The capable elite and humanistic education. Castellani reads Kissinger
Formiche.net - Analysis, commentary and scenarios.
By Lorenzo Castellani | 24/05/2023 - Politics
https://formiche.net/2023/05/elitekissingerformazioneumanistica/
The capable elite and humanistic education. Castellani reads Kissinger
On the occasion of Henry Kissinger's 100th birthday, Ants dedicates a special issue to the former U.S. Secretary of State, collecting contributions and reflections on one of the most influential personalities of the 20th century. Here we host the commentary by Lorenzo Castellani, political scientist and professor at Luiss Guido Carli
Henry Kissinger is known to the world for his theories and practices in the field of international relations, grounded in the balance of power and hinging on a realism of gradual changes. Less well known, however, is the later Kissinger, who practices as a profound and fine theorist of the elite. In his last and perhaps final book, Leadership, the great adviser to power analyzes six key figures of the twentieth century and then marks conclusions that show all of Kissingerian humanism and conservatism in political education. First, Kissinger recalls the value of the ancient blood aristocracy in politics. It is true that the nobles of old, obtaining a status by birth, were on paper more incompetent and amateurish than the twentieth-century leaders, but it is also true that they had two special attributes: the first was a sense of duty and self-control that was imposed by the education imparted to them. Precisely because they had been given certain rights by birth, aristocrats were morally educated to fulfill duties and responsibilities to the people and the nation they represented by rank, and this prompted the aristocratic classes to find negotiated political solutions that sought points of balance. The second attribute was that all European aristocracies came from common, often supranational paths and crossroads, and this milieu fostered a capacity for mediation, dialogue, and diplomatic resolution among men who considered themselves to be of equal standing and were often able to set aside arrogance, megalomania, and to be less influenced, in non-democratic eras, by popular moods and impulses than today's politicians.
The theory-so dear to the American historian-of the balance of power was forged by the very aristocracies present at the Congress of Vienna. So, net of nepotism and radical inequalities, Kissinger recalls how that era of amateur aristocrats managed to stand on noble esprit de corps, on education in self-control and discipline, and on respect for duties commensurate with one's social position. However, World War I, i.e., the first conflict based on the mobilization of the masses, would show the inadequacy of the old aristocratic classes in the face of universal suffrage democracy and industrial capitalism, which would result in the European political tragedy that unfolded between the two wars. The Great War had eroded the legitimacy of the political elite, leaving the door open in major European countries to the reverses later imposed by totalitarian regimes. However, once the turbulence of the so-called Second Thirty Years' War (1914-45) had passed, this social transformation, which had placed the middle class at the center, would prove to be compatible with international stability and governance capacity. A world of nation-states anchored in strong institutions, with the bourgeoisie wielding most political and cultural power, was able to produce leaders, such as those reviewed by Kissinger, who conducted responsible and creative politics. And it is precisely these leaders who represent a distinct historical phase because the statesmen of the post-World War II era brought politics into a new phase: they belonged to the middle class, they all accomplished themselves through a tough and competitive education, they acquired skills and culture, but they were also imbued with values such as discipline, self-control, perseverance, and thoroughness.
De Gaulle, Adenauer, Thatcher and the other leaders interpreted a post-aristocratic era of political elites that we might describe as the time of "bourgeois meritocracy," in which individual merit forged by educational systems added up with a well-defined value system. Hence a new aristocracy, based on competence and scholastic merit but also anchored in the nation, animated by the spirit of service and hinged on duties and responsibilities to its state and its citizens. Here is the successful political formula of the postwar ruling classes. But Kissinger is not merely crystallizing the past with clarity, as much as reflecting deeply on the present.
Here then are concerns about the loss of some key attributes of the new ruling class compared to the one that emerged after World War II. Over the past three decades, universities have focused only on technical expertise, marginalizing the humanistic knowledge that had formed the successful statesmen of the previous generation, so today an elite of only technocrats and activists is generated, disengaged from nationhood and reason of state and informed by global cosmopolitanism. That mixture of aristocratic virtues and meritocratic ambitions has been lost as only the latter have remained in existence. As a result, the civic patriotism that once conferred prestige on public service seems to have been sidelined by identity fractionalization and cosmopolitanism competing with nationhood, resulting in a rupture between the ruling class and the people between whom mutual suspicion and hostility have set in.
This is also because Western universities have moved away from their mission of training citizens, including potential statesmen, to favor technicians and activists with little sense of duty, discipline and responsibility. If a capable and measured elite is to be built, Kissinger concludes, there is a need to reinvigorate this meritocracy, and that means that humanities education must regain its meaning, embracing subjects such as philosophy, politics, human geography, modern languages, history, economic thought, literature and perhaps even classical antiquity, the study of which has long been the nursery of statesmen. Only through this recovery will it be possible to breathe life into what Thomas Jefferson called the "natural aristocracy," a confluence of talent and virtue.