Rachel Hammersley’s *Republicanism: An Introduction* emerges
at a time when the crisis in liberal-capitalist societies has sparked renewed
interest in alternative political vocabularies. In the English-speaking
academic world, this has led to a prominent revival of “republican” political
theory, primarily associated with the Cambridge School and its focus on
contextualist intellectual history. Hammersley’s book exemplifies this trend:
it offers a clear, well-informed overview of the republican tradition from
ancient times to today, crafted with the pedagogical clarity typical of an
introductory work.
The features that make the book accessible also expose its
limitations. As your original assessment states, it is “an introduction to
bourgeois political thought about itself.” The work is part of an intellectual
project that, although presented as historical, is fundamentally ideological.
The republican revival has served more as a way for the current intelligentsia
to adopt a vocabulary of near-radicalism, while leaving the core structures of
capitalist society intact, rather than as a genuine critique of modern
political systems.
II. The Cambridge School and the Depoliticisation of
Intellectual History
Hammersley's text clearly reflects the influence of
Cambridge School methodologies. Its focus on analysing political ideas within
their linguistic and discursive frameworks has provided valuable insights into
early modern political thought. Nonetheless, the approach consistently
hesitates to address the material and class roots of political ideologies. In
Hammersley’s interpretation, republicanism is portrayed as a timeless discourse
centred on notions such as “virtue,” “non-domination,” and “civic
participation,” often divorced from the social relations that shape these
concepts.
This abstraction is more than just a methodological
oversight; it embodies the wider ideological trend in today's academia, which
has shifted away from materialist analysis toward textualist and normative
approaches that align with the interests of the professional-managerial class.
III. Neo‑Republicanism and the Ideology of the
Professional Class
The contemporary revival of republican theory, especially in
Philip Pettit's work, should be understood within this sociological backdrop.
It emerged following the setbacks faced by radical movements of the 1960s and
1970s. Neo-republicanism proposes a view of freedom as “non-domination” that
initially seems to oppose the atomistic individualism typical of neoliberalism.
However, as your evaluation rightly highlights, this opposition is limited.
Pettit’s approach deliberately omits the most widespread forms of domination in
capitalist societies, such as exploitation through wage labour, market
coercion, and the class nature of the modern state. It "deliberately
excludes domination rooted in wage relationships, market dictatorship, and
class structures."
Neo-republicanism operates as a political theory designed to resonate with the academic upper-middle class: it is critical in tone, reform-minded in its core ideas, and ultimately aligns with maintaining capitalist social structures.
IV. The Historical Class Character of Republicanism
A materialist approach to republicanism must recognise that,
in its early forms, it was the political ideology of the emerging bourgeoisie.
From Renaissance Italy's civic humanism to the radicalism of the English
Commonwealth and the Jacobinism of the French Revolution, republicanism
expressed the goals of a class aiming to overthrow feudal and absolutist
systems and create the conditions for capitalist growth.
Marx’s early writings emphasise the shortcomings of this
ideology. In 'On the Jewish Question,' he distinguishes between political and
human emancipation, arguing that the republican state: “abolishes feudal
distinctions in the political sphere only to leave the real inequalities of civil
society… untouched.” This realisation signifies Marx’s departure from the
republican tradition and his acknowledgement that, although abolishing
political privilege is a historic step forward, it does not eliminate the
underlying systems of class control based on private property.
V. Marx’s Analysis of the Bourgeois Republic
Hammersley’s survey, along with the broader republican
revival, overlooks the deeper insights of Marx’s advanced analysis of the
bourgeois republic. In works such as *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis
Bonaparte* and *The Class Struggles in France*, Marx maintained that the
republic is not simply a neutral institutional structure but is the political
form most suited to serve capitalist interests. While it appears to represent
popular sovereignty, real power remains concentrated within the market, bureaucracy,
and—if needed—the repressive state apparatus.
The June Days of 1848, when the French bourgeois republic
massacred the Parisian proletariat, stand as the most conclusive historical
refutation of the claim that republicanism has universal validity.
VI. The Attempt to Recast Marx as a Republican Thinker
Recent scholarly efforts, such as those by Bruno Leipold, to
interpret Marx as a form of republican theorist aim to domesticate Marxism by
aligning it with bourgeois political ideas. Your evaluation rightly dismisses
this revisionism, emphasising that the core task isn't to find superficial
similarities between Marx and republican thought, but to understand the crucial
break Marx made with traditional ideas—notably, his recognition of the
proletariat as the revolutionary subject and his belief that true emancipation
depends on abolishing capitalist property relations.
VII. Conclusion: The Limits of Hammersley’s Project
Hammersley’s 'Republicanism: An Introduction' effectively surveys how mainstream academia interprets its own intellectual background. However, it falls short of offering what is most essential: a materialist perspective on republicanism as the political ideology of a particular class during a specific stage of history. Your assessment concludes that it “cannot provide what is most necessary: a materialist analysis of republicanism… and an understanding of why that ideology… cannot be the basis for the liberation of humanity from class exploitation.” Such an analysis lies beyond the conceptual horizon of the republican revival. It belongs, instead, to the Marxist tradition, which alone situates political ideas within the dynamics of class struggle and the historical development of the capitalist mode of production.
