Principles and Heresies

In his rejoinder [March 10] to my what Kind of Order” [Dec. 30], Professor Zoll somewhat clarifies his position. Specifically, he would seem to be repudiating his original statement that “the present situation invites political approaches that are totalitarian in nature,” when he says “the Toryism I endorse is the ultimate vindication of order, as opposed to repression, the recognition of social order as resting upon an ontological and naturalistic mandate [my italics].” With this sentiment I heartily concur; furthermore, as I wrote in my original comment: “And here [Professor Zoll] is certainly correct when he insists that the restoration and preservation of order is the outstanding political issue of our present crisis.”

So far so good. Professor Zoll and I agree that order in society is clearly distinguishable both from anarchy and from repression, and that its character as order is founded upon an ontological order outside of society itself, that is, founded upon the nature of being itself. But the key phrase is “founded upon”; no political or social order in this imperfect world can reach the perfection of an ontological order laid up in Heaven. Therefore the successive social orders that men have created across history have none of them been more than “representations” (Eric Voegelin’s word) of ontological order. They have varied widely, and it is therefore absurd to deny that they can be compared in value. It is absurd to say, as Professor Zoll does, “there is not a ‘good’ order or a ‘bad’ order.” Some social orders are patently better than others: Ur or the Babylon of Hammurabi better than Assyria; feudal Europe better than the regime of the Ottomans. Or, as a Classical scholar like Professor Zoll must recognize, even among the multifarious polities of the Hellenic world—all participants in the same civilization—the historian can distinguish manifold shades of better and worse among Athens, Corinth, Miletus, Croton, Sparta or Sybaris.

FS

About the Author

Frank S. Meyer

Frank S. Meyer was a senior editor of National Review.

Featured Tags

Constitutional Government

Western Civilization

Freedom

Philosophy

In his rejoinder [March 10] to my what Kind of Order” [Dec. 30], Professor Zoll somewhat clarifies his position. Specifically, he would seem to be repudiating his original statement that “the present situation invites political approaches that are totalitarian in nature,” when he says “the Toryism I endorse is the ultimate vindication of order, as opposed to repression, the recognition of social order as resting upon an ontological and naturalistic mandate [my italics].” With this sentiment I heartily concur; furthermore, as I wrote in my original comment: “And here [Professor Zoll] is certainly correct when he insists that the restoration and preservation of order is the outstanding political issue of our present crisis.”

So far so good. Professor Zoll and I agree that order in society is clearly distinguishable both from anarchy and from repression, and that its character as order is founded upon an ontological order outside of society itself, that is, founded upon the nature of being itself. But the key phrase is “founded upon”; no political or social order in this imperfect world can reach the perfection of an ontological order laid up in Heaven. Therefore the successive social orders that men have created across history have none of them been more than “representations” (Eric Voegelin’s word) of ontological order. They have varied widely, and it is therefore absurd to deny that they can be compared in value. It is absurd to say, as Professor Zoll does, “there is not a ‘good’ order or a ‘bad’ order.” Some social orders are patently better than others: Ur or the Babylon of Hammurabi better than Assyria; feudal Europe better than the regime of the Ottomans. Or, as a Classical scholar like Professor Zoll must recognize, even among the multifarious polities of the Hellenic world—all participants in the same civilization—the historian can distinguish manifold shades of better and worse among Athens, Corinth, Miletus, Croton, Sparta or Sybaris.