Recepción de Voegelin en Europa

Between Gnosis and Anamnesis: European Perspectives on Eric Voegelin
Author(s): Gilbert Weiss

Source: The Review of Politics, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 753-776
Published by: Cambridge University Press for the University of Notre Dame du lac on
behalf of Review of Politics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1408526
Accessed: 18-09-2016 02:14 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of Politics, Cambridge

University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of
Politics
This content downloaded from 128.248.155.225 on Sun, 18 Sep 2016 02:14:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Between Gnosis and Anamnesis
European Perspectives on Eric
Voegelin
Gilbert Weiss
In the following, the focus will be on the German reception

of the work of Eric Voegelin. Nevertheless snapshots from
Austria, Italy, France, Poland and the Czech Republic will be
presented.
Germany
In a 1998 German introduction to his work, Eric Voegelin is

presented by the author as an "unknown known" thinker.1 This
seems indeed an adequate description of the status quo of his
reception in the German intellectual world although in the course
of the last ten years the emphasis has probably shifted a little
from the "unknown" to the "known." The very fact that his name
can be found in the rather popular philosophy/theory
introductory series of the Junius publishing house is also an
indicator for this shift. Several reasons are responsible for the
growing interests in his work: (1) the editorial activities of the
Eric VoegelinArchive in Munich under the direction of Professor
Peter J. Opitz. With the Occasional Papers Series, the archive has
created an international forum of Voegelin studies; furthermore,
the Periagoge Series, published with the well-noted Wilhelm Fink
publishing house and edited by Opitz, made available important
parts of the Voegelinian oeuvre which had either been out of
print for a long time or not been translated into German. (2) Since
1989, the general intellectual climate has become more open to
approaches transcending the antagonistic scheme of left and
right; at the same time, the idea has been growing that, in spite
of all the differences, National Socialist and Marxist-Communist
totalitarianisms share some common pathological roots. (3) Also
since 1989, the historization of postwar Germany and its
1. Michael Henkel, Eric Voegelin zur Einfiihrung (Hamburg: Junius, 1998).
754 THE REVIEW OF POLITICS
I
intellectual-political development-the old Bundesrepublik

facilitated a general recollection of intellectual positions o
past not so commonly known anymore. (4) Finally, in the ag
an increasingly brutal capitalism and a global pop-cul
functioning as the secular high religion of this capitalism
general disappointment about modernity has not gone; on
contrary, theoretical approaches offering a substantial cri
of the disposition of the modern mind-like Voegelin
becoming attractive again.
All this shall not mean that Eric Voegelin has beco
popular figure in the German discourse, at best it h
strengthened the "known" vis-a-vis the "unknown." More
what is "known" is not Voegelin's oeuvre as such but on
very small-and probably not even the most represent
part of it, namely the gnosticism thesis and the concep
"political religions." Up to today, Voegelin is discussed a
exclusively in this context which is at the same time the con
of the so-called secularization debate meaning the debate o
characterization and evaluation of modernity represen
mainly-by the names of Karl Lowith, Jacob Taubes and
Blumenberg.
Both Taubes's Abendldndische Eschatologie (1947) and Lowi
Meaning in History: The Theological Implications of the Philos
of History (1949; German translation 1953) had discover
secularized eschatological structure at the heart of m
philosophy of history as presented by writers like Hegel,
and Comte. In this perspective, the process of seculariza
basically meant the transformation of the Christ
transmundane virtues of hope and faith into the modern
mundane-belief in progress. Salvation became a histo
revolutionary goal. As a consequence of this secularization th
political modernity could no longer be understood wi
profound theological knowledge. Of course, this poin
already emphasized in the writings of Max Weber, Carl Schm
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, and ot
Although both Taubes and Lowith principally agreed on
secularization perspective, they had quite different opinio
how this development was to be judged. To sharpen the contr
Lowith, following the Stoic's nec spe nec metu, was skeptical a
all eschatology-before as well as after secularization; for T
GNOSIS AND ANAMNESIS 755
for Taubes, eschatology before as well as after secularizatio

something good; he considered it necessary for a
perspective on the world as it is, that is, for change and v
In other words, in the first case through secularization
becomes bad that had not been bad before it (L6with), and
second case something good does not get worse th
secularization, at the most it gets better (Taubes).2 Eric Vo
although sharing the general secularization thesis, intr
different position in the 1950s. In identifying an imm
eschatology as the gnostic nature of modernity, he does no
Lowith-criticize eschatologyper se but rather the immanen
Unlike Taubes, he clearly condemns this immantizat
"pneumopathological" deformation. So for Voegelin, secular
indeed makes all the difference, and that is of course a
Voegelin is much more critical of modernity as such than
others with whom he was not only in personal contact in
but also corresponded extensively about theoretical issue
secularization makes all the difference was also the startin
of the theoretically most demanding reaction to Vo
gnosticism thesis, namely Hans Blumenberg's book
Legitimitat der Neuzeit (1966).4 Blumenberg picks up th
the nexus of modernity and gnosticism. Moreover, he rega
one of the "most significant" approaches to modernity, an
one with the "most revealing implications."5 Neverthe
turns the thesis precisely to the opposite: "Modernity
2. See also Odo Marquard, "Aufgeklarter Polytheismus-auch eine p

Theologie?" in Der Furst dieser Welt. Carl Schmitt und die Folgen, ed. Ja
(Munich et al: Wilhelm Fink/Ferdinand Schoningh, 1983), pp. 77-84.
3. Voegelin's position, by the way, first entered the German arena
version, as it were, that is through two essays published in periodicals: "G
Politik," inMerkur (1952) and "Philosophie der Politik in Oxford," inPhilo
Rundschau (1953/54, translation of "The Oxford Political Philosophers"
in Philosophical Quarterly, April 1953). The New Science of Politics
translated into German only in 1959. With regard to the extensive corre
between Voegelin, Lowith and Taubes see Eric Voegelin Papers, Boxe
37.10, Hoover InstitutionArchives, Stanford, California.
4. Hans Blumenberg, The Legitimacy of the Modern Age, trans. R. M.
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986).
5. Hans Blumenberg, Die Legitimitat der Neuzeit. EmeuerteAusgabe (F
a. M.: Suhrkamp, 1988), p. 138.
overcoming of gnosticism"; or rather it is the "second ove

of gnosticism" after the first in the Middle Ages h
succeeded.6 Modernity, for Blumenberg, represents th
assertion of man" vis-a-vis the "theological absolutism"
late MiddleAges. He argues that, although many modern co
and theorema indeed fill out the vacancy left by the disap
of God, they do this only in a functional sense; their subs
however, is neither theological nor pseudo-theological.
Blumenberg rejects the concept of secularization as "illegit
since, as historical category, it undermines the es
independence of modernity. To him, there is no subst
continuity between biblical-theological eschatology and m
philosophical eschatology; accordingly, there is not someth
a "transformation" from the one into the other either. Mo
makes all the difference.
In the German debate, Blumenberg became known as the
defender of the independence of modernity. Lowith, Taubes, and
Voegelin were attacking this independency. Since the latter,
however, was not only attacking the independency but rather
modernity itself (because of the fundamental pneumatic difference
he sees between biblical-Christian and modern-immanentist
eschatology), he assumed the role of the true antimodernist am
the three, so to speak. In January 1967, Jacob Taubes trie
organize a meeting between Voegelin, Blumenberg, and him
(a "Dreier-Gesprach"). Voegelin as well as Blumenberg rea
positively to this idea. In the end, however, the meeting did n
take place because Blumenberg-after having finished his b
felt too exhausted and needed "some distance from this work,
as Taubes reports in a letter to Voegelin.7
Both L6with and Taubes responded to Blumenberg's boo
various ways.8 Voegelin did not respond-mainly for two reaso
(1) he was about to leave the German academic scene again
6. Ibid.
7. Taubes to Voegelin, 6 January 1967, Eric Voegelin Papers, Box 37.10,
Hoover Archives.
8. See, for instance, Karl L6with, "Besprechung des Buches Die Legitimitat der
Neuzeit von Hans Blumenberg," Philosophische Rundschau 15 (1968): 195-201; and
Jacob Taubes, "Der dogmatische Mythos der Gnosis" (1971) in J. Taubes, Vom Kult
zur Kultur. Bausteine zu einer Kritik der historischen Vernunft (Munich: Wilhelm Fink,
1996), pp. 99-113.
go back to the United States, and (2) he had already gone f

in his research - beyond the debate about historical categor
and classification toward an "anamnetic" approach to histor
same year Blumenberg's book came out, Voegelin publis
Anamnesis.9 When, at the Seventh German Congress of Ph
in 1962 in Miinster, Blumenberg introduced his critic
"secularization" as historical category for the first time, V
presented his Eternal Being in Time, a meditative-exegetic a
to "historical processes of exodus, exile and return as figur
of the tension of being between time and eternity."10 I
words, at the time when Blumenberg was starting to devel
monumental criticism of the secularization thesis, Voeg
more or less left these questions of classification behind, an
at a deeper level of historical consciousness or rather uncon
He had become aware that, beyond history as an external p
the true "field of history" is the "soul of man."'1
Basically, theAnamnesis volume was not received or eve
by the German public. Voegelin was already labeled as an ob
figure identifying modernity as gnostic deformation, that
antimodernist counterpart of the modernist Blumenber
speak. Since Voegelin himself did not enter into the debate
he did not do much to correct this picture. He remained id
with the gnosticism thesis. On the other hand, Voegelin w
doubt loved to provoke, and he must have known what he
with his fundamental criticism of modernity. The political
as a conservative, or even as a "cold warrior" against Comm
was to be expected in a certain sense. Consider the fol
examples of reception: Micha Brumlik in his book Die Gn
(1995) claims that Voegelin's gnostic characterization of mo
is absurd because it condemns everything which in some fo
be attributed to political and intellectual modernity.'2 In th
passage Voegelin is characterized as a "mentor of today's Am
9. E. Voegelin, Anamnesis. Zur Theorie der Geschichte und Politik (Munich

1966).
10. Ibid., p. 279.
11. E. Voegelin, On Character and Scepticism, p. 104, Eric Voegelin Papers, Box
56-60 (History of Political Ideas), Hoover Archives.
12. Micha Brumlik, Die Gnostiker. Der Traum von der Selbsterlisung des Menschen
(Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer, 1995), p. 297.
Neo-Conservatism." Albrecht Kiel, in a comparative study o

Schmitt and Eric Voegelin, goes even further; he distin
between Voegelin as a "political adviser" and Voegel
"historian."13 For the author, both dimensions are equally im
for "understanding" Voegelin's work. Finally, he state
seriousness-that "it would be of particular interest if
Reagan's notion of the Soviet Union as the 'realm of the evil
traced back immediately to Voegelin."'4 Already in 1984, R
Faber claimed that "Voegelin's heros are called J. F Dulle
Reagan or C. Weinberger."'5 Throughout his book, he h
unmask Voegelin's true character of a "Gnostic Anti-gno
Faber was also member of the Taubes discussion gr
"Religionstheorie und politische Theologie." This group pub
in the early 1980s three volumes on the subject. In the
volume, entitled Gnosis und Politik (1984), Faber proce
describe Voegelin's gnosticism thesis as a "polit(olog)ical str
against Communism and the Western "left." The essay
pointing again to Voegelin as a "cold warrior" performing th
of an inquisitor in the style of Senator McCarthy."17 As a
this editorial volume is-needless to say-framed by the
Blumenberg vs. Voegelin on the interpretation of modernity
editor Taubes correctly summarizes the general reception o
"dispute" when writing in the Introduction: "Eric Voegelin
on the legitimacy of modernity was too extensive, his gnosis
was too general to hold. So it is not surprising that, in
Blumenberg's theses have been more convincing."19
If Voegelin was referred to at all in the 1970s and 1980s
mostly in the context just described-at least outside the cir
his former Munich students. Within this circle the receptio
work was naturally quite different. As a teacher he had an e
13. Albrecht Kiel, Gottesstaat und Pax Americana: zur Politischen Theologie
Schmitt und Eric Voegelin (Cuxhaven: Junghans, 1998), p. 95.
14. Ibid., p. 97.
15. Richard Faber, DerPrometheus-Komplex. Zur Kritikder Polit-Theorie Eric
und Hans Blumenbergs (Wiirzburg: Konigshausen und Neumann, 1984), p. 5
16. Ibid., p. 67.
17. Richard Faber, "Eric Voegelin. Gnosis-Verdachtalspolit(olog)isches Stra
in Gnosis und Politik, ed. J. Taubes (Munich et al.: Wilhelm Fink/Ferdinand S
1984), pp. 230-248, at p. 248.
18. Jacob Taubes, "Einleitung," in Taubes, Gnosis und Politik, p. 10.
19. Ibid.
influence on his students-not so much as regards the cont

specific positions but as regards the scientific methodos. This i
might be compared with the influence Max Weber once had on
himself. In other words, what the students primarily adop
Voegelin was not some specific concepts like political religions,
anamnesis but rather the self-understanding "that one can
successful scholar in the field of social and political science
knows what one is talking about. And that means acqu
comparative civilizational knowledge not only of moder ci
but also of medieval and ancient civilization, and not only o
civilization but also of Near Eastern and Far Eastern civilizations."20
This attitude'resulted in an impressive number of material studies and
monographs published in the late 1960s and early 1970s within the List
Hochschulreihe: Geschichte des politischen Denkens (History of political
thinking) and edited by the former Voegelin students Jiirgen Gebhardt,
Manfred Henningsen, and Peter J. Opitz.21 It is important to keep these
material studies and their follow-ups in mind when talking about the
marks Voegelin left in German discourse. During his time as teacher in
Germany one event, it seems, was of particular importance for the
relationship with his students, namely the lectures on "Hitler and the
Germans" held at the University of Munich in the summer semester of
1964. For his students, these lectures became "the great moment of their
German education because, up to that point, they had met nobody
telling them the truth in such an unvarnished way"-as Manfred
Henningsen reports.2 Henningsen adds that if Voegelin had published
these lectures in the 1960s-a contract had already been signed - his
reception in Germany would have taken quite a different direction; he
probably would not have gotten the image of an obscure antimoderist
but rather that of a critical intellectual. But, as a matter of fact, the lectures
were not published, so this is pure speculation.3
20. E. Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State

University Press, 1989), p. 13
21. For an overview of these studies see Geoffrey Price, "Eric Voegelin: A
Classified Bibliography," Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester
76/2 (1994): 160-172.
22. Manfred Henningsen, "Eric Voegelin und die Deutschen," Merkur. Deutsche
Zeitschriftfiir Europdisches Denken 8/48 (1994): 728.
23.A translation of the lectures is published now within The Collected Works of
Eric Voegelin. See E. Voegelin, Hitler and the Germans, trans., ed. and intro. Detlev
Clemens and Brendan Purcell, vol 31, Collected Works (Columbia, MO: University
of Missouri Press, 1999).
From the beginning of the 1990s onwards, increasing inte

was being devoted to Voegelin's ideas again. Particularly, o
his earlier concepts, namely "political religions," was rece
wide spread attention. The reason for this-as previo
mentioned-lays on the one hand, on the changing ge
political situation; and on the other hand, on the reissui
Voegelin's work from 1938 by Peter J. Opitz.24 Parallel to this,
important texts such as The People of God and the Autobiogra
Reflections also appeared.25 They served as very hel
introductions to Voegelin's work. Other publications inclu
new edition of The New Science of Politics as well as an e
volume by Opitz that contained selected correspondences o
New Science.26 These publications certainly provided a good b
upon which to reexamine Voegelin's work. However, one c
hide the fact that the "colossus" within his work, namely Or
and History, still awaited translation. As a consequence, a repet
of the unsatisfactory situation of the 1950s and 1960s was
programmed to a certain degree. That is, Voegelin is ma
associated with his "smaller" writings that, as a rule, polem
and make radical claims. These claims, however, are not or
barely comprehensible because the understanding is predi
on having access to the original historical studies. Since
studies do not exist in translated form, the reader remains ske
against Voegelin's daring thoughts or, even worse, rejects
with a shake of the head.27
With respect to the "Political Religions," yet a m
discomforting problem surrounded the reception: The claim
24. E. Voegelin, Die Politischen Religionen, ed. Peter J. Opitz (Munich: Wi

Fink/Periagoge, 1993).
25. E. Voegelin, Das Volk Gottes. Sektenbewegungen und der Geist der Mo
trans. Heike Kaltschmidt and ed. and intro. Peter J. Opitz (Munich: Wilhelm
Periagoge, 1994); and Autobiographische Reflexionen trans. Caroline Konig an
and intro. Peter J. Opitz (Munich: Wilhelm Fink/Periagoge, 1994).
26. E. Voegelin, Die Neue Wissenschaft der Politik. Eine Einfiihrung, ed. Pet
Opitz (Munich: Alber, 1991); Eric Voegelin, Alfred Schiitz, Leo Strauss
Gurwitsch, Briefzwechsel uber "Die Neue Wissenschaft der Politik," ed. Peter J.
(Munich: Alber, 1993).
27. This situation will change now that, under the direction of Prof. Opit
translation and editing processes of Order and History have been started. Th
volume will come out in 2001.
I
in 1938 that totalitarian movements could be understood as in

worldly religions with redemption entitlements was even a
beginning of the 1990s considered useful and original. The descr
of quasi-religious mechanisms of filling symbols like nation, r
class with "sacred substance" in order to "affectually bin
masses"28 was considered all the more plausible due to
conspicuous rise in worldwide religious-political fundamentali
Because of this, Voegelin's claim was willingly taken up by
and was often transformed in less original theoretical contex
this way, his concept began to take on a life of its own and sur
in a number of rather dubious publications. The effect wa
following: these dubious publications offered critics the welco
opportunity to disavow not only the ways in which Voege
concepts had been readopted but also the concepts themselves
us take a short look at some selected publications.
The respected political scientist Hans Maier, already in
1960s a colleague of Voegelin in Munich, published a book in 1
entitled Political Religions.29 Although Maier does mention tha
Voegelin and Raymond Aron coined the term in the 1930
apparently does not seem to find it problematic that he has t
over Voegelin's original title. In regard to content, M
"Concepts of Dictatorship Comparisons" stand clearly above m
of the other applications of Voegelin's concept mainly because
the strict comparative perspectives that are made. In 1996
1997 he also published two editorial volumes with va
substantial articles on the subject.30 In the 1996 volu
furthermore, we find an excellent article by Dietmar Herz
convincingly shows the close similarities between Voegel
approach and that of the French philosophy of the Renou
Catholique, especially Jacques Maritain.31
28. Voegelin, Politische Religionen, p. 53.

29. Hans Maier, Politische Religionen. Die totalitiren Regime und das Christen
(Freiburg et al.: Herder, 1995).
30. Hans Maier, ed., 'Totalitarismus' und 'Politische Religionen'. Konzep
Diktaturvergleichs (Paderbor et al.: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1996); Hans Mai
Michael Schafer, eds., 'Totalitarismus' und 'Politische Religionen'. Konzept
Diktaturvergleichs. Band 2 (Paderbom et al.: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1997).
31. See Dietmar Herz, "Der Begriff der ,Politischen Religionen' im De
Eric Voegelins," in Maier,'Totalitarismus,' pp. 191-209.
The Viennese religious scientist Michael Ley published in 1

together with Julius H. Schoeps, an edited volume on
Nationalsozialismus als politische Religion (Nationalsocialis
political religion) and a collection of his own essays on po
religions.32 Both books are examples of the inadequat
unoriginal application of Voegelin's concepts. Ley combin
the simplest of ways National Socialism and the Revelation of
John: "Modern religions-especially nationalist-racist thin
and as a consequence National Socialism-have their roo
origin in the Revelation of St. John."33 Quotations from St.
are given a one-to-one correspondence with the "apocalyps
the twentieth century. This shows that the author unders
very little of both St. John's Revelation and the twentieth cen
Naive causal constructions replace what Voegelin used to
"Symptomzusammenhange" (symptom relationships) pre
to avoid causal simplifications. The difference betwe
"Strukturverwandtschaften" (structural relations) and con
relations is simply ignored-not to speak of the fact that
things had happened between the first and twentieth century
might be relevant for the analysis of modern pol
totalitarianism. Through such simplifications, as Micha Br
claims in a review, the present state of philological-text scien
not at all taken into account.34 In addition to this, it is espec
annoying that sociological contexts are merely ignored.
shortcomings appear throughout most of the articles of the vo
edited by Ley and Schoeps. In sum, one can notice, at be
sterile repetition of that which could, in this way or ano
already be read from Voegelin."35 That, on the other hand, t
does not exist much knowledge about Voegelin can be seen
contribution by Philippe Burrin in which the Protestant Voe
is referred to as an "Austrian Catholic."36
32. Michael Ley and Julius H. Schoeps, eds., Der Nationalsozialismus als pol
Religion (Bodenheim: Philo, 1997); Michael Ley, Apokalypse und Modeme. Auf
politischen Religionen (Wien: Sonderzahl, 1997).
33. Ley, Apokalypse, p. 124.
34. Micha Brumlik, "Glaubige Hingabe und starker Staat. Zu den Chancen
Religionspolitologie,'" Neue Zurcher Zeitung, 13/14 October 1997, pp. 50-51.
35. Ibid.
36. Philippe Burrin, "Die politischen Religionen: Das Mythologisch-Symbo
in einer saikularisierten Welt," in Ley and Schoeps, Der Nationalsozialismus, p
These inadequate applications cause harm to the re

of Voegelin's work. As Brumlik's previously m
comments have already illustrated, publications like
interpreted as the results of the "Voegelin School." In
step, these dubious results of the "school" are then tra
into a "dubious school," which in turn translates into a "
Voegelin." At the end of Brumlik's discussion a "m
existentialist Voegelin" remains, who finds himsel
company though-next to the "erratic late Gnostic Ta
One incidentally also finds a large affinity between th
School"-and here in particular Richard Faber-and the
of political religions. In 1997, Faber edited a book with
"Political Religion-Religious Politics."38 That no refe
made to Voegelin or his book of 1938 is not really su
since, as shown above, Faber had already in 198
Voegelin off with diverse strange attributes such as
"authoritative liberal," etc.39 In light of Faber's selection of this
book title, however, the question of the honest use of terms
comes up again.
In the context of newer works on the topic of political
religions, the most content-rich study has been written, without
a doubt, by Claus E. Barsch.40 Drawing on a stupendous amount
of material, Barsch was able to decipher, step by step, the
religious-symbolic constitution of National Socialistic ideology.
By doing so, he particularly shows the mechanisms in
construing the Deutsche Volk as an eschatological subject and its
Fiihrer Hitler as a Messiah-like figure. In contrast to more
sociological and cultural-historical approaches of recent years,
like, for instance, Daniel Goldhagen's, Barsch emphasizes the
significance of the figure of Hitler again.4 What comes into the
37. Brumlik, Glaubige Hingabe, p. 51.

38. Richard Faber, ed., Politische Religion-religiose Politik (Wuirzburg:
Konigshausen and Neumann, 1997).
39. Faber, Der Prometheus-Komplex, p. 67.
40. Claus E. Barsch, Die politische Religion des Nationalsozialismus. Die religiose
Dimension der NS-Ideologie in den Schriften von Dietrich Eckart, Joseph Goebbels, Alfred
Rosenberg und AdolfHitler (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1998).
41. See also Manfred Henningsen, "Hitler und die Deutschen. Uber
Totalitarismus und politische Religionen," in Merkur. Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir
europaisches Denken 12 (1999): 1194-98.
focus is the inner connection between the various com

of National Socialist ideology: Fiihrer, Reich, Volk
Semitism. Finally, it is convincingly demonstrated that th
eschatology of the Deutsche Volk is inextricably linked, a p
to the annihilation of the Jews. The most noteworthy
of Barsch's study are not so much his theses-th
arguments are not especially new-but the moun
material that corroborates these theses. It is also a relief that
Barsch does not attempt to explain National Socialism in
totality (here we would have had to point to the missing o
sociological and historico-cultural aspects) but only t
religious or quasi-religious dimension of NS ideolog
Compared to the previously mentioned works, Barsc
findings therefore seem much more plausible.
On the whole, it is regrettable that the newly reawakene
concern in the 1990s with Voegelin's work was almo
exclusively restricted to the concept of "political religions
After all, it was one of his very early concepts and, as Dietm
Herz correctly said, a "precursor to the idea of gnosticism."
The concept has very clear limitations and is in many ca
more a slogan than a program. As Voegelin was reduced,
the 1950s and 1960s, mainly to his gnosticism thesis, he
now-paradoxically-identified with an even earlier concep
that of political religions. In this way, the core of his lifewo
remains underexposed; namely the large-scale reformulatio
of an episteme politike which, as a historical-phenomenolog
hermeneutic, integrates an immense amount of material. I
doing so, symbolic systems are penetrated time and again an
the underlying universal experiences are brought to light
well as their deformation through ideologies. This hermeneu
supplies the researcher with the subtly differentiat
terminology of idea, evocation and sentiment in approachi
political reality.43 It is important to remember that Voegelin
indeed a phenomenologist. His work stands in the post
42. Herz, Der Begriffder politischen Religionen, p. 209.

43. See Jiirgen Gebhardt, "Politische Ideengeschichte als Theorie d
politischen Evokation," in Politikwissenschaftlfche Spiegelungen. Ideendisku
Institutionelle Fragen-Politische Kultur und Sprache, ed. Dirk Berg-Schlosser, Gi
Richter and Amo Waschkuhn (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1998), pp. 15-
Husserlian phenomenological tradition in which one en

to overcome the Cartesian division between consciousness and
world-a division that had still limited Husserl himself.
Voegelin's most notable achievement is probably the reun
of consciousness and history as realized in the course of
anamnesis. This is conveyed in his fundamental expre
"The field of history is the soul of man."4 Although Vo
comes very close to the Hegelian project here, he remains
to Schelling in that he does not operate with dialectic
with anamnetic reason. History remains open in the sam
that consciousness constantly remains a concrete
consciousness; it is always bound to the bodily, historical and
social existence of a concrete individual. There are always two
things that become visible from an anamnetic process: concrete
experiences of an individual biography and also existential
Grunderfahrungen, that is, universal experiences of the
participation in something, which surpasses the immanent
existence of the respective individual. Here, what becomes vital
is what Voegelin called "experience of transcendence." It is this
term that, particularly in Germany, caused many
misunderstandings and was met with strong resistance.
Voegelin was often accused of "theological speculation" or
spiritualism beforehand.45 It is most surprising that "experience
of transcendence" was met with such rejection in Husserl's
native country. This concept is, after all, fundamental to the
phenomenological tradition. According to Voegelin's friend
Alfred Schiitz, for instance, the phenomenological project
within the social sciences essentially consists of formulating a
general theory of the symbolic dealings with transcendence.
Transcendence, in this sense, means everything that surpasses
the individual in a specific spatial-temporal situation: nature,
society, history, cosmos. Although Voegelin describes the
concept of transcendence more restrictively in normative-
ontological terms, the project remains the same: a philosophical
44. Voegelin, On Character and Scepticism, p. 106.

45. See, for example, Hans-Christof Kraus, "Auf der Suche nach der
verlorenen Ordnung. Theologische Spekulation als politische Philosophie bei Eric
Voegelin" Criticon: Konservative Zeitschrift 120 (1990): 177-81.
anthropology focusing-in Schiitz's words-on "the pl

man in a cosmos which transcends his existence, but wi
which he has to find his bearings. Signs and Symbols,
propose to show, are among the means by which man tr
come to terms with his manifold experiences of
transcendency."46 Moreover, a number of mutually
complementary aspects exist between Schtitz's more pragmatic
approach to transcendence and Voegelin's ontological
approach. If these aspects were to be systematically examined,
a very broad philosophical-anthropological foundation for the
social sciences could indeed be created. Then we will also see
that which Schiitz calls "life-world" is always at the same tim
a "political reality" in Voegelin's sense, and the other wa
round. The English sociologist David J. Levy has proceede
along this path and has, in connection with Voegelin an
Schiitz, formulated a phenomenologically oriented "objectiv
science of social reality."47 In Germany by contrast, one remains
oblivious to such a perspective. The author of this essay has
recently published, in the Periagoge-series, a comprehensive
reconstruction of the correspondence between Eric Voegelin
and Alfred Schiitz.48 This book not only describes the long
standing theory discussions between the two Viennes
emigrants but also frames Voegelin's work within a
phenomenological context. With it, it is hoped that the link
between Voegelin's oeuvre and phenomenology will becom
more apparent. In the end, one must agree withAron Gurwits
when he claimed back in 1952 upon receiving the The Ne
Science of Politics that it, for the most part, is a phenomenologica
book.49 This is even more so the case for the original studies
Order and History.
46. Alfred Schiitz, The Problem of Social Reality. Collected Papers 1 (The Hagu
et al.: Martinus Nijhoff, 1962), p. 293.
47. David J. Levy, Realism: An Essay in Interpretation and Social Realit
(Manchester: Carcanet New Press, 1981), p. 14.
48. Gilbert Weiss, Theorie, Relevanz und Wahrheit. Eine Rekonstruktion d
Briefiwechsels zwischen Eric Voegelin und Alfred Schiitz 1938-1959 (Munich: Wilhe
Fink/Periagoge, 2000).
49. Gurwitsch in a letter to Alfred Schiitz from 2 November 1952, see E.
Voegelin,A. Schiitz, L. Strauss, A. Gurwitsch, Briefiwechsel, p. 133.
I
Austria
Since Austria is part of the German-speaking sphere, what

has been said on the reception of Voegelin in Germany is also, in
principle, true for Austria. Nevertheless the land from which
Voegelin had to flee from in 1938 will be briefly discussed. In
the first decades of the twentieth century, Vienna was a
metropolis that manifested a remarkable depth and intensity in
intellectual, scientific, and artistic developments. It was in this
climate that Voegelin was academically socialized. Since the
beginning of the 1920s, he was an active participant in various
intellectual circles. This Vienna had by 1938, at the very latest,
fallen into a precipitous decline; the expulsion of reason was
complete. After the war, no serious official attempts were made
to bring back the exiled artists, writers, and scientists. Following
the complete expulsion, a complete repression of what had
happened set in. Through this, the exiled and their work were
virtually eradicated from the national consciousness. This at the
very point in which a new national consciousness was just being
formed. There were, however, exceptions such as Sigmund
Freud, whose fame could not be overlooked and, in addition,
served quite well as an adornment to the national consciousness.
Eric Voegelin, of course, was not one of the exceptions. His first
return visit to Vienna was in 1950. Following this, he came on
short visits as a guest lecturer and, in the winter semester of
1973/74, he held a 6 week course at the University of Vienna on
the topic of "Ecumenic humanity and peace in history." This
invitation can be attributed to the initiatives of certain
individuals such as the philosophy professor Leo Gabri
general, however, Voegelin's newer "American" works were
as ignored as his "Austrian" studies of the 1920s and 1930s
latter were also shelved because his book on the "Authoritarian
State" from 1936 was seen as defending-which it in som
respects did-the authoritarian constitution of 1934.50 Voegeli
as did Karl Kraus and Sigmund Freud, regarded the support f
50. See E. Voegelin, The Authoritarian State: An Essay on the Problem of t

Austrian State. trans. Ruth Hein, ed. and intro. Gilbert Weiss; historical commenta
on the period by Erika Weinzierl, vol 4, Collected Works (Columbia and Londo
University of Missouri Press, 1999).
the authoritarian government the only way to maintain

country's national autonomy against Nazi Germany o
one side and Mussolini Italy on the other. In the com
sense of the Second Republic (i.e., Austria after 1945
however, the years between 1934 and 1938 were label
the time of "Austrofaschism." So, a position like th
Voegelin had assumed in the book from 1936 was se
proto-fascist too. Voegelin's books on race from 1933
his work appear even more suspect; the title "Race and S
was enough to convey this impression. In order to know
these books served as a radical critique on racist (pseu
science, one would have had to read the books. This, of
course, was not done. The antimodernity of the gnosticism
thesis, which drew increasing attention to Voegelin in the
1950s, fit well into this picture. Still in 1995, in the catalogue
of an exhibition on the "Cultural exodus from Austria"-the
first comprehensive biographical documentation of
expulsion and annihilation of persons from the arts, liter
and the sciences-we find a short article on Voegelin in w
he is described, with reference to the previously mentio
Richard Faber, as a more or less reactionary "fetishist of
and order."51 Here the typical pattern of "Austri
categorization used on Voegelin is shown: His later
philosophy of order is constantly associated with his 1936
book on the authoritarian state. This synthesis reads as
follows: "Voegelin understood political science to be an
authoritarian 'science of order'."52 In other words, the theme
of a past study is shifted to the conceptual form of science.
From a Voegelinian perspective, such a categorization is of
course a contradictio in adiecto-mainly for one reason:
"authoritarian" is a symbol of political self-interpretation
(doxa) and, as such, can never become an analytical-
explicative concept (episteme); this, by the way, could already
be read in the book from 1936.53
51. Oliver Rathkolb, "Eric Voegelin: From a Member of the Vienna Legal Theory
School to a 'GnosticAnti-Gnostic,'" in Vertreibung der Vernunft. The Cultural Exodus
from Austria, ed. E Stadler and P. Weibel (Vienna and NewYork: Springer, 1995), p. 163.
52. Ibid.
53. See Voegelin, TheAuthoritarian State, p. 57f.
In 1997, Voegelin's Authoritarian State was re-is

Giinther Winkler.54 In his introduction, Winkler concent
the relationship between Voegelin and Hans Kelsen-V
early mentor and the "father" of the Austrian Consti
1920. This focus is only legitimate because it is indeed
length criticism of Kelsen's pure theory of law and not s
the Authoritarian constitution that is at the core of V
book. However, there is no indication that this reissue fr
was noted at all by the Austrian scientific public.
Italy and France
In Italy, since the beginning of the 1970s, there ha

very lively reception of Voegelin's work. With the transl
the New Science in 1968, Voegelin's theoretical position
for the first time into the Italian debate in rather turbulen
It was the conservatives who first picked up Voegelin'
critique of modernity. In the 1980s, against the backg
emerging legitimation problems of Marxist positions, the
Left also became increasingly interested in Voegelin. In h
they sought a framework in which to formulate a "f
pratica" (practical philosophy). Today, numerous mon
and essays on Voegelin exist that illuminate various as
his works.56 The Political Religions as well as the Autobio
Reflections have been translated. The Anamnesis b
already published in 1972. In 1988, the Plato section o
and History III was translated and in 1993 parts of Or
History I57 Chignola differentiates between three phas
"Ricezione Italiana di Voegelin." The first phase highlig
discussion about the nature and interpretation of modern
54. E. Voegelin, Der autoritdre Staat. Ein Versuch uber das 6sterr
Staatsproblem, ed.. and intro. Gunther Winkler (Wien and New York: Spri
55. E. Voegelin, La nuova scienza politica, trans. R. Pavetto (Torino: Bo
56. See, for instance, Gian F Lami, Introduzione a Eric Voegelin. Dal
cosmogonico al sensorio della trascendenza: la ragione degli antiqui e la ragione
(Milano: Giuffr, 1993); Luigi Mistrorigo, Eric Voegelin. Decadenza e ordin
la politica prima del potere (Roma: Citta Nuova, 1994); Sandro Chignola,
limite. Saggio sullafilosofia politica di Eric Voegelin (Padova: Unipress, 19
57. For detailled bibliographical references of all these publicatio
Bibliography ("Fonti") in Chignola, Pratica del limite.
second phase addressed the existentialist background of ane

politike and coupled this to the reformulation of a pra
philosophy; the third part focussed on the general "problem
del valori" (value problem) in political science-although
comparisons between Voegelin and Max Weber on the on
and Carl Schmitt on the other seemed to dominate.58 Chign
also intensively preoccupied himself with Voegelin's earlier
on law and "Staatslehre." Because of this, he was able to sho
continuity of the phenomenological-exegetical approach to s
throughout Voegelin's development as a theorist.59
In contrast to Italy, France did not show evidence o
significant reception of Voegelin. And yet the beginning of th
seemed to start off quite promisingly. From one of Alfred S
letters of 1958, we can gather that Jean Wahl, a prom
philosopher and editor of the journal Revue de Metaphys
Morale (Journal of metaphysics and morals), was "thor
impressed" with the first volume of Order and History.60 S
who had excellent contact with French intellectuals and sch
mentioned to Wahl that two other volumes of Order and H
had in the meantime been published. Following this, Wahl i
whether the publisher could send him these other two copi
would then write a book review of all three volumes in his Re
Schiitz then informed Voegelin and explicitly pointed out "
book review written from his (Wahl's) pen would be of
importance for the circulation of this book in France."61 V
responded to Schiitz with delight and reported that
informed the press to send Wahl the two volumes.62 It is not
whether Wahl had indeed received these volumes. What is k
however, is that the book review was not written. This is, f
Voegelinian perspective, very unfortunate; especially sinc
was known for enabling new ideas to surface in France.63 A
58. Ibid., Appendix 3.

59. S. Chignola, Fetishism with the Norm and Symbols of Politics, Occ
Papers 10, Eric-Voegelin-Archiv, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munic
60. This letter is from 16 October 1958; see Eric Voegelin Papers, Bo
Hoover InstitutionArchives.
61. Schiitz to Voegelin, 16 October 1958.
62. Voegelin to Schiitz, 20 October 1958.
63. Bernhard Waldenfels, Phanomenologie in Frankreich (Frankfurt a. M.:
Suhrkamp, 1987), p. 39.
in the summer of 1950, Voegelin had, on Schiitz's recommen

met Raymond Aron in Paris. Jean Wahl and Maurice M
Ponty also stood on Voegelin's list of whom to visit but th
at this time on vacation. Over the years, Voegelin rema
contact with Aron. In 1981, Aron contributed an article
Remarques sur la Gnose Leniniste (Remarks on the Leninist
to the volume commemorating Voegelin's eightieth bir
Finally, Aron was the only one of the postwar intelligents
Paris who had followed Voegelin's work over the years.
point, a letter from Jacob Taubes in 1952 should a
mentioned.65 In this letter, Taubes informed Voegelin that
Camus had borrowed from Taubes' wife a copy of Voegelin
on Gnostische Politik,66 and that Camus never returned th
because "of interest in the essay" To be sure, Voegelin's ess
not have had any influence on L'homme revolte because th
had already been published in October 1951. It is po
however, that, through Voegelin's work, Camus was able
a confirmation of his own thesis.
It is idle to speculate what would have happened if Voegelin
had personally met Wahl and Merleau-Ponty in summer 1950, if
Wahl had really written the review of Order and History, etc.
Perhaps Voegelin would have gotten in contact through Wahl with
Emmanuel Levinas, a close friend of the latter; and perhaps he
would have discovered a fundamental mutuality of interests with
Levinas. That such a mutuality existed in various respects is
certain. What particularly catches the eye are the parallels of their
criticisms of Husserl and, emerging out of these criticisms, the
common approach to a "nonintentional consciousness." A
sentence like the following by Levinas could just as well come
from Voegelin: "The intentionality (of consciousness) does not
make up the secret of humanity."67 However, we should stick to
64. Raymond Aron, "Remarques sur la Gnose Leniniste," in The Philosophy of

Order: Essays on Consciousness, History and Politics, ed. P. J. Opitz and G. Sebba
(Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1981), pp. 263-74.
65. Taubes to Voegelin, November 1952, see Eric Voegelin Papers, Box 37.10,
Hoover Institution Archives.
66. E. Voegelin, "Gnostische Politik," Merkur. Deutsche Zeitschriftfiir europiiisches
Denken 4 (1952): 301-17.
67. E. L_vinas, Dieu, la Mort et le Temps (Paris: Editions Grasset and Fasquelle,
1993), quoted from the German translation 1996, p. 25.
the facts. And the facts are that Voegelin was not present
French discourse of the last twenty to thirty years. Occasi
we find brief references to him like, for instance, in Remi
Europe, la voie romaine where the author, a well repute
expert, rephrases the difference between Voege
Blumenberg on modernity, criticizes the former's ignor
Marcion, and elaborates himself the "Marcionistic Character"
of modernity.68 The sociologist Raymond Boudon, in his 1986-
classic L'ideologie. L'origine des idees recues, devotes some two,
three pages to Voegelin basically claiming that the latter's work
is a representative case of the "ideology of Conservatism."69
These examples at least show that prominent scholars like Brague
and Boudon know about Voegelin's work. However, in 1994 the
Political Religions, translated by Jacob Schmutz, appeared as
Voegelin's first book publication in French.70 Schmutz
contributed a very informative introduction to this volume and,
in addition, also presented Voegelin's oeuvre in a long essay in
the Revue philosophique de Louvain.71 Since spring 2000, finally,
the New Science is available in French translation-just as the
Political Religions-at a well renowned Parisian publishing
house.72 These translations might stir up the reception or rather
nonreception of Voegelin in France. First signs, however, suggest
that German evils are taken over here. Alain Besangon, for
example, has recently published a short history of totalitarianism
in which he builds on the idea of political religions but does not
once refer to Voegelin.73
68. Remi Brague, Europe, la voie romaine (Paris: Criterion, 1992), quoted from
the German translation 1993, p. 146.
69. Raymond Boudon, L'ideologie. L'origine des idees recues (Paris, Librairie
Artheme Fayard, 1986), quoted from the German translation, p. 167.
70. E. Voegelin, Les religions politiques, traduction et preface par Jacob Schmutz
(Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1994).
71. See J. Schmutz, "La prophetie du Flore," in E. Voegelin, Les religions
politiques, pp. 7-22; and "La philosophie de l'ordre d'Eric Voegelin," Revue
philosophique de Louvain 3 (1995): 255-84.
72. E. Voegelin, La nouvelle science de la politique, traduction et presentation
par Sylvie Courtine-Denamy (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2000).
73. Alain Besanqon, Le Malheur du siecle. Sur le communisme, le nazisme et l'unicite
de la Shoah (Paris: Fayard, 1998). I am grateful to Jacob Schmutz for this information.
Poland and Czech Republic
In the former Communist countries the reception of Voegel

writings was naturally different from that in the West. Agai
the background of the everyday life in a totalitarian state,
criticism of ideology and totalitarianism was of course of m
more direct relevance. In particular, the tension between theo
and practice of a political philosophy can become a gruelling t
here, as Monika Uminska-Ziesche shows for the Polish discussi
on Voegelin.74 Ryszard Legutko, for instance, suspects
Voegelin's "conservative approach" reveals itself as a "s
limitation" to the meta-political sphere (of philosophical tr
transcending everyday political practices and, therefore, fi
leading to a "rejection of concrete political activity."75 Krzysz
Dorosz, on the other side, had already in 1984, in an essay
the characteristic title Przeciw gnostykom (Against the gnosti
used Voegelin's Gnosticism thesis-not in the wide original s
but limiting it to Communism, that is, "revolutionar
radicalism."76 The latter is then contrasted by the author
"reform politics." Uminska-Ziesche comments: "This partic
reading of Voegelin springs from a position which leads
rejection of Voegelin's approach which is critical of modern
Characteristic of this position is the search for a model for pea
co-existence between Christianity and modernity [...].
Christianity and modernity are thus understood as antago
of ideology."77 In fact there has always been a strong traditio
"Catholic modernism" in Poland, and it is not least the Solidar
movement that is emerging out of this tradition. In other wo
Voegelin's interpretation of Marxist-Communist ideology
74. Monika Uminska-Ziesche, Eric Voegelin's Reception in Poland, manuscr

for the Second Interational Conference on the work of Eric Voegelin, Univ
of Manchester 1997. See also by the same author, "Slowo od Tlumaza," i
Voegelin, Lud Bozy, trans. Monika Uminska (Krakow: Wydawnictwa Znak,
translation of The people of God), pp. 5-19.
75. Ryszard Legutko, Etyka absolutna I spoleczenstwo otwarte (Absolute e
and open society) (Krakow, 1994), quoted from Uminska-Ziesche, Voeg
Reception, p. 3.
76. Krzystof Dorosz, "Przeciw gnostykom," Aneks 35 (1984): 3-35, quoted
Uminska-Ziesche, Voegelin's Reception, p. 8.
77. Uminska-Ziesche, Voegelin's Reception, p. 12.
I
gnosticism was adopted in Poland but not his more fundam

criticism of modernity. This has advantages and disadvantage
the one hand, it emphasizes the important distinction be
ideology and modernity (although they often go together, the
not necessarily the same, of course), on the other it focu
anticommunism too much and somehow hides the crucial poin
gnosticism, for Voegelin, was a pneumopathological ideal type i
Weber's sense which, "historisch-faktisch," shows a varie
realizations of which Communism is just one. But this argumen
little abstract because in the specific context it was si
Communism that was the problem and not some other fo
gnosticism. However, the first Polish translations of Voegelini
out in the mid-1980s. The New Science and The People of God follo
in the early 1990s.78 When talking about Poland and Voegelin
should also point to the similarities to be found between
Voegelinian project and the works of Leszek Kolakowski and C
Milosz. Finally, a reference to the phenomenologist and Catholic pr
Jozef Tischner is appropriate. Tischner, educated in the Krakow sc
of Roman Ingarden, became a kind of spiritual mentor of
Solidamosc movement. His philosophically most important wo
The Human Drama, translated into German in 1989, reveals a c
closeness to Eric Voegelin's intentions-as the title of the book a
suggests.79 Tischner conceives the human existence as a "dram
existence." The life-world, for him, is the "stage" of a universal dr
This stage is both: physical place, world of objects with which
related to through "intentional objectivation," as Tischner foll
Husserl elaborates, and it is a place of human encounter, a pl
"the dialogical opening toward the Other." 80The stage in this
sense does not show a subject confronting an object, it rathe
transsubjective as well as transobjective space; the disposit
objectivation is broken through here: "Human encounter i
experience of transcendence."81 Following the dialogue philoso
78. E. Voegelin, Nowa nauka polityki, trans. with Foreword Pawel Sp

(Warszawa: Bibliotheka Aletheia, 1992); for The People of God see footnote 7
79. See J6zef Tischner, Das menschliche Drama. Phiinomenologische Studi
Philosophie des Dramas (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1989); this text had no
published in Polish before.
80. Ibid., p. 29.
81. Ibid., p. 35.
of Franz Rosenzweig and Emmanuel Levinas, Tischn

proceeds in developing a theory of "participation" t
dialogue. Finally, the two fundamental dimensions of the h
life-world pointed to by this approach have apparent simil
to what Voegelin called "thing-reality"/intentionality on t
hand and "it-reality"/participation on the other.82 Mo
Tischner is also aware that, according to the dramatic f
human existence, the life-world is always both at the same
social and political reality-this is true not only but even th
for the life in a totalitarian system.
The Czech philosopher Jan Patcoka approached p
questions. He belonged to those students of Husser
continued the phenomenological project very autonom
Patocka too conceives the life-world as a realm of tensions b
pragmatics and transcendence. He formulates three
movements of human existence": anchoring ("zako
reproduction and breakthrough ("prulom," "sebepochopeni"
anchoring is that fundamental movement in which man es
himself in the world in which he is thrown through birth
the world in its historical pre-givenness and self-
intersubjectivity takes on the character of a life-world fir
foremost. We anchor ourselves in the world and develop a
attitude." The movement of reproduction embraces the sph
what might be called the economics of every-day action
sphere is guided by an egological disposition; the overal
to sustain ourselves. Here, ego and alter-ego "objectify" eac
that is, make each other into objects of mutual manipulatio
the dimension of the world of working, of suppressio
sweating. This egological disposition is broken through in th
movement. For Patocka, the "breakthrough towards tr
marked by an intervention of transcendence.84 It is charac
by the participation in a universality transcending man's m
existence. Only through this participation man truly co
82. See, for instance, E. Voegelin, "Der meditative Ursprung philoso

Ordnungswissens," Zeitschriftffr Politik 2 (1981): 130-37.
83. Jan Patocka, "Co je existence?" (What is existence?) Filosoficki d
(1969): 682-702; see also Ilja Srubar, "Vom begriindeten Leben. Zu Jan
praktischer Philosophie," Phiinomenologische Forschungen 17 (1985): 10-3
84. See Srubar, Vom begriindeten Leben, p. 26.
terms with himself, so to speak. Again, like in Tischner,

facing two basic life-world realities: a pragmatic/egolog
economic every-day reality on the one hand, and a participat
dialogical/non-intentional reality transcending the first o
the other. The interplay of these two realities constitute
relation between necessity and freedom.85 This relat
essentially political. The extent to which it is political, Pa
also coauthor of the Charta 77, had to experience himself
most horrible sense: on 13 March 1977, he died in a hosp
Prague as a result of police interrogations.
The theoretical similarities between Patocka and Voegelin
evident, and are further strengthened by the fundament
which classic-antique philosophy played for both. The m
strength toward the good, for Patocka the substance of
"European idea," was to be regained only through a retu
Plato, that is to the origin of philosophizing as the "proc
making the human situation conscious."86 This return, beaut
performed in the essay Plato and Europe,87 is what links Pat
not only to Eric Voegelin but also to HannahArendt-as the C
philosopher and present vice-secretary of state of the C
Republic, Martin Palous, pointed out.88 So it is not surprisin
the writings of Voegelin and Arendt were closely discuss
Prague underground-circles during the 1970s and 1980s. The
of a crisis of civilization-the "crisis of European science
Husserl's sense-became the leitmotif of a renewed pra
philosophy drawing its strength substantially from anam
phenomenological resources.
85. See J. Patocka, Le monde naturel comme probleme philosophique (The

et al.: Martinus Nijhoff, 1976).
86. Erazim Kohak, Jan Pato&a. Philosophy and Selected Writings (Chi
London: University of Chicago Press, 1989), p. 117.
87. J. Patocka, Platon et l'Europe, trans. Erika Abrams (Lagrasse: tdi
Verdier, 1983, French translation of unpublished manuscript from 1973).
88. Martin Palous, "Post-Totalitarian Politics and European Philosophy,"
Affairs Quarterly 7/2 (1993): 149-64; and by the same author, "European Po
the End of the Twentieth Century as a Philosophical Problem (Variations
themes of Jan Patocka, Eric Voegelin and Hannah Arendt)" (Paper delive
the American Political Science Association Convention, San Francisco 1996

Recepción de Voegelin en Europa

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Recepción de Voegelin en Europa

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Between Gnosis and Anamnesis: European Perspectives on Eric Voegelin

Author(s): Gilbert Weiss

University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of Politics, Cambridge

In the following, the focus will be on the German reception

In a 1998 German introduction to his work, Eric Voegelin is

1. Michael Henkel, Eric Voegelin zur Einfiihrung (Hamburg: Junius, 1998).

intellectual-political development-the old Bundesrepublik

for Taubes, eschatology before as well as after secularizatio

2. See also Odo Marquard, "Aufgeklarter Polytheismus-auch eine p

overcoming of gnosticism"; or rather it is the "second ove

go back to the United States, and (2) he had already gone f

9. E. Voegelin, Anamnesis. Zur Theorie der Geschichte und Politik (Munich

Neo-Conservatism." Albrecht Kiel, in a comparative study o

influence on his students-not so much as regards the cont

20. E. Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State

From the beginning of the 1990s onwards, increasing inte

24. E. Voegelin, Die Politischen Religionen, ed. Peter J. Opitz (Munich: Wi

in 1938 that totalitarian movements could be understood as in

28. Voegelin, Politische Religionen, p. 53.

The Viennese religious scientist Michael Ley published in 1

These inadequate applications cause harm to the re

37. Brumlik, Glaubige Hingabe, p. 51.

focus is the inner connection between the various com

42. Herz, Der Begriffder politischen Religionen, p. 209.

Husserlian phenomenological tradition in which one en

44. Voegelin, On Character and Scepticism, p. 106.

anthropology focusing-in Schiitz's words-on "the pl

Since Austria is part of the German-speaking sphere, what

50. See E. Voegelin, The Authoritarian State: An Essay on the Problem of t

the authoritarian government the only way to maintain

In 1997, Voegelin's Authoritarian State was re-is

Italy and France

In Italy, since the beginning of the 1970s, there ha

second phase addressed the existentialist background of ane

58. Ibid., Appendix 3.

in the summer of 1950, Voegelin had, on Schiitz's recommen

64. Raymond Aron, "Remarques sur la Gnose Leniniste," in The Philosophy of

Poland and Czech Republic

In the former Communist countries the reception of Voegel

74. Monika Uminska-Ziesche, Eric Voegelin's Reception in Poland, manuscr

gnosticism was adopted in Poland but not his more fundam

78. E. Voegelin, Nowa nauka polityki, trans. with Foreword Pawel Sp

of Franz Rosenzweig and Emmanuel Levinas, Tischn

82. See, for instance, E. Voegelin, "Der meditative Ursprung philoso

terms with himself, so to speak. Again, like in Tischner,

85. See J. Patocka, Le monde naturel comme probleme philosophique (The

Potrebbero piacerti anche