Thread by @levidmorrow

The Theo-Political Predicament of "The Emergence of Ethical Man"
🧵
1/

"The Emergence of Ethical Man" (EEM) doesn't depict a "State of Nature," but it does present a "religious anthropology" (xii), and this anthropology eventually gives rise to what he calls the "theo-political" society of the Mosaic covenant.
2/

First, some political theory:
The "State of Nature" is a thought experiment in modern political theory seeking to explain the natural situation which leads to and legitimizes civilization and the modern state. For Thomas Hobbes, this situation is "a war of all against all."
3/

Thus, for Hobbes, the state emerges as a collective attempt of individuals to stop that war, because the state is stronger than any one individual. By appointing a sovereign, dominant governing apparatus, they tame the state of nature and end the war of all against all.
4/

EEM's drama begins with the Snake. In EEM's reading of Bereshit 1-3, Adam is created to naturally live in line with the divinely-created laws of nature. The "snake personality" is obsessed with breaking away from and dominating nature.
5/

The snake leads humanity away from thinking in terms of lawful reality and ethical norms and toward thinking in terms of technology, hedonism, and domination. Thus, the Generation of the Flood is born, when violence abounds.
6/

In contrast to the "hamas" of the Flood Generation, which EEM explains as violating natural law in pursuit of pleasure, EEM's hero is Abraham the Wanderer who sojourns alone with his God and independently discovers ethical norms.
7/

The primary explanation of Abraham's wandering--and the initial command that he "GO!"--in EEM is that Abraham is "anarchic, freedom-loving, and anti-authoritarian," while the societies of the time were tyrannical, collectivist slave states. Domination on a massive scale.
8/

When Hobbes talks about the domination of the sovereign, he is not naïve. He recognizes that this can go poorly, and provides situations when resisting the sovereign is legitimate, such as individual's protecting their families. But ultimately, the state is a good thing.
9/

EEM has none of this nuance. All states discussed in the book are bad, and should be avoided or opposed. "Anarchism" carries the day, at least first. Domination is always a rehearsal of the sin of the Snake. Why prefer state-level domination to that of individuals?
10/

A state can end "the war of all against all," but not the sin of domination. It can only double down on this sin. This problem is brought to a head when EEM discusses the "apostleship" of Moses, who is sent to create a covenantal society.
11/

This society is supposed to involve all of the Israelites following the same set of laws. How is this supposed to work without force or domination? Does not a lawgiver stand above those who receive the law? Do not the people serve God, much as they once did Pharoah?
12/

EEM's answer to those last two questions is "No." EEM's theo-politics aims at a return to the original situation, where the law was never imposed in a top-down fashion. The law was always natural law, and humanity was to discover it in the process of living naturally.
13/

God in EEM is not the transcendent Creator-Commander, but the creator who lives in/with his creations, so much so that EEM defines "the image of God" in humanity as humanity's awareness of its immersion in and integration with nature. Immanence is the name of the game.
14/

The covenant community will thus be one that lives with its God and in harmony with natural law, thus overcoming the impulse for domination introduce by the snake into humanity's relationships with both God and nature.
15/

A key result of this is that God does not reign over the covenantal community but is a partner in it, a "friend" and "comrade-king." (199-200) Those of the 10 commandments seemingly intended to show deference to God, EEM depicts as social obligations between fellows. (198)
16/

Here, EEM blurs Biblical interpretation and eschatology/messianism. The poison of the snake runs deep, and EEM does not depict the covenant as an immediate antidote. The full disappearance of the "demonic" personality and of domination is EEM's eschatological vision. (131)
17/

EEM's "theopolitics" thus has two models: Abraham the moral philosopher, and the covenantal community. Critically, neither has a recognizable governing apparatus. The Mosaic community, like the (idealized) exilic Jewish people, lives the law without force or domination.
18/

Redemption thus either happens for the individual who escapes the hedonistic, technological drives of the snake personality, or through the slow march of history, spurred on by the ethical community. Redemption is anarchistic and communitarian. אין לנו מלך.
19/

Notably, EEM's "theopolitics" is undergirded by Neo-Kantian and Kierkegaardian theories of law and ethics, as well as natural law theory, German Idealism, and anti-Christian polemics. The arch of the book is strange, but it bends towards toward theopolitics.
20/20

I should also mention the clear influence of Martin Buber. EEM is the only work where Rav Soloveitchik quotes Buber, but the full story is mostly implicit. He quotes Buber mostly in critiquing “magic” and technological thinking, but “Theopolitics” is a prime Buberian concern.

They end up in very different places, with EEM emphasizing law and de-emphasizing divine kingship relative to Buber, but I have to imagine EEM has Buber in mind when discussing “Theopolitics” to some degree or another

@threadreaderapp unroll please