Our Present Political Distress, from R.G. Collingwood to A. MacIntyre

Alasdair MacIntyre’s debt towards R.G. Collingwood’s historical methodology has often been mentioned. For both philosophers, the rapprochement between philosophy and history is a mean to criticize the unhistorical conception of philosophy which emerges during the 20th century. Such conception is originated for R.G. Collingwood in the “Realism” movement, which would then be labelled “analytic philosophy”1. By questioning the history of philosophical concepts, especially moral and political concepts, both philosophers stand against a timeless conception of philosophy, However, R.G. Collingwood’s political philosophy is commonly underestimated. His major work The New Leviathan (1942) is either considered as British propaganda during the second World War, or as a Marxist manifesto. Against these two critics, I analyze how his political thought evolves from 1921 to 1942, largely influenced by his Moral Lectures given at Oxford, and by the historical context. Though Collingwood and MacIntyre seem to share the same epistemological and philosophical methodology, their conclusions are opposite. If the latter is an ardent opponent to liberalism, the former tries to distinguish the failure of liberalism from its essence. Collingwood’s defense of liberalism must then be understood in the context of the rise of Fascism, Nazism and Communism, as the last option available to allow freedom. Therefore, aware of the political and moral distress of their time, both philosophers argue that history can give a complete account of the disaster. But how can history give a solution to our contemporary issues? Do philosophers only clarify past thought? How can they find a normative criterion to judge present events? It seems that Collingwood and MacIntyre understand present in the light of the past, in order to dismiss “Realism” and “Emotivism”. 1 See R.G. Collingwood, Essay on Philosophical Method, chapter VII, §2. Analytic philosophy, Oxford, 1933. However, does the activity of philosophers consist only in being a mere spectator of his time, an expert of past events? I argue that R.G. Collingwood and A. MacIntyre, although they have been named “utopists”, both give an answer by defining the role of the philosopher in his time. I justify my point studying R.G. Collingwood’s paper from 1934 “The Present Need for a Philosophy” and A. MacIntyre “How Aristotelianism Can Become Revolutionary: Ethics, Resistance, and Utopia” (2008). Finally, I explain how philosophers can lead us towards the development of a “transformative political imagination”, emphasizing the necessity of a political education, an education towards our own duty and our own good.