{"title":"The Anarchist and the Technocrat: Herbert Read, C. P. Snow, and the Future of Britain","authors":"Matthew S. Adams","doi":"10.1017/jbr.2023.110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A conceptual revision occurred at the heart of anarchist theory between the end of the nineteenth and the mid-twentieth centuries. As anarchist thinkers grappled with a state transformed beyond recognition by technological change, they reassessed their critique of state power and the rhetorical methods used to expose its inherent violence. Where nineteenth-century anarchists favored organic metaphors to emphasize the monstrosity of the state, twentieth-century anarchists tended to adopt a set of mechanical metaphors. This change focused attention on the idea of technocracy, and informed a more comprehensive assessment of the state's activities. This article analyses this innovation in anarchist political thought, before tracing it through to Herbert Read's critical appraisal of C. P. Snow's influential lecture “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution,” and Snow's response to Read. Their debate, in which Read challenged Snow's argument that the pursuit of technological and political modernization was essential to maintain the nation's international role and address the social and economic challenges of the mid-century, was a contest for Britain's future. Drawing on his anarchism, Read saw such ideas as an existential threat, with the unthinking promotion of a technological “revolution” imperiling “the tender shoots of all that is human.” Contextualizing Read in his anarchist intellectual milieu, this article recovers a neglected voice in British intellectual and cultural history, the complexities of an overlooked political tradition, and a radical vision of Britain's future that questioned the dominant assumptions of the age.</p>","PeriodicalId":46738,"journal":{"name":"Journal of British Studies","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of British Studies","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jbr.2023.110","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A conceptual revision occurred at the heart of anarchist theory between the end of the nineteenth and the mid-twentieth centuries. As anarchist thinkers grappled with a state transformed beyond recognition by technological change, they reassessed their critique of state power and the rhetorical methods used to expose its inherent violence. Where nineteenth-century anarchists favored organic metaphors to emphasize the monstrosity of the state, twentieth-century anarchists tended to adopt a set of mechanical metaphors. This change focused attention on the idea of technocracy, and informed a more comprehensive assessment of the state's activities. This article analyses this innovation in anarchist political thought, before tracing it through to Herbert Read's critical appraisal of C. P. Snow's influential lecture “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution,” and Snow's response to Read. Their debate, in which Read challenged Snow's argument that the pursuit of technological and political modernization was essential to maintain the nation's international role and address the social and economic challenges of the mid-century, was a contest for Britain's future. Drawing on his anarchism, Read saw such ideas as an existential threat, with the unthinking promotion of a technological “revolution” imperiling “the tender shoots of all that is human.” Contextualizing Read in his anarchist intellectual milieu, this article recovers a neglected voice in British intellectual and cultural history, the complexities of an overlooked political tradition, and a radical vision of Britain's future that questioned the dominant assumptions of the age.
十九世纪末至二十世纪中叶,无政府主义理论的核心发生了一次概念修正。随着无政府主义思想家们努力应对因技术变革而面目全非的国家,他们重新评估了对国家权力的批判以及揭露其内在暴力的修辞方法。十九世纪的无政府主义者喜欢用有机隐喻来强调国家的怪异性,而二十世纪的无政府主义者则倾向于采用一套机械隐喻。这一变化将人们的注意力集中到了技术主义思想上,并为对国家活动进行更全面的评估提供了依据。本文分析了无政府主义政治思想的这一创新,然后追溯到赫伯特-雷德(Herbert Read)对斯诺(C. P. Snow)极具影响力的演讲《两种文化与科学革命》(The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution)的批判性评价,以及斯诺对雷德的回应。在他们的辩论中,雷德对斯诺的论点提出了质疑,斯诺认为追求技术和政治现代化对于保持国家的国际地位以及应对本世纪中叶的社会和经济挑战至关重要。雷德从他的无政府主义出发,认为这种思想是对生存的威胁,不假思索地推动技术 "革命 "会危及 "所有人类的嫩芽"。本文将雷德与他的无政府主义思想环境结合起来,重现了英国思想和文化史上一个被忽视的声音、一个被忽视的政治传统的复杂性,以及对英国未来的激进愿景,对这个时代的主流假设提出了质疑。
期刊介绍:
The official publication of the North American Conference on British Studies (NACBS), the Journal of British Studies, has positioned itself as the critical resource for scholars of British culture from the Middle Ages through the present. Drawing on both established and emerging approaches, JBS presents scholarly articles and books reviews from renowned international authors who share their ideas on British society, politics, law, economics, and the arts. In 2005 (Vol. 44), the journal merged with the NACBS publication Albion, creating one journal for NACBS membership. The NACBS also sponsors an annual conference , as well as several academic prizes, graduate fellowships, and undergraduate essay contests .