There's this line in Iris M about how liberal political regimes work on an 'as if' basis'. i.e. we treat men and women and all sorts of groups as if they were equal. There is no room here, you suspect, for discussions of our "true nature" or essence. Does a politics based on such fundamentals eventually end up as a form of fascism and destruction of politics itself?
Of course, there is a lot of machismo associated with politics and there's always the old boys' club phenomenon at various levels. But in another sense democratic politics-since it is about persuasion-is more feminine, and less about "vigorous natures". A good democracy is also about conversation and imagination (how to imagine the lives of the poor, the excluded) and so here, once again, fiction comes to play a role (more specifically by highlighting the ordinary, flawed lives of individuals).
Pierre ("nomadics") points us to an interesting book, In the House, Un-American by Benjamin Hollander. And David Runciaman's book on democracy looks absolutely fascinating. The intro is here.
Really interesting stuff. One tends to think of the central problem of modern political regimes in terms of their inability to deal with time, change, since the old systems had some sort of "foundation" which was supposed to be rooted in the cosmos, religion, fundamental nature or timeless truths. Democracies, on the other hand, deal in contingencies, current needs and lack a long-term perspective. Worse, to the extent that they merely represent economic life they cater to people's desires and choices-and these are often fickle, with only a tangential relation to our "true" self. And not just because we're deluded or lack information, self-understanding..more, because we live in time and can never see ourselves from a distance,a s it were.
Democratic life is vague, uncertain, partial, fragmentary, with a multiplicity of understandings of what constitutes 'the good life'. How can there be politics-a binding-if there is no common good? How can a system be stable if it is so open? (This is something that has always troubled fundamentalists who see democracy/the west always in some kind of crisis, teetering on the verge of collapse).
But what if it is just the opposite? What if the autocratic regimes cannot get a handle on time because they are so rigid, inflexible?
~~~
If one makes the claim that to be rational one should understand the limits of rationality is one undermining one's faith in rationality itself?
Isaiah Berlin had written many years ago: two extravagances: to exclude reason; to include only reason.
If you sit in the middle somewhere aren't you opening the door to irrationality (after all, you still believe, don't you?)? Not so sure, since what you do not deny is the fundamental capacity for reasonableness: to take a step back from one's views and examine them in the light of experience. Public reason, discussion, different voices, accommodation. All that gets lost in the anti-politics underlying fundamentalism and fascism alike.
Democracies are hypocritical and never live up to their ideals. But has ever has? Theocracies?
What kind of individual does a democracy produce, require?
I don't know, but there is a line in Carol Shields's Larry's Party which goes something like...is it possible for men to think about goodness in a sustained way given their testosterone (i.e their inclination to cruelty violence)? And what type of goodness is envisaged? It seems to be one that emphasizes independence, autonomy, and the lack of fragility-and maybe that has fed into our ideas of individualism and political virtue (vir:) .
Where economics and politics might change, however, is in the very scope of these notions. From now on a more integrated view of pluralism could be underwritten by a more pluralistic and inter-subjective notion of ourselves: I-We.
"Vigorous natures" may or may not turn to gentleness. Which is to miss the point, entirely.
Of course, there is a lot of machismo associated with politics and there's always the old boys' club phenomenon at various levels. But in another sense democratic politics-since it is about persuasion-is more feminine, and less about "vigorous natures". A good democracy is also about conversation and imagination (how to imagine the lives of the poor, the excluded) and so here, once again, fiction comes to play a role (more specifically by highlighting the ordinary, flawed lives of individuals).
Pierre ("nomadics") points us to an interesting book, In the House, Un-American by Benjamin Hollander. And David Runciaman's book on democracy looks absolutely fascinating. The intro is here.
Really interesting stuff. One tends to think of the central problem of modern political regimes in terms of their inability to deal with time, change, since the old systems had some sort of "foundation" which was supposed to be rooted in the cosmos, religion, fundamental nature or timeless truths. Democracies, on the other hand, deal in contingencies, current needs and lack a long-term perspective. Worse, to the extent that they merely represent economic life they cater to people's desires and choices-and these are often fickle, with only a tangential relation to our "true" self. And not just because we're deluded or lack information, self-understanding..more, because we live in time and can never see ourselves from a distance,a s it were.
Democratic life is vague, uncertain, partial, fragmentary, with a multiplicity of understandings of what constitutes 'the good life'. How can there be politics-a binding-if there is no common good? How can a system be stable if it is so open? (This is something that has always troubled fundamentalists who see democracy/the west always in some kind of crisis, teetering on the verge of collapse).
But what if it is just the opposite? What if the autocratic regimes cannot get a handle on time because they are so rigid, inflexible?
~~~
If one makes the claim that to be rational one should understand the limits of rationality is one undermining one's faith in rationality itself?
Isaiah Berlin had written many years ago: two extravagances: to exclude reason; to include only reason.
If you sit in the middle somewhere aren't you opening the door to irrationality (after all, you still believe, don't you?)? Not so sure, since what you do not deny is the fundamental capacity for reasonableness: to take a step back from one's views and examine them in the light of experience. Public reason, discussion, different voices, accommodation. All that gets lost in the anti-politics underlying fundamentalism and fascism alike.
Democracies are hypocritical and never live up to their ideals. But has ever has? Theocracies?
What kind of individual does a democracy produce, require?
I don't know, but there is a line in Carol Shields's Larry's Party which goes something like...is it possible for men to think about goodness in a sustained way given their testosterone (i.e their inclination to cruelty violence)? And what type of goodness is envisaged? It seems to be one that emphasizes independence, autonomy, and the lack of fragility-and maybe that has fed into our ideas of individualism and political virtue (vir:) .
Where economics and politics might change, however, is in the very scope of these notions. From now on a more integrated view of pluralism could be underwritten by a more pluralistic and inter-subjective notion of ourselves: I-We.
"Vigorous natures" may or may not turn to gentleness. Which is to miss the point, entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment