is secularism history?’, evaluates the rele-

vance of Gellner’s writings on religion and secularism in the context of recent devel-

opments in the social sciences. Since Gellner was a staunch secular rationalist it might

seem that his analyses have little to offer regarding contemporary debates, which tend torange from post-secular to anti-secular while seeing any attempt to resuscitate western

liberal rationalism as a misguided and unnecessary colonial hangover. However,

McLennan insists that some of Gellner’s ideas are worth revisiting and reworking as they

provide a springboard for the development of a truly critical social science that takes

both secularism and religion seriously.

References

Gellner E (1994) Conditions of Liberty: Civil Society and its Rivals. London: Hamish Hamilton.

Gellner E (1998) Language and Solitude. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hall JA (2010) Ernest Gellner: An Intellectual Biography. London: Verso.

Malešević S (2007) Between the book and the new sword: Gellner, violence and ideology. In:

Malešević S and Haugaard M (eds) Ernest Gellner and Contemporary Social Thought .

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maleš evic ́ 9

at University of Manitoba Libraries on June 6 2015the sagepub comDownloaded from

Thesis Eleven Volume 128 Issue 1 2015 [Doi 10.1177%2F0725513615583307] MaleÂ EviÂ , S. -- Ernest...

Documents

Transcript of Thesis Eleven Volume 128 Issue 1 2015 [Doi 10.1177%2F0725513615583307] MaleÂ EviÂ , S. -- Ernest...