Morality and politics, and the connection between the two, have been the undercurrent of my thinking of late, the leitmotif of my recent essays. It’s a classical conception to be sure, dating back to Aristotle for whom politics was but an outgrowth of ethics, an extension of personal relations to the social and beyond; and once this extension was carried forth, the political was born: a clan became a tribe, a tribe a coalition of tribes, eventually a city-state (the polis, as Greeks would have it), and then a federation, a compact between city-states. A nation-state is where we are right now, representing as it were the pinnacle of our efforts, a point beyond which we can’t seem to see our way past.Have we reached thus the end of our evolutionary or moral development as a species? Does this centrifugal movement away from the parochial to the universal, this constant progression towards human enlightenment and the ethos of inclusion, represent the end of the road for us? Can’t we do better? I’d like to believe that we can. More importantly, however, I’d like to provide you with reasons, cogent reasons, why we can. There is a basis for hope.
No question that extraneous circumstances, whether due to nature and its elements or events beyond, engineered by humans because of strife, desire for conquest or plain hostility, have all accelerated this relentless push towards consolidation and the making of alliances. The commonality of purpose has always served as the most immediate impetus for coalition-forming, whether you’re an aggressor or a defender. Only a fool would dismiss pragmatic considerations as representing the first step, if only the first step, in all such endeavors. Still, to say there is strength in numbers, that it makes perfect sense to present a united front against common enemy, again, either natural or human, is not to say very much. We can do better.
In the remainder of this article, I’d like to argue that what really matters is the basis of human consensus and coalition-forming. Practical Reason, to borrow from Kant, may be the first step in the process, but only the first step. If we truly believe ourselves to have progressed on the evolutionary or moral scale, beyond the exigencies of the moment or of dire necessity, then we must look for human consensus on more lasting, more solid grounds. Pragmatism, as far as I’m concerned, is only a platform, a launching pad on the way to transcendence, ultimate transcendence. It instills in us the habit, a very useful habit for humans connecting, but it falls short of the mark by ignoring the possibilities. What ultimately matters about humans connecting is the nature of the underlying purpose, beyond what’s merely practical or prudential. And to my thinking, there is no better candidate for building a meaningful and lasting consensus than commonality of values, shared values, no better principle of construction if our aim is inclusion.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - roger nowosielski
In the interest of consolidating material, I'm re-posting the following links concerning Mr. Graeber's featured text:
(1) a CNN interview;
(2) Conversation with Great Minds series, part one and
part two;
(3) interview with Amy Goodman;
(4)Brian Lehrer show, a podcast;
(5) Financial Times' review;
(6) a Social Text review.
2 - roger nowosielski
Thanks for featuring it, editors, if only for a day. My next assignment, if I dare to accept it, has got to be to try to rewrite this article in ordinary English.
3 - tro ll
Graeber positions his (ethical) theory and his analysis of communist action squarely in the observable moral landscape of people sharing stuff - a virtue indeed implying at least empathy and a cooperative attitude if not compassion - often based on principles akin to 'from each according to ability to each according to need'
4 - roger nowosielski
I don't think we even need go as far as pressing the communist dictum, unless it be taken in the strictly remedial sense.
Given equally of opportunity, I happen to believe that for the most part, the differences between humans as to their abilities and intelligence are infinitesimal.
Greaber's text should be a required read for people like Kenn Jacobine, Cannonship, and all those who claim that's our fiscal policy which is out of whack, that balancing the budget and implementing the austerity measures ought to be our utmost priorities.
Graeber exposes all such notions as nothing but pure fiction.
5 - roger nowosielski
A convenient fiction, I should add, since it legitimizes in deprived moral terms, which we appear to have bought, line hook and sinker, the condition of violence.
6 - Cindy
Hiya Roger and troll,
I think economic problems don't really exist outside the determination to see reality just one way. Give up that perspective and everyone could eat, have shelter and have medical care.
I like Graeber for liking a gift economy (my personal favorite).
7 - Cindy
(Only read a paragraph so far, Roger. Working on it.)
8 - roger nowosielski
You got to dig deeper than that, Cindy,. I think you've got to see the perfidy in the system, and the perfidy is to perpetuate the myth of blaming the victim. If there be anything there's foolproof, the surest way to prevent insurrection and people rising, it's to make them feel guilty, that's it's their own them fault.
It's the old story of blaming the victim for whatever befalls him or her, never the perpetrator.
I couldn't be more emphatic about the importance of your and "troll's" posting on this here site. (I'm still waiting for Anarcissie and Grady to overcome their shyness and to speak their mind.)
What's of utmost importance, I contend, is to re-establish values, our values, to replace and take over the lame discussion on these here pages devoted to the trivia.
The important thing is to set the tone, our tone. The rest will follow. That's the only reason why I've been clamoring on your presence on these pages -- and the same was directed at "troll," Anarcissie, and Grady.
It may not seem to any of your that it matters, that BC matters, but it does. Anywhere and everywhere we can make a difference, it matters a great deal!
9 - Joseph Cotto
Roger,
I read all six pages of your article, and believe that you are on the right track in analyzing the finer points of micro-level human relations and how they bind together to form the macro-entity of civilization. However, I think that you do overcomplicate things a bit. In a nutshell, all human actions, as I lengthily noted last month, can be boiled down to self interest. By studying how individual acts self interest work to make modern society what it is, I believe many of the answers contemporary philosophers seek on nearly any given subject will be found.
10 - roger nowosielski
Will respond tomorrow, Joseph.
Good comment.
11 - Clavos
Joseph,
Have you read Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness?
Your comment #9 above comes quite close to summarizing Ms. Rand's central premise.
12 - Glenn Contrarian
And I strongly disagree with Ayn Rand's - and Joseph's - summation.
Good to see you back, Clavos - I was getting worried about you.
13 - roger nowosielski
A couple of points, Joseph.
The idea that things proceed from a micro level is a rather new one to me, but I think it's worthy of exploring. Just recently I came to a realization that corruption, let's say, starts locally at first and then spreads concentrically. So when we blame Washington, D.C., for instance, for its corrupting influence, we're missing the point. I'm not saying now there is nothing to it, but what's left unsaid is that the very politicians we elect to represent us come from a corrupt environment, that the roots of corruption is for the most part local -- our municipalities, townships, etc.
There's no question I'm stretching the point somewhat when I apply this idea to organizational structures, such as working for a mega corporation or even a mid-size concern. It's precisely because such organizations are defined by their narrowly-construed purpose that said purpose must to an extent override some of the informal ways in which humans typically interact if they're to accomplish anything. So it's a matter of degree, I suppose, to which this organic model can apply to analyse and critique organizational structures.
As to "self-interest," it all on the model you're guided by. You seem to be ignoring the reference I made to Adam Smith/John Locke model of an atomized individual bent on scratching and scrounging as though still in the State of Nature. The competing model (and I made a reference to it in another article, by linking to Charles Taylor's paper) is one which posits the individual's interests as irrevocably and intimately bound with the interests of the community. So on that conception, we're going to come up with different results.
For a more classical treatment of the subject, let me simply refer to the many Plato's dialogues, in the course of which the question "What is in the person's best interest?" is a very frequent subtheme.(You might also want to read Aristotle on the very subject.)
I'll post another comment shortly on what I see as your conception of politics; we discussed this to a point earlier, but my ideas are clearer now and I can articulate them better.
14 - roger nowosielski
Correction -- 4th paragraph:
As to "self-interest," it all depends on the model ...
15 - roger nowosielski
Alright, Joseph, here's how I construe your conception of politics (and notice, btw, how it emerged from the Lockean picture of the individual, a picture you seem to be beholden to).
Since we already come into the political arena fully-equipped, so to speak -- with clearly defined (for each and everyone) reasoning powers as well as thorough understanding of ourselves, our needs, and what constitutes our (best) self-interests, what there remains for politics and politicians to do is merely to navigate the ship of state (forgive the metaphor, for it's an apt one since it comes with this picture) in such a way so as not to tread on anyone's natural or constitutionally-defined rights. The art of politics, on this picture, comes down to nothing more and nothing less than mere management, and the politician's art is the art we have been known to attribute to statesmen (with the capital S, of course). See, for example, the writings by Sir Lewis Namier.
But this picture, Joseph, more or less presupposes that all of us, both as individuals and as a society, have more or less "arrived," and it fails to take into account the very process of arriving, the very aches and pains that come with growing up and coming of age.
It's the kind of politics, Joseph, that Plato had in mind once the utopian society was already set up and firing on all fours (The Republic), a politics that only can work in a rarified atmosphere of Mount Olympus or some other such place, a politics where all you have to do is to administer the laws in a judicious way, preferably by the philosopher king. Indeed, one may well ask the question why do we need politics in the first place if we are already there (because we already have the just laws, and a super computer could conceivably be programmed to administer those laws for us on a case by case basis.
Of course it's a parody of sorts, but my conception of politics has mostly to do with how to get there.
16 - Joseph Cotto
Clavos,
I have read Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness". It, like so many of her other works, paints a finely detailed, and, at least in my view, accurate portrait of the human condition.
Roger,
In my view, tracing widespread societal problems to strictly individual relationships is the only rational way to address them. I do not see humankind so much as an entity in search of conflict or aggression; quite the opposite. By following our respective self interests, so long as this does not impede on others doing the same, we all can become content and, therefore, function as productive members of society.
While Plato did have interesting sociopolitical ideals, they were just that: ideals. As everyone has his or her own set of norms and goals, attempting to build a sustainable collectively idealistic society is impossible. The proper function of government, to me, is protecting the individual rights of citizens and legal residents so that they may attempt to actualize their respective full potentials. By promoting the most beneficial aspects of human nature, and punishing destructive ones, the government can easily allow for a fruitful, reasonable civilization to flourish. Politics is merely a legislative and administrative means to this end.
17 - roger nowosielski
You're being consistent, Joseph, within the model you're operating with -- with the emphasis on individual rights, etcetera and etcetera, but you still don't question the premises which underlie the Lockean conception of the individual. I do, which is why we end up with different results. On on the alternative view, whereby it's the interaction of the individual with respect to his or her community is what counts, the notion of individual rights sort of fades away and becomes less significant.
We've got to come up with another central concept to adequately express the nature of the individual-community relationship.
18 - Joseph Cotto
Roger,
I do not agree with all that Lock has said. However, when it comes to his focus on the individual, I find that the lion's share of opposing arguments are irrational at best. This is because his perspective was not merely a theoretical one, but rooted in empirical evidence; that being human nature in action. As humans, we seek our own betterment first and foremost. If personal rights are revoked, then we will descend into anarchy as people will use one another as means to their own ends in horrid ways. In short, we need civilized laws, and civility rests on single human actions, and these actions only comes to pass because they make a positive relationship of any stripe probable, and self-fulfillment is derived from positive experiences. I think that not only sums up my opinion very well, but might qualify for one of the longest run-on sentences in the history of Blogcritics comments.
19 - Joseph Cotto
Roger,
Excuse my spelling error; it should have been Locke in the first sentence. That is what I get for typing too quickly.
20 - roger nowosielski
Be that as it may, Joseph, we're still dealing with different conceptual systems.
I really think you should give that article by Charles Taylor a read.
21 - Anarcissie
I haven't finished Graeber's book about debt yet, so I won't have much to say until I do.
However, in regard to Randian stuff, the idea of self-interest is pretty tricky. For highly social, trooping animals like humans, group interest and group social processes are very important both practically and emotionally. It is in the interest of most human selves to be interested in the groups to which they belong. And evolution has no doubt programmed us that way, since individual survival depended on it. The notion of the paramount atomized individual, which is how most people seem to interpret Rand and other philosophers of individualism, just doesn't exist and can't exist in real life -- not for human beings, anyway.
You don't need Plato for this -- common and horse sense will do the trick.
22 - roger nowosielski
Was wondering about that.
Locke also seems to have been such a philosopher, don't you think?
Not certain about your comments about the herd instinct. How exactly do you mean it? Herd above anything else - right or wrong - or concern about the well-being of one's community? Don't always have to be the same thing.
You seem to fall back on empirical evidence to argue vs. methodological individualism; nothing wrong with that.
But Plsto's also useful in that it may help us reflect on the question of "self-interest," namely that it doesn't have to be as narrowly conceived as some axiomatically assume. Internal dialogue with oneself is a good thing too, and it's been know to produce results.
23 - roger nowosielski
It'd seem to me that some people, like Joseph Cotto, for example (see comments above) tend to conflate the respect we ought to extend to each individual with the methodological individualism as their philosophy, thinking erroneously that the former is the natural and logical extension of the latter. And this only adds to the confusion.
I'd rather argue that it is precisely the kind of thinking which envisages each and every one of us as being inextricably bound to our communities which promotes mutual respect both in speech and in deed.
24 - Maurice
Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
25 - roger nowosielski
MLK:
The man and his universal message.