The basic idea for this paper will be an investigation into the impact of Kant’s teleological view of world history on his political theory, and the consequences of these together for the possibility of lasting peace. My suggestion will be that peace cannot be achieved so long as we as a society continue to believe in inevitable progress. There are two main reasons why this is the case. First, the notion that historical progress is guaranteed, or that the moral arc of history will somehow inevitably bend towards justice, allows government to remain essentially passive, to avoid the kind of hard work required for the achievement of a lasting social peace and justice, in favour of pursuing instead the work for reelection. Second, while a post-Enlightenment history could refocus our gaze on the tragedies faced by individuals, and resist thereby the comforting pull of a fictional “long view” when regarding historical development, teleological history leaves no space for discussion of failure as a counterbalance to the trap of inevitable progress, and it creates a politics that will always struggle to accept an empirically proven need for reconciliation.
If cultural sensibilities have been dominated since the Enlightenment by an unreflective faith in historical progress and the moral advancement of humankind, then we must be clear-eyed in assessing the damage such faith might have done. The paper will offer reflection on the social benefits that could generated by an approach to history that was focused on the realities of non-integrated, disenfranchised, and racialised groups. And it would ask which barriers still bear the imprint of the Enlightenment’s legacy when considering the current state of historical self-determination in these communities. It is precisely because Enlightenment philosophy has had a radically determinative influence in the way that social issues have been politically determined so far, that we need to reinvestigate the roots of this philosophy, and recover the key notions—such as those articulated by Kant’s twin narrative of progressive history and political peace—if we are to mount an historically grounded counter-narrative, one capable in fact of working toward a genuine peace.
