What do you think?
Rate this book
The Discovery of Chance: The Life and Thought of Alexander Herzen
Alexander Herzen—philosopher, novelist, essayist, political agitator, and one of the leading Russian intellectuals of the nineteenth century—was as famous in his day as Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. While he is remembered for his masterpiece My Past and Thoughts and as the father of Russian socialism, his contributions to the history of ideas defy easy categorization because they are so numerous. Aileen Kelly presents the first fully rounded study of the farsighted genius whom Isaiah Berlin called “the forerunner of much twentieth-century thought.”In an era dominated by ideologies of human progress, Herzen resisted them because they conflicted with his sense of reality, a sense honed by his unusually comprehensive understanding of history, philosophy, and the natural sciences. Following his unconventional decision to study science at university, he came to recognize the implications of early evolutionary theory, not just for the natural world but for human history. In this respect, he was a Darwinian even before Darwin.Socialism for Russia, as Herzen conceived it, was not an ideology—least of all Marxian “scientific socialism”—but a concrete means of grappling with unique historical circumstances, a way for Russians to combine the best of Western achievements with the possibilities of their own cultural milieu in order to move forward. In the same year that Marx declared communism to be the “solution to the riddle of history,” Herzen denied that any such solution could exist. History, like nature, was contingent—an improvisation both constrained and encouraged by chance.
604 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2016
11 people are currently reading
223 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
September 22, 2016
Superb.
This intellectual biography of Alexander Herzen is a tour de force of the art. Aileen Kelly is clear and meticulous as she follows the development of Herzen’s interest in natural science and his application of its methods to history. The results were his unique opinions on how to improve political and social conditions in Russia. These opinions put him at odds with the two major camps of Russian dissidents in the nineteenth century: the Westernizers and the Slavophiles. Worse, they led disappointed revolutionaries to accuse him of being in the same camp as the liberals, who wanted to leave much of the ruling structure in place. From 150 years on, Herzen appears to be the visionary and the most independent thinker. He certainly makes the most compelling case for a theory of historical development that resonates with the world around us today.
Luckily for Herzen, he had an uncle interested in the sciences, and by chance he studied with faculty at university who were in the forefront of scientists exploring the evidence for evolution and the geological history of the planet. Physics and chemistry became foundational for him. His habits of thought were patterned by the scientific method. One studied the evidence and by induction reached theories, conclusions, natural laws. This led him to repeatedly break from colleagues schooled in the humanities, who, he wrote, envisioned an ideal state and then interpreted history as on the zigzag, but inevitable, path toward that end.
Kelly is thorough in tracing the events and relationships that muddled his thoughts for several years, as he dallied with religion and was tempted by Hegel and some schools of Hegelians to believe in a directional course of history, and the path to a perfect world. During bouts of exile such comforts were enticing. At the same time, he was working as a bureaucrat in rural areas of Russia, which exposed him to the real lives of serfs and the lower classes. The latent knowledge he took to the west, when he emigrated to escape further exile in 1847, was an understanding of the rural commune (the landowner’s property was divided up by the serfs themselves to be worked according to the capacity of each household, which led them to believe that in some sense the land was theirs and gave them some experience in collaborative decision-making).
Kelly then explores the fundamental impact of Proudhon’s thought on Herzen. I had heard the name but knew nothing about his thought, so this was quite helpful. Herzen settled in France, was repelled by the vulgarity of the bourgeois, and headed for Italy. At that point, the revolutions of 1848 broke out, which were the turning point for his ideas. He was back in Paris for the bloody end of the affair, and the killings and executions, followed by the restoration of the same mode of life and a similar government, voted in by the proletariat, put him off violent revolution as an effective means of political or social change.
Instead, he turned back to science, particularly the emerging understanding of evolution, and adopted the ideas of gradual change in response to contingent events as the way history actually worked. A committed socialist (and at least semi-anarchist) by this time, in Proudhon’s mold, he thought that an effective way to achieve a more just society in Russia was to bypass the Western European course from feudalism to capitalism in favor of working with the very traditional Russian commune, in which the lower classes governed their property in a very decentralized manner. He promulgated these and other ideas through his Russian language journal The Bell, from his home in London.
The process of emancipating the serfs in the 1860s offered a chance to influence events along these lines. Herzen was convinced that the effective revolutionary analyzed contingent events—such as the decision to end serfdom—and then worked to shape them bit by bit toward a realistic outcome. There could be no success in trying to impose a cataclysmic change designed by intellectuals from above, especially on a the uneducated lower classes he increasing came to view as inherently conservative. Unfortunately, the Polish rebellion occurred in the middle of the process, and Herzen watched with disappointment as Russians from every class climbed on the repressive nationalist bandwagon to put down the rebellion. In the reaction that followed, the final form of emancipation, while freeing the serfs from legal servitude, achieved little real change. Once again Herzen’s belief in the power of contingent event and the lack of any fixed end point of history, was confirmed.
The wonder is that his theories, and despair, did not lead to resignation. He never gave up the belief that individuals could improved conditions by accepting the reality of the contingencies of life, and nudging actions that would use them to advantage.
This is not a quick read. Every sentence counts, which means you learn as much as if you had read four or five books. Kelly has read everything. She fills in the background you need to know about the science, philosophy, history, and politics of the time. She draws on Herzen’s correspondence with his friends and other important actors of the day. She sometimes uses this correspondence to illustrate the various political positions of the camps, as in Herzen’s long-running dialogue with Turgenev. There is enough general biography as needed to illuminate Herzen’s political situation and emotional state, but the emphasis is definitely on his intellectual development and how he communicated it.
I think Kelly’s finest achievement is in articulating Herzen’s ideas and selecting passages from his writing that illustrate them. My copy of the book has about a hundred flags that mark particularly clear summaries and beautifully written excerpts from his works. It could have had a thousand. I came to Herzen through his autobiography, My Life and Thoughts, and come away even more admiring from this book. I have ordered more of his writing and look forward to dipping into various essays. Looking back across what has happened during my life, from entering college in the late 1960s through the decades since, I find that Herzen’s opinions about the lack of any final ideal state, any single path of historical development, and the fact that every community will find its unique course based on its reactions to contingencies, are very convincing. He is eloquent and practical on how we can still seize opportunities to improve things.
This intellectual biography of Alexander Herzen is a tour de force of the art. Aileen Kelly is clear and meticulous as she follows the development of Herzen’s interest in natural science and his application of its methods to history. The results were his unique opinions on how to improve political and social conditions in Russia. These opinions put him at odds with the two major camps of Russian dissidents in the nineteenth century: the Westernizers and the Slavophiles. Worse, they led disappointed revolutionaries to accuse him of being in the same camp as the liberals, who wanted to leave much of the ruling structure in place. From 150 years on, Herzen appears to be the visionary and the most independent thinker. He certainly makes the most compelling case for a theory of historical development that resonates with the world around us today.
Luckily for Herzen, he had an uncle interested in the sciences, and by chance he studied with faculty at university who were in the forefront of scientists exploring the evidence for evolution and the geological history of the planet. Physics and chemistry became foundational for him. His habits of thought were patterned by the scientific method. One studied the evidence and by induction reached theories, conclusions, natural laws. This led him to repeatedly break from colleagues schooled in the humanities, who, he wrote, envisioned an ideal state and then interpreted history as on the zigzag, but inevitable, path toward that end.
Kelly is thorough in tracing the events and relationships that muddled his thoughts for several years, as he dallied with religion and was tempted by Hegel and some schools of Hegelians to believe in a directional course of history, and the path to a perfect world. During bouts of exile such comforts were enticing. At the same time, he was working as a bureaucrat in rural areas of Russia, which exposed him to the real lives of serfs and the lower classes. The latent knowledge he took to the west, when he emigrated to escape further exile in 1847, was an understanding of the rural commune (the landowner’s property was divided up by the serfs themselves to be worked according to the capacity of each household, which led them to believe that in some sense the land was theirs and gave them some experience in collaborative decision-making).
Kelly then explores the fundamental impact of Proudhon’s thought on Herzen. I had heard the name but knew nothing about his thought, so this was quite helpful. Herzen settled in France, was repelled by the vulgarity of the bourgeois, and headed for Italy. At that point, the revolutions of 1848 broke out, which were the turning point for his ideas. He was back in Paris for the bloody end of the affair, and the killings and executions, followed by the restoration of the same mode of life and a similar government, voted in by the proletariat, put him off violent revolution as an effective means of political or social change.
Instead, he turned back to science, particularly the emerging understanding of evolution, and adopted the ideas of gradual change in response to contingent events as the way history actually worked. A committed socialist (and at least semi-anarchist) by this time, in Proudhon’s mold, he thought that an effective way to achieve a more just society in Russia was to bypass the Western European course from feudalism to capitalism in favor of working with the very traditional Russian commune, in which the lower classes governed their property in a very decentralized manner. He promulgated these and other ideas through his Russian language journal The Bell, from his home in London.
The process of emancipating the serfs in the 1860s offered a chance to influence events along these lines. Herzen was convinced that the effective revolutionary analyzed contingent events—such as the decision to end serfdom—and then worked to shape them bit by bit toward a realistic outcome. There could be no success in trying to impose a cataclysmic change designed by intellectuals from above, especially on a the uneducated lower classes he increasing came to view as inherently conservative. Unfortunately, the Polish rebellion occurred in the middle of the process, and Herzen watched with disappointment as Russians from every class climbed on the repressive nationalist bandwagon to put down the rebellion. In the reaction that followed, the final form of emancipation, while freeing the serfs from legal servitude, achieved little real change. Once again Herzen’s belief in the power of contingent event and the lack of any fixed end point of history, was confirmed.
The wonder is that his theories, and despair, did not lead to resignation. He never gave up the belief that individuals could improved conditions by accepting the reality of the contingencies of life, and nudging actions that would use them to advantage.
This is not a quick read. Every sentence counts, which means you learn as much as if you had read four or five books. Kelly has read everything. She fills in the background you need to know about the science, philosophy, history, and politics of the time. She draws on Herzen’s correspondence with his friends and other important actors of the day. She sometimes uses this correspondence to illustrate the various political positions of the camps, as in Herzen’s long-running dialogue with Turgenev. There is enough general biography as needed to illuminate Herzen’s political situation and emotional state, but the emphasis is definitely on his intellectual development and how he communicated it.
I think Kelly’s finest achievement is in articulating Herzen’s ideas and selecting passages from his writing that illustrate them. My copy of the book has about a hundred flags that mark particularly clear summaries and beautifully written excerpts from his works. It could have had a thousand. I came to Herzen through his autobiography, My Life and Thoughts, and come away even more admiring from this book. I have ordered more of his writing and look forward to dipping into various essays. Looking back across what has happened during my life, from entering college in the late 1960s through the decades since, I find that Herzen’s opinions about the lack of any final ideal state, any single path of historical development, and the fact that every community will find its unique course based on its reactions to contingencies, are very convincing. He is eloquent and practical on how we can still seize opportunities to improve things.
June 19, 2016
An intellectual biography of Alexander Herzen, emphasizing the influence of Hegal and Feurbach, the French Revolution, and, later in Herzen's career, Proudhon. The book also shows how Herzen's background in the natural sciences led him to understand the role that chance plays in history.
I read the book in anticipation of reading Herzen's autobiography, My Past and Thoughts, so I was surprised to find that this important literary work was barely mentioned here. Still, this book captures the complexity of ideas that inspired his philosophy.
I read the book in anticipation of reading Herzen's autobiography, My Past and Thoughts, so I was surprised to find that this important literary work was barely mentioned here. Still, this book captures the complexity of ideas that inspired his philosophy.
August 8, 2016
See my comments below. I will attempt to write more - someday.
August 15, 2018
The revolution he hoped would transform the Russian commune into a model for a new kind of society had only one proponent among the intelligentsia of his generation: himself. Ogarev, his future collaborator in furthering the cause from London, was still deep in the Russian provinces, grappling with the financial problems involved in the liberation of his serfs. Bakunin, the only active revolutionary of Herzen's generation, had dabbled briefly in Slav nationalism before his arrest in Germany in 1849 and subsequent deportation to Russia to serve ten years of prison and exile. Like the image of the barbarian from the East with which he had sought to impress Proudhon, Herzen's portrayal of the "thinking Russian" served to put a positive gloss on the isolation and impotence of the Russian intelligentsia. "We are free from the past because our past has been empty, impoverished, narrow," he had written in his dissertation on Russian history for the benefit of his Western audience. This confidence was belied by his fits of self-analysis as he struggled to define his own identity and values as a Westernized Russian. To the German communist Moses Hess, who had accused him of a detached attitude to the crisis in Europe, he responds that his role of spectator has been predetermined by his nationality. "I belong physically to another world." He could observe the cancer consuming western Europe with a certain indifference, confident that the future was with the East. But writing to Herwegh only four months later, he identifies with the predicament of those radicals who reject the old order while fearing that the values they hold most dear will be jettisoned by the new, "at least in the near future." "A stranger at home and a stranger abroad" -- Herzen's description of the antihero of Who Is to Blame? encapsulates his own sense of alienation following the defeat of 1848, as he began to come to terms with the possibility that his ideal of socialism might not coincide with the aspirations of the masses.
He had not entirely lost hope in France's revolutionary potential, as evidenced by his elation when republicans made strong gains in complementary elections to the National Assembly in March 1850: "The great question of the future has been wholly transformed. France is becoming democratic before our eyes." But expectation gave way to resignation as he moved toward the conviction that the only force capable of eradicating the old order in France was communism. As the socialism of revenge, it had a particular appeal for the French masses, who, he tells a Russian correspondent, should not be idealized. They were impelled, not by notions of democracy and individual freedom, but by a burning sense of social injustice that would drive them to destroy indiscriminately the good along with the bad in the old world.
The coup d'etat of 2 December 1851 provoked a response of apocalyptic gloom in the last of his Letters from France and Italy: "Everything is over -- representative rights, an open court and an elected parliament.... Wherever you look, on all sides, there is the smell of barbarism: from Paris and Petersburg, from above and below, from palaces and workshops. What will complete it, deliver the final blow: the decrepit barbarism of the scepter or the violent barbarism of communism, the bloody saber or the red flag?" In this mood of nihilistic despair, even Russia seemed to hold out no hope.
He had not entirely lost hope in France's revolutionary potential, as evidenced by his elation when republicans made strong gains in complementary elections to the National Assembly in March 1850: "The great question of the future has been wholly transformed. France is becoming democratic before our eyes." But expectation gave way to resignation as he moved toward the conviction that the only force capable of eradicating the old order in France was communism. As the socialism of revenge, it had a particular appeal for the French masses, who, he tells a Russian correspondent, should not be idealized. They were impelled, not by notions of democracy and individual freedom, but by a burning sense of social injustice that would drive them to destroy indiscriminately the good along with the bad in the old world.
The coup d'etat of 2 December 1851 provoked a response of apocalyptic gloom in the last of his Letters from France and Italy: "Everything is over -- representative rights, an open court and an elected parliament.... Wherever you look, on all sides, there is the smell of barbarism: from Paris and Petersburg, from above and below, from palaces and workshops. What will complete it, deliver the final blow: the decrepit barbarism of the scepter or the violent barbarism of communism, the bloody saber or the red flag?" In this mood of nihilistic despair, even Russia seemed to hold out no hope.
August 29, 2016
Een bijzonder interessant boek over iemand, die waarschijnlijk veel mensen niet (meer) kennen. Alexander Herzen was een Rus, die de voorloper was van een positief socialisme. dus geen communist of anarchist. Dit is een biografie, maar meer van zijn gedachtegoed dan van zijn leven op zich. Hoewel dat laatste ook best interessant en tragisch was. Er komt veel filosofie aan te pas, maar de schrijfster weet het begrijpelijk te houden. Geen boek voor op het strand, maar zeer de moeite waard.
October 25, 2018
This is an excellent intellectual biography on the 19th century Russian socialist Alexander Herzen. While other scholars have tended to argue that Herzen's primary influence was Romanticism, Prof. Kelly argues persuasively that the wellspring of Herzen's thought is actually the same intellectual ferment that gave rise to to the theory of evolution via natural selection proposed by Herzen's contemporary, Charles Darwin.
Prof. Kelly contrasts Herzen's non-teleological views with other thinkers of the period who assumed that the ideal end state was one of bourgeois liberalism (the novelist Ivan Turgenev), Prussian bureaucracy (the philosopher G.W.F Hegel), the anarcho-socialist commune (political agitator Mikhail Bakunin), or the socialist utopia (noted Marxist Karl Marx). These thinkers in various ways presented their views as not only correct, but inevitable.
Herzen took a more skeptical stance, arguing for an analysis of political action that began with the structures at hand, rather than an appeal to some ideal end state. For him, the contradiction of ideals was an inescapable feature of political life, and any appeal to a political world in which those contradictions are resolved was an appeal to a dream as fantastic as any of the religions his radical fellow travelers criticized. In this way, the socialist Herzen's line of thinking ran with contemporary liberal thinker John Stuart Mill, who Herzen frequently referenced in his writings. Herzen's non-teological view of political thought and action is fascinating and Prof. Kelly does an excellent job of exploring its implications.
Because his thought is so fascinating, it is unfortunate that the last few chapters of the book, where Kelly analyzes how he applied his political views to the issues of his day, are the book's weakest portion. Not because Prof. Kelly is a bad expositor, but rather because she is too good at scrupulously drawing attention to how contentious the debate around this period of Eastern European and Russian history is. Because of my ignorance of Russia and Eastern Europe during period during this period, it's impossible for me to evaluate the merits of Prof. Kelly's judgments about the feasibility of Herzen's proposed reforms.
While I am unsure of Herzen's political judgments, Prof. Kelly does a good job of arguing that I should be distrustful of the judgments of bourgeois liberal thinkers like Turgenev. Kelly cites several historians who characterize the Russian liberals as "practical" in contrast to the "impractical" Herzen. Reading Kelly's significant excerpts from the writings of Russian liberals, I share her judgment that the pro-liberal historical view is based more on historian's ideological sympathy to the liberal Russian writers than the result of an actual consideration of the soundness of their analysis. The Russian liberals seem to have been animated by a proto-Fukuyamist "end of history" view of political development, in which bourgeois liberalism was the final, perfect, form of political development. And they were perfectly willing to use "top-down" means to arrive at their ideal, and to their mind inevitable, end state, consequences to the masses be damned.
Herzen may have been wrong, but he at least wasn't basing his analysis on the way things "had to go" because the tide of history demands it. Coming in contact with a thinker deeply skeptical of inevitability in a world where we are being told things from the gig economy to the second caliphate are set in stone and there is nothing we can do about it is a refreshing experience. Despite the books minor flaws, which are more a result of my general ignorance, this is a book worth engaging with and thinking about. I really recommend it.
Prof. Kelly contrasts Herzen's non-teleological views with other thinkers of the period who assumed that the ideal end state was one of bourgeois liberalism (the novelist Ivan Turgenev), Prussian bureaucracy (the philosopher G.W.F Hegel), the anarcho-socialist commune (political agitator Mikhail Bakunin), or the socialist utopia (noted Marxist Karl Marx). These thinkers in various ways presented their views as not only correct, but inevitable.
Herzen took a more skeptical stance, arguing for an analysis of political action that began with the structures at hand, rather than an appeal to some ideal end state. For him, the contradiction of ideals was an inescapable feature of political life, and any appeal to a political world in which those contradictions are resolved was an appeal to a dream as fantastic as any of the religions his radical fellow travelers criticized. In this way, the socialist Herzen's line of thinking ran with contemporary liberal thinker John Stuart Mill, who Herzen frequently referenced in his writings. Herzen's non-teological view of political thought and action is fascinating and Prof. Kelly does an excellent job of exploring its implications.
Because his thought is so fascinating, it is unfortunate that the last few chapters of the book, where Kelly analyzes how he applied his political views to the issues of his day, are the book's weakest portion. Not because Prof. Kelly is a bad expositor, but rather because she is too good at scrupulously drawing attention to how contentious the debate around this period of Eastern European and Russian history is. Because of my ignorance of Russia and Eastern Europe during period during this period, it's impossible for me to evaluate the merits of Prof. Kelly's judgments about the feasibility of Herzen's proposed reforms.
While I am unsure of Herzen's political judgments, Prof. Kelly does a good job of arguing that I should be distrustful of the judgments of bourgeois liberal thinkers like Turgenev. Kelly cites several historians who characterize the Russian liberals as "practical" in contrast to the "impractical" Herzen. Reading Kelly's significant excerpts from the writings of Russian liberals, I share her judgment that the pro-liberal historical view is based more on historian's ideological sympathy to the liberal Russian writers than the result of an actual consideration of the soundness of their analysis. The Russian liberals seem to have been animated by a proto-Fukuyamist "end of history" view of political development, in which bourgeois liberalism was the final, perfect, form of political development. And they were perfectly willing to use "top-down" means to arrive at their ideal, and to their mind inevitable, end state, consequences to the masses be damned.
Herzen may have been wrong, but he at least wasn't basing his analysis on the way things "had to go" because the tide of history demands it. Coming in contact with a thinker deeply skeptical of inevitability in a world where we are being told things from the gig economy to the second caliphate are set in stone and there is nothing we can do about it is a refreshing experience. Despite the books minor flaws, which are more a result of my general ignorance, this is a book worth engaging with and thinking about. I really recommend it.
January 20, 2019
A insightful and beautifully written intellectual biography of a sadly neglected figure, familiar now only to close readers of Isaiah Berlin, or from Tom Stoppard's Coast of Utopia. Steamrolled out of history by Marx, Herzen represented a humanist socialist alternative - one that rejected the Hegelian/Marxist narrative of historical determinism and inevitability for which lives and liberties were all too easily sacrificed. Herzen rejected all teleologies of progress, especially those which insisted Russia must develop through stages on the model of Europe. Kelly sees a prescient understanding of biology, evolution and Darwin's theories of natural selection acting on unpredictable random variables as underpinning Herzen's rejection of determinism and his concept of liberty. A timely reminder that the best often finish last and that history is written by the victors. But Herzen's vision may be well suited for a revival....
March 17, 2019
What else could shake a man other than holding the hand of a great intellectual - Herzen and walk around nineteenth-century Russia? What else can explain better the emergence of socialism in agrarian Russian society other than Alexander Herzen's life? Life, he said, has taught me to think, but thinking has not taught me to live. Biographer Aileen Kelly, who studied each corner of Herzel's life excellently presents such a resplendent personality and follows the reader from Moscow to Paris, Geneva, London, revolutions, European intellectuals… The author describes not only the life of Herzel but also the evolution of his intellectual position. The book helps to understand the dynamics of Russian society even now.
October 14, 2017
"Only a fool would die for an abstraction", "Nationalism is the opiate of the people", when I read these two quotes attributed to Alexander Herzen in Isiah Berlin's book about Russian philosophers I became interested in Herzen. They reinforce opinions I already had. When I discovered Kelly's biography I read it quickly. Herzen, a contemporary of Marx and Proudhon, was a biologist who applied Darwin's survival of the fittest to political philosophy. To say Herzen discovered chance is like saying Newton discovered gravity but he showed that history like evolution is not linear. And humanity is not moving toward anything wonderful.
October 21, 2020
After finishing Isaiah Berlin's 'Russian Thinkers', in which Alexander Herzen played a prominent role, I felt compelled to learn more about Herzen. Kelly's intellectual biography of Herzen probably isn't a great starting place for anyone not already interested in Herzen, but I found it to be well worth my time, as it gave me a much fuller sense of a 19th century radical social critic who managed to keep one foot on the ground - something I think we could almost certainly use more of in the 21st century.
December 14, 2024
I thoroughly enjoyed this book by Professor Kelly. I trust that Isiah Berlin would be proud of her accomplishment. I had never heard of Alexander Herzen before I discovered the book; her title drew me in. I have already got a cousin reading it! I kept sending him quotes from the book, and he decided for himself that he had to read it.
September 20, 2021
Excellent biography of Alexander Herzen and his intellectual milieu.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews