"I know only too well that this is not a flag under which idealistic and enthusiastic young men and women may wish to march—it seems too tame, too reasonable, too bourgeois, it does not engage the generous emotions"
Berlin perfectly lays out the issue with fox-like thinking: it's incredibly boring. Even the point of this article - that pluralistic foxes are always better - is actually a hedgehog-like statement in its certainty.
Hedgehogs are always going to more easily capture attention and compel action. Hedgehogs and the search for overarching ideals are here to stay. To avoid the tragedy of the 20th century, foxes will need to work with, not ignore, hedgehogs, and to direct hedgehog idealism towards pluralistic ends. From Wilson to Reagan, idealism has its uses. Recognizing the need for balance between hedgehogs and foxes is the key to ensuring pluralism is allowed to thrive.
Why can't foxes arouse the sort of passion that comes so easily to hedgehogs? If the hedgehogs have lied to us about how life works, isn't anger about being lied to a pretty powerful emotion?
The problem is most people subconsciously seek stable worldviews with values that are simple, straightforward, and avoid nuance. These worldviews are really only offered by hedgehogs. When people get angry at one set of hedgehogs for lying, they'll turn to another set of hedgehogs for a new worldview.
Consider the transition from neoconservative Republicans to populist anti-establishment Trumpists or the transition from the moral majority to the New Atheists. In both cases, one ideology was simply exchanged for another. In neither case was fox-like nuance and pluralism embraced by former idealogues. Ideology is seductive because it's a simple lens with which to make sense of the world. Anger about being lied to is certainly a powerful emotion, but unfortunately it's the ideological hedgehogs who will always be able to coerce that emotion most effectively.
Usually but not necessarily. For example, I seem to recall that not so long ago there was a prominent politician who was really good at nuance. Black guy, thin, a lot more gray than he used to have--what was his name again?
Lol he was a good one. The tea party backlash against him though is another good example of hedgehogs throwing their weight. Foxes can have their day but the threat of ideology is always around the corner. The trick is directing ideology towards pluralistic ends.
Unfortunately we have a lot of monists setting the agenda these days. All suffering is the result of "oppression," all oppression results from "isms," and all we need is to give the right totalitarians enough power to forceably reeducate everyone. We're definitely seen this movie before.
Thanks for this essay. Quite a few years ago, I read a biography of Berlin in which his ideas on incommensurability were described. Although not mentioned in today’s piece, it is the term that describes the underlying paradox addressed here.
In a modern nation state, there is always tension between the constant effort at reforging national identity and at protecting the rights of minorities and dissenters. With foxes in charge, that tension is kept at a minimum allowing growth, dissent, and relative peace. With hedgehogs in charge, the tension can only grow with the risk of the nation splitting violently into factions and finally mini-states.
"I know only too well that this is not a flag under which idealistic and enthusiastic young men and women may wish to march—it seems too tame, too reasonable, too bourgeois, it does not engage the generous emotions"
Berlin perfectly lays out the issue with fox-like thinking: it's incredibly boring. Even the point of this article - that pluralistic foxes are always better - is actually a hedgehog-like statement in its certainty.
Hedgehogs are always going to more easily capture attention and compel action. Hedgehogs and the search for overarching ideals are here to stay. To avoid the tragedy of the 20th century, foxes will need to work with, not ignore, hedgehogs, and to direct hedgehog idealism towards pluralistic ends. From Wilson to Reagan, idealism has its uses. Recognizing the need for balance between hedgehogs and foxes is the key to ensuring pluralism is allowed to thrive.
Why can't foxes arouse the sort of passion that comes so easily to hedgehogs? If the hedgehogs have lied to us about how life works, isn't anger about being lied to a pretty powerful emotion?
The problem is most people subconsciously seek stable worldviews with values that are simple, straightforward, and avoid nuance. These worldviews are really only offered by hedgehogs. When people get angry at one set of hedgehogs for lying, they'll turn to another set of hedgehogs for a new worldview.
Consider the transition from neoconservative Republicans to populist anti-establishment Trumpists or the transition from the moral majority to the New Atheists. In both cases, one ideology was simply exchanged for another. In neither case was fox-like nuance and pluralism embraced by former idealogues. Ideology is seductive because it's a simple lens with which to make sense of the world. Anger about being lied to is certainly a powerful emotion, but unfortunately it's the ideological hedgehogs who will always be able to coerce that emotion most effectively.
Usually but not necessarily. For example, I seem to recall that not so long ago there was a prominent politician who was really good at nuance. Black guy, thin, a lot more gray than he used to have--what was his name again?
Lol he was a good one. The tea party backlash against him though is another good example of hedgehogs throwing their weight. Foxes can have their day but the threat of ideology is always around the corner. The trick is directing ideology towards pluralistic ends.
A double backlash actually. The Sanders movement was in large part a reaction against Obama not being a Pure Good versus Pure Evil guy.
Bingo
Unfortunately we have a lot of monists setting the agenda these days. All suffering is the result of "oppression," all oppression results from "isms," and all we need is to give the right totalitarians enough power to forceably reeducate everyone. We're definitely seen this movie before.
Thanks for this essay. Quite a few years ago, I read a biography of Berlin in which his ideas on incommensurability were described. Although not mentioned in today’s piece, it is the term that describes the underlying paradox addressed here.
In a modern nation state, there is always tension between the constant effort at reforging national identity and at protecting the rights of minorities and dissenters. With foxes in charge, that tension is kept at a minimum allowing growth, dissent, and relative peace. With hedgehogs in charge, the tension can only grow with the risk of the nation splitting violently into factions and finally mini-states.
Amen