Reaction is a subject usually avoided by political theorists, since it raises awkward historical, philosophical and political questions. Perhaps philosophers of history might make better sense of it. In this article I claim that reaction has to be understood in relation to the concepts of revolution, tradition, progress and conservatism. I argue that the specific meaning of reaction is a response to the specific action that establishes the principle that order should be established only on enlightened principles. The few theorists who have dealt with reaction have disagreed about whether it is the same as conservatism or not. I show that reaction is not an element in what I call a status quo conservatism, though it is an element in any conservatism conceived more broadly. I characterise reaction in full as the attempt to reverse the establishment of the principle that only enlightened principles shall be the basis of political order, the attempt to resist the further establishment of those enlightened principles, and also the attempt to criticise contemporary enlightened politics in terms of the unenlightened standards which existed before the revolution.

中文翻译：

---

政治反应

政治理论家通常回避反应这一主题，因为它提出了尴尬的历史，哲学和政治问题。也许历史哲学家可能对它有更好的理解。在本文中，我主张必须对革命，传统，进步和保守主义的概念加以理解。我认为反应的特定含义是对特定行为的反应，该行为确立了仅应在开明的原则上建立秩序的原则。少数处理过反应的理论家不同意反应是否与保守主义相同。我表明，反应不是我所说的现状保守主义的一个要素，尽管它是任何更广泛构想的保守主义的要素。