Search

Copyright of Education et Societes is the property of INRP and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Although Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990) has frequently been made a symbol of philosophical conservatism, he has rejected its transcendental anchorage and consistently argued that tradition and modernity should not be abruptly opposed. Both, indeed, derive from the flexibility of human conduct. Although one can observe recognisable patterns of modernity, as in post-Renaissance rationalism, it should be remembered that some of the supposed advances of modernity such as individualism are just as rooted in tradition as they can irremediably deviate from it. This, plus his reading of Hobbes. leads Oakeshott both to run against Leo Strauss's sharp opposition of tradition and modernity and to give his own individualism a foundation in a residual Augustinianism whereby the divine cannot be transferred to the City of man: for the latter to lead a responsible life, there is no other option but that of the umpire-like societas as against the harnessing of the whole of human conduct in modernity and its universitas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]