Introduction
This article digs into where the idea of peoples deciding their own fate first came from philosophically. Even though it’s a big deal in today’s politics and international law, the idea is pretty tricky to pin down. First off, what exactly do we mean by “people”? Sometimes it means just regular citizens of a country, other times it points to groups based on territory or culture.1 Then there’s self-determination itself – does it mean becoming an independent country, running your own government, popular rule, or something like autonomous growth?2 Some folks suggest splitting it into “cultural” versus “democratic” self-determination. Cultural self-determination is about a nation keeping its unique identity as a social group, while democratic self-determination is more about individuals controlling their lives and having a say in politics.3 Alan Patten went further with three types: statist (state autonomy), democratic (a people shaping its own affairs), and nationalist (the cultural nations themselves doing so).4-6
My focus here is on Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803), the German philosopher often seen as pushing for national self-determination – basically that every nation deserves its own state.7 But Vicki Spencer offers a tweak: she argues Herder was really defending cultural rather than full national self-rule.8 She explains that Herder had a strong philosophical take on culture rooted in language and moral diversity, which made him oppose imperialism and colonialism,9 but not necessarily pushing for every group to create their own states.10 Spencer also points out that Herder didn’t shut the door on multinational states.11
These clarifications about Herder are mostly right. He wasn’t arguing that all nations should have independent countries. Yet I’m not sure why we have to put “cultural” front and center when talking about his ideas of collective self-rule. The link between cultural and political (or democratic) self-determination in his thought has been pretty unclear. Spencer sees his republican views and political self-government as important too, but calling his idea just “cultural self-determination” risks making it seem like he ignored political aspects entirely.12 That would steer us away from seeing his notion of the people as active political players. Actually, his thoughts on the French Revolution help us understand his views here better. There’s also debate over how he saw multinational states – Patten says he preferred nationally defined ones,13`but since Herder talked about reforms for empires made up of many peoples, what exactly he imagined for Europe remains open.
One reason Herder isn’t mentioned much in recent histories of the concept might be because no one has studied systematically what he thought about peoples deciding their futures. Eric D. Weitz barely mentions him even though Weitz credits German Enlightenment with starting this idea – saying Kant kicked it off but later thinkers turned it from an individualist into a group-based concept.14 Others like Jörg Fisch and Edward Kolla look at popular sovereignty linked to territory but skip over ideas about cultural nations’ rights.15This article argues that Herder deserves serious attention when tracing how this idea developed.
In my earlier work I explored how Herder’s political thinking evolved amid 18th-century talks about patriotism, trade, and peace; I also discussed how he viewed individual versus collective freedom while engaging with Kant’s ideas.16-17 (Note: Here “Selbstbestimmung” refers to personal moral freedom.)
Herder had an alternative view inspired by Stoic-vitalist thought emphasizing feelings’ role in stable republics. Building on those insights here, this article looks closely at various sides of his thoughts on peoples’ right to decide their fate – comparing him both with early natural law tradition influenced by Grotius and radical French revolutionaries. The goal is to clarify how he saw this process happening politically and what kinds of governments fit with it. In short: around the late 1780s through the French Revolution years, Herder expressed ideas that likely helped shape modern notions of people’s right to decide for themselves; plus you can’t easily separate culture from politics in his thinking.
Peoples Versus State-Machines
Throughout life, Herder wondered what holds peoples together-what sparks unity or shared feelings like patriotism across different societies? Early on he debated Rousseau and Montesquieu showing humans are naturally social creatures who feel love for their homeland too.
From the 1780s forward he clearly separated “people” from “state.” Let me focus there.
To see where he’s original here it’s helpful to compare with earlier thinkers like Pufendorf or Locke who built on Grotius’s natural law ideas. They saw ‘people’ as groups formed by individuals agreeing either explicitly or tacitly – first creating society then choosing government type – keeping these steps distinct (“people”, then “government”).. For them ‘people’ usually didn’t wield legislative power directly but had rights regarding choosing rulers or consenting to key issues. They also said multiple peoples could live under one ruler if consented; switching rulers needed people’s okay too. Like Locke emphasized consent forming society via majority rule yet didn’t talk much about many peoples inside one state.
Now Herder took quite another approach regarding how peoples form & relate to states. He kept distance from natural law traditions rejecting core terms like “social contract,” “sovereignty,” or “state of nature.” Instead since early essays he’d looked at human history & literature seeking insights into human nature & societies. His conclusion? Humans are essentially aesthetic & poetic beings interacting through senses; reason & language grow intertwined with feelings. People created language gradually not just for understanding world but expressing themselves through arts. Herder stressed humans naturally form national groups based on common origins plus shared language, songs, religion, culture laws being publicly sung out loud. Political principles were part poetry, moral taste & aesthetics not contracts enforcing rules. A contract imagining separated individuals agreeing seemed misleading; laws arose from customs grounded deeply within each nation’s traditions.
In Ideas for Philosophy of History (1784-1791) Herder spelled out distinctions between people & modern state responding directly against Kant’s claim humans need sovereign rulers due unsocial tendencies. Herder said no ‘natural’ gov system exists-humans don’t need rulers naturally. Modern states were historical inventions that humans could live without-but only if morals shifted radically. His critique showed modern sovereignty was oppressive lacking roots among subjects. This didn’t stop some hopefulness though especially towards Europe’s future prospects.
One sharp insight emerged in 1770s – European monarchies came from Germanic conquests over Roman lands, ruling classes mixing Roman-German warlike ideals. He described European monarchies as ‘state-machines’ designed mainly for war/conquest dominating ordinary people including conquered populations. Modern governments may be lawful now yet they still aimed externally at conquest. Also new problems arose e. g., colonial empires abroad while citizens grew apathetic at home.
Nothing thus seems more opposed to good governance than expanding states unnaturally, mixing wildly different races [Menschen-Gattungen] & nations [Nationen] under single rule. The human ruler can’t hold such mismatched parts together well; glued maybe into fragile ‘state-machine,’ lacking internal life/sympathy…Like Trojan horses these machines get close promising eternity yet lack real character/life-and those forced under them endure only cruel chance fate. Seems politics treats people as lifeless bodies without true unity.
Herder meant ‘life’ metaphysically aligned with vitalist philosophy seeing all nature united by divine living force diversifying through evolution forming complex beings including humans. Social groups/nations aren’t fully independent organisms but quasi entities emerging through organic forces manifesting via actual individuals. Peoples arise because humans uniquely set free by nature destined fundamentally for ‘self-constitution,’ making themselves + history.
From metaphysics perspective cultural peoples appear as communities shaped by human interaction involving sensibility/reason. Herder avoided calling this spirit of people (‘Volksgeist’) something like collective soul preferring terms Nationalgeist/National-Charakter referring mostly to historically shaped mindsets/actions expressed via language/literature. Many factors formed national spirit incl climate habits constitutions history.
Calling states ‘lifeless’ doesn’t deny living peoples inside them instead notes alienation between population/political machine. But still aligned somewhat with radical Locke-like views where people always free/able alter institutions. Morerover ancient Greeks/Romans proved liberty possible under government despite old traditions. People represented humanity entitled defend rights. So modern masses rightly sought change-likely rediscovering distinct national character inside rigid bureaucratic state-machines simultaneously organizing separate cultures.
Following Scottish Enlightenment economists/philosophers such Robertson/Smith Herneder saw growing trade/economic competition easing European despotisms transforming power relations materially liberating common folk initially subjugated. At same time Humanität progressed meaning awareness grew regarding justice equity culturally/historically. Cultural elites expected soon seriously explore/revise heritage/traditions morally yielding deep reform/collapse existing ‘state-machines.’
Herder put spotlight particularly on Slavic lands oppressed/dominated internationally. Trade would improve legislation politics revive peaceful industry/international ties awakening dormant industrious happy populations reclaim territories celebrating traditional peaceful commerce festivals.
Does this mean mere cultural autonomy or full political control/statehood? Clearly demanding control over affairs/life ways within historic homelands. Mechanisms unspecified left open. It depends whether ‘state’ means current mechanistic forms which he’d say obsolete/not desirable. Allowed changes possible per example Greeks/Romans suggesting political govt viable. If envisioned humane/federalized state then possibility arises. New polities probably diverse forms unanswered details. As foreshadowed Slavs actively asserting agency. What applies beyond Europe less clear given firm opposition colonialism/imperialism overall historical progress sense.
French People’s Right To Decide During Revolution
In 1792 wrote essay titled “Tithon and Aurora” questioning revolution meaning legitimacy(not naming French rev). Combined w/early unpublished letters drafts shows concern broadly re oppressed + reform-needed populations.
Defined two meanings revolution: first traditional circular motions e. g moon orbit second violent upheaval overturning order swapping top/bottom born during barbaric times. Quite undesirable hoped rational era revival original true sense aka return natural order per laws increasing reason equity.
Though sounds call true rev allowed evolution vs revolution seeming opposites actually compatible. Evolution sometimes blocked artificially preserving dead bodies pre-mature decay parallels politic-moral entities losing vitality lingering long after soul gone. States can age/youth changing needing proper regents who prune foster growth often missed task.
Readers surely sensed France was dead state run mechanically devoid life. Implied inevitable upheaval looming. French leaders must seize moment pursue genuine revolution restoring natural healthy order suited present avoiding reviving archaic medieval systems.
True revolutions feasible cause art science never die simply transform. Cultures evolve even if dormant making new constitutions complement revival. Both cultural/political rebirth linked. French rev marks ripe time praising English Glorious Rev peaceful constitutional financial commercial advance shedding feudal past.
Unpublished draft Letters Nov-Dec1792 applied lessons praising France embodying zeitgeist ending brutal conquest-era abolishing privileges progress towards equality. All equal rank citizens-not rabble-but body politic members. Defended France giving itself constitution representing united whole introduced term related‘self-constitution’ process ongoing. Creating constitution seen huge challenge impacting humanity stirring interest beyond borders.
Believed awakened nations’draw creatively upon traditions abandoning brutal past embracing humanitarian commercial spirit. Peoples regain agency partly fracturing dying state-machines. Some cases few many emerging. In France case one revitalizing whole. Statehood unclear details relationships among multiple identities unaddressed lacked methods find viability potential conflicts probable within emerging nations.
Focused sharply foreign relations refusing outside interference echoing Vattel’s rules recognizing people’s right constitutional change condemning Austro-Prussian meddling rejecting both foreign interventionists/republican imperial ambitions alike.
Liberty Illusion
Though initially sympathetic early90s became critical spotting false ideal called “phantom liberty.”This flawed notion misunderstood real liberty institutional design threatening chaos internally externally.
Rousseau blamed primarily responsible criticized representation advocating direct will indivisible general will sovereign indivisible denying representation critics argue laws changed only collectively rejection deliberation incompatible democracy. Rousseau favored direct democracy qualified distinguishing ancient modern republics separating sovereignty government urging mandates gradated reps.
French revolutionary followers picked suspicion representation fearing reps betray community will thus municipalities alongside national assemblies grew gaining power forming thousands communes notably Paris assertive role demanding even overriding constitution. Two paths followed Girondins insisted local votes fundamental laws Jacobins blurred lines wanting all laws passed directly leaving space popular challenge building municipal strength claiming necessity justify overruling assembly escalating conflict.
Probably caught sight early Jacobin rise which along Benjamin Constant later labeled misguided ancient liberty revival. Prior rejected ancients freedom wild audacity hold state’s wheel ignoring others modern valued modest peace property shaping happiness family quiet comforts.
During Rev said philosophers birthed notion mistook populace ruling needing education centuries oppression. Lamented Germans fortunate watching distant shipwreck wary evil forcing same fate. Rejected universal popular vote calls
His concept differed outright direct democracy plebiscites vetoes rather favored representative gov supporting public deliberation highlighting thousand+ thoughtful legislators working constitution essential confirming belief legit governing lies discussion public discourse. Presence difference clear preferring rep gov opposed mob rule illusion liberty. Popular so-called libertarian model seen deception leading tyranny. Issued strong warnings against export forced models others stressing unique local adaptation essential best gov varies per culture forbidding forceful imposition regardless quality claimed merits.
Ongoing People Self-Determining Process
In 1795 essay revisited ancient-modern patriotism examining formation publics different scales redefined moral fatherland beyond prior simplistic contrasts. Explored real crowd attending event versus ideal imagined community spanning time place highlighting evolving collective selves capable reflection guidance maturing nation publics shaping selves. Public moral reasoning entity observing judging instructing crucial concept. Nations modeled as ideal publics differing emphases Hebrews God’s chosen genetic language bond Greeks civic legal moral fatherlands blending examples urged modern nurturing languages fatherland project requiring multi-generational cooperative effort leadership critical stirring formation maintaining nationals. Public education needed beyond manipulative ceremonies feared mass swayed uncritically unlike ancients cautious recommending print books fostering calm reflection driving meaningful legislation. Action gradual evolutionary preferring educated elite aristo-democrats wise experience trained leading ppl divinely appointed reflecting hope new constitutions debated freely recognized essential context. In Germany hoped overcoming fragmentation forging functional national polity revived medieval city republican traditions proving roots civil liberties offering blueprint future shedding barbarity toward enlightened governance.
Disagreement over strictly national boundedness vs acceptance multinational states depends understanding publics operation. Language key prerequisite cultivated public discourse Germans urged cultivate common tongue uniting varied groups designing appropriate institutions collaboratively. The aim cultivating morally sound communities peacefully coexisting nurturing selves imaginations publics continuous voluntary commitment akin individual ethical choices linking others. Transnational oversight sought applying justice norms assessing actions globally aligned humanitarian values fiercely opposing top-down homogenizing reforms erasing identities warned loss character critiqued Enlightenment denigration. Emphasized milder European characters facilitate possible wider union akin Hanseatic League anticipating league humanity envisioning federal unions balancing autonomy cooperation fostering broad peace justice ideals variety coexistences realistic flexible arrangements welcomed diversified futures. Former extremes nationalism cautioned modernization tempered openness encouraged ongoing creative institutional development adaptable contexts balancing unity diversity harmony mutual respect ultimate goals consistent enlightenment aspirations
Wrap-Up
Modern discussions barely mention Herder when tracing peoples’ right concepts. Heavily focused scholars reject credit claiming purely cultural-republican labels fit better. But that’s narrow limiting defining national self-det. Determine fair mix found across statist-democratic-nationalist categories rejecting foreign interference culturally politically. Distinctions blurry intertwining culture polity proposing novel line separating ppl-state endorsing ppl altering constitutions defining ppl largely culturally based grounding distinctively modern nation-building notion. Simple summary: Not just theorist anti-imperialist champion colonized Europeans but offered nuanced analysis describing historical awakening liberation transformations expected dissolving oppressive warlike absolutist machines. Supportive moderate reform warned inevitable collapse without change empowering masses rightful uprising endorsing republican plural inclusive citizenship rank equality combining cultural-political visions clearly opposing fake illusory freedoms favor rep gov balanced public reasoning distrusting mob empowered factions excitedly proclaim pop sovereignty. German municipal tradition favoured over chaotic revolutionary grassroots mobilization. Spoke out strongly against exporting unsuitable models abroad endorsing adaptive context-specific approaches respecting differences. Not fixed borders necessarily supporting federations accommodating multitudes transcending nationalist isolation. Additionally emphasized transnational cooperation humanitarian league potentials opening avenues broad multi-layered governance structures balancing identity-common good. Still relevant inspiring postcolonial debates nationalism federalism global integration. Finally hints suggest influence extended waves revolutions mid19th early20th century recognizing complexity evolving ideas future research needed revisiting neglected influences alongside famous names proving richer genealogy existed besides Kant-Rousseau axis featuring insightful figure named Johann Gottfried Herder helping shape collective freedom concepts throughout history.
Source link
