Some error occured while loading the Quick View. Please close the Quick View and try reloading the page.
As the post-WWII liberal democratic consensus comes under increasing assault around the globe, Zachary R. Goldsmith investigates a timely topic: the reemergence of fanaticism. His book demonstrates how the concept of fanaticism, so often flippantly invoked with little forethought, actually has a long history stretching back to ancient times. Tracing this history through the Reformation and the Enlightenment to our present moment of political extremism run amok, Goldsmith offers a novel account of fanaticism, detailing its transformation from a primarily religious to a political concept around the time of the French Revolution. He draws on the work of Immanuel Kant, Edmund Burke, and Fyodor Dostoevsky—all keen observers of fanaticism, and especially its political variant—in order to explore this crucial moment in the development of political fanaticism.
Examining conceptualizations of fanaticism from different geographical, political, temporal, and contextual backgrounds, Goldsmith reveals how the concept has changed over time and resists easy definition. Nevertheless, his analysis of the writings of key figures from the tradition of political thought regarding fanaticism yields a complex and nuanced understanding of the concept that allows us to productively identify and observe its most salient characteristics: irrationality, messianism, the embrace of abstraction, the desire for novelty, the pursuit of perfection, a lack of limits in politics, the embrace of violence, certainty, passion, and its perennial attraction to intellectuals. Goldsmith’s political-philosophical history of fanaticism offers us an argument and warning against fanaticism itself, demonstrating that fanaticism is antidemocratic, illiberal, antipolitical, and never necessary.
"[Goldsmith] follows in [the] tradition of treating emotions as a central quality of political analysis but incorporates a helpful methodology within intellectual history of tracing the evolution of concepts through their linguistic adaptations to historical condition. Those of us who are sympathetic to the idea that any subject is enriched by studying its origins and evolutions across cultures and historical periods will welcome Goldsmith’s book as an opportunity to dig deeper into the history of fanaticism."
"Fanaticism combines two projects. The first, is to reconstruct the history of fanaticism as a political concept, with particular attention to its emergence out of earlier conceptions, including religious ones. The second is to critically engage (and roundly reject) recent scholarly attempts to legitimate fanaticism as a political device or attitude...Goldsmith argues persuasively that fanaticism should be opposed because it is inimical to liberal, democratic, open societies. Plausibly, fanaticism is similarly inimical to particular forms of collective religious life; and if these are valuable, then perhaps fanaticism in religion should be opposed for this reason."
"Goldsmith’s Fanaticism seeks to elucidate the elements of fanaticism, as distinguished from extremism, enthusiasm, and similar concepts. The heart ofthe book discusses Kant’s Critique of Judgment, Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, and Dostoevsky’s Demons—works that help clarify fanaticism and oppose it…[A]n interesting, useful, and thoughtful study."
"All those concerned with the issues of the extreme in politics should find this work helpful, of real value."
Chapter 1. Answering the Question: What Is Fanaticism?
Chapter 2: Three Moments in the History of Fanaticism
Chapter 3. Kant Between the Schwärmer and the Enthusiast
Chapter 4. Edmund Burke’s Critique of the “Philosophical Fanatics” Behind the French Revolution
Chapter 5. Dostoevsky’s Demons: Encountering Political Fanaticism
Conclusion. Confronting Fanaticism and Its Partisans
Notes
References
Index
Acknowledgements