What do you think?
Rate this book
A Vindication of Natural Society
Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was an Anglo-Irish statesman, author, orator, political theorist, and philosopher who, after relocating to Great Britain, served for many years in the British House of Commons as a member of the Whig party. He is mainly remembered for his support of the American colonies in the dispute with King George III and Britain that led to the American Revolution and for his strong opposition to the French Revolution. Burke worked on aesthetics and founded the Annual Register, a political review. He is widely regarded as the philosophical founder of Anglo-American conservatism. Burke’s first published work, A Vindication of Natural Society, appeared in 1756. In 1757, he published a treatise on aesthetics, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. His other works Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) and An Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs (1791).
48 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1756
11 people are currently reading
460 people want to read
About the author
Edmund Burke
2,101 books570 followersAfter
A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful
, aesthetic treatise of 1757, Edmund Burke, also noted Irish British politician and writer, supported the cause of the American colonists in Parliament but took a more conservative position in his
Reflections on the Revolution in France
in 1790.
Edmund Burke, an Anglo statesman, author, orator, and theorist, served for many years in the House of Commons as a member of the Whig party. People remember mainly the dispute with George III, great king, and his leadership and strength. The latter made Burke to lead figures, dubbed the "old" faction of the Whig against new Charles James Fox. Burke published a work and attempted to define triggering of emotions and passions in a person. Burke worked and founded the Annual Register, a review. People often regard him as the Anglo founder.
Edmund Burke, an Anglo statesman, author, orator, and theorist, served for many years in the House of Commons as a member of the Whig party. People remember mainly the dispute with George III, great king, and his leadership and strength. The latter made Burke to lead figures, dubbed the "old" faction of the Whig against new Charles James Fox. Burke published a work and attempted to define triggering of emotions and passions in a person. Burke worked and founded the Annual Register, a review. People often regard him as the Anglo founder.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
February 11, 2015
I actually read this as part of Collected Works of Edmund Burke, but as I cannot review the entire thing in under Goodread's 20,000 character limit, I am reviewing the contents piecemeal. My location references are to the work I read.
This is Burke's great, principled, abstract philosophical work on government, as opposed to his many pragmatic works written while acting as a part of government. In his more political works, Burke strenuously defends the glorious British Constitution and all the advantages of the mixed system of government. In this work, Burke attacks the mixed system as the worst of all, but spares no criticism for despotism, aristocracy, and democracy in their purer forms as well. He assaults every man-made political system, implicitly endorsing only the state of nature and complete (political) anarchy. Yet I doubt he gave up his comfortable life in his comfortable home, despite the many ways such a modern life depended absolutely on the very specialization and division of labor that he specifically decries. In fact, the stark distinction between Burke the philosopher and Burke the politician might be likened to the difference between Henry Kissinger the academic and Kissinger the politician.
Burke acknowledges the disadvantages of living in the state of nature, though in terms less stark than Hobbes Thomas: "In the state of nature, without question, mankind was subjected to many and great inconveniences. Want of union, want of mutual assistance, want of a common arbitrator to resort to in their differences." (location 12026-12027) However, he sees danger in creating any sort of political structure, as man is unable to restrain himself: "The great error of our nature is, not to know where to stop, not to be satisfied with any reasonable acquirement; not to compound with our condition; but to lose all we have gained by an insatiable pursuit after more." (location 12033-12034)
Burke again notes some problems common to both states, but insists artificial political structures make these problems worse: "I will own that there is a haughtiness and fierceness in human nature, which will cause innumerable broils, place men in what situation you please; but owning this, I still insist in charging it to political regulations, that these broils are so frequent, so cruel, and attended with consequences so deplorable." (location 12222-12224) The reason being, "For as subordination, or, in other words, the reciprocation of tyranny and slavery, is requisite to support these societies; the interest, the ambition, the malice, or the revenge, nay, even the whim and caprice of one ruling man among them, is enough to arm all the rest, without any private views of their own, to the worst and blackest purposes: and what is at once lamentable, and ridiculous, these wretches engage under those banners with a fury greater than if they were animated by revenge for their own proper wrongs." (location 12241-12245) Burke would not have been surprised by the horrors and totalitarianism of the 20th century! Further, "The very name of a politician, a statesman, is sure to cause terror and hatred; it has always connected with it the ideas of treachery, cruelty, fraud, and tyranny." (location 12258-12259)
Burke examines the wrong of any given political system by both criticizing the State's coercion of its own citizens and its slaughter of foreigners in war, in an argument any modern Anarchist would applaud: "To prove that these sorts of policed societies are a violation offered to nature, and a constraint upon the human mind, it needs only to look upon the sanguinary measures, and instruments of violence, which are everywhere used to support them. Let us take a review of the dungeons, whips, chains, racks, gibbets, with which every society is abundantly stored; by which hundreds of victims are annually offered up to support a dozen or two in pride and madness, and millions in an abject servitude and dependence." (location 12273-12276)
He goes on to list the horrors of war and the millions killed in it, not to mention the great destruction of property and prosperity, over thousands of years, in stark contrast to his glorification of war in "Observations on a Late Publication Intitled 'The Present State of the Nation'" (in 1769) and his list of all the benefits of the Seven Years' War to England.
Burke goes on to list and describe each of the three basic forms of political government, despotism, aristocracy, and democracy, showing how each of the latter is supposed to be a moderation of the former, but instead becomes more obnoxious still, culminating in his indictment of mixed government as combining the faults of all three. This after he had not only served in such a mixed government but consistently hailed its praises in speeches and writings. He attacks despotism understandably, "unbounded power proceeds step by step, until it has eradicated every laudable principle." (location 12308) He goes on to show how such power corrupts not only the despot, but his clique, "there is no prince so bad, whose favorites and ministers are not worse." (location 12309) In like manner he shows how aristocracy multiplies the faults among hundreds, while democracy among the many, even though no democracy ever really served all.
He sums up against all forms of government, "A shining merit is ever hated or suspected in a popular assembly, as well as in a court; and all services done the state are looked upon as dangerous to the rulers, whether sultans or senators." Friedrich Hayek would have recognized this argument and understood its causes. Burke defends natural reason against all comers, "I have defended natural religion against a confederacy of atheists and divines. I now plead for natural society against politicians, and for natural reason against all three." (location 12476-12477)
Burke rightly shows the problem inherent in all forms of government and any attempts to limit its abuses or powers, "that grand error upon which all artificial legislative power is founded. It was observed, that men had ungovernable passions, which made it necessary to guard against the violence they might offer to each other. They appointed governors over them for this reason. But a worse and more perplexing difficulty arises, ho to be defended against the governors?" (location 12483-12485) In other words, a government cannot protect persons from themselves, and will only reduce those individuals' liberties and prosperity in the process of not achieving the original objective.
Burke elsewhere defends political parties, shows their necessity, and even extolls their benefits, especially in Thoughts on the Present Discontents, and Speeches. Burke the philosopher, however, has some other ideas: "It is of no consequence what the principles of any party, or what their pretensions are; the spirit which actuates all parties is the same; the spirit of ambition, of self-interest, of oppression and treachery." (location 12525-12527) David Friedman made a similar arugment against taking Libertarian parties seriously on the political level.
Burke cautions the would-be tinkerer with government, the reformer, with a realistic assessment of the possible, in a reflection of Burke the politician's old conservative streak: "Evils we have had continually calling for reformation, and reformations more grievous than any evils." (location 12547)
Burke then launches into an attack on the very principle of the rule of law, showing how it is subverted by legislators, lawyers, and judges, so as to be incomprehensible to any of them and oppressive to the many, as what was supposed to establish a defined set of rules for fair play ends up seeming random and arbitrary. For instance, "this question is daily determined, not upon the evidence of the right, but upon the observance or neglect of some forms of words in use with the gentlemen of the robe, about which there is even amongst themselves such a disagreement, that the most experienced veterans in the profession can never be positively assured that they are not mistaken." (location 12585-12587) Because of the law's incomprehensible nature, it becomes a tool of plunder for the clever to take from the hard-working, "In a state of nature, it is an invariable law, that a man's acquisitions are in proportion to his labors. In a state of artificial society, it is a law as constant as invariable, that those who labor must enjoy the fewest things; and that those who labor not at all have the greatest number of enjoyments." (location 12642-12644) Here I must part ways with Burke with extreme prejudice and note the commonality of piracy and brigandage in areas approaching a "state of nature" and therefore how even in that condition, many are found who can take from those who work in a way that does not encourage labor and thrift.
Essentially, Burke recommends an existence similar to that found endorsed in Thoughts from Walden Pond or even simpler. However, I doubt Burke spent much of his actual life in such simplicity, especially with as much money as he spent on his estate. He acutely criticizes the flaws of political society, yet without a realistic assessment of the down sides to anarchy (might makes right, yet, as Hobbes noted, even the strong have to sleep sometime). At least David Friedman had the integrity to admit where his arguments in favor of anarchy were weak, and where he needed further work in The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism. Without such a discussion by Burke, this comes off more as a rant from a crusty old man than a realistic way forward. As Burke himself notes on another topic, "The writers against religion, whilst they oppose every system, are wisely careful never to set up any of their own." (location 11996)
I recommend this work to everyone, so as to take advantage of Burke's life experience and keen insight into human nature and the faults of human society. However, when it comes time to address these faults, the reader will have to rely on him/herself or look elsewhere for realistic advice.
This is Burke's great, principled, abstract philosophical work on government, as opposed to his many pragmatic works written while acting as a part of government. In his more political works, Burke strenuously defends the glorious British Constitution and all the advantages of the mixed system of government. In this work, Burke attacks the mixed system as the worst of all, but spares no criticism for despotism, aristocracy, and democracy in their purer forms as well. He assaults every man-made political system, implicitly endorsing only the state of nature and complete (political) anarchy. Yet I doubt he gave up his comfortable life in his comfortable home, despite the many ways such a modern life depended absolutely on the very specialization and division of labor that he specifically decries. In fact, the stark distinction between Burke the philosopher and Burke the politician might be likened to the difference between Henry Kissinger the academic and Kissinger the politician.
Burke acknowledges the disadvantages of living in the state of nature, though in terms less stark than Hobbes Thomas: "In the state of nature, without question, mankind was subjected to many and great inconveniences. Want of union, want of mutual assistance, want of a common arbitrator to resort to in their differences." (location 12026-12027) However, he sees danger in creating any sort of political structure, as man is unable to restrain himself: "The great error of our nature is, not to know where to stop, not to be satisfied with any reasonable acquirement; not to compound with our condition; but to lose all we have gained by an insatiable pursuit after more." (location 12033-12034)
Burke again notes some problems common to both states, but insists artificial political structures make these problems worse: "I will own that there is a haughtiness and fierceness in human nature, which will cause innumerable broils, place men in what situation you please; but owning this, I still insist in charging it to political regulations, that these broils are so frequent, so cruel, and attended with consequences so deplorable." (location 12222-12224) The reason being, "For as subordination, or, in other words, the reciprocation of tyranny and slavery, is requisite to support these societies; the interest, the ambition, the malice, or the revenge, nay, even the whim and caprice of one ruling man among them, is enough to arm all the rest, without any private views of their own, to the worst and blackest purposes: and what is at once lamentable, and ridiculous, these wretches engage under those banners with a fury greater than if they were animated by revenge for their own proper wrongs." (location 12241-12245) Burke would not have been surprised by the horrors and totalitarianism of the 20th century! Further, "The very name of a politician, a statesman, is sure to cause terror and hatred; it has always connected with it the ideas of treachery, cruelty, fraud, and tyranny." (location 12258-12259)
Burke examines the wrong of any given political system by both criticizing the State's coercion of its own citizens and its slaughter of foreigners in war, in an argument any modern Anarchist would applaud: "To prove that these sorts of policed societies are a violation offered to nature, and a constraint upon the human mind, it needs only to look upon the sanguinary measures, and instruments of violence, which are everywhere used to support them. Let us take a review of the dungeons, whips, chains, racks, gibbets, with which every society is abundantly stored; by which hundreds of victims are annually offered up to support a dozen or two in pride and madness, and millions in an abject servitude and dependence." (location 12273-12276)
He goes on to list the horrors of war and the millions killed in it, not to mention the great destruction of property and prosperity, over thousands of years, in stark contrast to his glorification of war in "Observations on a Late Publication Intitled 'The Present State of the Nation'" (in 1769) and his list of all the benefits of the Seven Years' War to England.
Burke goes on to list and describe each of the three basic forms of political government, despotism, aristocracy, and democracy, showing how each of the latter is supposed to be a moderation of the former, but instead becomes more obnoxious still, culminating in his indictment of mixed government as combining the faults of all three. This after he had not only served in such a mixed government but consistently hailed its praises in speeches and writings. He attacks despotism understandably, "unbounded power proceeds step by step, until it has eradicated every laudable principle." (location 12308) He goes on to show how such power corrupts not only the despot, but his clique, "there is no prince so bad, whose favorites and ministers are not worse." (location 12309) In like manner he shows how aristocracy multiplies the faults among hundreds, while democracy among the many, even though no democracy ever really served all.
He sums up against all forms of government, "A shining merit is ever hated or suspected in a popular assembly, as well as in a court; and all services done the state are looked upon as dangerous to the rulers, whether sultans or senators." Friedrich Hayek would have recognized this argument and understood its causes. Burke defends natural reason against all comers, "I have defended natural religion against a confederacy of atheists and divines. I now plead for natural society against politicians, and for natural reason against all three." (location 12476-12477)
Burke rightly shows the problem inherent in all forms of government and any attempts to limit its abuses or powers, "that grand error upon which all artificial legislative power is founded. It was observed, that men had ungovernable passions, which made it necessary to guard against the violence they might offer to each other. They appointed governors over them for this reason. But a worse and more perplexing difficulty arises, ho to be defended against the governors?" (location 12483-12485) In other words, a government cannot protect persons from themselves, and will only reduce those individuals' liberties and prosperity in the process of not achieving the original objective.
Burke elsewhere defends political parties, shows their necessity, and even extolls their benefits, especially in Thoughts on the Present Discontents, and Speeches. Burke the philosopher, however, has some other ideas: "It is of no consequence what the principles of any party, or what their pretensions are; the spirit which actuates all parties is the same; the spirit of ambition, of self-interest, of oppression and treachery." (location 12525-12527) David Friedman made a similar arugment against taking Libertarian parties seriously on the political level.
Burke cautions the would-be tinkerer with government, the reformer, with a realistic assessment of the possible, in a reflection of Burke the politician's old conservative streak: "Evils we have had continually calling for reformation, and reformations more grievous than any evils." (location 12547)
Burke then launches into an attack on the very principle of the rule of law, showing how it is subverted by legislators, lawyers, and judges, so as to be incomprehensible to any of them and oppressive to the many, as what was supposed to establish a defined set of rules for fair play ends up seeming random and arbitrary. For instance, "this question is daily determined, not upon the evidence of the right, but upon the observance or neglect of some forms of words in use with the gentlemen of the robe, about which there is even amongst themselves such a disagreement, that the most experienced veterans in the profession can never be positively assured that they are not mistaken." (location 12585-12587) Because of the law's incomprehensible nature, it becomes a tool of plunder for the clever to take from the hard-working, "In a state of nature, it is an invariable law, that a man's acquisitions are in proportion to his labors. In a state of artificial society, it is a law as constant as invariable, that those who labor must enjoy the fewest things; and that those who labor not at all have the greatest number of enjoyments." (location 12642-12644) Here I must part ways with Burke with extreme prejudice and note the commonality of piracy and brigandage in areas approaching a "state of nature" and therefore how even in that condition, many are found who can take from those who work in a way that does not encourage labor and thrift.
Essentially, Burke recommends an existence similar to that found endorsed in Thoughts from Walden Pond or even simpler. However, I doubt Burke spent much of his actual life in such simplicity, especially with as much money as he spent on his estate. He acutely criticizes the flaws of political society, yet without a realistic assessment of the down sides to anarchy (might makes right, yet, as Hobbes noted, even the strong have to sleep sometime). At least David Friedman had the integrity to admit where his arguments in favor of anarchy were weak, and where he needed further work in The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism. Without such a discussion by Burke, this comes off more as a rant from a crusty old man than a realistic way forward. As Burke himself notes on another topic, "The writers against religion, whilst they oppose every system, are wisely careful never to set up any of their own." (location 11996)
I recommend this work to everyone, so as to take advantage of Burke's life experience and keen insight into human nature and the faults of human society. However, when it comes time to address these faults, the reader will have to rely on him/herself or look elsewhere for realistic advice.
February 15, 2012
Burke supposedly wrote this as a satirical response to Lord Bolingbroke's arguments against religion, largely imitating the same style to argue that every form of artificial law is inferior and destructive compared to natural law. As it was polemic and satirical, it was hard to get an accurate sense of just how far Burke really supported his argument. I didn't think he made the case for natural law here, but his takedown of manmade governmental systems was pretty thorough given the few pages he allotted for the task. And I think this was his point to Bolingbroke--tearing down without proposing an alternative isn't all that impressive an intellectual feat.
January 29, 2023
Imponerande.
Boken är enligt författaren en satir, och det är den ju, på ett sätt, i det att den argumenterar för det oargumenterbara, en återgång till stenålderscivilisation, eftersom människor i industrialiserad miljö är alldeles för elaka mot varandra. Vilket är en korrekt observation, men en som författaren listigt gör gällande gäller även för den primitiva "naturliga" civilisationen. Vilket ger maktmissbruk med teknologi och rättigheter för vissa (de med möjlighet att klättra eller tur att födas högt i den hierarki av maktmissbruk som Burke beskriver) eller maktmissbruk utan teknologi och rättigheter för alla.
Det läskiga är att denna bok är välsedd i anarkistkretsar, ungefär som Bakunin är bland nyliberaler.
Boken är enligt författaren en satir, och det är den ju, på ett sätt, i det att den argumenterar för det oargumenterbara, en återgång till stenålderscivilisation, eftersom människor i industrialiserad miljö är alldeles för elaka mot varandra. Vilket är en korrekt observation, men en som författaren listigt gör gällande gäller även för den primitiva "naturliga" civilisationen. Vilket ger maktmissbruk med teknologi och rättigheter för vissa (de med möjlighet att klättra eller tur att födas högt i den hierarki av maktmissbruk som Burke beskriver) eller maktmissbruk utan teknologi och rättigheter för alla.
Det läskiga är att denna bok är välsedd i anarkistkretsar, ungefär som Bakunin är bland nyliberaler.
August 20, 2017
It's difficult to read Burke nowadays without a background appreciation of the assumptions of his era, particularly his application of the terms 'natural' and 'artificial' to notions such as society and the law. This is, perhaps, the result of a loss of belief in a 'natural religion', whose precepts can be taken for granted as the philosophical basis of all else that is 'natural'. Also, it may be that the kind of participative democracy which Burke appears to be implying as a desirable state of relations between humans (it is difficult to say, precisely because his vocabulary and the expectations of his readers are as they are) has taught us to regard *all* systems of social, political, and legal organisation as to some extent 'artificial', while those forms which we prefer appear to us more 'natural'.
In brief, writing this book as he was as an address to a member of the British House of Lords, the author was necessarily circumspect about the precise form of governmental organisation he felt desirable, while being outspoken in his rejection of mechanically stratified institutions dependent on codified and pedantically-interpreted rules. As a defence of the English Common Law this makes a deal of sense, although he does not go so far as to condemn the notion of Parliamentary Statute, even if this was what we are meant to infer. There are sideswipes at an 'aristocracy', although these are made in the context of a general examination of Classical history and do not seem to undermine his respect for his 'aristocratic' addressee. This essay does, however, counsel great caution in any approach to idealistic, top-down political theory or system - what we might nowadays call an ideology - and as such is a valuable early work in the history of conscious political conservatism.
In brief, writing this book as he was as an address to a member of the British House of Lords, the author was necessarily circumspect about the precise form of governmental organisation he felt desirable, while being outspoken in his rejection of mechanically stratified institutions dependent on codified and pedantically-interpreted rules. As a defence of the English Common Law this makes a deal of sense, although he does not go so far as to condemn the notion of Parliamentary Statute, even if this was what we are meant to infer. There are sideswipes at an 'aristocracy', although these are made in the context of a general examination of Classical history and do not seem to undermine his respect for his 'aristocratic' addressee. This essay does, however, counsel great caution in any approach to idealistic, top-down political theory or system - what we might nowadays call an ideology - and as such is a valuable early work in the history of conscious political conservatism.
July 8, 2025
This work was intended as a satire of Lord Bolingbroke who was both a deist and political tory by applying the same idea of a natural religion of reason to society which leads to anarchy. Throughout Burke roughly describes natural society as one of equals united by appetite and instincts in its most rudimentary form the family formed by the union of the sexes and their children who supply their needs by labor directly from nature and so have neither poverty nor luxury, and always have recourse to self-defense against the predations of others. Natural society actually seems to be based in the human passions rather than reason. Yet natural society faces defects from want of union, assurances from others, and a third party authority to settle disputes. But natural society has no means to keep such union together permanently or scale upwards. Artificial/political society is formed by conquest and strengthened by superstitious religion in its three forms tyranny (or monarchy), aristocracy, and democracy each of which in turn makes political society more complicated and violent, from patricide to fratricide.
Though intended as satire, the description of natural society is very similar to that of Burke’s later intellectual arch nemesis Thomas Paine but does not admit of a democratic solution as democracy is too an outcome of force. Burke seems to intend rejection of natural society as an abstraction or as something beyond reason in religion and tradition. Paine’s alternative was that natural society always exists, akin to Adam Ferguson, and to distinguish between the people and the government, a very American attitude as the states preexisted the union and through federalism scale upwards to a natural political order.
Though intended as satire, the description of natural society is very similar to that of Burke’s later intellectual arch nemesis Thomas Paine but does not admit of a democratic solution as democracy is too an outcome of force. Burke seems to intend rejection of natural society as an abstraction or as something beyond reason in religion and tradition. Paine’s alternative was that natural society always exists, akin to Adam Ferguson, and to distinguish between the people and the government, a very American attitude as the states preexisted the union and through federalism scale upwards to a natural political order.
March 6, 2023
I admit, he got me. I got trolled by a 27 year old mid-18th century Irishman.
After reading a book about Edmund Burke a few weeks ago, I decided to read a book BY him. It's more of an 86 page essay, but I should have caught on to the satire just by the title: "A Vindication of Natural Society [or, a View of the Miseries and Evils arising to Mankind from every Species of Artificial Society]." Indeed, I did NOT catch on.
Like the title, Burke's writing was a bit wordy. Some parts were clear enough to have been spoken today and relate directly to some aspect of our modern society, but I figured that most of the author's verbosity was due to the style of the time. One has more time to indulge in wordsmithing when not inundated with cat videos and Netlfix.
My understanding of Burke prior to reading this was he advocated for the importance of institutions in society, that individual freedom could best flourish within these institutions with populations steeped in manners (or virtues), and that oppressed peoples would need to be protected from both government and corporations. "A Vindication" was the exact opposite of all that, and for a while I was like "Yeah, man, all forms of government are evil," because that is, in essence, what he was arguing. It was taking me back to my anarchist days.
His review of the major civilizations of history up to that point, as well as going over the pros and cons of different forms of government, was actually pretty handy, though. It's a sign of talent when parts of the joke can be made useful in real analysis and discussion, which is why I believe Burke still has such a good reputation as a writer and speaker.
Anyway, by the end of the essay, I was perplexed because, again, Burke wasn't an anarchist, but he sure sounded like one. I rarely look up a book I read after I read it, and before I post a review... because I want to make sure I post my thoughts and not someone else's... but I did it this time, and I'm really glad I did. Or else this review would have been as flawed as some of those that came out back in the day when "A Vindication" was originally published.
At least I wasn't the only one who was fooled.
After reading a book about Edmund Burke a few weeks ago, I decided to read a book BY him. It's more of an 86 page essay, but I should have caught on to the satire just by the title: "A Vindication of Natural Society [or, a View of the Miseries and Evils arising to Mankind from every Species of Artificial Society]." Indeed, I did NOT catch on.
Like the title, Burke's writing was a bit wordy. Some parts were clear enough to have been spoken today and relate directly to some aspect of our modern society, but I figured that most of the author's verbosity was due to the style of the time. One has more time to indulge in wordsmithing when not inundated with cat videos and Netlfix.
My understanding of Burke prior to reading this was he advocated for the importance of institutions in society, that individual freedom could best flourish within these institutions with populations steeped in manners (or virtues), and that oppressed peoples would need to be protected from both government and corporations. "A Vindication" was the exact opposite of all that, and for a while I was like "Yeah, man, all forms of government are evil," because that is, in essence, what he was arguing. It was taking me back to my anarchist days.
His review of the major civilizations of history up to that point, as well as going over the pros and cons of different forms of government, was actually pretty handy, though. It's a sign of talent when parts of the joke can be made useful in real analysis and discussion, which is why I believe Burke still has such a good reputation as a writer and speaker.
Anyway, by the end of the essay, I was perplexed because, again, Burke wasn't an anarchist, but he sure sounded like one. I rarely look up a book I read after I read it, and before I post a review... because I want to make sure I post my thoughts and not someone else's... but I did it this time, and I'm really glad I did. Or else this review would have been as flawed as some of those that came out back in the day when "A Vindication" was originally published.
At least I wasn't the only one who was fooled.
March 8, 2018
A nice short read. Readers should keep in mind that it was meant to be a satire. That being said, I think that reading it as a serious work is thought provoking. As the book was supposedly mistaken as not being a satire by many at the time of its publishing, I think that reading it in terms of it being a satire and a serious piece can help to better appreciate the historical significance of it as well.
(Note: I tried to read it while keeping two contradicting levels of analysis in mind - that it is meant as a satire and that it is meant to be taken seriously - and while it was difficult I think it increased my enjoyment of the book. I did this by reading a small section as if it should be taken seriously, and then I paused and ran through the section in my mind as a satire before moving on to the next section. I would recommend this form of reading if you have the time to do so.)
(Note: I tried to read it while keeping two contradicting levels of analysis in mind - that it is meant as a satire and that it is meant to be taken seriously - and while it was difficult I think it increased my enjoyment of the book. I did this by reading a small section as if it should be taken seriously, and then I paused and ran through the section in my mind as a satire before moving on to the next section. I would recommend this form of reading if you have the time to do so.)
April 7, 2021
Edmund Burke's first book is an anonymously published satire. In it he argues against different kinds of government from absolute monarchy to democracy, showing them all to be despotic, warlike, and venal. He offers quite an amusing attack on laws and lawyers. He concludes that, in logic and reason, no form of government is suitable although he does not actually come out arguing for anarchism. But the implication is clear. We would all be better off without government.
Some of it is reminiscent of other satires on government, such as Erasmus's In Praise of Folly which takes quite a different tack.
Much of it is a bit over the top pushing the reader into a logical corner from which there is seemingly no escape.
It is an amusing read but not a great work in my opinion.
Some of it is reminiscent of other satires on government, such as Erasmus's In Praise of Folly which takes quite a different tack.
Much of it is a bit over the top pushing the reader into a logical corner from which there is seemingly no escape.
It is an amusing read but not a great work in my opinion.
December 3, 2021
I think Burke is telling a king to…. basically a conservative/ libertarian atheist viewpoint
April 16, 2025
[4.5]
este homem faz-me rir como poucos outros!
este homem faz-me rir como poucos outros!
Read
September 23, 2010A Vindication of Natural Society by Edmund Burke (1997)
July 11, 2013
Among the greatest satires in the English language in my humble opinion.
Currently reading
June 19, 2015
April 24, 2024
Very interesting thoughts, enjoyable read!
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews