The Reactionary Mind
| Author | Corey Robin |
|---|---|
| Country | United States |
| Language | English |
| Subject | Conservatism, Politics |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press |
|
Publication date
|
2011 |
| Media type | book |
| Pages | 304 |
| ISBN | 0199793743 |
| 305.32 21 |
The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin is a 2011 book written by political theorist Corey Robin. It argues that conservatism from the 17th century to today is based on the principle, "that some are fit, and thus ought, to rule others."[1]:18[2] Robin argues that rather than being about liberty, limited government, resistance to change, or public virtue, conservatism is a "mode of counterrevolutionary practice" to preserve hierarchy and power.[1]:17
Overview
The book begins by redefining conservatism as an attempt to preserve hierarchy in the wake of a democratic movement. One example of this 19th century slogan is given:
<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
To obey a real superior...is one of the most important of all virtues—a virtue absolutely essential to the attainment of anything great and lasting.[1]:17
Robin goes through the history of conservatism starting with Edmund Burke and argues that traditional definitions of conservatism as an attempt to preserve some kind of tradition are inadequate. He cites passages from Burke and Joseph de Maistre which criticize the old order for being decadent and needing to be recreated. Thomas Hobbes's social contract is given as a conservative solution to a new order which is able to preserve itself under threat.[1]:62
Robin argues that in the modern era conservatives are often more concerned about preserving power in the private sphere, which finds struggles against things like labor movements and feminism.[1]:42
Reaction and controversy
Many reviews criticized the book. The New York Times called it "a diatribe that preaches to the converted" while blogs such as Crooked Timber have defended it.[2] The New Republic gave a lukewarm review saying, "Robin’s arguments deserve widespread attention. But they [sic] way he has presented them almost ensures that they will not get it."[3]
