Quote of the Week: Konstantin Pobedonostsev
And not in the material punishment for its violation is the fundamental, invincible sanction of the law, but in the conscience of men, rebuking his iniquity. Material punishment he may flee, the imperfection of human justice may cast it on the innocent, but from this internal chastisement he can in no way be delivered.
This deep significance of the law is entirely overlooked in the new theories and new practices of legislators. For them the law has but one significance, as the regulation of external action, the preserver of mechanical equilibrium of the diverse operations of human activity in their juridical relations. In the preparation of the law great labour is expended on analysis and technicality. The importance of technicality and analysis cannot be gainsaid; but is it wise in providing for these to forget the essential significance of the law? Yet this significance is often not only forgotten, but actually abjured.
Thus we encumber beyond measure the immense edifice of the law, and live incessantly devising rules and forms and formulas of every kind. In the name of freedom and the rights of men we do this, yet we have gone so far that no man can move in freedom from the network of rules and ordinances extending everywhere, threatening everyone — all in the name of freedom.
– Konstantin P. Pobedonostsev, Reflections of a Russian Statesman. trans. Robert Crozier Long (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1973), 85-6.
Comments are closed.
Reading Gerald Campbell’s ongoing series made me think back to Pobedonostsev’s writings, and I find a commonality between Gerald’s ideas and what Pobedonostsev suggests here.
Henry,
I have long noticed in American politics an ugly perversion of the human spirit, namely, “the need to control human behavior through mechanical or extrinsic means.” If one reflects on this need, it will be discovered that it is deeply intertwined with what might be called a “totalitarian urge.”
I tend to think this is an outgrowth of the social atomism that flows out of our cultural commitment to the autonomous individual. Since there is no intrinsic order to such society, each person seeks to impose on others the order that best suits their needs and purposes. This impetus flows upward from the isolated individual into groups and eventually into law. But the dynamics of this process are such that they frequently violate the dignity and freedom of others. So we are left with a house divided and nothing is resolved. Solidarity is never achieved.
This tendency is especially reflected in the political response to youth violence. Liberals seek, among other things, to impose legal restrictions on guns while conservatives want to impose legal restrictions on Hollywood. Guns and Hollywood denote default political positions. Whenever a new round of violence occurs, these ideological beliefs spring into action.
Yet neither effort can succeed. Both fail to address the root cause of youth violence. Nonetheless, both sides stand firm on the belief that coercive means are essential to control violent behavior. But as they do so, they fail to grant that a deeper causal dynamic is at work. Their eyes are covered over.
I was struck in another way by the quote you offer. Pobedonostsev says: “for them the law has but one significance, as the regulation of external action, the preserver of mechanical equilibrium of the diverse operations of human activity in their juridical relations.”
It occurred to me while reflecting on this quote: is this what Pope John Paul II meant by law when he advised that we should seek to restrict abortion via the law? I hardly think so. Yet, this is how American law is being perceived and used.
Gerald,
You are right — I do not think it is what Pope John Paul II nor Pope Benedict mean by their use of law, though it is reinterpreted through the “liberal American project” by both sides of the American political spectrum. The union of spirit and matter is a difficult subject; people can suggest elements of the material or the spiritual side which need improvement, but usually it is so reductionist (as we see) that it is about control instead of inspiration. The law in the fullest sense of the word should be the law of love, as Lombard makes very clear; that is what inspires, that is the spirit which motivates. There will surely be material aspects to deal with, but as long as law is seen as a negative imperative instead of a positive inspiration, we will not get around the problems of the modern world.
It’s for reasons like that that I find the criticisms of the liberal project by Pobedonostsev, de Maistre, et. al. very telling. They understand the written, regulated law to be problematic. It’s not that they deny it has a use, but it is relative, not absolute.