Constructivism and Relativism in Oakeshott. In

TheIntellectual Legacy of Michael Oakeshott, ed.Timothy Fuller and Corey Abel. (Imprint Academic,2005). pp. 238-262.Chapter Twelve

Constructivism and Relativism in Oakeshott

Leslie Marsh

I. What is at Stake?

This paper highlights a troubling tension within the philosophy of MichaelOakeshott.

The relativistic stance that informs his radical constructivism giveslicense to socio-political conclusions we know Oakeshott could not possibly accept.

This paper has benefited from comments made by Corey Abel, Bob Grant, Tony Quinton, andGeoffrey Thomas.

Politically, Oakeshott cannot accept constructionist social ontologies thatare forged in the clamor for rights, an abstract and axiomatic foundationalistconception of rights, which demands a corresponding morality not deduced frommorally relevant considerations.Educationally, Oakeshott laments that the notion of disinterested liberallearning is rendered redundant given the incessant impulse for RELEVANCE, nowguaranteed with sociology as its master.Scientifically, Oakeshott plays both sides and this is most problematic. Onthe one hand he commends science for its achievement

against

the sociology of knowledge view that science is at best an ideology, at worst, a tool of oppression.On the other hand, the constructivist/relativist Oakeshott berates science for beingdevoid of any truth-value. Taken thus, bereft of any veritistic notions, Oakeshott isin no position to distinguish good science from pseudo-science. Oakeshotttherefore plays into the hands of the scientism that has been the hallmark of hisRationalist and contravenes his own primary philosophical dictum — the error of irrelevance.For Oakeshott these three dimensions have conspired to create a distinctly

liberal intellectual climate, a regime of “ready-made” or approved ideas,“oppressive uniformities of thought or attitude or conduct.”

Behind the ostensibly

Oakeshott,

The Voice of Liberal Learning: Michael Oakeshott on Education

, (Indianapolis:

liberal metaphysic of social constructionism, is a reformist program that is not at allbenign. Furthermore, behind the familiar appeal to notions of “social” justice,“social” conscience, “social” science and all manner of RELEVANCE, there lies aself-serving

liberal divisiveness functional to a realignment of power relations. Ina word “socialization” is the order of the day — a gross example of an

ignoratioelenchi

.The question then is why does Oakeshott’s constructivism and relativism nottally with his socio-political conclusions?

Oakeshott accepts all of thephilosophical pre-conditions of constructivism yet he cannot accept its naturalconclusion

. If Rorty’s co-option of Oakeshott’s metaphor of “conversation” in theservice of his own radically relativist epistemology has any plausibility, this createsserious problems for Oakeshott: it throws up some surprising socio-politicalanomalies for those of us attracted to Oakeshott’s philosophical politics.

II. The Sources of Constructivism

Constructivism and relativism tend to be two sides of the same coin but I willtry insofar as it is feasible, to separate out the issues as we go along. In whatfollows is a quick and highly selective history of constructivism: I do not make any

Liberty Press, 2001), 20, 31, 85, 93, 96. Hereafter:

VLL