Rationalism in Politics by {author}: summary and why it matters

What it argues

The title essay criticizes what Oakeshott calls Rationalism: the idea that knowledge is mostly technical, that it can be stated in rules and learned from a book, and that any practice can be improved by being rebuilt on rational first principles. Against it he sets practical knowledge, the kind gained by apprenticeship and experience, which cannot be fully written down.

Applied to politics, the rationalist drafts an ideology and then imposes it. Oakeshott says the politics of a stable society is instead the pursuit of intimations, the careful extension of tendencies already present in its traditions. Other essays in the collection take up the tower of Babel, the study of history, and the nature of conservatism, which he describes as a disposition to prefer the familiar to the unknown and present laughter to utopian bliss.

Why it matters

This is the most elegant statement of the skeptical, non-ideological temperament. It helps explain why many conservatives mistrust sweeping plans, five-year goals and technocratic fixes, and why Oakeshott is a favorite of readers who dislike movement conservatism's own slogans.

About the author

Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990) was an English philosopher who taught at Cambridge and at the London School of Economics, where he succeeded Harold Laski as professor of political science. He published sparingly, and he valued conversation and a private life of cooking and sailing. This collection brought together essays written over about two decades and made his name outside Britain.

Who should read it

Readers of philosophy and anyone who has watched a grand scheme collapse. The essay On Being Conservative, in the same volume, is a gem.