Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
93–98
What is Politics?
Robinson Crusoe,
Deep Ecology and
Immanuel Kant
Tony Burns
This article considers the nature of politics. however, those who have challenged this
Robinson Crusoe is used to show that even view because they consider it to be too
the broadest understanding of politics found narrow. They have, in their different ways,
in the literature is inadequate, for the sought to broaden our understanding of the
situation of Crusoe on his island is a political nature of politics. For example, one alter-
situation even though he is completely alone. native account is that politics has to do with
An analogy is drawn between the deep the resolution, or at least the regulation, of
ecological understanding of politics and the conflict between individuals or groups
moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. For (see Crick, 1971, p. 18; Miller, 1962, p. 14).
Kantian ethics, also, is built on the idea of a Another similar (though not identical) view
solitary individual who is at least existentially is that politics has to do with the preserva-
isolated. It is concluded that what makes any tion of order within a particular society or
situation political is the fact that in it some group (Crick, 1971, p. 18). There is also the
policy is required. view that politics involves processes of
collective decision-making in societies and
or groups (Hague et al., 1992 [1982], p. 3).
Introduction A fourth alternative is that politics has to do
with the exercise of power (Duverger, 1974,
What is politics? Most introductory textbooks p. 11–18; Leftwich, 1984, p. 64; Lukes, 1981
for students of politics begin with this ques- [1974]). As such, politics is an integral aspect
tion. There is, however, considerable disagree- of all social life. This is the understanding of
ment regarding how it should be answered. politics that one finds in much of the current
One view is that politics has to do solely and literature produced by post-structuralist
uniquely with the activities of the state (see writers such as, for example, Chantal Mouffe
Crick, 1971, pp. 17–18, 20–21 and 29–30; (Mouffe, 1993; Finlayson and Martin, 1997).
Laski, 1931; Pickles, 1964, ch. 2; Miller, 1962, Andrew Heywood has claimed recently that
part I; Heywood, 1997, pp. 5–6). There are, this last view is ‘both the broadest and the
© Political Studies Association 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 93
Crusoe, Deep Ecology and Kant • Burns Politics (2000) 20(2) pp. 93–98
most radical’ definition of politics available in human beings themselves (Attfield, 1991;
the current literature (Heywood, 1997, p. 10). Attfield and Belsey, 1994; Elliot, 1995;
It is clear that these alternative accounts Taylor, 1992).
of the nature of politics are indeed much Now all of the accounts of the nature of
broader than the view that politics has to do politics referred to above would suggest that
simply with the activities of the state. There there is and could be no politics at all on
is, moreover, something to be said for each Crusoe’s island – at least until the arrival of
of them. At the same time, however, they Man Friday. The reason for this is that, in a
are also open to criticism. For example, one situation in which there is only one person,
common assumption that all of these ap- it is evident that there is no state, no conflict,
proaches make is that politics is necessarily no collective decision-making and no
a social activity. It is an activity that requires relationships of power. In short, there is no
at least two people. It is this assumption that social life. Consequently, as Heywood main-
I propose to subject to a critical examination. tains, so far as any of the above-mentioned
I shall do so by considering a situation taken senses of the term is concerned, there can be
from the history of English literature – the no politics either. It is Heywood’s contention
case of Robinson Crusoe marooned on a that solitary individuals such as Robinson
desert island. This has been used many times Crusoe just ‘cannot engage in politics’.
by students of the social sciences. It has, Heywood insists that in this situation politics,
for example, been employed recently by properly speaking, ‘only emerges with the
R. Hague et al. and Andrew Heywood within arrival of a Man (or Woman) Friday’
the discipline of politics, and by Mary (Heywood, 1997, p. 3). This is also the view
Midgley in her discussion of environmental of Hague et al. One of the discussion points
ethics (Hague et al., 1992 [1982], p. 21; at the end of the first, introductory chapter in
Midgley, 1995). their Comparative Government and Politics
relates to the following two questions: ‘Can
Robinson Crusoe engage in politics on his
desert island?’ and ‘Why not?’ (Hague et al.,
Robinson Crusoe and politics 1992 [1982], p. 21). The first of these ques-
from the standpoint of deep tions might legitimately be said to be an
ecology open one. The second question, however, is
evidently closed. It is clear from the wording
There is one line of reasoning, associated here that the authors do not really take
with the notion of deep ecology,1 that seriously the possibility that someone might
suggests that the claim that politics requires answer the first question in the affirmative.
at least two people is false. For the purposes From the standpoint of deep ecology, it
of the present discussion I shall characterise might be argued that all of the alternative
this deep ecological standpoint as being the approaches to politics referred to above are
view that nature possesses intrinsic worth or inadequate. This is so even in the case of
value (Attfield, 1981; Brennan, 1995; Mathews, the one which Heywood considers to be
1995; Rolston, 1994). In Kant’s terminology it the broadest and most radical approach, that
is an end-in-itself. It is deserving of ethical subscribed to by post-structuralists. For even
consideration by human beings in its own this view of politics focuses entirely on
right. Hence, the rightness or wrongness of human beings and their relationships with
those actions undertaken by human beings one another. Consequently, it excludes from
that have an impact on their natural environ- consideration by students of politics the
ment has nothing to do with any con- relationships in which human beings enter
sequences which these actions may have for into with other types of being (whether