The Conservative Mind of Russell Kirk

BOOKS: THE POLITICS OF PRUDENCE; THE ESSENTIAL RUSSELL KIRK

WEEK 1: 

• Reading: “Ten Conservative Principles” (pp. 15–29, Politics of Prudence)
  • Intro: What the word conservative means has long been and will long be debated within the American right. William F. Buckley Jr., Ronald Reagan, and other contemporaries of Kirk had a dramatic effect on the national understanding of what it means to be a conservative. With the movement’s rise in popularity, however, came faction. Neoconservatives, religious conservatives, anticommunists, libertarians, and others all claimed to be the flag bearers of the conservatism. Nonetheless, these groups were unified in America’s fight against communism. Because of this, many in the latter half of the twentieth century were writing against communism—the Cold War dominated the political world. Few, however, were taking the time to write about what it meant to be conservative qua conservative. Kirk was the foremost among these few. In this essay, one gets a simple and explicit introduction to Kirk’s understanding of the word conservative.
• Discussion Questions:
  • Kirk highlights ten principles of conservatism. Do you agree with all of them?
  • If you could add or replace one principle, what would it be and why?
  • Kirk says that conservatism has no “Holy Writ.” What does that mean? Does it mean that a conservative can’t believe anything?
  • Kirk says that first and foremost a conservative believes in an enduring moral order. Many derive their sense of moral order from religion. Does one have to be religious to be a conservative?
  • Kirk notes prudence as a principle of conservatism. Does that mean that nonconservatives are not prudent or would say that prudence is not a principle of their own disposition?
• Further Reading/Activities:
  • Debate: What does it mean to be a conservative? (See supplementary material.)
  • Mark C. Henrie’s introduction to The Politics of Prudence (see supplementary material)
  • Concise Guide to Conservatism,  Russell Kirk
  • Prospects for Conservatives, Russell Kirk

WEEK 3: THE ESSENTIAL RUSSELL KIRK

• Reading: “The Humane Economy of Wilhelm Röpke” (pp. 543–49)
  • Intro: American conservatism has often been criticized for being ideologically capitalistic. However, human beings, as Kirk understood them, also have a particular duty to one another and to local communities. The free market cannot be understood as its own end. Wilhelm Röpke was a German economist of the Austrian school. Born in 1899, Röpke lived the early part of his life through the Great War. Consistent with the intellectual trends of his day, Röpke initially blamed the war on capitalist imperialism and was drawn toward socialism. But after reading Ludwig von Mises’s Nation, State, and Economy, published in 1919, Röpke became convinced of the merits of Austrian economics. What makes Röpke unique is that he found the market forces that Mises described appealing but held tightly to his communitarian views nonetheless. What Kirk found so appealing in Röpke’s writing was his emphasis on the importance of culture and the need for a humane scale. Too many capitalists, Kirk thought, became doctrinaire capitalists—that is, ideologues. Kirk saw in Röpke order, prudence, humanity, and freedom.
• Discussion Questions:
  • Kirk offers some critiques, through Röpke, of both “ideological socialism” and “doctrinaire capitalism.” Do you think he is fair in his assessments and critiques? Do you think he is correct?
  • Kirk says that Röpke offers a “Third Way”—a humane economy. What does a humane economy prioritize and why is it compatible with conservatism according to Kirk?
  • Is there really a moral component to economics, or is it all just numbers?
  • What do you think Röpke and Kirk would have to say regarding our current global economy?
• Further Reading:
  • Humane Economy, Wilhelm Röpke
  • Wilhelm Röpke’s Humane Economy, Samuel Gregg

WEEK 5: DISCUSSION (NO REQUIRED READING)

• Topic: In the first four weeks of this curriculum, you took a look at what Kirk thought conservatism really was, and was not, and one major influence upon Kirk. Conservatism, as defined by different “conservatives,” remained an ambiguous thing. Kirk attempted to give clarity to this idea in his 1953 classic, The Conservative Mind, showing the intellectual genealogy of conservatism. Nonetheless, many still disagree about what conservatism is and what its core principles are. So, before you move on in Phase 1 of the Kirk module, take time to ponder, discuss, and debate these questions among your Society members: What is conservatism? What does it mean to be conservative? Is Kirk wrong about the nature of conservatism?
  • Notes: This may be a great week to invite new folks, since there will be no required reading.

WEEK 7: THE ESSENTIAL RUSSELL KIRK

• Reading: “T.S. Eliot’s Permanent Things” (pp. 166–75)
  • Intro: Burke was not the only great influence on Dr. Kirk’s work. T.S. Eliot, the English poet, playwright, and cultural critic, had a profound effect on Kirk as well. He was someone who corresponded with Kirk and about whom Kirk would eventually write: Eliot and His Age. Eliot was much more than a poet. Eliot was one of the greatest intellects of his day, furnishing the modern world with the social criticism it so desperately needed. Dr. Kirk noticed the brilliance of Eliot. Not only would Kirk go on to publish the aforementioned book, still seen as one of the greatest works of scholarship on Eliot, but Kirk would also write penetrating insights that Eliot himself noticed. In 1953, Kirk wrote a review of Eliot’s play The Confidential Clerk, and upon reading Kirk’s review, Eliot wrote to him: “It is most surprising to find any critic penetrating so far into the play merely on what he has seen at one stage performance, without having been able to read the text. I am wondering when or whether other critics will come to see the play from something like your point of view.”

In this essay, however, Kirk elaborates on a single phrase that he took from Eliot’s work: the “permanent things.” This phrase would find its way to the title of Kirk’s famous Enemies of the Permanent Things. Permanence, according to Kirk, is precisely what the conservative is interested in. While ideologies and their followers come and go in search of transitive success, the conservative clings to those things most permanent.

• Discussion Questions:
  • What are Eliot’s permanent things and what makes them so?
  • Take a look at the three permanent things Kirk outlines from Eliot here. Do you agree that they should be permanent? If not, why not?
  • Why is it important to have a “historical sense” and to be aware of “one’s place in time”?
  • On page 172, Kirk says that Eliot “submitted himself to Authority.” What does he mean by this, and why is it integral to the idea of the permanent things?
  • Many people today speak derogatorily of social norms. Why do Kirk and Eliot think they are important?
• Further Reading:
  • Notes Toward a Definition of Culture, T.S. Eliot
  • The Wasteland, T.S. Eliot (one of Kirk’s favorite Eliot poems)

WEEK 9: THE ESSENTIAL RUSSELL KIRK

• Reading: “The Necessity for a General Culture” (pp. 124–34)
  • Intro: The state of American culture today is constantly debated in both academic and political spaces. Some, like Ross Douthat and Rod Dreher, have called our contemporary culture decadent. To be decadent, according to Kirk and numerous others, is to lose a sense of one’s telos—one’s end. That is, to be decadent is to be lost. In this essay, the first chapter of Kirk’s America’s British Culture (1993), one gets not only notes on decadence but also a strong and hearty refutation of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism to Kirk was a problem, in part, of moral equivalence. Kirk would never have said that it is bad for other peoples to have cultures; nonetheless, he did think it ludicrous to claim that there is no one culture that is better than another. And, perhaps critical for this essay, Kirk considered it important for a people to have a culture, rather than claim some sort of cultural neutrality (as many were doing in Kirk’s day and still are in our own). This for Kirk is to beg for decadence and the fall of a people, precisely because it detaches them from their history, from their roots.
• Discussion Questions:
  • On pages 124–26, Kirk offers many different authors’ thoughts and definitions of cultures. Which one do you find resonates most with you?
  • Some people find the claim that mass culture depends on aristocratic or high culture insensitive or elitist. Do you agree? Why or why not?
  • What is decadence according to Kirk, and how does it relate to high and mass culture?
  • Multiculturalism is a very controversial topic, perhaps more now than in Kirk’s day. Do you find Kirk’s argument against it persuasive? Can you think of a conservative reason to support multiculturalism?
  • Throughout this essay, Kirk defends the use of the English language with veracity. Why does he do this? Do you think the question of language is as important as Kirk does?
• Further Reading:
  • America’s British Culture, Russell Kirk

• Reading: Mark C. Henrie’s Introduction
  • Intro: If you find yourself wondering, Who really was Kirk and why did he write what he did?—read this introduction! Mark Henrie, former editor of ISI’s Intercollegiate Review, takes a more in-depth look at Kirk’s lifelong project. In reality, this introduction serves as one to Kirk, not simply to The Politics of Prudence volume.
• Discussion Questions:
  • What does Henrie identify as Kirk’s project? Does this hurt or help your impression of Kirk?
  • Kirk was not your average academic. What was he? And how does this affect the way that you view him?
  • Do you agree with Kirk that liberalism is another ideology?
• Debate (After reading “A Dispassionate Assessment of Libertarians”)
  • Topic: “Libertarians vs. conservatives” or “Can a libertarian be a conservative?”
    • Suggested format 1: Choose people from your group to defend both positions (you may have to take a side you don’t agree with, but that will help you learn all the more!). Have your faculty adviser moderate the debate and begin with the question above: “Can a libertarian be a conservative?” Or “Can conservatives and libertarians work together?”
    • Suggested format 2: Split your group into those who wish to defend libertarianism as superior to conservatism and vice versa. Have your faculty adviser moderate and begin by asking the question, “In the world of social, political, and economic thinking, is the superior position that of the conservative or that of the libertarian?”
• The Essential Russell Kirk
  • Reading: “Can Virtue Be Taught?” (pp. 383–93)
    • Intro: Virtue is an important concept for Kirk, and here we get not only a look into his conception of the word and its roots but also how Kirk thinks it can be passed on. Kirk was not a believer in the integralist vision. Governments were not created to make men good but to keep the peace so that men could be good. So if not government, who? Pay attention to the institutions Kirk talks about and which ones he puts the most weight on. It is indicative and, indeed, revealing of what Kirk thinks is most important.
  • Discussion Questions:
    • What is Kirk’s conception of virtue? What are some distinctions he makes, and what sources inform his conception?
    • According to Kirk, who is responsible for passing on virtue? Do you think he is right to place the responsibility here? Do you agree with his assessment of the role of the Church and the School?
    • What do you make of Kirk’s brief assessment of “civil religion” on page 387?
• Movie Night (after reading Kirk’s “Moral Imagination” essay)
  • Watch a movie of your choice. (Some suggestions: The Dark Knight, The Big Lebowski, Fight Club, or The Godfather)
  • Discussion Questions:
    • Is this an example of the idyllic, diabolic, or moral imagination? Explain your answer.
    • Does this film successfully serve the purpose of “humane letters”? Can any film fulfill this?
• Poetry Reading:
  • Format: Poetry, especially Eliot’s, was very important to Kirk. The “best poet,” Kirk wrote, “is the most subtle preacher.” Think back to reading Kirk’s essay on the moral imagination and ask a few of your Society members to bring in a poem and read it aloud to the group. Then decide whether it is really morally imaginative.