The death of Harry Jaffa has effected numerous reminiscences both across the nation and at Hillsdale. Within the past two weeks, the Collegian published an obituary (“Harry Jaffa dies” by Evan Carter, January 22), a eulogy (Michael Sabo’s “Harry Jaffa redefined political philosophy,” January 22), and a critical reply (“Jaffa is not a deity,” by Sarah Albers, January 29). That Jaffa’s passing has elicited such varied responses is fitting, considering his penchant for engaging in heated public debates with many of his contemporaries. Jaffa’s legacy is alive and well here at Hillsdale, for though his body has been laid to rest, his spirit lives on.
This is illustrated in Albers’ piece in particular. She begins by rebuking the abuse of “discipleship” language apparently inherent in Mr. Sabo’s following lines:
“Jaffa likened attending his first classes with Leo Strauss to Saul being transformed while on the road to Damascus. Reading Jaffa’s Crisis of the House Divided had a similar effect on me as an undergraduate.”
Albers continues her article arguing that the discussion of any author’s thought, including Jaffa’s, must take into account its historical and philosophic context, and that “an abstract truth has no effective content unless borne out through time and within a society.” Concluding her piece with stern flourish, Albers states: “A sound refutation of historical relativism need not be the embrace of dogmatic universalism.”
While the tenacity of Albers’ article is admirable, her critique of Michael Sabo’s “language of discipleship” mischaracterizes his piece. If one is going to consider the historic and philosophic context of an author’s writing, one must also take into account the particular form in which the author chooses to write. Sabo’s article is a eulogy, and as such necessitates a rhetoric which conveys an exaggerated degree of sentiment and praise. This is not to say that Sabo’s appreciation for Harry Jaffa is exaggerated; I have no doubt that his appreciation is sincere. What is exaggerated is the rhetoric he used. And while each and every author must answer for the rhetoric he or she chooses to employ, it would perhaps be more productive to forgive an author certain hyperbolic flourishes, rather than castigating his choices.
The latter half of Albers’ article argues for the universal being necessarily wedded to the particular, and is intriguing and provocative considering our own academic milieu at Hillsdale. Moreover, her ending claim, that refuting historicism need not lead to “dogmatic universalism,” deserves further explanation. It may be that she is applying Aristotle’s notion of form being inherent in matter, and the consequences of the individuation of the human person, to a broader historical context. However, as I know little of the “intricate web of theoretical give-and-take” in which Albers participates, I hesitate to offer further explication. Instead, I hope Albers will take the opportunity to expound upon her claims and add another strand to her web. In so doing we might not only do justice to the spirit of Jaffa, but also to Jaffa himself.
– Colin Brown