Fragile Minds and Vulnerable Souls. Sarah L. Leonard
Читать онлайн книгу.
“One must see to it,” Justi explained, “that the state’s subjects possess abilities and attributes and maintain discipline and order such as promotes the goal of collective happiness.”53
In Justi’s view, discipline and order were dependent upon virtuous subjects. In a passage entitled “On the Moral Condition of Subjects and the Maintenance of Good Discipline and Order,” Justi emphasized the centrality of subjects’ morality to the collective well-being of the state: “It is undeniable that the more perfect the moral state of a people is, the better equipped is the state to promote happiness…. Virtue is the universal mainspring of all states, that which harnesses and directs its activities.” And because virtue was key to the collective happiness of the state and community, it fell to the police to protect and encourage virtuous behavior. “The moral condition of the people must be good,” he explained, “so that they are capable of performing their duties, which in turn draws them into collective life.”54
Since virtue was seen as the “wellspring” of such productivity, censorship was necessary—and not only censorship of books but also of speech. Justi wrote that books should be prohibited if they were “clearly against the principles of religion, against the state, and against good morals; and just as an overly stringent censorship of the sciences and the book trade is very detrimental, it is also true that unlimited freedom of the press has very damaging consequences.” On the one hand, the wealth and prosperity of the state depended on literacy, the exchange of ideas, and open intellectual borders. On the other, “censorship is necessary [and] this must apply to domestic books as well as those streaming in from other states.”55 Prussia’s 1788 press laws express this tension between the values of progress and knowledge and the dangers (particularly to happiness and equilibrium) that attended print.
There were other, less rational dangers threatening the fine balance of the commonweal, found particularly in the influence of religious heterodoxy. Justi explained that the state must be on guard that no gatherings take place that, “under the guise of religion, spread enthusiastic fantasies and introduce rude debauchery against good morals that can instigate unrest and uprisings among the people, and can finally give rise to rebellion.”56 The logic of this sentence is worth considering. Religious “enthusiasm” and “fantasies” were coupled with “rude debauchery” and “rebellion” (not an obvious pairing). How did he move from religious enthusiasm to uprisings? By linking religious enthusiasm to disorder and rebellion, Justi echoed Sonnenfels’s conviction that religious emotions, enthusiasms, and fantasies could easily result in public disorder and undermine the integrity and functioning of the state. This was in part a matter of an alternate source of authority; if subjects harbored heterodox religious beliefs (say, pietist belief in the integrity of the individual’s experience of the Bible, unmediated by external authorities), they had interior traction against the principles promoted by civil society and the state. Once again this was an admission that a crucial key to governance—the creation of productive, “happy” subjects—was, as Sonnenfels put it, beyond the reach of the law.
Justi believed that the good state should focus on the maintenance of order, productivity, and discipline. Yet his vision of the well-ordered and productive state, at least as it emerged from his descriptions of statecraft and the science of policing, was full of tensions. There were, for example, tensions between three sources of authority: religion (not to be trusted and yet to be protected), the state (desirous of power and yet careful that that power be gained through the promotion of productivity rather than repression), and civil society, expressed in terms of science and knowledge and, like religion, not always to be trusted to police itself.
Justi was concerned about “enthusiastic fantasies” and “rude debauchery,” but it is unclear whether this threat came from renegade priests preaching popular religion or from secular attacks on religion. Furthermore he imagined the consequences of enthusiasm as riots and uprisings against the authority and order of the state. The social order was also endangered by the misanthrope, who was incapable of contributing to the goal of collective well-being (Gemeinwohl). Yet what is important here are the links between the moral discipline of the individual, the harmony of collective society, and the goal of collective well-being. If such discipline and harmony also served the interests of the regent, that was all to the good, but the explicit words of Justi’s program implied that creating a productive, materially comfortable, and disciplined society outweighed all other goals. This was not a liberal vision of society, as freedom was imagined in collective rather than individual terms, and Justi was not concerned with rights or freedoms. Nor was he an advocate of democracy, a position that was consistent with his view that human nature was “imperfect” and therefore in need of external authority.57 This should not keep us from recognizing what was new about his thought. In Justi’s text the legitimacy of the state rested on its ability to promote the maintenance and well-being of all its subjects. According to this schema, the vulnerability of the state’s subjects translated into the vulnerability of social order. If the society was to promote productivity and health and not to define itself in repressive terms, then it left open the possibility that dangerous elements might emerge that would promote “enthusiastic fantasies” and disorder. This is precisely the tension expressed in Prussia’s 1788 press law; the state was obliged to promote the circulation of useful knowledge, yet this need for knowledge had to be balanced against the dangers that might ensue from mental disorder, fantasy, and flights of enthusiasm.
Sonnenfels also explored the link between the moral and emotional life of the subject and the stability of the state. He explained that it was the role of the rationalized state to promote good morals. The state should, on the one hand, “work to develop good morals through social instruments” and, on the other hand, “endeavor to abolish … everything that can work against the progress of good morals.”58 The social instruments of promoting morality, he explained, were religion, education, and science, apparently in that order. The task of the enlightened state was to promote financial growth in agriculture and mercantile activity and to assure “tranquility, safety, and order” (Ruhe, Sicherheit und Ordnung).
When it came to print, Sonnenfels wrote, the benefits of “serious-minded and moderate investigation of the truth” had to be balanced against the need to protect religion, the state, morality, and personal honor. Personal honor and reputation were values to be upheld and legally protected, as they were consistent with the goal of civil order. Sonnenfels suggested that print should not be allowed to disrupt the stability, productivity, and honor of individuals or of institutions.59 We see the influence of these ideas in the 1788 Prussian law, which warned against “writers [who] create damage by distributing harmful practical errors about important human affairs; they corrupt morals with indecent pictures and alluring depictions of depravity and with malicious derision and spiteful disapproval of public institutions and regulations.”
Cameralist theories of the state and the police directly informed the language of Friedrich’s press law. However, it is more difficult to link the language of local ordinances and edicts to cameralist legal theory. Stralsund’s 1802 edict prohibited print that encouraged “religious enthusiasm, superstition, or [religious] disbelief [Schwärmerei, Aberglauben, oder Unglauben].” Authorities in Merseburg reported concerns that young people were vulnerable to books that “do not simply work to the detriment of moral feelings, but also inflame the fantasies.” Justi evoked similar terms, warning the police to make sure that “no gatherings take place under the guise of religion that spread enthusiastic ravings or that initiate crude debaucheries against good morals.”60 The language is similar to the 1824 report from Coblenz, expressing concerns about novels “that corrupt the heart and morals.”
Cameralism provided one way of linking emotional states to productivity and social order. Asserting that the virtue of the individual subject was the wellspring of the productive state and the happiness of the commonweal, thinkers like Justi and Sonnenfels provided a nonrepressive vocabulary in which to describe the positive benefits of moral legislation. At the same time—and this presents an odd tension in their writings on the subject—they suggested that these necessary interior spaces were usually beyond the reach of the regents and of law. As a result the cultivation of inner life was largely a matter of attempting to control unreliable figures (whether renegade priests