Corrado Claverini. Italian Thought

Page 1


ITALIAN THOUGHTCorrado Claverini

ITALIAN THOUGHT

Four Philosophical Paradigms

ItalianThought

FourPhilosophicalParadigms

TranslatedfromtheItalian byKarenWhittle

CorradoClaverini

Firstpublishedas Latradizionefilosoficaitaliana. Quattroparadigmiinterpretativi (Macerata:Quodlibet,2021).

OpenAccess:Unlessotherwisestated,thispublicationislicensedundertheCreativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives4.0International(CCBY-NC-ND4.0)licence. Anycommercialexploitationbyothersrequiresthepriorconsentofthepublisher.

BibliografischeInformationderDeutschenNationalbibliothek

DieDeutscheNationalbibliothekverzeichnetdiesePublikationinderDeutschen Nationalbibliografie;detailliertebibliografischeDatensindimInternetüber http://dnb.dnb.deabrufbar.

©2025byCorradoClaverini, publishedbySchwabeVerlagBasel,SchwabeVerlagsgruppeAG,Basel,Schweiz

TranslationfromtheItalian:KarenWhittle

Graphicdesign:iconabaselgmbH,Basel

Cover:StrohDesign,KathrinStrohschnieder,Oldenburg Typesetting:Rhema–TimDoherty,Münster

Print:CPIbooksGmbH,Leck PrintedinGermany

Manufacturerinformation:SchwabeVerlagsgruppeAG,Grellingerstrasse21,4052Basel, info@schwabeverlag.ch

ResponsiblepersonunderArt.16GPSR:SchwabeVerlagGmbH,Marienstraße28,10117Berlin, info@schwabeverlag.de

ISBNPrint978-3-7965-4802-4

ISBNeBook(PDF)978-3-7965-4803-1

DOI10.24894/978-3-7965-4803-1

Theebookhasidenticalpagenumberstotheprintedition(firstprinting)andsupportsfull-textsearch. Furthermore,thetableofcontentsislinkedtotheheadingsandtheendnotenumeralsarelinkedtothe endnotes.

rights@schwabe.ch www.schwabe.ch

Withoutadoubt,thetopicofthespecificcharacterofItalianthoughthasbeenone ofthemostdebatedtopicsinphilosophyoflate.Thedebateshingearoundtwo typesofquestionsinparticular: a)isitlegitimatetospeakofanItalianphilosophy? Orisphilosophy,assuch,stateless,andnotdeterminedbyfactorsofaterritorial nature? b)WerewetoaccepttheexistenceofaspecificallyItalianphilosophy,what isitsessence?Doesithavedistinctcharacteristicsthatmakeitstandapartfrom otherphilosophicalheritages,suchasEnglish,GermanorFrenchthought?

Assaid,thesedaysthetopicisatthecentreofmanyscholars’interests. Nonetheless,itmustbeimmediatelyunderlinedthattheissueofthespecificnature ofItalianthoughtisnotanewone.Manystudiesrecognizethatthefirstscholarto haveconsciouslydealtwiththistopic,inthefieldofphilosophicalhistoriography, wasBertrandoSpaventainhis Prolusioneeintroduzioneallelezionidifilosofianella UniversitàdiNapoli,23novembre–23dicembre1861 1,atextbetterknownbythetitle Lafilosofiaitaliananellesuerelazioniconlafilosofiaeuropea 2.AfterSpaventa, theproblemwastackledbyLucianoFabiani 3,GuidoDeRuggiero 4,ValentinoPiccoli 5 andFrancescoMarcianò 6,butaboveallbyGiovanniGentile 7 andEugenio Garin 8,inquitecrucial,complexworks.

Afurtherelementtonoteisthat,fromacertainpointinthetwentiethcentury onwards,ratherthanwriting“historiesofItalianphilosophy”andseekingtooffer readersanoverallvisionofthenationaltradition,scholarshavefocusedonthe contemporarystateofphilosophyinItaly. 9

Lastly,inrecentyears,numerouspublicationshavecomeout,withdifferent reconstructionsofItalianphilosophy:journals 10,conferenceproceedings 11,monographsinEnglish 12.Butthatisnotall.Ononehand,therearethosewhohavecontinuedtheworkofEugenioGarin,forexampleMicheleCiliberto,whoin2012edited avolumeontheItaliancontributiontothehistoryofphilosophicalthought 13 in whichheattemptstobringGarin’sparadigmintotheeraofglobalizationandthe nation-statecrisis.Ontheotherhand,therearescholars,suchasRobertoEsposito,whospeakwidelyof“ItalianThought”and“ItalianTheory”,butalsoinother casesof“ItalianRadicalThought”and“ItalianDifference”. 14 Eventhoughtheslant takenbytheformerauthorisverydifferentfromthatofthelatter,theybothfeel theneedtodealwiththenationaltradition,whiletakingintoaccountamoreand moreglobalizedworld.

Thisbookwillanalysethemainpositionsonthetopic.Itwilllookatwhatsense itcanhaveandhowproductiveitcanbeforItalianthoughttoconstantlyharkback toitstradition.Itwillalsolookathowfarthisharkingbackcangotoredirectthe philosophicalgazeandscrapeoffsome“deposits”leftbehindbymodernitywhich havebecomeoutdatedandratherproblematic,tosaytheleast.Theissuewillbe dealtwithprimarilythroughthestudyofthe“historyofItalianphilosophy”,aphilosophicaldirectiontakenfirstbytheaforementionedSpaventa.Indeed,priortothe currentof“ItalianThought”,thiswasthedirectionconstantlyandverydefinitely takenbyreflectionontheidentityandroleofItalianphilosophy.

Butbeforewecangetdowntoexaminingthemainphilosophicalperspectives, awholeseriesofpreliminaryissues,setoutatthebeginningofthisintroduction, willhavetobediscussedandsoughttoberesolved.Firstofall,weneedtoask whetherwecanspeakofa“national”or“territorial”philosophysincephilosophy, byitsverynature,aspirestowardsuniversality.Thepossibilitythatitmaybedeterminedbygeographicalfactorsseemstocontradictthisbottom-linevocation.Secondly,theadjective“Italian”intheexpression“Italianphilosophy”requiresclarification:doesitrefertothenotionofstateornation,ortothegeophilosophical notionofterritory?Third,wealsoneedtoconsiderthedangersthatreflectionof thistypecaninvolve,astherealriskisthatitcanturnintoanationalistideology.

Anothercrucialpointthatwewillhavetotackleiswhatmeaningandsenseit holdstoday,inamoreandmoreglobalizedworld,tospeakofaspecificallyItalian tradition.Forexample,itwillbeusefultodebatewhatvalueitcanhavetorediscoverthisheritageofthoughtinthecurrentEuropeanandworldcontext.Andthis canalsobeanopportunitytoreflectonItalianandEuropeanidentity.Afterall,sufficeittoconsidertheaforesaidlargenumberofrecentpublicationsonthetopicto provethatthesubjectexaminedinthisbookisbynomeansanachronistic.

Therefore,inthefirststageofitsjourney,thisbookwilldealwiththework ofSpaventa, Lafilosofiaitaliananellesuerelazioniconlafilosofiaeuropea,andthe philosophicalmodelsthatwouldgoontoquestiontherelationshipwithandspecificnatureoftheItaliantradition.Knownasthetheoryofthe“circulationofItalianthoughtinEurope”,Spaventa’sthesisrejectsthemythofthenationalnatureof thought.Asaresult,thepositionofSpaventagoesagainstthose–suchasVincenzo Gioberti–whospokeforanancientItalianphilosophy,suchasthatwhichgavethe titletoawell-knownworkbyayouthfulGiambattistaVico, Deantiquissimaitalorumsapientia (OntheMostAncientWisdomoftheItalians).Viceversa,accordingto theviewputforwardbySpaventa,thegreatprotagonistsofItalianRenaissanceand post-Renaissancethoughtwereprecursorsofthemostimportantconquestsofmodernwesternthought:BrunoandCampanellaanticipated,respectively,Spinozaand Descartes,inthesamewayasTelesiopreparedthewayforBaconandLocke;while itwasathinkerofthestatureofVicowhoprecededKantand,aboveall,throughhis

focusonthedimensionofhistoricalconcreteness,Germanidealism.Nevertheless, thisisnotwherethethesisofthe“circulationofItalianthoughtinEurope”endsas, accordingtoSpaventa,philosophy–borninItalyanddevelopedinotherEuropean nations,inparticularGermany–returnedtothepeninsulawithGalluppi,Rosmini andGioberti,whowouldthencemakeKantandGermanidealismtrue.

Aswearealreadystartingtosee,beyonditshistoriographicalplausibility,this firstphilosophicalparadigmcanbecreditedwithbringingupthestilltopicalquestionofthespecificityofItalianphilosophicaltradition.Itisnocoincidencethatright fromitspublication,theworkinquestion– Lafilosofiaitaliananellesuerelazioni conlafilosofiaeuropea –massivelydeterminedtheensuingdebate.Togivejustone example,in1897Gentilegraduatedwithathesis, RosminieGioberti,inwhichhe showed,inaSpaventiankey,howthesetwoRisorgimentoauthorsbroughtKant andGermanidealismtoItalyandmadethemtrue.

Gentile,thesecondstageinourjourney,continuedinthewakeofandextendedSpaventa’swork.Indeed,hestartedbypayinggreattributetoSpaventa’s perspective,ascanbereadintheselines:

thatgreatfactofthe circulationofEuropeanthought ...tomeseemsthemostconspicuous resultachievedinItalybythecritiqueofthehistoryofourphilosophy,and...shouldhave fixedonceandforall,likeapointofanchor,thevaluetobeattributedtoourown–among whomRosminiinparticular–inthedevelopmentofmodernphilosophy. 15

Butfurthermore–andaboveall–afterdealingwithGalluppiinthework“DalGenovesialGalluppi”(atitlethatwouldchangeinthesecondeditionto“Storiadella filosofiaitalianadalGenovesialGalluppi”),healsodedicatedspacetoGenovesiand otherNeapolitanthinkerswhohadnotbeentakenintoconsiderationwhencirculationtheoryhadbeenformulated.Andsohetookforwardandintegratedthework ofSpaventa,whose Scrittifilosofici hehadeditedin1900fortheNeapolitanpublisherMorano,precededbyalongprefacewhichwaslaterrepublishedseparately underthetitle BertrandoSpaventa,withlengthyaddendums,bythepublisherVallecchiin1924.Thiseditedvolumewasfollowedbymanyothers,including,in1908, thehereinoft-quoted Filosofiaitaliananellesuerelazioniconlafilosofiaeuropea.In short,asGentilewouldsumup,withSpaventa“beginsinItalytheseriousstudyof thehistoryofphilosophy.Beforetherehadonlybeenshapelessattempts,kindsof catalogues,externalhistories,compilations”. 16 Inexpressinghisseverejudgement ofItalianphilosophicalhistoriography,Gentilewasthuscontinuingafightbegun bySpaventawhenhehadaffirmed(referringtoAppianoBuonafede’s Dellaistoriae dellaindolediognifilosofia)that“thetimeofFrCromazianohastoend”. 17 Inshort, merelyerudite,doxographicalattitudesweretobeabandonedalongwithblatantly unabashedideologicaloperations(aswewillsee,Spaventa’sworkwasfirstofall analternativetotheneo-GuelphideologychampionedbyGioberti,whotookupthe mythofancientItalianwisdomjustlikeVicoandCuoco,amongothers 18).Thisdid

notmeanthatGentileconsideredSpaventa’shistoriographyflawless.Infact,asI willshowindetail,Gentile’smaingoalwouldbetoremedysomeshortcomingsof thetheoryofcirculation.Indeed,thetheorypostulatedtwo“gaps”inthethought inItaly,betweenCampanellaandVico,andbetweenVicoandGalluppi,whichGentilewouldopenlycriticizeandtrytofill.Hisaimwouldbetomakethecirculation ofthought,inSpaventa’soriginalversionfullofdeadmomentsandinterruptions, intoa“continual”flow.

Hence,itiswhollyunderstandablewhyGentile’swritingsmakeupthesecond ofthemainphilosophicalparadigmsinthisbook.Inthisconnection,wemustfirst ofalltakeintoexaminationtheinstalmentsthatcameoutbetween1904and1915 inthe“Storiadeigeneriletterariitaliani”seriesbyVallardi.Thepublisher’splans wereforGentiletowriteacompletehistoryofItalianphilosophy.Butin1915theinstalmentscametoahaltwithLorenzoValla.Indeed,Vallardi’s LaFilosofia isbetter knownbythetitle StoriadellafilosofiaitalianafinoaLorenzoValla.Allthesame, accordingtoGarin,thisunfinishedpublishingprojectcouldhavebeenintegrated, sincethatyear“Gentilehadaseriesofvolumestohisnamewhich,ifputtogether, couldhavecompletedthehistoryofthenationalphilosophicaltraditionhehad beentoyingwithforsometime”. 19 Thisthenmadeitpossible,in1969,forGarin toeditacomplete,two-volume Storiadellafilosofiaitaliana byGiovanniGentile forthepublisherSansoni.Theworkgatheredvariousstudiesintoasinglepublication:“LaFilosofia”publishedbyVallardi,“DalGenovesialGalluppi”,“Rosminie Gioberti”and“LeoriginidellafilosofiacontemporaneainItalia”,aswellasGentile’s essaysontheRenaissanceandVico.ThedifferenceinstructurebetweenGentile’s andSpaventa’swritingsisimmediatelyclear:GentilestartsfromtheMiddleAges, makesanin-depthanalysisofhumanismandtouchesonsomeNeapolitanthinkers wholivedbetweenVicoandGalluppi(firstofall,Genovesi).Andsothemostglaringgapsinthetheoryofcirculationwerefilled,althoughwemustrememberthat Gentile’s Storiadellafilosofiaitaliana wasavolumeeditedsuccessivelyandthatthe originalVallardiprojecthadnotbeenfinished.

Nevertheless,thiswasnotthefirstimportanthistoryofItalianphilosphyto comeout.Indeed,afterGiovanniGentile’s LaFilosofia (1904–15), LaFilosofia byEugenioGarinwasaddedtothe“Storiadeigeneriletterariitaliani”seriescatalogue byVallardiin1947.Gentilehimselfsuggestedthatthepublishercontactthescholar tocompletetheworkthathehadnotmanagedtofinish.ThankingGentileinaletter,theyoungGarinsaidthathewasproudtobeabletofinishoffaworkbegun“so masterfully” 20,feeling“greatpleasure”and“realjoy” 21,whileneverthelesssensing theweightoftheresponsibility.Garin’shistoryisstilloneofthemostcompleteand philologicallyaccurateworksofthishistoryofphilosophygenretoday.Twofurther editions(expandedandamendedinsomepointswithrespecttothefirst)werepublishedbyEinaudiin1966and1978respectively,underthetitle Storiadellafilosofia italiana (HistoryofItalianPhilosophy).TheseEinaudieditionsplayedafundamen-

talroleinthestudiesonthehistoryofphilosophytocome.AndsoGarinisthethird mainphilosophicalparadigmstudiedinthisbook.

Letmeexplainwhyitwassoimportant.InhisanalysisofItalianthought fromtheMiddleAgestothepresentday,Garincriticallyabandonedawholeseries ofhistoriographicalcategoriesusedwidelybySpaventaandGentile,adoptinga structurewhichstandsoutprincipallyforitsmethod.Sharingthesameconception ofphilosophicalhistoriography,thetwoidealistthinkersmadeliberaluseofcategoriessuchas“anticipation”[precorrimento],“superseding”[superamento],“makingtrue”[inveramento],“progress”,“unity”,“transcendence”and“immanence”.I havealreadyoutlinedhow,inSpaventa,themodernityofItalianphilosophylay whollyinitsprecursorygenius[ingegnoprecursore]orabilitytointelligentlyprecedeothercurrents:theCartesiansubjectwasalreadytobefoundinCampanella; Spinoza’spantheisminBruno;Kant’sCopernicanrevolutionandtheidealisticemphasisonhistoryinVico.Thereismore:thevalorizationofthesubject,natureand history–whichhappenedinItalyearlierthanitdidinEurope–impliesthatin Spaventamodernitymeansnotonlyanticipation,butalsoimmanence.TheimmanentRenaissanceiscontrastedwiththetranscendentMiddleAgesandthewhole historyofphilosophyisaprocessofprogressiveimmanentizationfrommedieval transcendencetotheabsoluteimmanentismofidealism.Inotherwords,thehistoryofphilosophyisaunitary,teleologicallyorientedprocess:inthissense,itis the philosophyofhistory.Thisconception–asSpaventianasitisGentilian–was, assaid,abandonedbyGarin,whofirstofallwantedtogivehistorybackitshistoricity.Thereisnonecessityorlogicaldevelopmentinhistory.Itisafreeprocess. Itisnotteleologicallyorientedfromtranscendencetoimmanence.ThesamerelationshipbetweenMiddleAgesandRenaissanceismoreblurredandcannotbe interpretedaccordingtoaclear-cutschemaofthefracturebetweentranscendence andimmanence(oraccordingtotheoppositeschemaofcontinuity).Indeed,sometimesnewelementsappear,othertimeselementsremain,followingGarin’swellknownthesisof“originalityincontinuity”[originalitànellacontinuità].Despitethe differentapproach,GarinalsoacceptstheexistenceofaspecificItalianphilosophicaltradition.However,itistoovariedandcomplextosingleoutonedistinctive characteristicasits“difference”.Atleastoneaspect,accordingtothescholar,neverthelessdistinguishestheinevitablecomplexityofItalianphilosophy:ithasnever beenasystematicphilosophy.Instead,itisamundanephilosophythatpaysalotof attentiontothehumanandhistoricaldimension(inparticulartophilology,politics, moralityandreligion).

Garin’s Filosofia wasforalongtimethelastworktoofferacomprehensive visionofthewholehistoryofnationalthought.Since1947,theyearofitspublication,scholarshaveadoptedamoreclose-upvision,concentratedonrecentevents. Thischangecanbeseeninthe Cronachedifilosofiaitaliana(1900–1943) published in1955byGarinhimself,aswellasthecollectionofessayswhichcameoutduring

the1980s, Laculturafilosoficaitalianadal1945al1980 22 andtherecentcollective volume LafilosofiaitaliananelNovecento.Interpretazioni,bilanci,prospettive 23 .

Alongsidethisongoingtendency,anotherattempthasbeenmadetoforma comprehensiveparadigmofItalianthought,whichcan,amongotherthings,be creditedwithgivingthetopicremarkableresonanceoutsideItalytoo.Thethinker behindthisattemptisRobertoEsposito.Ashintedabove,in2010hepublished Pensierovivente (LivingThought),goingon,in2016,todevelopitsprincipalthesisin Dafuori (APhilosophyforEurope).EspositoreconstructsItalianThought,fromhumanismtothepresentday,inadistinctway,settingouttoplaceitinbothdialecticalandcontrastingtensionwithtwoothertraditionsofthoughtthatarrivedinthe UnitedStatesinthetwentiethcenturyandgarneredparticularsuccessthere:GermanPhilosophyandFrenchTheory.Letitbeimmediatelypointedoutthatthenow prevalentlabelofItalianThoughtmakesreferencetothesuccessoftheworksof somecontemporaryItalianphilosophers(inparticularNegri,AgambenandEspositohimself),inthesamewayasthediffusionofGermanPhilosophyandFrenchTheoryintheUnitedStatesbeganrespectivelywiththeforcedemigrationofAdorno, HorkheimerandMarcuseandtheparticipationofDerridaandotherFrenchintellectualsinaconferenceattheJohnsHopkinsUniversityin1966.

Tosumup,theaimofmyworkistodealwithItalianThoughtand,beforethis fourthphilosophicalparadigm,themaininterpretationsthataccepttheexistence andseekthedistincttraitsofanItalianphilosophicaltradition.Atthesametime,I willexamineandassessthestrengthsandlimitationsoftheseinterpretativemodels.Inchapter1,Iwilldealwiththemainmatterstouchedonbyallthescholarswho havedealtwiththistopic.Inthemiddlechapters,Iwillanalysetheparadigmsthat Ihavealreadystartedtointroduceonthepreviouspages,inparticular,Bertrando Spaventa(inhisrelationswiththemythofItalianwisdomalreadyfoundinVico, CuocoandGioberti,amongothers),GiovanniGentile,EugenioGarin(alsomentioningthescholarswhohaverecentlyreferredtohiswork)andfinallyRobertoEsposito(withparticularattentiontoso-calledItalianThought).Inthelastchapter, Iwillsummarizetheresultsachievedbyanalysingthedifferentparadigmsand listthemaincharacteristicsthat–accordingtotheviewadoptedhere–amoderndayhistoryofItalianphilosophyshouldpossess.Inotherwords,whoeverwants toexaminethespecificcharacteristicsofItalianphilosophyandpresent-dayItalianThoughthastwoissuestodealwith:first,allthepreliminarymattersthatthe authorsdealtwithinthisbooktriedtoresolve,andsecond,thecontextinwhich wefindourselvestoday,thatis,anincreasinglyglobalizedpanoramainwhichthe conceptsofnationalityandtraditionrequireamassiverethink. 24 Thisiswhythis kindofresearchisnecessaryandnotanachronistic,butindeedfundamentallyimportanttotrytorespondtosomeimpellingquestionsaboutthepresentday.What valuedonational(inthiscasephilosophical)traditionshave?Shouldwestilluse theconceptofnationality?Ifso,how?Alsobecauseitwouldbegoodtopreventthe

Enlightenmentutopiaofinternationalperpetualpeacefromtransformingintoa dystopiaofundifferentiatedcosmopolitanism.Thesolutiondefinitelydoesnotlie innationalisticclosure,whichistoberejectedjustliketransnationalglobalization. So,ifwearetorejectbothglobalismandnationalism,wehavetoaskourselvesif thereisathird,alternativeway.Cannationalculturesbesafeguardedwithoutnationalism?Cananalternative“internationalism” 25 tothe“globalitarian”paradigm beimagined?Thesearethequestions–alongwithmyattemptedanswers–that willaccompanyusasthisbookunfoldsinthefollowingchapters.

1.1Therelationshipbetweenhistoryandphilosophy

Whenphilosophyprojectsitselfoverhistory,descendingintoit,and–asHegel wouldsay–attemptsto“thinkit”,apreliminaryquestionhastoberaised:isphilosophydeterminedbyhistoricaland/orgeographicalkindsoffactors?Iftheanswer tothisquestionisyes,howcanphilosophy’suniversalisticaspirationbereconciled withitsbeingspatiallyandtemporallydetermined?

Toanswerthesequestions,wecanciteaveryeloquentpassagebyEugenio Garin:

Thefirstdifficultythatderivesfromtheassumedantinomybetweenthe“universality” ofphilosophyandthe“particularity”ofanationalthoughthaslostalotofitsintensity aswehavecometodiscovergraduallytheproperanddifferentsignificanceofthephilosophicalinquiry,anditsessentialconnectionwithaspecificperiodoftime.Ifononehand itmaybesaid,uptoapoint,thatthereisno Chinese, Indian,or Greek mathematics,but simply mathematics,ontheotherhandwehavealsoseenan[sic]increasingevidence thatphilosophies,orthecomplexofconceptualelaborationscalledbythatname,havea preciseconnectionwithdefinitehistoricalsituations,withconditionsandlimitsactually determinedordeterminable.Ifideasarenot,andindeedtheyarenot,bornbyparthenogenesis,andthephilosophicaldiscourseisalways,usingaPlatonicexpression,“anillegitimatediscourse”,thehistoricalrealityofphilosophizingwillalwaysassumeanimplicit relationtospecificsituationswithinspace-timedimensions. 1

Nottorecognizethefactthatphilosophyisspatiallyandtemporallydetermined wouldbetoremovetheundeniablenexuslinkingideastohistory,asifideaswere bornfromeachotherbyparthenogenesisandweredisembodiedwithrespectto thecontextinwhichtheyarethoughtof.Inotherwords,rulingoutthatphilosophy isdeterminedbythesocialandculturalcontextwouldbeakintoacknowledging thatphilosophersthinkwithoutregardtotheirtimes,atalevelsituatedbeyondthe historicaldimension.Furthermore,grantingthathistorybearsnoinfluenceonthe genesisofideaswouldbelikestrippinghistoryofitshistoricity,thatis,reducing ittoameretimelineaccommodatingpureconceptsthoughtof subspecieæternitatis.Thistimelinewouldaccommodateideasthatfollowonfrom,contrastwith andnegateeachotherbutproceedatadifferentleveltowhatisconcreteandreal. Thissequenceofideaswouldthustakeapurely“mental”shape,reducingtheele-

mentofhistorytothemereorderoftimeservingtomarkthechronologicalsuccessionofthephilosophicaldoctrines.

Intruth,thisideologicalvisionhastakenholdinvariousplacesinourtimes. ThefamousworkbyFrancisFukuyama, TheEndofHistoryandtheLastMan,is justoneoftheexamplesthatcouldbemadeinwitnessofthegeneralmovementto represshistoricityvisibleatallphilosophicallatitudes.Butingeneral,onecanalso seeacertainlineofanalyticalphilosophymarkedbyatotalorpartialrejectionof historyandofauthorswhosethoughtrevolvesaroundhistoricity.

Adangercomplementaryandoppositetotherepressionoftheelementofhistoryisabsolutehistoricism.Thisiswhenconceptsarethoughttobewrappedup entirelywithintheirhistory,withoutseeingthatthereisamovementofmutual influencebetweenbeingandthought,realityandideas,historyandphilosophy.

Whatismore,rejectionoftheelementofhistoryisthemaincauseoriginating everyformofideologicalthought,thatis,visionsoftheworldthatconceiveofrealityasuntransformableandnecessary.Today–asthemuch-repeatedrefraingoes–everyutopianpassionmustbeabandoned,whatGramsciwouldcallthe“spiritof cleavage” 2 repressed.Itisnosurprise,askeenlyobservedbyMarcAugé 3,that“nonplaces”–stations,airports,shoppingcentres–havebecometheutopianformtypicalofthepresenteraofglobalization.Filledwiththepresent,theirmaincommon featureisthepostmodernremovalofhistoricityandabsolutizedexhibitionofthe commodityform.Utopiaisnolongerconceivedofinspatialtermsasablissfulplace situatedinaperennialelsewhere 4,oras“anothertime”fromwhichoneanticipates morerationality,enlightenmentandemancipation 5 .

Thischangeisduetothefactthat,inthesamewayasanyotherphilosophical andpoliticalidea,theideaofutopianotonlyhasthedynamicfunctionoftransformingreality,butatthesametimeisdeterminedbymetamorphosesatthesocial andpoliticallevels. 6 Forexample,“temporalizedutopias”–or“euchronias”–becamewidespreadintheEnlightenmentera,asthiswaswhentheideaofprogress and–quiteunsurprisingly–thephilosophyofhistorycameabout.Inthesameway, today’s“non-places”reflectthespiritofthepresenttime,whereinthedimensionof thefutureandanticipationhaslostitshegemonyinfavourofthedimensionofthe presentandresignmentasaresultoftheremovalofhistoricityasthetheatrefor possibletransformation.

Therefore,thereisarelationshipofmutualimplicationbetweenhistoryand philosophywhichneedstobethoroughlyunderstoodpriortoanydiscussionon Italianthought.Indeed,itispreciselythenatureofthisrelationshipthatenables thereconciliationofthetwoapparentlycontradictorydefinitionsofphilosophy providedbyHegel,whoseesitontheonehandas“itsowntimecomprehended inthoughts” 7,andontheotherasdealingwith“thatwhich is,bothnowandeternally” 8.Inotherwords,ifitistruethatphilosophyisoneandaspirestouniversality, itisequallytruethatitishistoricallyandgeographicallydetermined.

Therefore,tospeakofnationalphilosophyisnottoreducephilosophy’sclaims ofuniversalitybyconsideringitamerehistoricalandgeographicalphenomenon. Instead,itistobeconsciousthat,whateveritsgenesis,whichisparticulareverytime,theuniversalvalidityofthetruthremains.ThevicissitudesofanItalian thinker–CesareBeccaria–canwellexplainthisconcept.ThefactthatBeccaria’s thinkingontheneedtoabolishthedeathpenaltyhadaparticulargenesisdoesnot undermineitsuniversalvalidity.Inotherwords,asalreadypointedout,“herewe arenotlookingatapatrioticre-evaluationofnationalphilosophiestothedetrimentofauniversalisticmodelofreasoningandargumentation” 9,because“likeit ornot,philosophy–likeartandreligion,Hegelwouldsay,andwhynot,literature andmusictoo–hasthecapacitytobetheuniversalexpressionofprinciplesand contentspreciselybecauseitistogethertherevelationofsingularityandofeverdeterminedcircumstances”. 10 Onceagain,itisHegelwhoallowsustothinkthedialecticalnexusbetweenontologyandtemporality,truthandhistory,eternityand finiteness,philosophy’suniversalvalidityandparticulargenesis.Totalkaboutnationalphilosophiesistoadmitthefactthatphilosophyishistoricallydetermined. Thisdoesnotmeanreducingphilosophytoaparticularexpressionofanational culture,thatis,thetruthofanideatoitsparticularhistory.

Inotherwords,

Theintentionisnottoclaimthatthereisnogeneraltheoretical,namelysupernationaland superlinguisticdynamic,giventhatthereisnodenyingtheconceptualandintentional natureofthought,butthat,withinthedevelopmentofreasonandthespirit,therecan benoignoringtheconcreteelement,thehistoricalsituation,theculturalandreligious tradition,thelinguisticdimension,theenvironmentinwhichacommunityisrootedand aphilosophythenfindsexpression. 11

Inshort,theelementofhistory(inthenationalcase)andtheelementoftruth(in theinternationalcase)needtobekepttogether:

Whileontheonehand,the“universal”natureofphilosophicalreflectionseemsevident, especiallywhenitdealswiththegreatthemesofmetaphysicsandontologyatsuchalevel ofconceptualabstractionastoexcludeanymixingwiththeparticularcharacteristicsof thesocietyfromwhenceitcomes,itisequallyasevidentthatifphilosophicalknowledge isinsteadconceivedofasahistoricalknowledge,aseriesofanswersthataregiventothe problemsthatindividualandsociallifecanposeeverytime,itbecomesnecessaryand inevitabletomakeadistinctionbetweenthedifferenthistoriesofphilosophy,eachone linkedtothespecificvicissitudesexperiencedbythesinglenationalcommunities.Inthis case,itisnotamatterofcarryingoutfacilesociologism,ordowngradingphilosophyto ideology,toasimpleexpressionofveryprecisesocialphenomena,butinstead,byexaminingsinglethinkers,graspingtheatleastinpartoriginalfeaturesofaparticulartradition ofthought. 12

InhisanalysisofcontemporaryFrenchthought,AlainBadiouhimselftookthematterofthelegitimacyofadiscourseonthenationalityofphilosophyseriously,list-

ingthenumerousrisksitfaces.Hewrites:thesyntagm“Frenchphilosophymay seemcontradictory(eitherphilosophyisuniversaloritdoesnotexist),chauvinistic (whatismeantthesedaysbytheadjective‘French’?),andatthesametimeimperialist(theusualwestern-centrism?)andanti-American(the Frenchtouch against theanalyticalacademicismofthephilosophydepartmentsofEnglish-speakinguniversities)” 13,tothensignificantlyconclude:“withoutcallingbackintoquestionthe universalvocationofphilosophy,whichIsystematicallydefend,onenevertheless hastonotethatitshistoricaldevelopmentinvolvessomediscontinuities,intime andinspace”. 14 Inshort,“weneverthelesshavetorecognizethat moments inphilosophyexist,particularlocalizationsoftheinventionwiththeuniversalechoof whichitiscapable”. 15

1.2Thedangerofnationalism

Aswesawintheprevioussection,whileatthephilosophicalleveltheuniversalvalidityofphilosophyanditsparticulargenesis(thatis,theelementoftruthandthe elementofhistory)canbekepttogether,atthepoliticallevelthedisputebetween cosmopolitansandpatriotscanberesolvedbyshowingthattheirapparentlyoppositeprinciplesarenotincontradiction. 16

Inthisdirection,ithastobeclarifiedthattospeakofnationisnottobenationalistic,andthattheconceptof“nationalphilosophy”hasnothingtodowiththe ideaof“philosophicalnationalism”. 17 Allmisunderstandingsofthiskindmustbe avoidedrightfromthestartsoasnottoruntheriskoftransformingthediscourse onItalianphilosophyproposedhereintonationalistideology.

Toshowthedifferencebetweennationandnationalismitisusefultorecall GiuseppeMazzini.Indeed,thereisnowaythatachauvinisticinterpretationcan begiventoMazzini’snationalsentiment.Onseveraloccasions,theRisorgimento thinkermakesitclearthattheItalianmissionisofauniversalistic-emancipatory kind.Hence,itispossibletokeepthenationalandcosmopolitanelementstogether.

Mazzini’sthoughtwastakenupbyfascism,whichgaveitanationalisticreading. 18 Nevertheless,thisinterpretationisdifficulttoupholdifoneremembersthat theGenoanthinker’saimwastobuildaThirdItaly(aunified,republicanand democraticstate)andanewcivilization,firstinEuropeandthenintherestofthe world. 19 ThisiswhyMazzininotonlyfoundedYoungItaly[GiovineItalia],butalso YoungGermany,YoungPolandand,finally,YoungEurope.

Nationalsentimentandnationalismarethereforetwoverydifferentthings. Nationalsentimentisconsciousnessofthedistincthistoryofapeople,withtheir customs,traditionsandlanguage.Viceversa,nationalsentimentbecomesnationalismwhenapeople,consciousofhavingparticularcharacteristics,proclaimtheir superiorityoverotherpeopleswhomtheyconsiderinferior.Hence,nationalsentimentcannotonlyleadapeopletofightfortheirownindependence,but–asthe

caseofMazziniclearlydemonstrates–alsofortheindependenceofotherpeoples, consideredkin,sharingthesamemission,whichtheyhavetoworkandfighttogethertoachieve.

Inshort,ashasbeenquiterightlyobserved,“inthehistoryofpoliticalthought theconceptsofnationandnationalityhavealsobeenusedtosupportidealsof emancipationandsocialsolidarity”. 20 CleardemonstrationsofthisareJohnStuart Mill,CarloPisacaneandthesameMazzini,inwhomthenationalandcosmopolitan elementscoexist.Indeed,Mazziniisanythingbutnationalisticbecauseheplaces “nation inextremelycloseconnectionwith humanity.Thenationisnotanendunto itself,quitetheopposite!Itisameans,ahigh,noble,necessaryone,butnevertheless ameans,toachievethesupremeend: Humanity,whichistheHomelandofHomelands,theHomelandofall.” 21 Therefore,Mazzini’sprojectisforuniversalemancipationthroughnationalparticularity.TheThirdItalyistakenasthemediumfor universalprogress.Itwillnotimposeunityonhumanitybutwillbeacceptedby thepeoplesoftheirownfreewill.Inshort,whatMazzinihopesforisa“cosmopolitanismofnations”. 22

Gramscitooproposesamediationbetweenthenationalandtheinternational moments,whosedialecticalrelationshipavoidsthetwoopposingbutcomplementarydangersofnationalismandglobalization.Accordingtowhathewritesinthe PrisonNotebooks,“thelineofdevelopmentistowardsinternationalism,butthe pointofdepartureis‘national’–anditisfromthispointofdeparturethatonemust begin”. 23 Inthisprocess,whichstartsfromthenationaltoarriveatthesupernational,theItaliansarethereforegiventhefunctionofpropellinguniversalization: sinceItalianintellectualshavealwayshadanationaltendencytowardscosmopolitanism,onlytheycanmaketheinternationalcorrespondtotheuniversalinterest. Internationalismthought àla Gramscithereforebecomesanalternativeparadigm totheglobalizing,standardizingcommodityform.Culturalspecificitiesarenotcancelledout,butpreservedintheharmonicrelationship internationes.

Tocastourgazebackwards,despitestatingthat“[n]ationalone-sidednessand narrow-mindednessbecomemoreandmoreimpossible,andfromthenumerous nationalandlocalliteratures,therearisesaworldliterature” 24,MarxandEngels themselvesopenlyacknowledge“thatsubtleItaliangeniusyoumaytraceinDante nolessthaninMachiavelli” 25.Inthesameperiod,evenGiobertihadalreadyacceptedtheexistenceofadialecticbetweenthenationalandthecosmopolitanelements:“nationaldivisionsdonotoffendthecosmopolitanunion,rathertheyare partofit,becausetheuniversalcannotbewithouttheparticularandagreater unitynecessitatesthoseofalesserhold.Inancienttimes,nationalitiesandcountrieswerecontrarytocosmopolitanismbecausethelackofculturemadethemenemies!” 26 Andheaddedthat“universalityisoneofthemostoutstandingcharacteristicsoftheItaliangenius;andincivilandreligiousterms,Italywasalwaysthe mostcosmopolitanofnations”. 27

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.