Passings: George Comninel, Professor Emeritus
(December 9, 1951 to August 18, 2022)

Interview with George Comninel

Conducted over email on September 3, 2019 by doctoral candidate in the Graduate Program in Political Science, Annelies Cooper and Associate Professor, Karen Murray.

Annelies and Karen: Many thanks for agreeing to be interviewed for Raising the Volume. To begin, perhaps you could say a few words about your background in studying democratic theory. For instance, were you interested in political theory when you entered the university as an undergraduate or did your interest emerge later on?

George: As early as high school, I had conflicted feelings about theory. On the one hand, I was chiefly interested in making sense of epochal social change in history – the fall of Rome, the rise of capitalism, etc. This was evidently a major focus of historical social theories, and some sort of theoretical orientation seemed essential to the task. On the other hand, the major conventional political theorists had much to say that bore upon such issues, but I found their ideologically constructed positions to be little more than apologies for inequality and systemic inequity. I was familiar with the major theorists from Aristotle through JS Mill and generally detested the lot of them, with the partial exception of J-J Rousseau.

As an undergraduate, I focused upon historical social theory within Sociology, and had respect for Durkheim and Weber, though I found problems with both, but I quickly found myself attracted to the ideas of Marx. I thought most of the explanations of Marx’s thought that I read or heard were off the mark, and I developed my own understanding of his ideas directly from his writings, rejecting the economic determinism that was so often said to be at the core of his thinking. I believed that democracy required the liberation of humanity from millennia of class oppression and exploitation and – entering university in 1968 – I was excited by the growing signs of resistance, rebellion and revolution.

I became involved in the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) just as it was about to shatter into a range of splinter groups. I investigated all of the socialist and anarchist groups I could identify at my university (Cornell) – a total of 13 – and found fault with all of them. Having checked out Communists, Trotskyists, and Maoists in their various forms, I decided that, while I was a Marxist, I definitely was not a Leninist of any kind. So, I kept reading Marx, while finding no group offered an idea of politics that I could embrace.

My distaste for conventional political theory almost kept me from taking the graduate seminar in The Theory and Practice of the State in Historical Perspective that Neal Wood and Ellen Wood offered for the first time as I entered the graduate program in Social and Political Thought at York in 1977. I did enrol, however – the attraction of its history and social theory outweighed my aversion to political theorists – and this was life-altering. The systematic approach taken by the Woods to investigating and evaluating the theories of historical class societies both revealed the enormous problems in conventional Marxian approaches – including errors in Marx’s own works – and yet the potential for valid historical analysis inherent in Marx’s basic ideas. Directly through the research conducted for this course, Neal and Ellen and several of us students came to identify the importance of a breakthrough in the study of European class societies in the work of Robert Brenner – an approach that was just then being described as “Political Marxism” by an opponent. Embracing the need for independent and historically accurate social analyses of pre-capitalist forms of society, this approach became the basis for my dissertation research into the historiography and interpretation of the French Revolution, and the foundation for my entire career.

At the same time, through Neal and Ellen, I came to appreciate the importance of reading and understanding the major political theorists. This was not merely a matter of coming to understand one’s enemies, though there was almost always an element of that. I also came to recognize that these theorists were grappling with fundamental issues of justice, rights and law, even if they were doing so primarily (sometimes exclusively) from the point of view of members of the dominant class. The issues of liberty versus state power posed genuine conundrums, and there were things to learn from all serious efforts to address them. As a result, though I had never once taken a course in political theory, as such, I found myself becoming a professor in that field.

Annelies and Karen: Would you be willing to speak to the importance of the political theory field to the Department of Politics?

Yes, I have been fully converted to understanding the importance of political theory and would be happy to discuss this with others in the department/grad program. There are certain political theorists for whom I still have little but distaste (Plato, for example, however great a literary stylist he was). But among others, I have come to recognize not only brilliance but real moral and/or ethical concern.

Annelies and Karen: Do you have any thoughts to share with undergraduates who are considering taking political theory courses? Any thoughts for graduate students?

George: The major political theorists virtually all wrote in times of vexing political conflict, with fundamental issues of justice, liberty and securing the “good life” coming to the fore. Not only did they write in such times, but most were also directly engaged in the conflicts of the age. The underlying basis for the conflicts include efforts to establish, or to challenge, absolute political power in the state; the consequences of, and possible alternatives to, deepening social inequality; and the relationship between politics and religion, particularly as it relates to collective unity, individual liberty of conscience, and issues of toleration. All of this also relates to the problem of the difference between ultimate realization of the good (to whatever extent that is possible), and the securing liberty and what might be called the-good-enough in the interim. In order to come to terms with the ideas that historical thinkers have put forward, it is essential to recognize the specific contexts in which they wrote, and the concrete issues that they had in mind. There is much to be gained from examining the ideas of political theorists in context – for example, to understand how Jean Bodin, a humanist concerned with justice, could advocate for political absolutism during a religious civil war dominated by nobles claiming to be above the law.

Annelies and Karen: Going in a different direction, would you mind sharing a few of your thoughts on what education for democracy means to you and how this way of thinking translates into your pedagogical practice?

George: I believe that education for democracy is fundamentally about promoting the idea of social and political emancipation, and imparting the insights and critical capacities required to struggle for it. Democracy is always threatened by the special interests of the few and limited by the extent of their entrenched power. Democracy has never existed unproblematically, nor is it “innocent” of purpose. In the original Greek, “democracy” meant “rule by the poor,” who were in the majority, not “rule by the majority” as if there were no social differences. So education for democracy necessarily means encouraging active resistance to vested interests and established power, not merely the validation of existing institutions (even where they are admirable). My teaching emphasizes critical evaluation of what exists and critical consideration of what does not. In this regard, I seek to engage directly with students about important issues and to stress that their ideas are potentially as valid as mine, or anyone else’s, though they always should be ready to defend them in the light of rigorous, serious critique. When it comes to the preservation and extension of liberty and justice, opinion is not enough, and no one should get a free pass. I am, however, aware of the inherent inequality between students and professors, so I am inclined to be generous with respect to challenges to my own ideas, and to encourage students to query anything that I might say.

Annelies and Karen: Would you have any additional thoughts that you would like to share?

George: I pursued post-secondary and post-graduate education in order to understand how it would be possible to change the world for the better. While the opportunity for radical, even revolutionary, change seemed closer in the years just after I graduated high school than since that time, I have learned the importance of developing fundamental dispositions and critical insights. Where I once thought change was imminent, I now accept that generations, perhaps centuries, might be required. But the significance of radical social change for the achievement of human liberation is as clear to me as ever. While I distinguish between my actual contribution to political and social change through public actions and my role as a teacher, I do believe that, through the promotion of critical thinking and the courage to act, I can play a positive role in encouraging liberation. In the end, the liberation of humanity.

Annelies and Karen: Many thanks, George, for offering such a thoughtful and inspirational contribution to the Raising the Volume website. Much appreciated!!