Organizaciones sociales

ECONOMISTS, NATURAL SCIENTISTS, AND TRANSCENDENTAL

PHILOSOPHERS, 1800-1820

C oleridge’s w ritings after th e tu rn of th e nineteenth cen tu ry w ere elaborate and com plex variations on th e basic them es of politics, pow er, and m o rality announced in his earliest

publications from 1795-1800. Typically, ’A postasy’ theorists such as T h om pson and E rd m an have argued th a t Coleridge, w h eth er th rough "disenchantm ent" o r "default", ’tu rn e d ’ in 1802 aw ay from th e radicalism of his y o u th to a true-blue T oryism ^ In previous chapters, this dissertation has disproved th e ’A postasy’ theory, and refuted the view th a t Coleridge ’changed sides’ in 1802 by deserting from th e Jacobin ranks and treasonably skulking over to th e T o ry cam p. H aving accom plished th e w o rk of dismissing false paradigms of C oleridge’s evolution from 1790 to 1830, I have in subsequent chapters undertaken the constructive task of presenting a m ore nuanced and accurate m odel of C oleridge’s intellectual developm ent during those years.

I w ish in this chapter to suggest th a t th e fundam ental changes w h ich to o k place in C oleridge’s style of th in k in g after 1802 focused on basic political th e o ry rath er th a n p arty politics. T he changes in C oleridge’s politics w ere n o t due to disenchantm ent, n o r default, but w ere instead th e pro d u ct of a positive and expansive developm ent o f C oleridge’s philosophical system . T his change was n o t a ’giving u p ’ o r ’pulling back’ in to text-book T oryism , but as a rapid fo rw a rd m ovem ent in to a m ore technically com plex and philosophically inform ed developm ent of th e early, and largely u n tu to red w o rk of the 1790s.

T he interdependency of th e constitutional principles of lib erty and p ro p e rty rem ained as central to C oleridge’s late political w ritings as th e y w ere to his early w orks. But he expanded his understanding of these "constitutive ideas" by com bining G erm an idealism , and his ow n natural-

' E f .Thom pson and D avid E rd m an argue th at th e significant b reak in C oleridge’s ideas, his conservative retrenchm ent, dates fro m th e M orning Post articles w h ich attacked N ap oleo n , B ritish isolation, and the peace o f Am iens. See David V. E rdm an, "Coleridge as Editorial W riter" and E P . T hom pson, "D isenchantm ent o r Default? A Lay Serm on'

scientific study^, w ith th e changing conceptions of w ealth and social organization w h ich the w orks of th e Scottish L iterati suggested.

T his chapter examines three of the crucial catalysts in this intellectual developm ent: C oleridge’s encounters w ith the ideas of (1) the N atu ral Scientists, (2) the Political E conom ists, and (3) th e G erm an Idealists. In its fo u rth section, it looks at ho w C oleridge com bined his experiences o f these three groups in to his ow n th eo ry of a science w hich was, he th o u g h t, at the sam e tim e b o th E m piricist and Realist in its aims and m ethods. T he chapter w ill dem onstrate h o w C oleridge’s m etaphysics, epistem ology, and studies of nature w ere integral to his politics even m o re after 1800 th a n th ey had been in the 1790s. C oleridge’s views on politics cannot be understo o d w ith o u t looking at his views on th e sciences and w hat sorts of know ledge th ey ought yield.

T his encounter betw een Coleridge and the three schools of th o u g h t, as w e shall see, was n o t a m a tte r of passive absorption, o r of tu itio n at the feet of m asters w hose ideas he w ould sim ply copy and popularize for a B ritish audience. C oleridge’s ’critical’ approach to texts m eant th a t, even m ore th an m ost of his critically-m inded contem poraries, he transform ed w h at he read, assim ilating it to his ow n needs^. As a result of this lifelong strategy, C oleridge was ill-fitted to the task of discipleship. H e tended to pick fault, alm ost excessively, even in those argum ents he adm ired. H e also tended to distrust sim ple m athem atical m odels of society, altering the know ledge he gained from studying th em into corollaries of his ow n w hich he felt b etter expressed the com plex dynam ic nature of political and econom ic change.

D ue to his eclectic tem peram ent, Coleridge could n o t resist the tem p tatio n to m eddle and tin k e r w ith th e ideas of those w h o influenced him . T he traditional claim th a t "C oleridge’s reading of Hegel m ade Coleridge in to an Hegelian" is insufficient because it focuses o n the catalyst rath er th a n the resultant reaction. This chapter claims th a t it is alm ost certainly closer to

' H ints Towards the Formation o f a More Comprehensive Theory o f Life w is dictated by C to D r. Jam es G ilm an from 1816. It is likely th at th is sh o rt w o rk was largley

com pleted th a t year, how ever it was n o t published until after the deaths of bo th C and Gilm an. It was first p rin ted in London w ith an intro d u ctio n by a D r. Seth W atson M X)., b y Jo h n C h u rch ill ltd., 1868. W atson’s ow n prefatory rem arks include th e observation th a t "while C considered the u n ity of h u m an n a tu re ’ to include th e body a n d th e soul, th a t ’Life p ertained only to th e body’. But C continued ’Life’ was n o t restricted to th e body but was a term also applicable to th e irreducible basis ch em istry and th e various form s of cry stals.'p.8 . C ’s ow n rem ark s suggested th a t he viewed ’Life’ as a physical but generative and active force. It was a "power" w h ich acted in th re e different capacities: "in m agnetism it acts as a line", "in electricity as a surface" an d in "chem istry as a sohd". p 2 0 . C ’s inten tio n was to m o re com pletely define th e principles w h ich had been to u ch ed apon b y H u n te r and A bernathy, and w h ich contested a n arro w ly atom istic o r corporeal view of the life o f th e body and, correspondingly, th e life o f nature.

' T h is is n o t to say th a t o th er readers of the tim e w ere n o t capable of critical and independent readings; this was obviously the case. It is sim ply to suggest th at C oleridge read critically to a n even greater degree than was comm on in his era, because he m ade a fetish of his ’independence’ fro m factions, parties, an d schools o f thought.

th e tru th o f th a t encounter to assert th at "C oleridge’s reading of H egel ’m ade’ Hegel into a Coleridgean”. W here H egel’s dialectic had three stages, Coleridge felt it necessary to add a fo u rth . T his constant adaptation is characteristic of C oleridge’s approach to ’reading’ th e G erm an

T ranscendentalists, the N atu ral Scientists, and the Political E conom ists in th e first decades of the n in eteen th century.

C oleridge com bined the philosophical ideas of th e G erm an transcendentalists, th e natural

scientists, and th e classical econom ists. T he result of this unusual melange of disciplines was th a t

he view ed p ro p erty in term s of the cultural and econom ic im plications of com m ercial activity. A n o th e r result was th a t he saw lib erty as the result of actions of participants in a living social and political m atrix.

C oleridge’s synthetic w o rk did n o t so m uch cause a defection from one p a rty (Jacobin) to an o th e r (Tory) as it caused a perm anent retreat from all p arty activity w hatsoever. If

Coleridge was personally ill-fit for th e party-politics of th e 1790s, he was even m ore o u t o f place in th e w o rld of the 1800s. In the great era from 1790-1832 w hen form ed political parties first gained respectability and perm anence in th e life of the U n ite d K ingdom , C oleridge’s increase of learning o n ly m ade him m ore adam ant about the insufficiency of p a rty and faction to solve social problem s. C oleridge’s associations and ideas during these ’L ater’ years w ere to o em phatic o n the need fo r constant change to be Conservative, and too adam ant on th e need to m aintain

fundam ental institutions to be Radical. Because he saw the State as m ore th a n a fam ily o r a ch u rch based on th e paternalism of Anglican landholders, C oleridge m ade him self an unfit cham pion fo r th e ’T ories’. Because he saw the State as m ore th an a set of gears and levers p u t to g eth er to extrude equal citizens and p rom ote a m athem atical vision of th e greatest good fo r the greatest num ber, C oleridge m ade him self odious to th e ’Radicals’.

C oleridge’s reading in the G erm an T ranscendentalist philosophers (Kant, H egel,

Schlegel) during this period is w ell know n. Less often discussed is his equally im p o rtan t grow ing fascination in this period w ith th e accom plishm ents and the lim its of natural science®. Beginning in 1799, his scientific pursuits w ere fuelled by his friendship w ith H u m p h ry Davy,^ during th e course o f w h ich he involved him self in basic research of his ow n o n N itro u s O xide. C oleridge was particu larly interested in the m eta-physical, causative underpinnings of em pirical physical sciences such as chem istry, m edicine, and anim al physiognom y. H e increasingly believed as a result o f his scientific study th a t organic and som atic processes w ould provide an objective co ro llary in natural science for his conceptions of history, and society in th e hum an sciences.

As a result of his grow ing preoccupation w ith m etaphysics and natural science, C oleridge’s continuing thoughts on reform focused increasingly on th e use of biological m etaphors of th e ’organism ’ as descriptions of th e co n stitu tio n of th e m od ern state. O f course, th e in terlin k ed ’organic’ w o rld of nature was an old and shop-w orn m etap h o r fo r th e state. A p rim itiv e organicist vocabulary existed long before the Scientific R evolution had increased understanding of how plants and bodies actually w orked. T he old M edieval vocabulary of th e ’b o d y ’ politic, and the ’royal oak’ of the state, and the ’patriarchal fam ily’ o f A dam and N o a h as th e basis for kingship and the rule o f fathers, had stressed for centuries th a t every p a rt of a p o lity had a function, and could o nly be ’lopped off’ o r taken up ’ro o t and b ran ch ’ at great peril. T he difference betw een these older uses of organic im agery and C oleridge’s was th a t for Coleridge, th e use of biological m etaphor was n o t sim ply to provide an em blem atic illu stratio n o f w hat was ’N a tu re ’s w ay ’, as the old organicist thought had. F o r Coleridge, th e en tirety of n atu re provided

a m odel of the com plexity of dynam ic relations in a system. T he biological m etap h o r was central

to C oleridge’s th o u g h t in a w ay th a t it w ould never again be central to th e w o rk of any o th e r B ritish th in k e r u n til H e rb ert Spencer’s (mis)use of D arw inism . T he n u m b er of biological

T o r a detailed account of C ’s scientific preoccupations see T revor Levere’s "Coleridge, C hem istry and th e Philosophy of N atu re", Studies in Rom anticism, 16, 3 (Summer 1977) pp.349-380, and Poetry Realized in Nature: S.T.Coleridge a n d Early Nineteenth Century Science, (Cambridge; Cam bridge U niversity Press, 1981). M ost recently, see Ian W ylie, Young Coleridge a n d the Philosophers o f Nature (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1989).

‘ C had an earlier interest in m edicine dating back to his ’blue-coat’ days at C h rist’s H ospital. D uring his school years he w ould often shp aw ay to w atch anatom y dissections at G u y ’s H ospital in London. H is b roth er Luke was a surgeon and w ould allow C to accom pany him o n his hospital rounds in 1788. D u rin g th is tim e C read "all the surgical a n d m edical books h e could p rocure". See Jam es Dykes Cam pbell, Samuel Taylor Coleridge (London: M acM illan, 1894) p .l2 .

m etaphors in C oleridge’s w o rk is astonishing; th e innovative w ay in w h ich he used th em to in fo rm his political th e o ry even m oreso.

T his active biological (even proto-ecological) study of the relations of organism s to en v iro n m en t had tw o m ajor results. In its w ake, Coleridge expanded his belief in th e cen trality o f p ro p e rty as th e ground for political pow er. H e also refined his view of lib erty as the generative and sustaining im pulse behind th at pow er.

Ironically, C oleridge’s plunge into the study of organic phenom ena appears to have m ade h im less to leran t o f th e ’scientific’ approaches to politics w hich w ere com ing in to vogue in the first decades of th e new century. H is study of science from 1799-1802 appears (I infer from his w ritings against th e Econom ists) to have convinced him of tw o things. T he first was th a t even in th e natural sciences, but especially in th e study of hum an behaviour, excessive sim plicity in th e o ry was a vice ra th e r th an a virtue. H is w ritings against th e Political E conom ists suggest a rejection o f ’O ccam ’s R azo r’ w ith regard to biological phenom ena (such as th e g ro w th of hum an populations) on th e grounds th at no sim ple m odel could explain th e com plexity of

interd ep en d en t system s involving free and m oral agents. T he second was th a t physics alone was m eaningless o r even destructive in th e absence of the guiding hand of m etaphysics and m orality.

F o r Coleridge, to assume th a t h u m an ity was homo oeconomicus could o nly m ean th a t the species

w as incapable of perform ing the w o rk of homo sapiens. M en w h o assum ed this, he gathered, could o n ly be enem ies to liberty,

(II) Coleridge Against the Political Economists: Nature’s Unsimple Plan

C oleridge had from his y o u th been preoccupied w ith debunking w h at he called th e " m echano-corpuscular" philosophy of Locke and H artley, H e found m athem atically-styled