Comments on: 5 Questions in Political Philosophy http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 27 May 2012 06:52:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: harry b http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209598 harry b Thu, 06 Sep 2007 01:55:05 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209598 I think that's right about Galston (and that the recommended approach is the right one). But there's a reason why Galston is a rare bird -- which has to do not with the nature of the practice of political philosophy, but a combination of the unfortunate incentives in academia and the rarity of the combination of personal characteristics Galston seems to have. Its very hard to be an expert in one thing and simultaneously enough of an expert in other things to be taken seriously and patient enough to see why other people aren't interested in everything that you are interested in. (I say that, as someone who aspires to this, but for whom it is perhaps even more difficult than for Galston because, as he says in his interview, he's really not that interested in the most arcane aspects of political philosophy -- I am, even though I realise that policymakers have no reason to be). I think that’s right about Galston (and that the recommended approach is the right one). But there’s a reason why Galston is a rare bird—which has to do not with the nature of the practice of political philosophy, but a combination of the unfortunate incentives in academia and the rarity of the combination of personal characteristics Galston seems to have. Its very hard to be an expert in one thing and simultaneously enough of an expert in other things to be taken seriously and patient enough to see why other people aren’t interested in everything that you are interested in. (I say that, as someone who aspires to this, but for whom it is perhaps even more difficult than for Galston because, as he says in his interview, he’s really not that interested in the most arcane aspects of political philosophy—I am, even though I realise that policymakers have no reason to be).

]]> By: josh http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209586 josh Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:08:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209586 "But if you do want to have a direct influence, a bit of empathy, constructive engagement, flexibility and persistence are essential." This seems as good a description of Bill Galston's modus operandi as one could wish. Admittedly, he's a somewhat rare bird in the world of political theory these days ... “But if you do want to have a direct influence, a bit of empathy, constructive engagement, flexibility and persistence are essential.”
This seems as good a description of Bill Galston’s modus operandi as one could wish. Admittedly, he’s a somewhat rare bird in the world of political theory these days …

]]> By: mc http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209575 mc Wed, 05 Sep 2007 22:19:55 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209575 I did a bit of political philosophy – study and teaching – and one of the reasons I said to myself I left (though it was probably more the combination of cheap expensive tastes and the lack of a private income) was a growing feeling that while the tone of our debates seemed to imply that there was a set of people (policy makers?) just off the page or outside the room ready to take the conclusions and do something with them, it seemed to me even then that the content of the debates didn’t warrant that. After a short spell doing something very different I have spent the last four years in politics and policy; and after seeing it from the other side, my view hasn’t changed. I think mq’s comments in 32 are perhaps a bit charitable to policy wonks but they aren’t too far off the mark. There are plenty of us (not all) who are perfectly capable of engaging with detail generally and this kind of detail in particular – and I would include my colleagues who aren’t ‘trained’, pace the post at 29, which jarred a bit. Some of the best philosophers weren’t ‘trained’ - indeed I thought this was something philosophy as a discipline was meant to be proud of. I completely respect the view that political philosophers should not be trying to influence policy or politics directly; that the best of them are likely to do so indirectly and over time. But if you do want to have a direct influence, a bit of empathy, constructive engagement, flexibility and persistence are essential. I did a bit of political philosophy – study and teaching – and one of the reasons I said to myself I left (though it was probably more the combination of cheap expensive tastes and the lack of a private income) was a growing feeling that while the tone of our debates seemed to imply that there was a set of people (policy makers?) just off the page or outside the room ready to take the conclusions and do something with them, it seemed to me even then that the content of the debates didn’t warrant that. After a short spell doing something very different I have spent the last four years in politics and policy; and after seeing it from the other side, my view hasn’t changed. I think mq’s comments in 32 are perhaps a bit charitable to policy wonks but they aren’t too far off the mark. There are plenty of us (not all) who are perfectly capable of engaging with detail generally and this kind of detail in particular – and I would include my colleagues who aren’t ‘trained’, pace the post at 29, which jarred a bit. Some of the best philosophers weren’t ‘trained’ – indeed I thought this was something philosophy as a discipline was meant to be proud of.

I completely respect the view that political philosophers should not be trying to influence policy or politics directly; that the best of them are likely to do so indirectly and over time. But if you do want to have a direct influence, a bit of empathy, constructive engagement, flexibility and persistence are essential.

]]> By: josh http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209452 josh Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:41:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209452 I'm not sure -- it being some time since I took a look at Gunnell's book -- what precisely the context for the sentences quoted by John Emerson, and therefore what precisely the charge that he is levelling at Rawls and Nozick when he characterises their works as 'contextless' is. If it means that their work does not respond to the political concerns and debates of their time, and isn't shaped by particular intellectual traditions and resources, then-- as Chris notes -- this is clearly false. And also in tension with the point of Gunnell's work, which is (as I recall it) to recover the political and intellectual contexts that shaped developments in US academic political theory that are often viewed unhistorically, without reference to these contexts. If, on the other hand, the charge is that Rawls and Nozick's theories involve abstracting individuals from any actual historical contexts -- from any particular position in any particular society, with any particular institutions -- as a starting-point for theorising, then it's rather more plausible. But then the question is: does this abstraction from particular contexts as a starting-point for theorising (which is heavily qualified in Rawls's later writings, anyway) vitiate the ability of Rawls and Nozick to, as it were, bring their theories back down to the earth of particular societies? Rawls and Nozick, and many of those who have read them, evidently didn't/don't think so (though I, at least, tend to think that once one tries to apply Nozick's principles to the world as we know it, one finds that they are not very satisfactorilly applicable -- the current status quo is too thoroughly based on transactions that are unjust by Nozick's own standards for his libertarianism to be justified, in my view. Rawls's theory is not afflicted by this particular problem -- though I tend to think it encounters other ones.) At any rate, if one's going to answer this question of whether starting out with abstraction makes it impossible to engage with particular realities later on in the argument, it might help to read the works in question. I think much of Gunnell's work is quite illuminating; but, like much historical-contextualist work, it shouldn't serve as a substitute for actually reading the texts in question. Separate from this, a question for John Emerson: who, in your view, is /are a good example/good examples of how, and at what level of abstraction, to do normative political theory? I’m not sure—it being some time since I took a look at Gunnell’s book—what precisely the context for the sentences quoted by John Emerson, and therefore what precisely the charge that he is levelling at Rawls and Nozick when he characterises their works as ‘contextless’ is. If it means that their work does not respond to the political concerns and debates of their time, and isn’t shaped by particular intellectual traditions and resources, then—as Chris notes—this is clearly false. And also in tension with the point of Gunnell’s work, which is (as I recall it) to recover the political and intellectual contexts that shaped developments in US academic political theory that are often viewed unhistorically, without reference to these contexts. If, on the other hand, the charge is that Rawls and Nozick’s theories involve abstracting individuals from any actual historical contexts—from any particular position in any particular society, with any particular institutions—as a starting-point for theorising, then it’s rather more plausible. But then the question is: does this abstraction from particular contexts as a starting-point for theorising (which is heavily qualified in Rawls’s later writings, anyway) vitiate the ability of Rawls and Nozick to, as it were, bring their theories back down to the earth of particular societies? Rawls and Nozick, and many of those who have read them, evidently didn’t/don’t think so (though I, at least, tend to think that once one tries to apply Nozick’s principles to the world as we know it, one finds that they are not very satisfactorilly applicable—the current status quo is too thoroughly based on transactions that are unjust by Nozick’s own standards for his libertarianism to be justified, in my view. Rawls’s theory is not afflicted by this particular problem—though I tend to think it encounters other ones.) At any rate, if one’s going to answer this question of whether starting out with abstraction makes it impossible to engage with particular realities later on in the argument, it might help to read the works in question. I think much of Gunnell’s work is quite illuminating; but, like much historical-contextualist work, it shouldn’t serve as a substitute for actually reading the texts in question.
Separate from this, a question for John Emerson: who, in your view, is /are a good example/good examples of how, and at what level of abstraction, to do normative political theory?

]]> By: Sam C http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209426 Sam C Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:47:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209426 Rawls has certainly had a quiet, long-term influence on actual politics; one small marker of this is that his former student Onora O'Neill is now in the UK house of lords. But political <i>influence</i> is yet another proposed measure of success for political philosophy, along with lack of abstraction and political relevance, and I'm still not clear why any of them should be accepted. Of course, political philosophy that isn't about politics has gone wrong (or turned into something else). But 'politics' is an essentially contested term. To say that Rawls fails because he doesn't write in the same style as, say, George Orwell, is about as sensible as saying that Freud failed because he didn't measure skulls. In passing: MQ makes a good point about doing moral philosophy and then applying the results to politics. It's the point which motivates Rawls's later work. Rawls has certainly had a quiet, long-term influence on actual politics; one small marker of this is that his former student Onora O’Neill is now in the UK house of lords.

But political influence is yet another proposed measure of success for political philosophy, along with lack of abstraction and political relevance, and I’m still not clear why any of them should be accepted. Of course, political philosophy that isn’t about politics has gone wrong (or turned into something else). But ‘politics’ is an essentially contested term. To say that Rawls fails because he doesn’t write in the same style as, say, George Orwell, is about as sensible as saying that Freud failed because he didn’t measure skulls.

In passing: MQ makes a good point about doing moral philosophy and then applying the results to politics. It’s the point which motivates Rawls’s later work.

]]> By: engels http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209413 engels Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:15:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209413 6) Complete this sentence. "The point is to..." a) get cited in journals read by fellow specialists b) add one's own exquisitely moulded brick to the Rawlsian edifice, preferably in such a way that nobody notices c) win essay prizes/tenure/funding d) other (please specify) 6) Complete this sentence. “The point is to…”

a) get cited in journals read by fellow specialists
b) add one’s own exquisitely moulded brick to the Rawlsian edifice, preferably in such a way that nobody notices
c) win essay prizes/tenure/funding
d) other (please specify)

]]> By: dan duerr http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209410 dan duerr Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:32:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209410 I'm definitely not an expert on political philosophy (aside from Rawls and Nozick I've read very little), but can't it be argued that Rawls and Nozick have both influenced "real" politics? Nozick, as already cited, in the libertarian movement and Rawls' work has made the rounds as a justification for the welfare state. Or is the argument that since politicians and their campaigns don't directly cite political philosophers that their work is not of value? That would seem to be as much a problem of the electorate as anything else. The average American voter isn't interested in well-thought out philosophical discourse on social problems, just like they aren't interested in facts and statistics. To me, this doesn't suggest that we shouldn't think deeply and clearly about problems of politics, or that there aren't useful and practical insights in abstract work. It just suggests that, unfortunately, the audience that pays attention to these arguments is relatively small, and that they aren't making any effort to apply theory to practice. But I'm completely unfamiliar with the debate and the literature, so I could be completely missing the real issues here. I’m definitely not an expert on political philosophy (aside from Rawls and Nozick I’ve read very little), but can’t it be argued that Rawls and Nozick have both influenced “real” politics? Nozick, as already cited, in the libertarian movement and Rawls’ work has made the rounds as a justification for the welfare state.

Or is the argument that since politicians and their campaigns don’t directly cite political philosophers that their work is not of value? That would seem to be as much a problem of the electorate as anything else. The average American voter isn’t interested in well-thought out philosophical discourse on social problems, just like they aren’t interested in facts and statistics.

To me, this doesn’t suggest that we shouldn’t think deeply and clearly about problems of politics, or that there aren’t useful and practical insights in abstract work. It just suggests that, unfortunately, the audience that pays attention to these arguments is relatively small, and that they aren’t making any effort to apply theory to practice.

But I’m completely unfamiliar with the debate and the literature, so I could be completely missing the real issues here.

]]> By: mq http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209407 mq Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:19:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209407 On my post above -- I'm aware that political philosophy attempts to find a stance from which to judge political arrangements, which to some extent requires standing outside of those arrangements rather than being completely within them. The nature and extent of that abstraction is what's at issue. <i> Do other readers have similar experiences? </i> Yes. Main ideas only. I'd add that the level of detail in *political philosophy* that policy makers ask for is much less than the political philosophers use. But the overall level of detail can still be greater. Policymakers are trying to pull in contributions from sometimes a half a dozen different fields at once, ranging from political philosophy to economics or sociology to biology or engineering. And then meld it with actual political practice, in the sense of serving the felt needs of constituencies, and convincing those constituencies you have done so. You'd ask experts to keep it simple too, if you were trying to do all that at once. On my post above—I’m aware that political philosophy attempts to find a stance from which to judge political arrangements, which to some extent requires standing outside of those arrangements rather than being completely within them. The nature and extent of that abstraction is what’s at issue.

Do other readers have similar experiences?

Yes. Main ideas only. I’d add that the level of detail in political philosophy that policy makers ask for is much less than the political philosophers use. But the overall level of detail can still be greater. Policymakers are trying to pull in contributions from sometimes a half a dozen different fields at once, ranging from political philosophy to economics or sociology to biology or engineering. And then meld it with actual political practice, in the sense of serving the felt needs of constituencies, and convincing those constituencies you have done so. You’d ask experts to keep it simple too, if you were trying to do all that at once.

]]> By: mq http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209406 mq Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:08:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209406 I share the abstraction problem I think Emerson refers to with e.g. Rawls and Nozick, as well as others. But it is not these thinkers are not "relevant" to politics. I'm not sure what "relevant" means here...certainly one can derive policy prescriptions from a Rawlsian or Nozickian framwork that are very different than current policies. Perhaps that makes them "relevant", I don't know. My problem is that they abstract away from politics. I read them as attempting to demonstrate something in moral philosophy and then say that these results should be politically binding. But that's wishing away politics and just replacing it with moral philosophy. Just because the morality is a morality of social arrangements doesn't make it political. Politics is about the institutional frameworks used to translate the desires of different constituencies into policies. People make moral arguments to try to convince constituencies of what their policy desires should be, but that's only one type of political rhetoric and one type of political action among many. I'd like to see political philosophy be about politics, not just the morality of policy preferences. Of course, there is definitely political philosophy about politics out there, likely a lot more than I'm aware of (not being a political philosopher myself), but from my casual knowledge there's less of it than I'd like to see. And at least some of the politically focused political philosophy also seems to be based on strangely unexamined assumptions about the virtures of political participation and the nature of dialogue, but that's another story. I share the abstraction problem I think Emerson refers to with e.g. Rawls and Nozick, as well as others. But it is not these thinkers are not “relevant” to politics. I’m not sure what “relevant” means here…certainly one can derive policy prescriptions from a Rawlsian or Nozickian framwork that are very different than current policies. Perhaps that makes them “relevant”, I don’t know.

My problem is that they abstract away from politics. I read them as attempting to demonstrate something in moral philosophy and then say that these results should be politically binding. But that’s wishing away politics and just replacing it with moral philosophy. Just because the morality is a morality of social arrangements doesn’t make it political. Politics is about the institutional frameworks used to translate the desires of different constituencies into policies. People make moral arguments to try to convince constituencies of what their policy desires should be, but that’s only one type of political rhetoric and one type of political action among many. I’d like to see political philosophy be about politics, not just the morality of policy preferences.

Of course, there is definitely political philosophy about politics out there, likely a lot more than I’m aware of (not being a political philosopher myself), but from my casual knowledge there’s less of it than I’d like to see. And at least some of the politically focused political philosophy also seems to be based on strangely unexamined assumptions about the virtures of political participation and the nature of dialogue, but that’s another story.

]]> By: John Emerson http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209401 John Emerson Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:40:39 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209401 Abb1: lots of doubt. I'm not a professional political philosopher, if that's what you're saying. I'm giving you one of the reasons why I'm not one. This is obviously an external criticism. Your response "So what?" requests me to play your argumentation game, but what I've been saying has been telling you why I don't want to do that. We (have different priors, I guess. My expectation of political philosophy doesn't seem unreasonable, but apparently it's not shared. Gunnell's <i>could be construed as alluding to or reflecting, or in some way speaking to or about, politics</i> and <i>while apparently allowing academic commentators to believe that they were actually saying something about politics</i> (not cited by you or Chris or Matt) implies that Rawls doesn't. Perhaps Gunnell is wrong, but this strikes me as a valid kind of reason. Abb1: lots of doubt.

I’m not a professional political philosopher, if that’s what you’re saying. I’m giving you one of the reasons why I’m not one. This is obviously an external criticism.

Your response “So what?” requests me to play your argumentation game, but what I’ve been saying has been telling you why I don’t want to do that. We (have different priors, I guess. My expectation of political philosophy doesn’t seem unreasonable, but apparently it’s not shared.

Gunnell’s could be construed as alluding to or reflecting, or in some way speaking to or about, politics and while apparently allowing academic commentators to believe that they were actually saying something about politics (not cited by you or Chris or Matt) implies that Rawls doesn’t. Perhaps Gunnell is wrong, but this strikes me as a valid kind of reason.

]]> By: Ingrid Robeyns http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209396 Ingrid Robeyns Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:02:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209396 Looks like an interesting and entertaining book to read - perhaps for the darkest days next Winter - thanks Harry (or should I say Adam?) for drawing our attention to this. <i> Several of the interviewees have some sort of direct experience of politics, and it seems as if all of them have found that the level of precision needed at policymaking level is much less than the level needed in philosophy.</i> My experience with doing PT-work for policy makers is that it <i> needs </i> to be simple, since they have little time (or interest) to spend on figuring out the details; sometimes they simply do not understand (though they believe they do understand) since they are not trained or used to read this kind of scholarly work; and very often they think that the added cost of this level of detail is not worth the difference it makes at the level of policy evaluation, design and implementation. Do other readers have similar experiences? Looks like an interesting and entertaining book to read – perhaps for the darkest days next Winter – thanks Harry (or should I say Adam?) for drawing our attention to this.

Several of the interviewees have some sort of direct experience of politics, and it seems as if all of them have found that the level of precision needed at policymaking level is much less than the level needed in philosophy.

My experience with doing PT-work for policy makers is that it needs to be simple, since they have little time (or interest) to spend on figuring out the details; sometimes they simply do not understand (though they believe they do understand) since they are not trained or used to read this kind of scholarly work; and very often they think that the added cost of this level of detail is not worth the difference it makes at the level of policy evaluation, design and implementation.

Do other readers have similar experiences?

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209395 abb1 Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:59:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209395 Is there any doubt that <i>political</i> philosophy should have relevance to actual politics? Is there any doubt that political philosophy should have relevance to actual politics?

]]> By: Sam C http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209392 Sam C Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:50:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209392 Emerson at 22: <blockquote>It means that I think that works about politics should have some relevance to actual politics, whereas you think that that kind of criticism can be waved away.</blockquote> No, I don't: try responding to what's actually said to you. What I asked you was to explain <i>why</i> you think that being abstract is a problem. Then, when you changed your criticism to lack of 'relevance to actual politics' (which is not the same thing) I wondered, again, <i>why</i> you think that's a problem. Why is that particular kind of 'relevance' the criterion for a successful work about politics? In other words, I asked you to <i>give reasons</i> for your claims, so we could discuss them, precisely because I <i>don't</i> think they can be waved away. If I thought that, I wouldn't have bothered commenting. I don't at the moment agree with you, but I'm open to argument if you can offer any. Instead of offering reasons, you've responded by shifting the goalposts, trying to brazen out the fact that you don't know the subject you're pontificating about, talking rubbish ('it's a criticism for me' is not a defence of a criticism), and making laboured ironic remarks. The usual Emerson tango, in fact. Emerson at 22:

It means that I think that works about politics should have some relevance to actual politics, whereas you think that that kind of criticism can be waved away.

No, I don’t: try responding to what’s actually said to you. What I asked you was to explain why you think that being abstract is a problem. Then, when you changed your criticism to lack of ‘relevance to actual politics’ (which is not the same thing) I wondered, again, why you think that’s a problem. Why is that particular kind of ‘relevance’ the criterion for a successful work about politics? In other words, I asked you to give reasons for your claims, so we could discuss them, precisely because I don’t think they can be waved away. If I thought that, I wouldn’t have bothered commenting. I don’t at the moment agree with you, but I’m open to argument if you can offer any.

Instead of offering reasons, you’ve responded by shifting the goalposts, trying to brazen out the fact that you don’t know the subject you’re pontificating about, talking rubbish (‘it’s a criticism for me’ is not a defence of a criticism), and making laboured ironic remarks. The usual Emerson tango, in fact.

]]> By: lemuel pitkin http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209390 lemuel pitkin Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:38:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209390 <i>What is the proper role of political philosophy in relation to real, political action? Can there ever be a fruitful relation between political philosophy and political practice?</i> It would also be interesting to ask political professionals this question, no? Or are they not part of the conversation? What is the proper role of political philosophy in relation to real, political action? Can there ever be a fruitful relation between political philosophy and political practice?

It would also be interesting to ask political professionals this question, no? Or are they not part of the conversation?

]]> By: harry b http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-209375 harry b Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:45:24 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/03/5-questions-in-political-philosophy/#comment-209375 The dig at Bahro was unfair -- I agree its interesting, like lots in those old SRs I just hated the title! (and the concept). Can't answer the other questions right now - suffice to say, though, that I would have refused to answer the second question, having not really made a contribution... (yet??). The dig at Bahro was unfair—I agree its interesting, like lots in those old SRs I just hated the title! (and the concept).

Can’t answer the other questions right now – suffice to say, though, that I would have refused to answer the second question, having not really made a contribution… (yet??).

]]>