FACT, FICTION
AND
VISION
IMARIO BUNGE I 81
TRANSACTION PUBLISHERS NEW BRUNSWICK (U.S,A) AND LONDON (U.K)
pyright © 2009 by Transa tion Publisher
New Brun \vick
ew
Jee ey. All rights reser ed under lnternati nal and Pan-Anlerican Copyright nventi n . No part of thi book nlay be reprodu ed or transmitted in any fonn or by any mean , electronic or me hani aI,inc1udjng photo copy. recording, or any infonnation torage and retrie a] y tem, without prior penni addre
ion in writing from the publi her. All inquirie
hou]d be
ed to Tran action Publi her , Rutger -The State Unj er ity
of New Jer ey 35 Berrue Circle, Pi
ataway New Jer ey 08854-8042.
www.tran actionpub.com This book i printed on acid-free paper that nl e
the American National
Standard for P rnlanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. Library of Congress Catalog ISB
umber: 2008025320
: 978- 1-4 1 28-0828-6
Printed in the United States of America Library of
ongre..
ataloging-in-Publication
Bunge Mario Augu to. Politi a] philo. ophy : fact, fiction and i ion / Mario Bunge. p. cm. In Jude bibliographi al referen e and index. ISB
978- 1-4 128-0828-6 alk. paper
1. Political science. 2. Politi al
ience--Philo ophy. I. Title.
JA7 1.B834 200 320.0 1--d 22 2008025320
Contents preface Acknow ledgmenl .
yii IX
Introdllctjon Philoso phical Background: Univcrsal1dcas
5
2
Citizen and Polity: Diversity and Unity
49
':\
Va]ues and Morals' Indiyidual and Socia]
87 139
4 5
Contention and Negotiation
183
6
pub]ic Goyernance
233
7
Scientific In p ut to P olitic
279
8
Techn ol ogical In put to Politic
3 13
9
Vision: Integral Democracy
35 1
REFERENCES
403
INDEX OF NAMES
425
INDEX OF SUB JEeTS
433
Preface Thi book i ab ut politi s p liti al theory and p litical philo ophy. Alth ugh thc e two discipline' arc often
nftated b
au e they inter
a t they actually arc distinct. In fa t politi aJ theory i' part of political sciencc whereas politi al philosophy i a hybrid f p litical the ry and philo ophy. Th ' former dis ipline is d
criptiv and explanat ry wherea
th latt r is pr . criptive-to the point that it i. often called 'nonnati th ory.' Simmon.
200 : 1 defines it correctly a. '"the e aluati e study
of political . oci tie.. In other words wh reas politologi.
t
d . cribe and
xplain politics. political philosophers examin it critically and v ntur to . ugge. t impro em nts and, on occasion, radically different . ocial futures. Political philo. ophers propo. e scenarios and dr am. wh r political cienti'ts offer nap'hot · of exi ·ting politie�. For example at this time, the right to gainful and ecure employment is moral,not yet legal' hene it belong' in political philo'ophy and social technology rath r than in political 'ci nee ('ee ILO 2004 . By contra ·t, the hypothe'is that ' Great Powers in relativ decline in ·tinetively respond by ' pending more on security and thereby divert potential resources from inve tment and compound their long-term dilemma
(K nnedy
L 988: xxvi belong' in political cience and hi toriography. Becau e of it normati e natur . political philo ophy ha. a moral ting that political cience lacks. When the political . i nti t oberly report . on low voter turnout th political philo opher deplore' that thi i an indicator of the decline of ci ic-mindedne" or e en d mocracy' politi cal cienti t call' ettlement ' and " trong leadership
what political
philo opher condemn a colony and tyranny respecti ely-and
0 on.
However, political philo ophy i not yet a well-defined field: it hov er between political theory and utopian fanta jzing. It devote too much time reanalyzing the work of Plato, Ari totle,ThomasAquina , Hobbe Spinoza, Locke. Monte quieu, Kant, Rou eau. or Bentham. But none of the
thinker c uid have anticipated any of the mo t pre. . ing p litical
is. ue of our time. Ther i the need to . t P global warming, di mantle \Iii
viii
Political Philosophy
nuclear armament prevent further resource war equality between individuaL and nation"
. top the ri
c
of in
and fight authoritarianism,
particularly when it come. di. QuL ed as democracy or as sociali. m.
Not even more recent , 0 ial thinker ,. uch a. John Stuart Mill Karl
Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber Vilt'redo Pareto John Dewey Jo�eph Schumpeter, Harold La, ki, Karl Popper,Hannah Arendt,or John RawI. , had much to . ay about uch topical i. sue, as en ironmental degradation, gend r and race di
riminations participative democracy nationali m,
imp rialism, the North-South (or dev lopcd-underde eloped divide reour
war
the indu trial-military omplex, r the
po erty and
nnection between
nvironmental degradation and b tween inequality and
bad health. S e Le noff 1999 for a fair di cll'sion f twentieth-century politi al philo'opher . Wor ,abo e their ideological div rg 'n e , mo t political phil
pher'
ha e been nearly unanimou. in their indiff rence to the plight of the Third World. Con. equ ntly the bulk of political philo. ophy i. irrel vant to fi e sixth. of humankind. The pr s nt author. a native of thi. world doe. not share that indifference. rn general 1 agree with Dworkin
2000: 4
that
"it ri.l e . . ential that political philosophy re. pond to politic. " in. tead of d aling with fictions .uch a. those of the state of nature, social contract, liberty without equality, and social ju�tice di�pensed [rom above. The very notion of an apolitical political philosophy i an oxymoron. We are given a 'ingle world not a free choice of world'. ju ,t wrote
lV
ole that I
rId not USA. Thi' choice of words i deliberate for I be
lieve that contemporary political philosophy i' till far too USAcentric and Eurocentric, while politics i' being played in the world 'tage rather than only in th philo.opher
U.S. government. I al
0
happen to think that political
hould pay more attention to number'. uch a' the tandard
index of in om
inequality and the mor
cornprehen ive U
dev lopment index for the variou . nation'. It i pointle redi tributi e policie unl
human
to write about
we ha e 'orne of id a of the urrent wealth
di tribution. Howe er, the irrelevance or ob ole cence of many political idea matter litt1e to our concern, becau e we hall di cu i
topical political
ue and ocial policie rather than author or fanciful world . In fact,
we shall focu on some current problem and hall eek promi iug lead to the future.
Acknowledgments A' usual lowe much to a numb r of cholars and tudents who asked stimulating que tion ,formulated critici'm' offered advice (not alway foIl wed , gave p rtinent informati n or encouragement, or helped to cope with alamities. Thi tim ' I ingle out Da id Blitz Ricard Bloch, Micha '1 Brecher,Moi h Bronet Antonio Colomer Viadel,Rafa '1 Gonzalez del Solar. Peter C. Hoffmann th late Gino Germani Irving Louis Horow itz,Michael Kary Jonathan Loeh Martin Mahner. Luis Maron ,Antonio Martino the late Robert K. M rton Ignacio Morgado- B rnal, Da id Oswald Andreas Pick 1, the late Anatol Rapoport.
ichola. Re.cher.
Marc Silber.t in Charle. Tilly. the lat Bruc G. Trigg r Roberto Tuda. and Per-Olov Wik. tram. And as ver r thank Marta, my wife of half a century, and my childr n: Carlos, Mario, Eric, and Silvia. I dedicate this book to the memory of my father, Augusto Bunge
1877- 194
p h sician, the first Latin Arneri a n rnedi -al s o -;ologi5't, parliamentarian, and hampion of so ial ju rice and Lilzi\ er al health are.
My father wa' active in politic' frorn hi. .tudent day till hi. la t day when hara
ed by the polic for hi anti-fa.ci ,t militan y. He tran mit
ted to me hi pa''ion for politic
iew d a the civic arm of morality
a well a hi conviction that ocial policie
hould be ba'ed on 'ocial
cience rather than improvi ed in the hunt for him speaking in the Argentine Congre
ote . I can still picture
, tanding beside hi armchair
flanked by two tall pile of learned books and joumal in four languages which he u ed to ju tify or criticize a new bill, while most of hi col leagues, attuned to fiery rhetoric rather than
olid evidence, Ii tened
re p ctfully or dozed. 1 have worked f r most f my long aead mic life in politically neutral field : the reti a1 physi
and the r ti a1 philosophy. Howe er in a way
ix
Political Philosophy
x
1 have been writing thL book all my life for 1 started reading political new, and Ii. tening to political di cu. . ions at age . e en. I have been a political-new. addict ever since, and have participated in some politi al campaigns. Sti11, I ne er contemplated embarking on a poJitical career, particularly not in univer,ity politic,. T have alway. been intere. ted in doing more con, tru ti e work: organizing and running a worker, school, a on, tru tion fiml a philo, ophy journal, and , everal learned ocietie,. The
a tivitie hav ' giv n me 'ome experi 'nee in both cont 'nti n and
go ernance. Howev r possessing a politi al ar th ugh no p liti a1 tongue, and having Ii ed half of my liD ' in a p liticaUy re tive nation I
ould not
a oid being affected by nati nal politi s in b th my native Argentina and my adopti
Canada. In fa t I hav ' I i ed through half a dozen military
coup and on revoluti
w
igned or refused to ign numerous petition'
and manife,toe.' tak n part in many boring meeting. and assemhlies; marched in .tre t d mon,tration. for or against a ariety of cause. ; and writt n for an und rground paper. Like my father. r wa. jailed twice (my mother once
and both tim s my hom wa, raided; r wa. dismiss d
from my univ r,ity job,and deni d proper id ntity documents for more than a decade. Finally in 1963 I reluctantly left my country [or good, after a bloody confrontation between two army faction' and fearing that the n xt mili tary coup would truncate my research projects if not wor'e. Three year later the coup actually happened, and about I 000 academic' re 'igned or wer being dismi . ·ed. Canada has been my home since 1966. I am grateful to the politician' and civil �ervants who built the 'ervic 'tate that ha kept Canada at p ac and placed it on the 'ixth rung in human dev lopment U
DP 2006).
In hort I learned omething about politic' not from book but from life if unwillingly in mo t ca' .. In particular, I learned 'omething that pin-doctor', pundit
and di enchanted citizen. do not know: that cI an
con tructiv politic i' po 'ibl . I tru t that tho'e exp rience ha e helped me ketch a political philo ophy that i neither armchair-i h, nor cynical, nor utopian. Finally, given the current tate of the study of politics I prefer "poLi tology' to' political science
even though I hare Condorcet
optimi m concerning it bright future. And, unle
1782)
otherwise indicated,
all the foreign language tran lations included in thi book are my own.
Introduction The a t majority of books and cour e on politi -al theory and politi cal philo. ophy examine their pa ts. Thi i certainly a legitimate and intere ting concern no cub titut
ee e.g., Ball and Bellamy ed . 2003 . But it is
for either "Ii ing
political theory or r levant political
philosophy just as the hi tory of mathematic i no ubstitute for prov ing theorem,. Tn my view political philo. ophy exceL when combined with , 0 ial, political,economic or legal data and theory, a. in the works of Gunnar Myrdal,RobertA. Dahl Amartya Sen, Ronald Dworkin,El1nor 0, trom, and David Mi11er. Otherwise it ri,k, 10, ing conta t with reality, a. in the ca,e of Leo Strau.. (1959). who r
trau
,the influential political philo. opher
mmended going back t
the an ients, i an e treme xample
of the profe
r out of touch with current p liti
to the point of seek
ing political wisd m in writers from Plat and Ari totI onward
who
opposed democracy and took lavery and war for granted. Thi i why h'
erlookcd the p liti al issues of hi· day. Art must pass the te t f time: ci n
mu t fail it for the world it trie
to under. tand keeps changing. Reading old books i. a pleasant pastim but no . ub. tiulte for the in
,tigation of burning political i.. ue, and th
philosophical prohl m. th y raLe. Plato', elitism wa, dismantled together with th Ba,tiJl . Augu,tin . just war was blast d atHiroshima; Hobb s' war of all against war was .tillhorn for in the end coop ration always trumps competition' and Marx . dictator. hip of th proletariat crumbled along ,ide th
oviet empire.
On 'econd reading the 'aid Leo Strauss wa � far [rom having stayed abov the fry. In fact, taking lead' fTom Plato " noble lie,"
ietz ch "
elitism and Heidegger' ' esoterici'm,anti-modernism and anti-humanism, Strau' . taught in person or in�pired some of the neocon�ervative� who in 1997 drafted th "Project [or the
ewAmerican Century,'
the imp rial goal pur u d by the government of George W. Bu h Ryn 2003; Dmry 2005 . Plato failed in Syracu' where Strau
1
ucc ed d in
2
Political Philosophy
Wa hington D.C. a Nietz che and Carl Schmitt had previously . uc ceeded in Ber1in-merciful1y only for a dozen years. It is hard for a political philo. opher to be a pa" ive bystander the way some conservati e po1itical theorist ha e urged when attacking scholar. who, like the great John Maynard Keyne. and his disciple , riticized unfettered capitali. m for being self-de, tru tive and proposed economic regulations and social programs to impro e the lot of the common people. Unlike the hi'torian of p liti al thought,wh should be impartial a well a
bjectiv ' political
ienti t, and p litical philosoph rs arc exp cted to
analyz ' and inspir ' social poli ies,which arc guide to political action or phie arc wrong, 0 will b ' the poli i
inaction. If th ir phil
po e. In any event the philo opher pr p
'S
they pr -
c' and the 0 ereign-whether
prince or people-di p Politics, the highe t and the lowe t form of '0 ial a tion, om ,tim ' , the mo. t . elfi. h and at oth r times th most , lfie.. of activities is the art of facing or e ading . ocial issues that i. ,problem. other than purely p r. onal predicaments. Social i.. ue. arise in all social . y.tem.
from
the childless couple to the world . ystem. This i. why politics p rmeate. all social lif : There ar family politic. and gang politics office politic. and club politic. ,school politic. and church politic. , municipal politic. and international politic " and so on. Politic' can be con �tructive, de tructive or barren� and it can be grand, mean or mediocre. And politics has both a contentious and an adnlinis trative 'ide. Politic' i ' the ,truggle for power as well as the exerci e of power in ocial �yst
OJ
of all kinds and 'izes. It i ' al '0 the art of conflict
re'olution in both contention and admini'tration. It behoove
political cienti t. and technologi t to d tect po
ource' of conflict and d vi' rnean to r
ibl
olv them, but it i up to politi
cal philo opher to offer ethi al argument, for or again t any propo a1. to r .01 e politi al conflict '. An intere ting if eldom notic d political no elty that emerged in the cour e of the la t c ntury i that functionarie. of the UN and ivil ' ociety organization ha e b en far mor activ than academic in tackling international conflict , becau e the UN Charter i basically an ethical document, the only one agreed upon univer ally, if not always respected in practice. The exercise of power of any kind i not neutral: it b nefit or harn1 some or all,in particular by either buttre ing or undennining pri ilege. Con equentJy political philo opher and policy anaJy t are called upon t
either improv
or wren the I t of ordinary folks for in. tance by
supporting or opp . ing programs intended to either fa ilitate or hinder
Introduction
popular access to gainful job go ernance.
3
public health 'arc culture or public
on,equently political philo,opher, should be able to dete t
the promi,e, and threat lurking behind the seemingly neutral ,cholarly literature. Take. for example the famou. Pareto optimality principle, ac cording to which the state of an economy (or of an entire ,ociety) i, efficient ju,t in ca e no one can be made better off without . omeone else being made wor e ff. In other word
ci ,ty would b ' like a ee
saw. In parti ular all the oeial program aiming at impr ving oeial ju ti
and enf reing int 'rnational law hould be j ,ttisoned a b 'ing
Pareto in 'ffici nt· and any hop '
f impr ving the lot of humankind a
a whole hould be abandoned f r the ize of the eak , t be di tributed i constant and ta i' i alway preferable to hange. In short, whoever a eept Par 'to
4
ptimality ' mu ,t, if con i tent rej et the very idea of
,ocial progress. And yet even John Rawls progre.. iv ,
1971: 66-67)
who thought of himself a,
mbrac d Par to 'optimality' becau,e h failed to realiz
that it i. just an application of the con,ervativ political philo,ophy that njoin. u. not to rock the boat, or ven row it. A moral of thi. story i, that the political philo. opher should be ,keptical of main.tream conomic theory, if only because a Milton Friedman
(1991
apparent mathematical 'ophi ,tication, that theory i
boa 'ted, [or aU its �
'old wine in new
bottles' -hardly the liquid the thirsty need. W hat might draw a philo 'opher to the study of politic' i . that politi cal action is never done in a conceptual and moral vacuum. Indeed, all politician' invoke certain alue' and ideals, claim to act on expert advice, and d vi. e policie. and plan'. It i up to the politi al philo opher to judge whether the value , exp rti' ,and poIicj
in que.tion are authen
tic rather than rhetorical, and well grounded rather than jmprovi' d. In turn our judgment wjll be right or wrong d p nding on it. input
uch
a knowledge about 0 jal matter', a crjtical or gullible attitude and a moral pro ocial or jmmoral (anti.ocial) ·tand. Since politic i bound to change people
lives it ha a moral compo
nent, albeit ordinarily a tacit or even carefully concealed one. Bernard Crick
[1992: 141]
went a far a to claim that "Po]itical activity is a type
of moral activity." Moreo er, I ubmit that the moral component of politi cal action i the mo t important if the lea t isible one, imply because it invo] e benefit and harm . I also ugge t that it i a ta k of the political philosoph r to unveil and evaluate uch component, aU th more so in e it i often fogged by a narrow ideology or even by a crude philosophy
4
Political Philosophy
such a contractariani m utilitariani m pragmati m legal positi i
TIl,
dialectical materialism critical theory, or hemleneutic. . Undoubtedly, political
cience has advanced appre iably since the
la. t world war. However. in my view it , till . uffer. from the , ame moral deficit a. tandard economic theory. Indeed in both field� the mainstream i. utilitarian and therefore indifferent to mora] sentiment and to the lot of the profe
10
er. in the race. to power and wealth. Tn fact few contemporary
ors of political ' i 'n ' ha e ever condemned military aggres i n,
tat terrorism unprov ked ' preemptive' military aggr 'ssi n torturing political pri on r ,cen oring the n emergen i
'S
'W
,or re tri ting ivil liberti 'S during
(ev n when engine red by their government .
On the ii'w oc a ion wh 'n acad mics ha e condemn d 'u h pra tice , ordinarily they indict d th m as ineffectual rather than immoral. Wor ' yet, in re ent time
me famou pr fe
r of political
ien e hav ' of
fered or . old . tarkly immoral advice to their go emment.: Susp nd thi. ci il right. ignore that int rnational tr aty bomb or in ad that country, keep fighting thi. ill gal war d stabilize that unfriendly go ernment, support this friendly dictator, rip off th . ocial fabric of thos rural lage. adopt this carpet-bombing . chedule, try out that toxic . pray t
il
11
the p opl that th y ar und r attack ven if they are not, d moniz your adversaries, and
'0 on. The�e betrayal'
have made political philosophy
timely once again for the nucleus of thi' di'cipline i " or ought to be, moral ,-the art of helping other enjoy life. The central the'i' of thi' book i that re' ponsibl politic' i' based not
only on ideology but al '0 on philosophy,in particular ethic' a' well a�
on 'ocial technology,which in tum is effective only when ba 'ed on 'olmd ocial 'cience. The following diagram ummariz
the whole book.
POLITICS
SOCIOTECHNOLOGY
i SOCIAL SCrE CE
i POLITICAL ISSUES
i SOCIAL P RO BLEMS
IDEOLOGY
i J, PHILOSOPHY
1 Philosophical Background: Universal Ideas Philo ophy ha a bad reputation among cienti t. who regard jt a' b ing either irrelevant to . jenc or oppo ed to it. in particular political philo ophy ha been accu. d of being opportuni tic rather than principl d a well a' jmpreci' and only 100 'ely related to the bulk of philo ophy. Pet r La lett
1967: 370
noted that the aid opportuni m 'ha. led to
a raggedn . '. ev n an incoherence. in works d voted to it and to an empha i on intuiti e arguments which compare unfavorably with the content of other philo ophical Hterature.' Many year later the arne cholar added a complaint: Political philosopher
0
eremphasize the
hi tory of politkal thought at the expen e of contemporary chaUenge (La lett in Skinner
2002: 2 .
However nobody can avoid philo ophy when di cus ing anything other than everyday events. if jn doubt, try do p litology without u ing the notion of thing and pro
. . reality and appearan e
au
and chanc
person and society behavjor and norm a. umption and dedu ti n datum and theory indicator and test,
cience and ideology-and then som .
One an. and usually doe. use them without pausjng t examine th m. H wever ta it philo
phy is loppy and uncritical. To avoid th . e two
flaw we mu t analyze and y tematize univer al concep . We mu t build pred e theorie around thern. Thi j a ta k for good philo ophy. The pre ent chapter
ketche
ophi al y tern, and it offer
what I hope to be a coherent philo-
ugge tion on how to harpen orne key
philo ophical concept rele ant to the tudy of politic . Some of the e concept occur, albeit impLi itly for the rno t part in the work of the much-maligned N iccolo Ma 'hia cIli
1940.
Machiavelli founded not
only modem political t 'hnology or the art of rna
per uacion, but aL0
modern political theory. Thus, he inspired not only Hitler, Stalin and terror peddler
but al 0 all the eriou politi 'al theori
era fr0l11 Hobbes and Lo 'ke to our day. 5
of the modem
6
Political Philosophy
1 u b m i t that M ac hiavell i ' s c c ienti fi c ucce was l argel y du to h i modern philo ophical outlook tac i t and , ketchy a . i t was. Tn fact, h i . ontology wac both sec u l ar u n l i ke th at o f h i . Chri stian predece . . o r. ) and dynam icist u n 1 ike Plato' and H u " erl , . Ma hiavel l i v iewed the pol i ty as a concrete whole i n perpetual fl u x whose i ndi i dual component were moved pri mari ly by worldly i ntere. ts. He wa. confident that, by studying the me han i m. of pol i t i cal change, he would be able to understand and
control them for the benefit of the overeign. ontrary to Plato and Ari totl , but D re hadowing Gali leo, M achia e l l i r gard 'd change a a m ar k of p rfection, not i mp rfc tion. H ' wa ' al the fi r t to tate that pol itics i s not j u ,t a game played by prin e ' ru ler , but al 0 a pro e i n 01 v i ng ma e f indi vidual who attempt to forese ' the conscqllen e f their a tion . M ac h i a I l i wa also an epi temological reali 'r. H e bel i ' d in the i ndependent exi · tence of th ' external worl d , a. well a. in the po . . i b i l i ty of gett i ng to k now it. Tn short , by and l arge M ac h i ave l l i m ay b regarded a s a m a t rial ist of sort. a. wel l a. a real i . t a rational i . t . and a n u t i l i tari an. Tru , h also hel i d wton ' s God d i d in m ag i c b ut th i . pl ayed n o rol e i n h i . theory j u .t as n o t occu r i n h i . equation. of motion. On m ay tackle a c i rcum. cri bed pol i tical problem . uch a. whether proportional representation i ' fai r and workable, w i th i n a 'ingle branch of a di ·c ipli ne. But the big i ssues o f any k i nd, such as poverty can only be tack led with the help of several d i 'cipl ines and w i th i n a broad phi lo sophicaJ fTamework. Tbi i ' so beca u se pol itical action occ u rs in the real world i s planned in the l ight of some body of know ledge and 'orne moral code, and is l ikely to benefit ' ome people w h i le harm i ng other ' . For example, t h e d i g n a n d i m p l me n tation of a n y prom i i ng or threate n i n g ) public work . health, or edu ation program pr ' uppo e a ecul ar worl d iew a real i t i c epi ' temology. an action theory m i nd fu l of i nter · t" and a con . equential i t though not nec ari ly u t i l i tari an moral ph ilo. ophy . in hort I ' u b m i t that ph i l o ophy contrib u t to fa h io n i ng the pol i t y v i a pol it ic al theory and pol it ical action a llgg ted by th fol lowi ng flow d i agram : Philosoph
� Politi al tlleor
� Poli
� Politi al debate �
Politi al de isiol1 � Planning � Exe ution � Evaluation �
Et enfual poli' or plan
r
design
The na',ve materiali t m i ght object that th i . i e w i . ideal L t i c . becau. e it presents certa i n fact. a. con, equence of i deas. B ut as it so happen.
Philosophical Background
7
that deliberate action, by contnL t to k n e-jerk r action, i. carried out i n the l ight o f idea i n tert w i ned w i th moral , enti ment . (Any dec ision to take acti on i s preceded by del i be rat i on, g u i ded or dL torted by de. i re, rooted i n i ntere. ts. as well as constrained or fue l led by moral. .) Adm i t ti n g thi, i no conce. sion to ph i l osoph i cal i deal i s m , pro v i ded ideas are regarded as brai n proce es, not a. exi, t i ng by them elves. So, the enti re proce" we ha e j u . t , ketched occur. i n the real world inhab ited by pol i t i al agent . The r ' le an e of phi l o 'ophy to pol itical ' i 'n ' resear h i s ob i ou from the approach to th ' d i cipline ho en by the author i n the fou r more i n fl u 'ntial A merican and B riti h journal in th ' fi ld during the 1 99 7-2002 period ( M ar h and Sa igny 2004 . F r a mp l , 56 � of the contribu tors to the Ameri 'an Journal of Politi al Science opted for "behav ioural i m ,' r respect for 'mpirical data w h ' rea rati onal-choice th ory-characteri zed by i t. apri ori sm-was the c hoic of only 1 59f of th author, . Th corre. pondi n g data for th British JournaL 0/ Politi 'aL S 'ienc() were 63<1< and 9� r . p ct i v e l y . r n th i s chapter I w i l l , ketch th phi l osophical di. c ipl i n s i n olved in pol i tical philo. ophy . In my v ie w authent ic ph i l osoph y con. i sts of th fol l ow i ng branch s: Logic: prec i sion a n d deduc i b i l ity Semallri s: meaning and t ruth
THEORETICA L
Ontolog .: being and becom i ng Epi remolog : cog n ition and know ledge PhiLo oph of Scien e and Techllolog MethodoLog): evidence Axiolo
P R ACTIC A L
'
a l ue .
:
Ethi 'S: ri ght and dutie. Praxiolo
1
: action
Politi 'aL philosoph I: pol itic.
A l l of th ' k 'y idea ' in the phi losophi ca l d i ' c ipl i ne w i l l play a role in each hapter f thi book. However, the reader 'hou ld remember that, u n l i ke mathematics or c henl i try phil sophy i ' plural in the 'n e that eve!)' phi lo ophical v iew b 'long t some c hool or other-rational ist or inational i t ideal i t or material i ,t indi v iduali t r y t 'mht, and so n . 1 ha e ch en m y o w n phi lo 'ophy w h i c h I ha e d i scu c d i n detai l i n previou, works, particularly i n t h ei ght o l u m . o f m y Treati"e on
H
Political Philosophy
Bo i Philosoph
1 974-89) as well as i n t hree boo
on the phi lo ophy
of soci al �c i ence B unge 1 996a 1 998a. 1 999a , in m y late. t books on ontology and epi. temology ( B unge 2003a, 2006a , and i n an anthology on my �cientifi c real L m (Mahner 200 1 . B ut I clai m that thou gh bia. ed a. al 1 philo oph ie, , m i ne is both prec ise and evidence-ba, ed. The e i dence I offer for or agai n , t phi l o, oph ical hy potheses come , from science and technol ogy . For in stance, if I regard e ery th i ng as changeabl e and a. e i ther a y tem r a m pon n t of ne it is becau e d e ev ' ry c i ence proper. I n other words my phi losophy i s u naba hed ly scienti ti , that i s, science-center d . Thi p h i l o phy m a y be ummarizcd a ' a h agon centered i n s i e n c , and the id of w h i h are m y own vcr ion ' f emergentist materiali 'm a opp cd to both ideal i s m and radical reduct i o n i 01)' sterni rn a ' the alt rnat i v to both i nd i v idual i s m or atom i s m, and hol ism or struc tural i s m ) ' d 'nomi 'ism or th the. is that ev ryth i ng i n th r al world i. changeab l ; s 'iel1ldic realism a, opposed to na'i e real i s m, suhj ecti i . m and re lati v i s m ) ; humanism ( as oppo. ed to sup rnatu ral ism and goi . m ) ; a n d ?xa '111 '>SS. a. oppo. ed to i mprec i s ion and oh, curi ty . I w i l l att mpt to show the r Ie ance of ach of the. e ph i l osoph ical v iews to both pol i t ic al sc ience and pol i t i cal phi l osoph y . I w i l l a1 '0 argue that a philo 'ophy w i t h out l ogic and 'emantics i ' mu � h y ' without ontology, spineles ' ; w i thout episte mology headless; and w i thout thies, clawle ' '. EXACTNE S
H
MANl M
�
YNAMI
ISM
ClEN E
SYSTEMISM
REALISM
l\·IATERJALJSM
Fig. 1.1. Sketch of the phiiosophicaJ system used in this work.
1. Logic: Conceptual Rationalit)'
Let u, g l i mpse at pol i ti cal reasoni n g . What th i nk s and feel s about po l i ti cal i s, ue, and what to do about them i a brain. And brai n can work e i ther rational ly and real i stical 1 y or not. The, e two condition , rati onal ity
Philosophical Background
and real i m
arc
qu ite d istin .t . On
9
may argu rational l y about ghost
the way rati onal -choice theori st do when using undefi ned uti l i tie, and probabil i tie, . Or one may stick to rea l i ty yet thi nk irrat i onal 1 y about i t , t h e way postmodems h a v e been doi n g-as when Derrida tated that " [w ] hat i , proper to a culture i s to not be i dentical to i t�el f ' i n Cole, 002 : 1 1 . To argue correctly about anything whether real or i m aginary , one mu. t ...
sti k t the rules of rati nal argument. The e ru l are studied by D rmal ( or m athemati al logic the mo , t ab t ra t and theref r th ' most general and portable of al l sc iences. We need 1 gic not to generat idea but to che k them for gency and to sp t dangerous nonsen e ' uc h a ' au thori tari an c i al i m, " 'demo rati c central i ' m ' ( the internal mechan i m of communi st partie ert i al l abor u nion, " and ' w ar on terror. ' Logic deals w ith con ept ' uch a th ' prcd i at 'is democrat i c " a. w e l l a. w ith proposition, or . tate ments, . uch as "On l y de mocracy , at' g uard. h u m an right. . ' Cone pt. ar de, ignated by symbols such a. words wher a, propo. itions are designated by sentence, in som l anguage . S i nce ther ar , everal thousand, of l anguages one and th , am concept can be d , ignated by thousand, of symbo l s ; proposi t i on, ar paral lel . Only proposition. or statem nt. can be t ru or fal s to som 4
degree . For in � tance, 'liberty i neither tru nor fal 'e, wh rea ' 'Liberty mu ·t be ei ther conquered or defe nded' i � arguably t rue. H owever log i c i s concerned w i th preci ' ion a n d formal v a l i d i t y i n particular logical consequence, not lruth. I ndeed the princip le and r u le ' of logic hold r gardJess of content and lruth-value. Parado x ically, th logical a umption� and the i r consequence ' are e mpty . They . tate nothing in particu lar, w h ic h i ' w hy they are called laUl% ies. Yet, o rne poli tici an. love tautologie , either out of ignorance or becau ' they do not comIn i t u . to anythi ng. For xampl , Pre ide nt Georg W . B u h once proclai med : "Tho e w ho enter th country i llegal l y v i olate t h e l a w . ' H al ' o i n ented t h e . l ogan ' War o n terror, ' w h i c h i . a contradiction i n d i . g u i e i nce war i the wor. t terror. Log i c does not hand le entence that fai l to represent propo i t i ons uc h a que t ions req uest , regret , i mp rati ve , and counterfactual . B u t o f cour e q u e t i on , reque t regret , and i mperati ve , though d e o i d o f truth -val ue , are i nd i pen able. The ame cannot b e a i d o f contrary to fact tatement , even though they are rampant in pol i t ical rhetori c . R e member what the arne pol i tician cited abo e aid : 'If we had not i nvaded Iraq t h i \vould now be a terrori t n u r. e ry ." Contrary to the w ide pread bel i ef that the per on i n que ti n i f nd of uttering l ies that parti cu l ar
10
Political Philosoph
sen tence i s neither true nor fal s . Howe er i t ig n i fie rough l y the . a me as the dec l arat i v e . entence "We attacked Traq bec au , e i t w as bound to become a terrori . t n ursery . ontrary to the corre. pondi n g counterfactua] sentence th i . one doe. express a proposi tion, though one that i. neither supported nor u ndenlli ned b y any evidence, w hence it cannot be a . . i gned a t ruth-value. We only k now that fi ve year, after being i n aded, Iraq ha. become a breeding ground of "terrori . t. . ' aL 0 cal1ed ' ins urgent� . ' or , patri ots ' by orne. Th moral i that ounterfa tuals hou ld b handled w i th care, parti u larly in matters of l i fe and death . The 111 t i mportant of all logi al ru le arc the law of non-contrad i tion and the i n ference ru le call 'd modus ponens. The f rm r tate ' that th joint a 'rtion of a propo i t i n and i ts denial i fal se : A and not-A i ' fal se regard le of the content of A . A nd the Inodus pOllen i the ru l e : From A a n d 'if A t h e n B ' deduce B. Paradoxi cal l y , contradiction . are xce . . iv l y fertile, a. th y entai l any proposi tion. what . o e v r. B y cont rast , th conj unction of " I f A , th n B ' w ith B n taiL noth i ng . To c l ai m that i t does i. to i ncur a c I a . . i c aJ fal 1 acy . For i n . tance , from the gen ral i za t ion "Th r pre. ntat i ve. who ke p their word are ree lect d,' and the datu m "He w as r elected ' i t doe. not fol l ow that he kept h i s word. In fact e ery body of r pre. ntat i ve . i . ful l of people w ho h a v e repeatedly broken t h e i r promi ses. Log ic i ' then the torchl ight that he l p ' us ' pot wrong argument� . But how do we arg ue for the logical ru les? W eldom do becau e any valid argument about anything i n volve ' the ru les o f debate . D rop the law of non-con tradiction, and you U i ncur the cheap t of all falsities: contra diction , which amount ' to losing the debate. And i f on drop ' the modus ponen one i . unable to concl ude anythi ng from any et of pre m i . e , not even to c heck w hether they b get contradiction. Thu . l ogic the lea t of con · trai nt u pon rational d i cour e be ide clari ty i. not only e " ntial to al l ound di cour e : i t al 0 k ep u from fal l i ng into e i ther nothi ng ne or ev ryt h i ng . T h i i w h y H eidegger. J a ' per Gadamer, A rendt. Derrida. lrigaray, .
Vattimo, and the other so-c al led po tmodem rej ected logic: I rrat iona] ity all owed them to put word together w ithout worry i ng about en e, let alone coherence and e i dence ( ee Edward 2004) . And of cour e i rrat i on a l i m hel p dictator . for it d i arm s anal y i s and cri tici m and replace uui er al theorie w i th tri bal b Hefs. This i s why fa ci m , in all of its ver ion , ought "to fight the very idea of obj ecti ve truth and u n iversal r ason" Kolnai 1 938: 59 .
Philosophical Background
11
I t L nearly i nl po s ible to argue w ith p ople w ho excel i n e oteric gib beri sh and ignore the rule. of rational debate. For in. tance how can anyone arg ue in fa or or agai nst H e i deg ger . ( 1 954: 76 e. oteri c a . . er tion that B e i n g "is I t i t self . The po. tmodern i st Gianni Vattimo call. this k i nd of 'thi nki ng," which he commend" "weak th i n k i ng. I think i t de. e r e . bei ng called pseudothinkin E oterici m, commended b y Leo Strau . . , serve. to conceal v ac uity or mal ice. H owe er let u , go back to I.
g ' n u i ne rea olung- lear and ogen t argument. Log i c i s the m t general and therefore als the most ab tract) of all sc iences be ause i t is topic-neutral hence portabl ' from one fi eld to the n 'xt. This is why ther ' an be n politi al logi any more than hemical l ogic. However, log i lea v 's prac ti al rea n i ng ou t : it doc not cov '[ i n fe rence pattern uch a t h i : I f that nation i . attac ked i t w ill retaliate. R taliat i on i . bad . That nation should not be attac k d. Th i s i s an i n . tance of practical rea. oning. I t rel at . fact. rather than tatement " and i t i n volve ' a value j udgments and an imperat i ve . We hall return to p ractical rea �oning in Chapter 8 Section 2 . For the t ime be ing, ' u ffice it to note that hone ,t political di scourse conta i n � practical a ' well a � logical arg uments. Rat i onal debate i ' not p ri vat i v of academic l i fe : i t is al ' 0 a feat u re of democracy . I ndeed, poli tical � tri fe and the admin i ' ( ration of the com monwealth i n vol e rat ional delib ration ' about rnean and nd . e en for the i n v ntion and xecution of dumb i ng political campaign uch a the N az i appeal to 'blood and 'oil.' B ut of cour ' rational d bate, though n ce ary. i . n er ' u ffi c ient. Only n aive rationali t cou ld bel i e that politi al conflict. c an be re olved exclu i ve l y by rational d i ' U ' ' i on: rationality hould gu i de political conte t, i f only to mi n i mi z damage but it cannot replace t ruggle. Regrettably , i n te re ts backed by force can overpower the mo t coge n t arguments: God fa or the go d guy w hen they outn umber the bad. Rationality i 0 muc h taken for granted in all walk of life , that we fi nd i rrational be hav i or un ett 1 ing, and that some mili tary t rategi t have recommended imulating i rrationality to con fu e and care the enemy . Schelling 1960 called t h i p I i Y th "rationality f i rrationality"· a nd P resident N i x n Profe or K i . . i nger's star pupil c al led i t the "madman
12
Political Philosoph
theory. counterpart , were play ing w ith the surv i val of the h um an species. Let u. deal b ri efl y w i th the oncept of a theory . Some pol i t i cal sc i entist equate pol i ti cal theory w i th normati v e poli tology or poli t i cal ph iloc oph y , or . oc i a] engi neeri ng . ThL u. age i i dio. yncratic and mi. lead i ng, for i n all the mat ure . c ience. a theory i . under. tood a . a h y pothetico-deduct i ve sy. tem , by contra. t to an isol ated hypothe. i s or an u nstructured et of h y pothe e . In oth r w rd , what i ' typi al of a th o ry i ' that ' ry statement i n it i an i n i t i al a u mption or po tulate , a defi nition or a l og i aJ conse u n of one or more a ' ' u m ption ' or defi n i t ion ' . Howe er 010 , t of w hat pa for theOl"i ' , in p ljtieal ' i 'n ' ar actually , ne-Ij n ' the rie , " that i hypothese , ueh a ' All war ' ar about eeon mie re ou r 's.' Her ' i s an ad hoc example of a m j n i theory an illu 'tration of M ert n ' , thesi. on the u n i n tended i n particul ar p r ers consequ nce. of . oc i al action: 1 . Welfare legi�lation pr
2. Pr
m
te pr
·perity.
perity fav r the Rioht.
3. W Ifare legi lari n fay rs the Righr.
P . tulate 1 and 2 j o i n tly entru l the onelu. i n 3 . The t hree proposi tion. taken tog ther con titute a t i ny c nceptu al y tem-a con i tent i f some\v hat parad xical t heoretical model. F i n al ly a w anl i ng . Pol i ti al theorie are not to be confu ed with p lit ical doctrine the w ay La well and K aplan 1 950: x i i i did i n thei r i n fl uential b ok. A polit ical do trine s u c h a s liberali m or s c i al i m i an i deology' and 0 far a I know no i deology ha ever been organ i zed a a h y potheti co-deducti e y tern . In fact i deolog ie are ordi narily pre en ted a collection of l ogan uch ' Freedom or death! and "Free trade or bu t ! A nd polit ical logan are call to action rather th an te table h y pothe e . We hall reru rn to i deologi e in Chapter 4. 2 . Political
emantics: .l\feaning and Truth
S mantic. h as got a bad r putation a. be i ng an i nane di sput about word. or v n as verbal t ri ckery. However ph ilo. oph i cal . mantics i. a . rious di. c i p l i ne for it deal. w i t h meani ng and t ruth eac h of which can ei ther . h i ne or b shunn d i n pol it i cal di. course . H nce no seri ou. ph ilosoph ical . y. tem can fail to contai n semantic theorie . . L t u. gli mpse at the two concept. i n question.
Philosophical Background
13
M ean ing i , a property of 'onstru 'ts i .e. , 'oncept propo, ition , and theories. It may be defi ned a reference to gether w ith en, e, or denota tion cum connotation . If ei ther of the, e components i, empty, there is no construct proper. Yet mo, t ph i l o opher, ca11 'non -referri n g' a con, truct w i th no counterpart i n the real worl d. Th i s u, e is mi take n , for a11 contruct referring to i magin ary entitie, uch a, "Zeu, , H amlet ' "utopia, " "perfect compet i tion, and "Iraq i weapon, of ma" de, t ructi on, ' refer to •
such 'ntitie and ha ve rather 1 'ar sense . In other word all c nstTuct prop r r fer-some to real items thers to i magi nary ones. A r i totl rightly r ommended that we tart any di cussion by mak i ng lear w hat i t will be abou t . In modern term s : Start by spcc ify ing y u r u n i verse of d iscou rse, r reference lass. F r in tanc ' w ' mll t d i stingui 'h p li t ical act i n from poli t ic al science from the philo ophy of p l it i al cience which refer only i nd i r ctly to poli tics.
Philo 'oph. o f p litolog
Politology
J,
Politic
Fi . 1.2 The arro
7(2
symbolizes the reference function. The arrow :K) from
philosophy of political scienc to politics equals th' compo "ilion of 'Ii' and :A'I' _
Meaning w ill be fuzzy i f i ther or both of i t component. reference and en" , i vague. V aguene i a eriou defect becau "e log i c only hold for exact oncept '. lnde d, if con truct A i fuzzy, 0 i not-A whence A do not ati fy the principle of non-contradiction that i ' The conj u n lion of A and not-A i fal e. ' N or i v alid i nf renc po i ble w i th ague propo ition . In particu lar not-B doe not in alidate "If A, then B " w henever B i hardly d i t i ngui hable from not-B . And yet the political di cour e i full of vague not i on , uch a tho e of power and L i be rty . Vaguene can be 0 extreme a to b hardly d i tingui hable from e mpti ness. B i m arc k s famou form ula 'Poli tic i the art of the po i bl e i a ca e in poi nt. I n deed any craft from poetry and mathemati c to engineeri ng and med i c i ne. deal w i th po i bilitie . which i t attempt to e ither actualize r fru, trate. A m athematical onjecture is a po ible theorenl a blueprin t a possible con tructi n a parl i amentary bill a posible law and so on. True the oncept of possibility is ntral to much ontemporary philosophy in particu l ar po ible-world ontology , \vh ic h deals w it h fanta t i "world . " B ut t h e notion i nvolved i n t h e specula tion is i m prec i e and alien t the concept of r a1 p i bility u ed in the
14
Political Philosoph
mature sciences ( B u nge 2006 . In the. e, th adverb 'possi bly ' applie to fact not propo, ition, . M oreover the concept of real po" i bili ty depend. upon that of . ientific l aw . which i . a1 ien t o formal l og i c . Indeed, i n phy i c s and other factual sci ences one say. that a fact i real1 y possi ble j u , t i n ca, e i t i, compatible w i th the relevant 1 a w . . To put i t form all y : The fact de, cri bed b y propo, i tion p i s reall pos There i s at 1east one law , tatement L . uch that the conj unction sibl' =
of p with L i t rue. Thi con cpt of real pos i b i lity is rad i ally d ifferen t from that of onceptuaJ pO ' ' ib ility w h i ch may b e d fi ned a follow . The con t ruct p i s ·onceptuall., pO' 'ible in the bod of /aunt ledge B if p d es n t contradict any memb '[ f B. M dal l og i and the theorie ' bu ilt around it n ftate th ' tw ncept of po i b i li ty that we ha e ju t di t i nguished ce B u ng 2006a . So mu h for meaning. A f r tru th let u tart by noting that i t me ' in . e eral k i nd, : formal factual moral and arti. t i c . The formal truth, , such a. 'A or not-A" and' I > 0,' h01d r gardles, of the state of the world b cau. they do not ref r to it. They belong in logic or math m atic, . B y cont rast , the factual truth " such a , "Canada i s a s o v re ign cou ntry " are cont i ngen� for anada u, d to b a colony, and it m ay y t 1 0. e i t . i ndep ndence. Moral t ruth , re f r to moral fact � ' uch as helping people i n di ' tre 's, and i m moral fact ' uch a ' bombing civilian popu lation ' . The the� i ' that there are mordl t ru th s and fal ' i tie ' i ' pecubar to moral realism a m inority view. Finally the arli ,tic tru th � are i milar to the formal one ' i n that they are i maginary but different from them becau ' e they cannot be p roved. Political sc ience i s expected to fi nd factual t ruth , and poli tical phi lo ophy i u ppo ed to deal w i th both politologi al and moral truth . . A. u ual i n phi lo ophy there are e era] v i ew conc rn i ng factual truth . H ere ar the main one : Radi al kepticisl11 = Th r are no t ruth '-hence no fal · jtie e jther. R lati ism = Tmth i local i .e . t ri be-depend n t-hence m ulti ple . Pr 19matism = Truth i
the same a u efulnes -hence never di j nter
e ted . Conventionali'm = Truth js di gujsed de fi n i tion-hence i n en i t i v e to
e v i dence . Realism = Truth js adequacy of idea to fact.
Radical skepti c i s m i d feati t and relativ i In is If-de tructive for if t rue then rel at i v i m i t If cannot be u n i r all y t rue. B esjdes relati v-
Philosophical Background
15
i s m makc. no room for t h u nivcL al t ru th invcnt d b y mathcmatic and d i co ered by the . ci enee and te hnologie . . The po tmodern . are e ither radical . keptic, or relat i v i . L . Pragmati . m o r i n strumentali. m attempt. to repl ace real i ty check w i th u efulness test. : it take . . uece" for t ruth . Conventionali . m ignore that factual truth, are not arb i trary , i nce they mu, t be . uppo rted by evi dence' and that defi n i tion, may be more or Ie, , u, eful but are neither true nor fal e. And e 1 i ti ts ' reveal what they regard as the tru th to the few w i thout endangering the u nqualified comm i tln nt of the many t th opinion on which so i ety re ts ' ( S trau ss 1 9 8: 222 . Only r 'al i ' m accounts D r the fact ' that we mu t e x pl re the world to find tru th ab ut it, and that m t such truth have no practical u ' be au e they r 'f 'r to facts that arc bey nd hu man ontr 1- uch a th pa t fac t and the c ents that 0 ur i n ' ide tars or beyond our solar sy tem . A n d y e t there have recently bee n me d i cu ion ' about t h e real ity or u n real i ty of nation . . It h as b n c l a i med that nat i on. ar fi g ment. of th collect i v i m ag i nat i on j u. t becau . e non of th m would e x i . t u nl . . th i r suhj ec ts and n i ghhor. believed in them. However nation, pa, s q u i t ordi nary r ali ty checks. Th y c an interact w i t h ach oth r. ei ther peaceful1 y or v i ol n tly as a con. quenc of wh ich the i r te rritori , can ither x pand or . hrink and the i r peoples get rich r or poorer. rn any event if nation ' were i m aginary , '0 would be war, which would be convenient to all e cept the war profiteer . B e ' ide ' , th 'arne applie ' to aU the other ocia) construction '. For i n stance, we would not � hop at the upermarket u nle ' s we believed in it ' exi · te nce. ations are '0 real that it would be i mpossible to invade Thom a ' Mor ' . U topia or Jonathan w i ft L i lliput or to trade w i th them , [or both are i ndeed i magi n ary nat i on . What j t ru i ' that nation. are made not foun d : they are 'ocial art i fact . B ut the i magi nation req u i red to form re forrn or de 'troy nation i of the arn k i nd that engi n r u e to d . jgn i m prov . maintain, or utilize m ac h i ne . The denti t who tudy fa t , u h a the politologj t are r ali t , i n ofar a th y . eek to fi nd out truth ' about t h chunk of the w orld they tudy . A po i ble defi n i tion of factual t ruth is thi . A propositi n p eleribing a fa ,t f is true = iff happen'" as de cribeel b) p. Thi defi n i tion may be enlighte ning but, to be u ed, i t m u t be accompanied by a t ruth c ri te rion, that i , a rule for recogn izi ng w he n a p ropo i tion i true. H e re i s one uch c ri terion. A proposition p referrin to a fa ,t f is true in the light of e ie/en e e = The eli loteran e or error agreed
011
repan
bef1.· een p and e is Ie s than the
beforehand.
16
Political Philosoph
Scienti m hold. that . oci al scientist . hou ld eek tru thc ju t a rigor ou. ly a. the i r col 1 eague . in the n at u ral sciences. In part i c u l ar. pol i ti al theorie . . hould be a. true ( real L ti ) a, possi ble . Th i . goal i . not . h ared by the henneneutic or i nterpreti ist or "h uman i . t hool wh ich i gnore. the scientistic i nj uncti on Seek evidence for or against your theorie . . ' For instance de. p i te h i s adm i ration for H annah Arendt H orow i tz 1 999 : 4 1 3 ) deplores ' her u n w i l l i ngne . . to support her theory w i th evidence '-an attitude that evidently d i q ua l i fi e her a a pol i t i al cientist. B esides, the hermeneutic ( or hU l11an i t i " c h 01 er ct a w a l J betw 'n t h ' c i al and the natural realm , a well a between thei r COf re pondi ng tudies. For example Searle 1 995 : 27 lai l11 that th r ar ' two ategories f fa t : brute, uch a ' a land t ide and in t itutional, uch a ' a conv '[ ati n . But land 'lid c an have oc ial auses a nd conscquen e ; and con er ' ation and all ther 0 i al i n tera tion , arc b ioso ial rather than purely . oci al , si nce th y i nvol e Ii i ng p rson . . Thi s is why there are hio. oci al science. , such as geography demography p. ychology and anthropol ogy all of w h ich util ize t he sci ntific m thod, and thu. trespa . . the natura l/soci al and th human i . t ic/. c ienti fi c frontiers. Still h rmeneuti c i st. a nd oth r postmoderni . t hav b n mod rately effect i i n . l ow i ng down th progre . . of the soc ial . ci ence. a. w e l l a. •
i n rei n forcing the popular prej ud i ce again �t th m. Even uch a di · t i n g u i � hed pol i tolog i st a B ernard Crick ( 1 99 2 : 1 8 7 ) fell under the � pell of heml eneutic ' , and ' ee l11ed to echo M ichel Foucau l t when he declared that ' [ p ] o l i ti cal theory is it ' elf po l itical.' I f thi ' were true, political methodology would be u nnec ary and the worth of political theorie� could be a ' 'ed by poll ing. What are political are �oc i al policie� . The 'e, li k any oth r technological i tem " are to be j u dged by th i r effi cacy or otherwi e in ad anc i ng cert ai n i ntere t . Notice that M ax Web r 1 98 b not w i t h tand i ng, obj cti ve truth i . not t h arne a . e ither val ue-neutrality o r i m part i a l i ty . S ientifi reo earch involve alue j udgment , uch a "Explanation trump. d eription . ' A nd orne . ci nti fic fi nding er e to e i ther . u pport or u ndermi ne pub l ic pol icies. For i n tance, stati tic uggest that generou welfare legi lation i an effecti e fert i l i ty contro l . There i s noth i n g d i rectly pol itical, hence relati e about t h i s result of demographic re earch. And yet, i n the fac ultie of a rt in the Northern hemi phere . anti -real i l11-i n part icular con truct i i m -relati vi sm-i nowaday more popular than reali m. One rea on for the populari ty of re lat i v i m i that it i und mand ing. B y den y i ng the po i b i l i ty of fi n d i ng bj ect i v e truth. i t regard. every a ade mic disc i pline a s one nl r narrati o r dt. COUf. e-a
Philosophical Background
17
v ariety of l i terature rather than , "ic nee and thu a m atter of taste rather than test. S tories do not can for t i me-con. u m i n g , earch for e v i dence . A I 1 w e want from a , tory i. that it be entertaining. S urel y the v iew of , ocial tudies as narrati ve ha noth ing to do w i th , erious schol arsh i p . I t i . j u, t t ri v i al wordman ship-a di . t u rbing indi cator of the current decl ine of the human i st i c culture and i L fur ther e, t range ment from the intel l ec tual engines of modernity, namely , cience and technol ogy. H ow ' vc r, i t wou l d be mi taken t r gard rel at i v i m a ne more h arm les extravagance n par w i t h i ntu i t i n i m , phenomenology, or the philo ophical tra agance about para l le l world . I n deed relati i m e l i its a Ylli al v iew of p l jtic i n d 'ny i ng that there c an be u n i versal h u man rights, and in affirm i ng that al l moral and politi al ru le arc just a l ocal a regional food typical dre s, and fol k art . I n part i u lar rel at i i m j u stifie ' nationali s m and it u ndermin aU efforts to eradi ate pol itical oppression tortur . and ev n genocide. It i . t h u . incompat ible w i th th U n i ted N ation, and the International Crim inal Court . That s a i d th , c i ntific real i . t acknowledges what may b e call ed th Rashomol1 effe t , after A k i ra K u rosawa , cIa" i c fil m . Th i s i s th fact that al mo, t any . oci at fact i. l i kely to be percei v d d i ff r ntly by d i ff rnt actors or w itn , se . . Th i s h appens som t i m s from malice but mor often from prejudice or lack of i n formati on. ypi cal l y we under 'tand far better 'people l ike u �: that i s , member of the i n -g roup, than 'th m ," the i ndi v i duals i n the out-group. In natural �c ience t ruth counts ' upremely, w he reas mere opinion doe ' not . B y contra·t opin ion count· very much i n 'ocial l i fe and i t · 'c ience ' becau e b l i e f , regard l .. of their truth - values, guide m i 'gu i de , or paraly ze action. I n metaphorical term ' . oc ial fact . rea h U ' refracted by our bel i f and i ntere t · . Th i ' do not entai l that obj ecti ve tmth i ' u nattrunable in oc ial matter '0 that re lati i t. would be right after al l : i t only mean that there are ob. tacIe ' i n t h earch for truth about 'ocial l ife that are not pr ent in the earch for truth about natur . More on contructi i m-relat i v i m in Gellner 1 985' B u nge J 99 1 - J 992 . 1 999 ; Boudon and C lavelin 1 994; B o udon 2004 ; B ogho i an 2006, Jar ie 2007 . ) The R a homon effect g o a long way t o e xp la i n i n g why the oc ial c ie nce are far Ie advanced than the natural ones e ven though we all have i n i de i nformation about ocial facts becau e w e make them w he rea our acce to natural facts, uch a atomic col l i ion , chemical reactions, and peci ation, i ex t reme ly i nd i rect . B e ide the Ra homon ffe t there i what may be aIl ed the Big BrOTher effec t . Thi s i . t h e de l iberat abotage of ,0 ial s ience re earch on the part of authoritarian
18
Political Philosoph
and con. ervat i ve government becau se it may come up w i t h tru th that annoy or even endanger the powers that be . Thu , there wac no poJ i t i cal . c ience u nder total i tari an rule, a n d t h e Reagan adm i n i t ration cut i n half t h e federal subsidie. t o soci al reo earc h while keepi ng the . u pport for the natural sciences. Ironi cal 1 y . B i g B rother s fear wa. exag gerated, for no soc i al �c ienti . L predi ted, or even correctly autopsied. any of the so i al earthq uake. of the twentieth cent u ry , . uch a. the two worl d war. , th Great Depre i n, the A m 'ri an defeat at the hands of V ietnam pea ant , the cru m b l i ng of the S v i et empire th ' rev i v al of n i netcc nth cent u ry econ m ic l i bera l i In , or the intru ion of r 'l ig i n i nto pol i ti s. 3. Politica l O ntology: Being and Becoming
Ont 1 gy (or In taphY ' i has arned a bad r 'putation among c i n t i s t s b cause most of it i. ither non. n. ical or false. Why then shou l d pol i t ical ph i losoph r . p a y a n y attention to i t . Becau. ontology deal . w i th bei ng and becoming in g n ral by contra. t to the part icul ar . ciences, which deal w ith particular beings, such a. humans and particular changes, such as the emergence reform. and extinc t ion of pol itical sy. t m s-e l d r . a. s mblies town h al l s, I g i sl at i ve bodies gOY r n m n t s pol i tic al parti . , and the ir chang s . H ence to dismi. . al l ontol ogy i . t o g i e u p the hope of plac i ng particu lars i n a general framework or worl dview. Bad ontology i con fu s i ng or mi l ead i ng, but a phi lo ' ophy w i thout ontology i ' ·pinele " . A nd those w i thout a world v iew are bound to borrow bit and piece ' of u nexam i ned world v i ews. Contemporary metaphysician ' are more i nterested i n fantasy world than i n the real worl d . So much '0, that one w i l l 'earch i n vai n i n the �
�
tandard ph ilo ophi cal di tio narie , for entrie on y tern and rnechani m, h\lo key ontological concepts in c ie nce i nce the Scientific R e olution. U n urpri ' i ngl y . rno t ph i lo 'opher and oci al i nti t , ha e ei t h r ig nored t he concep or m i U ' d th m . For example ikla Luhmann 1 987 : 1 J 3 H aberma ' authorit y on o oc i al y tern . con ei ed of them a de oid of p opl : 'Soc i al y tern . . . con i ° t of com m u n icat ion and 0
0
0
0
0
not h i n g but com m u n i cation -n ot of hu man bei n g . ' And Coleman 1 99 2 : 1 4 held that form al organ i zation . uch a governmen t , "ha e po i t i on rather than per on a e lement of the i r t ructure '-which, if t rue, woul d make them i m materi al object . Hence nuc lear bomb , plague , and other calami t i e wou l d not affect corporation annie , or school : they would ' u rv i e' them bec au e they contain no Hfe . E l ster 1 9 89a) l i k ned m chan i . m t o the " n uts and bolts" of a m a c h i ne. B ut of our a broke n watch i s not a t i mepiece an abandon d
Philosophical Background
19
factory L ju t a bu i l d i ng a dL cnfranchi cd ' i ti zc nry i s not a pol i ty and a country w i thout an effecti ve govem ment i . not a nation . A , concei ved i n the natu ra] , cience" from phy . ic, to b i ology mechan i sm s are not thi ng, but proce . . e. i n syste m, . M ore prec i . ely a mechanism i a pro ce" th at con struct. a sy. tem or keep. i t goi ng: a proce" that perform, a . pec i fi c function req u i red for its per, i. tence . So i al example : work and manage ment. More on mechani, m, in P i ckel 004 ; B un ge 2006 ; ....
Hed trom 2006. In other word , mechan i m arc l i fe-or-death proce ' S l i terally in the ca ' or organ i sm s and metaphori al l y i n all ther c ases. For in tance, aU tat usc tax at ion a th ir m a i n re v 'n ue-g 'nerat i ng mec hanism, and al l mod rn tate have u d compu lsory elementary s hool i ng and m i li tary draft a nation-bu i ld i ng mechan i sms. L i k wi e war is a larg , scale theft mech an i s m ' n 'got iation a con ft i t-re olution mec hani 01; and d l iherat ion-cum-vot i ng. the coli c t i v deci. ion-mak i ng mechan i. m charact ri stic of a pol it ical d mocrac y . onsequently the fa, hionabl phrase "'del i be rati ve d mocracy" is pleona. tic. Let u . now move from ontolog ical cone pt. to ontological th ori s. There are two major ontological or m taphy . ical ) fam il i , : ideal i , m cultural ism hermeneutic, , and m ateri al i . m . According to i deal ism a l l entitie ' are o n l y i dea ' or ' y m bol ' , or ru l ed m a i n l y by i dea ' or symbols. For example Heidegger 1 954: 5 held that ' [ l ] anguage is th house of B e i n g . And a Charle ' Tay lor put it famou ' ly , ' oc i al facts wou ld be ' text � or l i ke text ' . ' Hence 'ales lecti on � wac and th I j ke �hould be endowed with grammar, mean i n g and style. M ag i c- re l jgiou thi nk i ng is back . B y contra. t for mat rial i m pol i tical entitie are concr t e ( o r materia l ) thing ' from c i t i ze n to nation to t h e i nt mat i onal comrnun i t y ; fact are tate or c hang of tate of thing ' , whether naturaL 0 ial, or bio 'ocial l i ke u . and idea ar brain proc e which i . why they can guide acti on . Thu a dj cour e about nat i on i r I e ant only i f nat i on ' are v iewed a concrete t h i ng rather than e x i t i n g only di cur ' i v l y-e.g. a ' i m agi ned cool m unitie as B enedict A nder on 1 98 put i t. " I deali s m ouod con v i ncing becau e i t rightly emphasize the critical role of i dea in pol itical struggle a well as i n go emance. B ut i deal i m rei fie i dea and exaggerates the i r i mpact on soci ety ; furt hermore, it confu e fac t with our i dea about them , and con equeotly it i blind to the weat and blood of human con fl ict . For example, i t i at lea t doubtfu l that total i tari a n i sol wa the d i re t bra i n h i l d of the ideal i t phil o. ophies of Plato and H egel a Popper ( 1 945 c la imed ' or of the
20
Political Philosoph
Fre nch E n lightenment a, Talmon 1 970 hel d ' or of Carte i an dual i 111 , as Arendt ( 1 989) i magi ned. S urel y such i dea, were pra tically e ffecti e because they helped de i gn and i mplement pol i c ie, that ad anced certain powerful mate ri al i n terest . W i ld exaggeration. of the i m pact of ph i lo, ophy on pol i ti c s, as wel l as the con fu, ion of fact� w ith i dea" come naturally to i nte llec tual. who on l y handle text. : They tend to confuse goaL w i th meani ng" oc l al movement ' w ith id I gie , and la polifique w ith Ie dis 'our' polifique. They w i ll al d i scuss polj t ical theories 'parately from real l y exjsting o ieties a wel l as from pol i ti ca l movement ' . For example, M artha u baum ( 2006 : 88 b ' l ieves that It] heorie ' of s c ial ju ti e hou l d be ab tract . . . f r we cannot j u st i fy a pol i ti al th o ry unless w ' can h w that it can be stable over tim ' r ' ei i n g c i tizen support for m r t h a n ' I f-prote t i v e r i n trumental reason . ' Sure l y ab, t raction g uarante , generality hoth of w h ich are nece, , ary i n mathe matics. B ut pol i tical t h ory doe, not b long i n pure math matic" for it deals with pol i tie. w hich ar min n t ly changeable bec au, e th y are concr te not ideal . In part ic u l ar i t i . pointl ss to I i , t the cond i tion. for soci al j ustic . parat Iy from th . oc i al , t ructure of real , oc ietie. as w 1 1 as from the ariou. social mo em nl. that c l ai m to fight for or agai nst it. Thus the soc i a l ju · t ice attainable in a l i be ral democracy i � sign i ficantly ' tj ngier than the one pur ' ued by the ' oc i al i st 010 ement � of variou . kind � ( E ' pi ng-A ndersen 1 990 ) . An ab ' tract concept of ocial j u , t i ce is apol itical and ah i ·torical; it i � a pol i tical fi ct ion. Besi de ' , i deal i m lead to lopsided and �hal low v iews, [or pol i t i c " though fought largely with word � i � about material i n tere ,t � nol i deas in them ' 1v . let alone word ' , For i n tance . the end rni c con fl ict · in th N ear Ea. t ar oil land. and water w ar rather than ' c u l tu r cla h . . ' a. ugge ted by the fact that Saudi A rabia and Paki tan two of the cIo e t al l ie of the U n i t d State , ar authori t arian and I lamic rat h r than demo rati and Chri tian. In add i t ion to the ideal i m/materi al i m ' p l i t , ther i th . tatic/dy namic one. A tatic ontology hold that change i only a momen tary depart u re from equi l i bri um or harmony which wou ld b the i deal tate of affa i r - uch a the e l u i ve market equi l i bri um glori fi ed by tandard economic , and the tran ient balance of power recom me nded by poli tical theori t -a balance that. i nc i dental ly, became i mpo i ble the moment only one great power rem ai ned. Dynam i c i m or pro e u aI i m hold to the ontrary t hat tasi i a particu lar and ephemeral ca e of proce : that every state f a t h i n g
Philosophical Background
i s ithcr t h i ni t ial i n tcrmcdiary o r fi n al phac c o f a proce
21
. A l l o f thc
authe ntic factual . c i ence. , from phy , i c to biology to h i storiography, center on chan ge, and , eek law of change or at l e ast trend�. H ence any c ience-orie n te d ontology i. bound to be dynam ici t. So much , 0 th at we may de fi n e a concrete or m aterial objec t a one capable of changing. Only m athematics deal i n unchanging object . Con fl i ct, or ontic ( as oppo. ed to log i cal contradict ion i . of course a parti u lar case of pro e " . D i al ctical ont 1 gy w heth r i deali st l i ke Heg ' 1 ' , or m ateria l i t l i ke M a rx s, c l a i m that aU change re u I ts from confl ict r 'contrad i r ion" . The con fl i t theori ts from H era l itus to M achiav 'Hi to Hobbes S m i th Heg ' l M arx, L n i n and Gram c i , empha sized triD' to the poi n t of u nderrating or even ig noring cooperation . A nd y ,t the very exi st nee f soci a l n 'tworks and 'y terns of v ariou k i nd and s i ze s a wel l a the coe x i ten e of group w i t h d i ffer 'nt i nter 'sts, in olve a mod icum of coop ration. For x ampl , the employ rs and mployee. of a bu. i ness may cla. h w i th r gard to wag , and bene fits. but they coop rate in keepi ng the fi r m afl oat . H ence i t i s j u , t as wrong to ignor cooperation as to overlook conti ict. A n ago n i . t i c o r contl i ct-c ntered o n t o l og y s u c h a. H g I ' , o r M ar x ' . , i s at b , t partia l l y t ru . Th L hold, not on l y for pol itic. but at 0 for bu · i ne � � . I n deed, the economi ts w h o repeat t h e mantra about the v i rtue� of compet ition 0 e rlook th fact t hat compet i tion i s , t i m u lating among peer ' , but de ' t fucti e among th u nequal, w hich i ' why smart bu ' ine ' ' men try to avoid i t . M oreover, al l of the advanced economies, from B ri ta i n ' to Japan ' " grew u nder ' tate protec tion and w ith the help of product i v i ty -enhancement technolog i , that were i n ented for the mo , t part, i n . tate- u pported uni e r iti ' . A thi rd relevant ontological d i t i n t ion i that betwe n i nd i v idual i m hol i m, and y t rni m . Indi i du al i ' m hold that ' I t l here are no ocietie ' , only indi idual that i n teract w i t h eac h oth r ' E I ter 1 9 9b: 248 . Cornpare : Ther are no bodi e , onl y atom that i nt ract w i th each oth r ' he nce there are no emerg n t properti i ther, uch a h ardne " and a l i vene . Pre umably. thi i the m icrobe ' worl dv i e w . W hen app l i ed to pol it i c , i ndi i du a l i m recom mend focu i ng on c itizen . H ence i t i i n capable of accounting for the ery e x i tence of upra-i ndi v idual entitie , such a arm i e , governmen t , and nati on , a we l l a for upra-i ndi idual p rocesse such as deve lopment progress and war. Indi iduali m doe not e en account for an indi v idual s po l i tical attitud . in e the e refer to sy tenlS su h as municipal i ti e , and c 1lective proce e such a popu l ar mobi l i zation . That said i t i . o b ious
22
Political Philosoph
that i nd i v i du al i nl i right i n . trc
j ng the nced
w i he , and rights of the
per. on-part i c u l arl y the need. for 1 iberty and h u m an contact. H o l i s m-al . 0 c al 1 e d . truct u ral i s m a n d organ i c i . m-focu e. o n whole. . uch a s governments. a n d their b u l k properties such a . od al order m i l i t ary m i ght, and fi scal deb t . Con eque nt]y i t regard, i ndi v i du al act i on as ei ther negl igible or the effect of pre . . ure from above. M ore o er. in soci al matter. hol i . m advocates equi l i bri um a n d d i . courage. contention and rebe l l ion : it j , ba ' i ally conser ati e-a is particu larly ob IOU i n Heg ' l , D u rkheim, and Par on . Thi s alon 'how that M arx wa not a fu l l- ftedg d holi t . Hol i sm empha iz duties at the ex pen ' of right . H ow ever, it ha th merit of in i st ing that '0 iety i s not ju ,t a colle t i on of indiv iduals' that it ha b u l k m 'rgent prop 'rt i , uch a ' pol i t i al r g im e and tabi l i ty or i t dua l ' and that ev 'ry person i s b rn into a pr - i t i ng soci a l ' y tem . R e g r nabl y , hol i s m i . often confu. e d w i th . y st m i . m al thoug h there a r i mportant d i ff r nc . betw en th m ( B u nge 1 996a). S y . tem i. m combine. the i rtues of indiv idual i. m and hol i . m : It hold. that al l thing. ar ith r . y . t ms or sy. tem component. -wh ther ac tual or potential . Thu. cont rary to hol i . m system i . m adm i t. the possi b i l i t y of d compos ing wholes, e it her i n thought t hrough conceptual analy . i s ) or i n practice . Hence contrary t o i n d i v iduali m ' y ste m i sm ' uggest � focusing on system ' and th i r in teracti ng components rather than on the lall r. And, con trary to hol i s m 'y · tem ism maintains that bulk prope rties, such a ' social cohe� i on , voter turnout and public opin ion merge from i ndiv idual alt itudes act ions, and i nterac t ion '-a l l of w hich proceed, though, w i t h i n gi ven ocia) context ' . B ec au e o f the abo erne ntioned onfu ion, m o t ont rnporary ocial c ie n ti t d i . t r u t talk of 'y tem although t h y do not obj ect to organic w ho l which i metaphorical except w i th reference to organi m . Thu . t h e m i nent al l -rou nder oci al c i nti t C h arl e ' Ti l l y per o n a l com mu nication I A pri l , 1 998 : ' S i nce you recogn i ze y 'tem where er you e multipl e l e rn n t · that i nfl uence each oth r I have no d i ffi u l ty accept ing your bapti m of my thi n ki n g a y temi c . In m y end of the busine , however I tudied w i th Par ons and Sorokin , among other ) the word , y tern 0 reg ularly take on thingne i n dependent of the e le ment and thei r relations that I boycott the word to avoid mi under tanding." Perhap th i i w hy G i ddens 1 984 ) prefer struc tu ri s m ' to ' sy tem i m . ' B ut struct ures are prop rti e of y te ms rather than free tanding entitie . There i s no ub tit u te f r y t m. If i n d ubt ask m athematic i an ". y tern of equation " astronom r ( planetary y tenl" or b iologi st
Philosophical Background
'cardio ascu l ar sy tern" . True m icroeconomi
t
23
' laim to deal w i th
i ndi v i duals ( as wholes or sy. tem s . but the theory o f general equ i l i bri um regard the m arke t a. a whole that u n l i ke the household. and fi rms th at compo. e it, is said to be i n equi l i b ri u m and to run i tsel f. And the father of modem macroeconomi c . tated : "I am h i efl y concerned w i th the beha iour of the economic . y , tern as a whole Keynes 1 97 3 : x x x i i ). Final ly I h ave argued elsewhere ( B unge 1 977a 1 979a 2003 a, 2006a that it i ' po ible and ad i abl e to m b i n ' the ix arieti ' S of ontology d i stingu ish d abo e. l n patti ular on h u ld ombin materia l i m w i th b th dynam i i m and sy tem i m . I ha e al 0 argu 'd at length B unge 1 979a, 1 996a 1 998a, 1 999a that th be t i al i ence has alway s been sy tem i t rather than eith 'r i n d i idual i st or h I i t. On ' r 'a n i that we resemble goat more than eith r porcupines or ' heep . We have d i tinct p 'r naliti ' S but a t i n gr u p for g r ups or aga i n , t g roup . M oreov r the sy. t mic approach i . th on u . ed in mathe m atics. physic. che m i . try biology psychology. a n d o t h r s c i nces . I ndeed. all . c i nti. ts study indi v i dua l . a. component of systems, and . y . tem. a. compo. ed of more or Ie . . . trongly bound indi v idual . . For x ampl . i n d i idual n u mher. ar defin d a. member. of some numher sy. t m . a n d . paces a. system. of i nter-r lated poi nts: atoms a n d molecu le. a r y 'tems of elementary partic les; ce l l s are y 'te m ' of molec ules a n d or ganel le ., and m u l t i -cel l u lar organ i ' m s are 'y ' tern ' of ce l l s embedded i n eco y s( m � ' persons are component ' o f fami l ie ' and other soc i al system ' ; nation ' are m mber ' of the i nternati onal comm u n i ty-and 0 on B u nge 1 979a 1 996a, 1 998b 2003 ; B unge and A rd i la 1 987 ; Mahner and B u nge 1 997 . It is 'y tems all the way . 4 . Political Epistemology: Knowing
Epi temology i the phi l o ophical tudy of know ledge w h ich i n t u rn i th . oci a l i zed product of cognition. Cogn ition a brain proce. . i i n d i v idual, w herea k nowledge i ' ocial and larg ly i n the publ i c domai n . ) Log i c i an and mathemati c i an h a v no need for e p i te mology becau e they use purely conceptual means to i n ent the i r own obj ect , aJ] of them i m agi nary as wel l a to d i cover the i r i nterrelation . Not 0 the t uden t of the real world. w hether natural or oci a l . S ince they face real thi ngs they have to take e ri o u l y the m ai n problem of epi temology, which i w hether anythi ng can b known and, i f 0 w hether through exp rience cogitation, or bot h . Bpi temology c an be e ither de criptive or n rn1at ive. We hall peek at both branche f epi temology. Th hi tory of epi t mology i l ittered
24
Political Philosoph
w ith the corpse of doctrine that ha e , c 1 dom if ev r ad v anced the tudy of rea l i t y . Let u . exam ine the most i n fl uential of them, start i ng with skeptic i s m . Accord i ng to radi cal kepti c i . m , noth i ng can be know n-a sel f-de, tructi e thesi, . M oderate , keptici, m by contra, t , hold. that some th i ng. can be k nown though sel dom w i th accuracy and that knowledge of m at ters of fact i . , el dom perfect, , 0 that i t advance, through c ri ti c i . m as wel 1 a re earch. I t i . t h us both fa1 1 i b i l i t alert t o e rror and me l i orist hopefu l of i mp r vem nt . Ju t a moderate ' keptici m i s the m ark f the ' i 'nti t, so dogmati ' m is the mark o f th ' pol i t i i an more i n t r ted i n power D r it wn sak ' than a a tool for doing good . Remember Queen Victoria' ad vice: ' Ne er explai n , ne e r apologiz '. ' She ne r apolog i zed for any B ri t i sh m i litary aggre i ns· Stali n n ' r apologized for h i s c ri me or for refu ing to l isten to the varioH ' authori tat i ve w arn i ng that Gel111any was about to attack th So iet U n i o n ; and George W. Bu, h ne er apologized for the t chnical and moral blund rs of his A d m i n i stration. Ob iously "strong I adersh i p' i . t h e nemy o f i n t l l ec tual and moral probi ty . S o m uch for sk ptici s m a n d do gmat i sm . Let u . now g l i mp, e a t the mo. t pri m i t i e and barren of al l theorie, of k nowledge : intuition i sm . I ntuition i . t . c l ai m to k now anyth i ng i m medi ate l y w ithout r e , ort ing t o e i ther experience or rea ' o n a n d w i t h certai nty. F o r example, Edmund H u sserl, the fou nder o f phenomenology, held that the way to g ra ' p the essence of t h ings i ' through 'tran 'cendenta l-ph nomenologi cal reduc tion, ' which con ' ist i n 'brack l i ng out' the ext rnal world-that i s i n pretend i ng that i t does not ex i ' l-and del v i ng i nto the depths of one ' own consciousne Un ' u rp ri singly, phenomenology ha ' not produced a i ngle pi ce of k nowledge of real i ty . I n pri nciple i t hould l ead to pol i t i c a l n i h i li 111. Yet H u ' rl ' thre m a i n d i c i ple. - M a x Sche ler, N icol ai H artmann . and M arti n H i degger-paid clo e atte ntion to pol itic ': I i k H egel one c ntury be fore they g lorifi ed country. tate , and w ar. B e cau e intuitioni Ill c l ai m . that t ruth can be attained effortle . ly w ithout e ither h ard th i n k i ng or rigorou ' empirical reo earch i t come nat u rall y t o the laz y . Dogm atic rationa l i m c l a i m t o be abl e to k now rea l i ty t hrough spec u lation . wi thout re ort i ng to any e m p i rical p rocedure . Rational c hoke theorie uch a neocla ical m i cro conomi c , are i n stances of dogmati c rati onal i sm, for the i r practit ioner do not bother to check the i r a umption . F o r example. becau e they take e l fi h n e for granted, �
�
�.
'
rati on al -choice theori t conclude that collecti ve good ar b und to b pilf red by "fr eloader. . For e xample i f i l l ager have acce to
Philosophical Background
25
a com mu nal pasture, the more enterpri s i ng among them w i l l take to i t more cow. and sheep than t h e other , a n d con sequently overgrazi n g the common re ource w i ] ] soon exhau, t it. Th i s i . known a . ' the t ragedy of the common, ' (Hardin 1 968 . o s uch tragedy would occur i t is l ai med, i f every v i l J ager owned h i ow n parcel , for he would take good care of i t in, tead of beha ing a. a free loader. The hL torical record teache. that there wa. , i ndeed . . uch a t ragedy of th ' common , nam ' ly when B ri t i sh l andowners t k 0 r the communal pa lure and put mor ' hccp to graze. B ut rational - h i e theo ri t arc not i n t 'r 'sted in ad er 'e e mp i rical e v idence: Th 'y � el certain that D l k p ' ychol ogy and e nomj ' rational ity' (selfi hn ' 's u ffi ce to u nder tand th ' social worl d . B u t it i n t. A l l deep scienc ' i coun terin t u i ti ve a n d most people are n o t t h e way cconom i t prunt them . Thu ' e peri men tal economj s t have shown that most people are reci procators rath r than . el fi sh . e, .g . . G i ntis et al . 2005 ' Henrich t a 1 . 2006; R oc kenbach and M i l in . k i 2006 . A nd h i . tory show. that . om common-pool re o ources such a. i rri gation canal . fi sh ries communal wood. and past ure. , have been col l ectively managed for m i n nnia see . . g . Esman and phoff 1 984' 0. t rom 1 990; K ad kodi 2(04 ). Fi nal J y in pol i tic. H u me s dictum holds: R a. on i . th . l ave of pa. . ion . The oppo ' ite of dogmatic rat ional i 'm is em piric i sm ( or po ' it i v i ' m . I ndeed empirici t '-lik B acon Locke, H ume Comte, M i l l M ac h and the log ical po -itj i �ts hold that only experience can de l i ver know ledge, though never beyond ph nomena, that i , appearance ' . Caution : Po ' itiv i s m i . often con fu 'ed with scientism the the i ' t hat th cienti fic method is the b t strategy for exploring reality.) Empiri i m c rtai n l y hold for trivial t ruth ' uch a that you, the r ad r. are now readi ng thi page. B ut i t fai l ' mi rabl y for ev rything e l e. part ic u l arly for imp rceptibl fact . ' uch a ' atom ic col l i ion ' and pol i ti al ent ' . A nd it 0 happen that th v a t majority of fact ' are i m pe rcept ibl e ' and that. a the Greek and Indian atom i t ' u p ct d 2 ,500 y ar ' ago the u l t i mat compo n n t to the perceptible worl d are u nobservable. W hi c h . i nc i denta l l y . i a rem i nder that epi temol ogy w i thout ontology i hal low. To gra p oc ial real i ty we m u t ri se above everyday experience, be cau e we in teract mo tly w i th peop le i n our l i m i ted c i al ci rcle , w i th w hom we hare i ntere t , b liefs, and attitude . For example, pol itical act i v i t d i cu po l i tical i ue mainly w ith fe l low party member and y mpathizers 0 that they tend to xaggerate pol it ic al polarizati on s : they ar v ictim of the gap between x perience and r al i ty' ( B ald, arri and
26
Political Philosoph
B arman 2007 . I n mo t 'ase th b
t we 'an g t are obs r able i nd ica
tor. of unob . er able fact. for example, street demon. tration indicati ng pol i t ical unrest. S i nce most of reality i . h i dden t o the . ense. t o get t o k now any th i ng worth know i ng w e m u t i magine conj e ture. i n addition to mak i ng ob. er ation, . For e xample hi torical anecdotes teach u that tri u m v i rate are u n stable, but not why. Soc iopol i ti cal anal ysi . reveal . the mechanism u n derly ing that general i 7.ati on. Tn any t ri ad, any two of its component an j in to ust the thi rd . Empiri i s m nex t of k i n i prag mati m or t h e philo 'ophy f b l i nd action. A cording t it pra tice i s at once the u lt i m ate 'ource and th ' te t of al l r l iabl ' knowledge' and what ' r i n t anch red to pra rice i ' ain pecu l at ion . Pragmati m thu rc m me nd d i pen ' ing w i t h the ry and repla i ng th s ientifi method w i th b l i nd trial and e rror. Thi phi lo ophy com natura l l y to men of a tion, particularly bu i ne men and pol i t ic i ans and in fact it u. ually . u ffice. for small . cal and , hort tenn endea ors. B ut pragmati. m is woefu l 1 y inadequate for ambitiou, proj ects, as these req uir pI ans informed by theorie. and data. Sti 1 1 Goethe ' . prag mati st the. i. " I n the begi nning w as action, ' c an occas iona l 1 y s rve as an antidote to John s i deal i st dogma "Tn th begi nni ng wa. the Word ." Moreover, pragmati. m i. i rrel ant to mathe matic, and natural sc i ence, neither of which i n volve theorie ' r ferring t o human action ' ; it i ' m islead i ng i n social 'cience which 'eek truth . and it i s dangerou in 'ocial tech nology w hich endeavors to u such truths to solve 'ocial problem . To ad ance by trial and error on a large 'cal i ' to court di 'as ter. Still, pragmati 'm perfoIDl ' a u eful function when critici �ing 'grdnd theories that i s, 'pecu lat ive i deas and when it demand that the po 'sible �
�
con ' qu nce. of act ion b tak n into account-regardle of the m an ' , though, w h i h i w hy M u " o l i ni 1 93 2 d e l ared h i m e l f a pragm at i . t. Let u fi nally ay . omet h i ng about two Ie er pi · te mologie that hav attai ned ' ome notoriety in recent year : ocial con ' t rueti v i m and fem i n i t epi temology . The . oci al con tructi v i t , claim that al l entiti . and all t ruth abou t th m are loc al oc i al con t ruction. -i nvention of certai n com m un itie . Consequently they disal low the e x i tence of uni ver al or cross-cu l tural truths, such as "B i go ts h i nder rational pol i tical debate. " Hence at be t they may quali fy a j ou rnal i ts or tory tel ler but not a c ienti st -for. a Ari tot le taught. c ience eek generalitie . And at worst oci a l con truct i v i m i n v i tes subjecti v i m and re lati vi 01 , enem i e of c ientjfic r e earc h . That a i d i t i obvi u s t hat there are s c i a! constru t i ns g a l re . l n fa t everythi ng i n 0 iety i m an-made and i t i . e ither fun t ional " meani ng-
Philosophical Background
27
fu l" or dye fu nct ional to some extent. For example school s arc i nvented and organ i zed, not di scovered, and they are expected to perfOnll two i m portant functions: i n. t ruction and so ialization. B ut, once con, t ru ted, a . ocial art i fact i. j u. t a rea] a. a rock. Consequent l y it de. erve. be i ng tudied w i th the help of the . ientifi c method. Fi nally, the fe m i n i st epL temologi st. hold that what i u. ually called knowledge-wi th the attendant rati onal i ty and obj ect i v i ty-i s j u. t a tool of male donli nation to be e entual l y replaced with fem i n i n ' k now ! 'dge, w hich al leged l y emphasi zes intu i t i n and care. Don ' t ask for evi dence : i t would i nd i ate m 'mbcrshi p i n the 'phaUocra y . ' ontrary to the rad ical er ' i n of all of the abovemention d doctrincs, sc ientifi real i st argue that obj ecti t ru th can be t b g tten through re 'car h b th empirical and th ret icaL Scientifi c real i · t hold that a the e xternal world exists ind pendently of the know '[, and b i t can be known , though approximately a n d gradually. through re. earch conducted i n ac cordance to th scientific method ( . ee M ahner 200 1 . This method in volve. int r. ubjectiv tests. Howev r, contrary to popul ar opi nion, int r. ubjectiv ity con. en. us i . an objectivity indicator not a defi n r o f it ( Bung 2 00 b . So much . 0 that propaganda c an e l i c i t conse n . us abollt l ies. Howe er. here i. a word of warn i ng . Phi losoph ical reali. m h as only a tenuous r lation with political rea I i � m a n d neo-realism, accord i ng to which i nternational re lations are ba ' ical ly antagon i ,tic and revol e ex c lu s i vely around polit ical power, i n particu lar m i li tary m igh t . Pol itical reali ' ts and neoreal i , t ' are epi � te molog ical rea I i � t a n d moral u ti l i tarians. I n particu l ar th ' e l f- sty led pol i tical rea l i ts advocate the ab 'ol ute pri macy o f nat i onal inter ts, regardle�� of moral ' and i nternational law. For e xarnple. t h y may recom me nd bombi ng ci i l ian population - and culti v at i ng friendly dictator . Leav i ng n UaIlC , a ide the m ai n contemporary epi temolog ical doc trine may be la ed thu
Epi t molo lie
� �
Realisl1l
. ==== ==
a'( Criti -al S j n t i fi c
S kept i i ' m � S u bjecti v i _ 111 �A I/ti- ,.ealism ------ Rati?�al �
�
III
T n l U l tJOm Ol
Empiricism
Hermeneutic
28
Political Philosoph
Some of the above epi temologi cal doctrines have cou n terparL i n pol i tical theory and practice. For i n stance , all the i n fl uential i deal i st , from Pl ato to H ege l , Fichte H u sserl , and Heidegger, were reactionar ie. pe rhap, becau, e i deal i . m favor re l i gion and the contemplat i ve l i fe made possible by inheri ted weal t h . An add i t i onal advantage of i deal i . m i, that a, Veblen ( 1 899 ) wou l d , ay i t confer so ial prestige, for only the idle can afford usele" learn i ng, whereas ' c rass ' m aterial i . m and empirici m arc pI beian. H w er there were e xception . Thu , m' of the 1 ft- w i ng Hege l ians regarded Hege l ' d ialect i c ' a th algebra of revolution ' L 'n i n )' and the Fren h li beral f the l 850s ad pted Kantian ism bccau e of its e ' pou a l f free w i l l l ng n ier 1 923 . Empirici ' m is e ually ambivalent. R u s ' e l l 1 947 claimed that i t m at h e l i berali ' m becau e both rej c t arbi t rary autho ri ty and fa i l i tate busine . B u t A ri s totle, H u me, B u rk ' and the ond C mte were con 'r ati v e ' a well as e mp i ricists: and M il l , Engel . , and most of th logical po. iti v i . t. were soc i al i st s . B , ide. e mp i ricism has b n r act i on ary in natural . cience b caus of i ts phenomena l i , m: Hum rejected Newton , mechanic. and Table 1 . 1 , Conn and M ach d i sm i . , d atomi. tic, B unge 2006c . S ke ping i n m i n d that the philosophy-politic, corr l at i on i , weak . r..jJistemology kcptic i . m n:'Lruc t i v i . m-r lati i . m T n t u i lioni. m
A priori ' Ill
Poliri . . L iberali s m or abst n t i o n i m Parochial i m T m p u l s i vene . . "OIlL
rva t L m
E m piri c i m Pragm a t i s m
0PPOI1lIlU m
Rea1 i
An
rn
Table 1 . 1. Political correlate of th major epi ·temologies.
farxism is not listed
because its epistemology is empiricist and social-constructh1ist. 'ee Barber 1984 for alternative correlations. Collins ( 1998 onrlooks the philosophy-politics connection altogether in his bu lky Sr. 'iolog of Philo 'ophies (sec Bunge 2000b).
Scientist have no u for antir 'alj ' m i n parti cu lar apri ri m, b eau ' th Y tudy doc u me nts about fact out there not i nti mate m ' ntal event ' or freely ft ati ng idea . In particu l ar, they annot e mbrace ' tri t posi t i v i s m because they 'ldom if e ver ob ' r e p l j tical fact oth r than fa e-to-face squabble or ere monies that only legal ize deci ion m ad ' earlier behi nd door . Nor can serious , tudents of pol i tics embrace pragmat i sm, hecau, e sc i nti. t. s k truths. not j u.t , uec ss-othe r than SliCCes. in fi nding new
Philosophical Background
29
truth . The pol itical counterpart of pragmat i m a vari ty of cmpirici m i s opport un i . m . The o-cal 1 ed real i . L i n i nternat i onal pol itic. , , u h a. Hen ry K L , inger, are actual 1 y pragmati . ts, for they rate . ucce h i gher than pri nc iple,-whi ch i s j ust a. bad a. proclai m i ng h ig h -. o undi ng princ iple. while betrayi ng them . Fem i n i t epi. temology e.g .. Harding 1 99 1 ; Kourany 2002 ) is a par ti u l af k i nd of pragmat i . m. I ndeed i t h o l d that al 1 t h e . cience. , even formal logic mathematic , and theoretical phy ics hav ' onl y a practical g ill : They w u ld b ' too l f m al dom i n at ion . I t al 0 l ru m that women arc uniqu 'ly ituated to e xplore th world . But f course the fem i n i t epi st 'molog i t do not bother to offer any e i dence for these views. They d n t how , D r in tan ' that ewt n ' law of m tion arc gendered, or that there i actual l y uch trung a ' fem i n i t hem i t ry . A l l th 'y do i to write and utter fal and ' i l l y logan ' that d i r d i t gen u i ne fem i n i ' m , which i s n o t a n academ ic indust ry hut a s r i o u. . oc ial mo m nt. O n l y certai n pol iticians find antirealism u . ful-though j u st to del ud th ma . . e . . I n deed, all the total itarian rulers have tri d to persuad thei r . uhj ects that th h ardsh i p and oppression they were exp rienci ng w r only a dow n pay ment for the promi sed earth l y del ights. A. the torturer xplain d to his victim in Georg Orw 11 . ] 984 real i ty e x i . t. i n th h um an m i nd, and nowhere e l ' . con �equentJy there i s no poi nt i n t ry i ng to change i t . The Adm i n istrat ion of George W . B u h ' ucceeded i n p ruading most American ' that the 9/ 1 1 terrori �t attack wa ' only the start of a long war, and that the goal ' of the inva �ion of A fghan i stan and I raq were to bri n g to their people ' the g i ft of freedom and democracy , a ' we l J as to ferret out the 9/ 1 1 terrori 'ts. A sen ior ad i �er to the Pre ' ident told a et ran j ou rnal i t that guy l i ke h i m are ' in w hat we cal l t h real ity-ba. ed com mu n i ty . . . . We ar an empir now and when we act . we c reate our own real i ty ' S u kind 2004 . The tudent of real i ty con t i tu te th n, a that Pre. ident ' . poke ' m an put i t . the 'reality-ba ed com munity. ' B ut of cour e they are not n aive r al i t b au. e they k now that all i ' not w hat i t . em . N or do critical reali m or Popp r' cri tical rationa l i sm suffi ce b cau e they only req uire the weed i n g out of fal e hypothe e i n addi tion to the "deconst ruction " ( unma k i n g ) of political rhetori c . Politologi t s need hard data a n d o p b i t icated meth d b e jde true and deep hypothe e . For jn tance, they need to know whether a gi en regi on uch a the Ba que Coun t ry Cor j ca, or the Tam i l part of Sri Lanka i s ec n m i al l y iable and thu a erious candidate to i ndependenc . Pol i t I gi ts aL 0 need to kn w \vhether or not the s - aIled veri fi ation
30
Political Philosoph
t 'hnique are re l i able enough to dete ·t nuclear explo i on
and thu
g uarantee the com pl i an e of n uclear d i sarmament treati . e , . B u t of cour e data and techn i ques. though nece, , ary are i n . u ffi cient to build a , c ience. One a] 0 needs general i zation broad hypothese. ) . H y pothe, es can , hallow purely de , criptive or deep e x p l anatory . U n der. tandi ng i . only attai ned by fi r t i magi n i ng and then check i ng hy pothe, e in ol v i ng deep- eated mechan i sm. , uch as the i ncentive, and d i in 'ntives for u n i n and party mem ber hip vot ing, voluntary work, or so ial p rotest. Suc h hypoth 'ses an not be i n fe rred from data b cau ' th Y ntain concept absent from empirical i n formation: they have got to be in n ted ' e . g . B u nge 2006c . A nd the mpirical hec k i ng o f m chan i mic h ypothe es all for c n t ruct i ng pol i tical i nd i ators, uch a ter turn ut, p rce ntage of government budget al lotted to repre i n , frequency and i z of treet d m n trat ion ' a n d n u m be r and treatment of pol i tical pri , oner, . Final l y let u. w arn again, t a w idespread confusion. M an y pol i tic al sc i entists and even . ome ph i lo. oph r. equate po, it i v i sm w i th real ism, scient i . m or natural ism . Actual l y these fou r isms ar quite d i fferent from one another; mor 0 er. , ome of them are pai f\.v i . i ncompatible. I ndeed. the. p istemological t h , e. can be c harac teri z d sc hemat ic al l y a s fol lows: R alism
T h e ex ternal world i ' real a n d i t
=
an be k n o w n t o
me ex
tent .
S ie11lism
=
Anything kn
\
able is best im e:ligated u s i ng the s ienti fi
method.
Naturalism
=
All the so i al
ie nce. are ultimately red ucible to the n atural
nes.
Positi ism = Observation only counts i n 'ciencc, whence sc ientific thcorie ' are data s u m maries.
1 advocate real i sm and sci nti, m becau.
factual sc i nc , u n l i ke fantastic l i t rat u re and mathem at i c . . d al . only w i th p u t at i ve l y re al e n t i t i e . , and becau s fact u al sci nce start . w he re o rd i nary knowl d ge stop . . The pol i t i c i an w h o refu s , to face rea l i ty i s b o u n d to be i t . i c t i m . A n d the an t i real i , t pol i to l og i . t w heth r h rm n tl t i c i . t or rat i on a l -c hoice theor i . t c annot p o , s i b l y u n d rstand pol i t i cal rea l i t y becau ' e he re fu 'e to ' ubj ect h i ' g u e � es to r a l i t y check ' that i � , con frontat i o n ' w i t h fact ' . F o r e x a m p l e , an yone w h o attempt ' t o u nder 'tand t h e M i dd le East cris i s m u st ' ta rt b y learni ng that there i ' a lot of petroleum i n that regi o n .
Philosophical Background
31
o w , i f we w i h t o face real ity realL t and po i t i i st agree that the mo. t . tringent and rewarding strategy i. the �c ientifi c method. to b e dec ri bed in the fol l owing section . Scienti. m hold. that th i . . t rategy pay. not on l y for finding truths i n al1 field. but aL 0 for de. igning pol i cies and plan. of acti on. Incidenta l l y , Condorcet, the father of modern pol i tology, m ay aL 0 h ave been the earl ie. t champion of cienti . m Condorcet 1 976 . And the word s ientisme had joi ned the French vocabul ary l ong before Hay ' k 1 955 m isr 'presented and attack d it. A ' for natural i m and p i t i v i ' 111 , they arc una ceptable for th fol l ow i ng reason . Naturali m i s fal e out ide the natural c i ence because social fact ' th ugh ju t a real as physical fact -a D u rkheim rightly insi ted-arc made, n t D undo Moreov 'r, cial fa ts i nvol ve art i fac such as companie and ' hools, a well a the norm and n vention i n v 'nted t go m the m . A n d pO ' it i v i m i fal se becau e g od ien t i . ts. far from . tick i n g to data, att mpt to explain th m w i th the he l p of th ories that r f r to u nohser abl nti tie. and t rait. , such a. leg i ti m acy and peac . 5.
fethodology: Researching
We take i t for granted that studying poli tic does not con i t i n watch i ng new ca ts readi ng pol i tical go i p , or ' reading old book ' as Leo Strau ss l ai med , but in c ndu t ing research n p l i tical processe in a m thodi al fa hion. Let us start by w arning against a popular term ino l og i al m istake. Thi i . t h e confu i o n b tween meThod o r sta ndardized pro edu re and m et hodolog) the tudy of spe c i al method tec h n iques) uch as en u s taking opinion-pol l i ng r t h general scient i fi c method . The l atter an be sum m arized by the fol lowi ng seque nce: Ba 'k Iround knOl' ledge � Problem � Solution andidate (/7 !pothesi ; 'xp 'rimental design, or Ie hniqu') � Test �
E aluafion of andidale � E entltal re ision of 'ifh r 'oiufion 'ondidaf', checking the procedure bac kground know ledge or even the i n i tial problem .
Contrary to what B acon and H u s e rl i mag i ned one cannot tart from c cratch, but mu t alway. b u i ld u pon previous findi ngs, for the i mple rea on that the v e ry statem n t of a problem i n volv . ome back grou nd knowl dge. W hat L known sugge L w hat i t i l l u n know n but hou ld be i n vestigated to sat i sfy curio i ty or meet a need or a mere dec i re . Thu every research projec t L triggered by . orne problem . B u t whereas . orne
32
Political Philosoph
re. earch projc 'ts arc empirical oth r arc theoretical and t i l l other methodolog ical . That i one may de . i re to b u i l d . expand, or correct a theory ' col lect or i nterpret some data: or i nv e n t or perfect a method . And, unl ike technologists ba. i ientists are d ri ven by d i . i n terested c u ri o. ity, the , earch for peer recog n i tion or both M e rton 1 973 . If the goal is to attai n power of ome k i nd one engage in pol itic or busi nes. , not i n . ienti fi c re . earc h . H ence i t i . wron g t o oppose problem- dr i ve n t o th ry-dri en data-driven r method-dri en. Nev 'r m i nd t h e dri r moti arion, a long as th ' ai m i to l v ' an intere ,ting and reasonabl y well-posed problem i n a r igorous way . S c i ' n t i fi c r igor i n I ves on eptual pr ' i i n, testab i l ity and th ' arch for evidence. To ' how h w not to ati fy th ' 'e requ i re m nt , let u con oct a theory f the 'po l i tical organ, " a parody f Ch m k y ' , eel brated theory of the language organ w h i h ' u pp ed l y e n de th ' ( unknown ) u n i ersal gram mar. We a. sume that al1 h u man. are born w ith a pol i tical organ l ocated i ther i n the mind or i n the bra i n . Th i. organ would contai n a u n i ver. al pol i tical "gram mar ' si m i lar to C hom. ky . . Thi s "gram mar ' i ncl udes th ba. ic u n i ersal ) rules of pol i tical behav ior together w i th "param ter. ' attu n d to the subject . part i c u l ar pol i tic al e n v i ronment Fol low ing Chom ' ky s example i n l ingui stic " we shall neither state the ru le ' of th pol itical 'granl mar ' nor ' peci fy the accompan y i ng 'param eter . I n thi ' mann r, any common pattern of pol i t ical behavior, ' uc h a s �eeki ng or ' poi l i ng a l l i ance ' again ,t a common enemy w i l l cou nt a � con firmi ng the e x i stence of the said 'granl mar, ' whereas any large di f ferences, � uc h a ' those between B y zantin a n d modern Ameri can pol i c
tic ' rnay b e i nterpret d a . d i fference i n the val u o f the ' pararneter . ' Phy i i t · k now that by i n crea i ng the n u m b r of adj u table parameter. i n a b lack-box t heory any . et of rnpi rical data may be accou n ted for, yet none explai ned. Thu our t heory w i l l tand r gardle " of what happen i n real pol itic : i t i . i rrefutable . H ence it i. u n cienti fic becau e t h m ark of 'cience i. . n ' i t i v i ty to ev idence on top of prec i ion and ompatibi l i ty w ith the bulk of k now ledge . Ev idence can be empirical or theoretical : compari on w i th either rel evant data or c lose- by theorie -such a ociology and econom i c i n the ca e of poLi tological theorie . For a p iece of re earch to be sci enti fic, em p i rical te tabi L i ty i neces ary but i n ufficient. For example. the prophecy that all forthcomi n g i n te rnational con fl icts w i l l be ba i ca l ly "cla he of c i v il i zation " H u n tington 1 996) is te table to the e x te nt that the oncept of c i v i l i zation is well defi ned. B u t the hypoth . i j e xtravagan t becau e
Philosophical Background
33
an i n ternational conflkt may invol e a l l i ances who e menl ber belong to ei ther the . ame or d i ffere nt "ci vi l i zation, .' For e xample the curre n t trategic ames of the U n i ted S tates i ncl ude . u c h , trange bedfel low. as the U n i ted K i ngdom and El Salvador S outh Korea and Pol and, 1 . rael and Saudi A rabia, olombia and the Ph i l i ppine . . B y the way where is the pol i t i cal c I a, h? And i. the Traq War . tarted se en years after the prophecy was ca t, a cl ash of c i v i 1 i zations or rather an oil w ar? Data are valuable in th m e l ve ' or a pieces of e v idence for or again t som ' hypothe i s . B u t data can b ' h ard, l i ke th e of demographic and c nom i c stati ti , r soft l i ke the e l f- report obtai ned fr 111 i al survey . Furthermore, i f a hypothesi contain high-level oncept ' uch a th e of s c ial la s, i nequa l i ty , and democracy th n it won ' t be d i rectly t 'stable, because they d e n t , u nob ervable trai ts. T o t t u c h a hypothe i ' one m u st i ntrodu e a b ri dge b tween i t and the relevant data. S uch a b ridg i . of COUf. e an i ndicator. For xampl , occupation i . a n indicator of ( o r . urrogate for . oc ial cIa . . ; GOP i ndicate. the i nte nsity of economic act i v i ty ; th l og ari thm of G D P per capita i s an i ndicator of conomic d elopment· the G i n i i ndex i s a n indi cator o f incom i nequal i ty ; p rce ntage of voter t u rnout is an i nd icator of pol i tical parti c i pation - and the p rce ntage of the na t ional budget devoted to security force ' i ndicate ' the level of pol itical repression. ot i ce the i n s u ffic ie ncy of ' uch e m p i rical indicators. The Gim i ndex mea ' ur i ncome i nequality but not a ' 'et i nequa l i ty , w h ich can be ju ,t a ' i mportant, as in the case of the African American who ' ' net worth" is one-twe l fth of that of thei r White coun try men. Other social indicator ' �
are arnbiguou . . For i n tance, a low rate of pol itical u n re 't. a . mea u red by the frequ ncy of t re t demon tration · . may i ndicate e i th r pol itical apathy or t rong repr . . jon. A t t h heyday of logical pO ' i t i v i m . i nd icator ' u ed to b cal l ed "operational defi n i ti on , ' and th y w re uppo ' d to defi ne theoretical concept · . Thi em an ti the i ' i. known a. operati ni 1'1l . For jn · tance it wa aid that time i what clock mea u re . The Tal i ban fundamental i t know better: They ay that ' they ' [ mean i ng u ] have watche w he rea "we " [ mean i ng them] have time. A it happen . the concept of time, l i ke that of matter, i s so genera ] , that phy icist do not de fi ne i t even though they can mea u re and cal cul ate time w i th amazing accuracy. Poli tical c ienti t u e two main data-gatheri ng tec hnique : unley and stati ti . Th . e are very d i fferent procedu re . S u r y gather pin i o n s which a r more or les . . u bje t i ve and th r fore u nrel i able w h reas
34
Political Philosoph
statistics report on obj cctive facts ' hence whereas the former furni h , oft data the l a tter supply h ard data. Suppo, e the A mericans, French, Russian, or Chine e had been a, ked, on the e e of thei r world-, haki ng re olutions what they thought about the l i kel i hood or de, i rab i l ity of a revolt agai nst their governmenL . S i nce the 0 erwhel m i ng majority of tho, e people were farmers w i thout any pol i tical e x peri e nce, mOe t l i kely they would not have ex pressed any , e ditiou opi n ions 0 that the u rvey wou l d ha e had no pr d i ct i ve alu . E en n waday , asking people w hether they support a 'oc i a ] revolution is doub l y na'iv ' . F i rst, becau e w already k n w that revoluti nari " everyw he re are i n a m j n rity. Second, bec au ' re vol u t i onarie would b ' afrmd to teU th truth. A n d y ,t thi s que t i n wa a ' ked i n m an y nation ' by erious ' tati tic bu reau i n re ent year (see M ac u I lo h 2004 . Moral 1 : Keep on p ' rform i ng ur y opi n ion p 1 1 but do not rel y on t h m to u ncov r a n y r a l facts other than th opin ions themsel e, . Moral 2 : Keep on u . i ng , tati s tics hut only to c heck h y pothese, not to huild them . Once a , olution candidat h a, been v al uated in th l i ght of the reI vant evid nc , one may h ave to hend or even remo som of the pre iou, l i nk i n the chai n . B u t never al l of th m : ontrary t o what Kuhn and Feyerab nd c laimed there are never total scienti fic revol u t ions. Thi � i ' becau 'e e e ry i n novation b u i l d on ' orne piece of e xtant knowledge and i � e al uated i n the l ight of i t . For i nstance the g reate 't scienti fic revolution after the i n vention o f �cience in ant iq uity, namely th one t hat occurred i n the 'eventeent h century , hard l y touched G reek mathematic ' . And the m ajor upheaval ' i n b i ol ogy, namely the theory o f evolution and molecular hiology, have yet to affect pol i tol ogy . True, there ha b en orne talk of b i opol i t i c ' , but only the N az i Rassenkunde, a c ri m i nal p e udo. ienc , ha heen horn 0 far. or i 'c ientifi b iopol i t ic. l i kely to v r emerge becau e pol i t i i . not i n our gene . W e hall ret u rn to th i ' que t i o n in C hapter 7 . The concept o f . c i n t i fic method allow u t o ' p l i t know ledge i n to sci e nt i fi c and non - c i en t i fi c . I n t u rn , non - cience can be part i t i oned i nto o rd i na ry k n o w l edge, tec h nol ogy , i deology, and p eudoscience. Modern med i c i ne an d engj neeri n g do not e e k knowl edge for it own sake . B u t they are c ientH i c becau e they u e not only the cient i fi c method b ut a l so c o n i de rab]e c h u n k of ba i c c i e n ce . Thi s i n ot the ca e of p ychoanalysi , c rowd p y chology , or memetics. They are a l l sel f-contai n d d i c i p li n e e tranged fr m genu i n cienc a n d i mpreg nabl e to data.
Philosophical Background
35
The method c hosen by i n vestigator depend u pon thei r ontology and epistemology. For example, if one den ies the i ndependent eX1- tenee of the rea] worl d, a. subj ectiv ist. do one will engage i n i nt ro. pe tion or in heer fant asy. I f th i ngs are regarded as te x t or l i ke t e x t s a s hermeneu ti . does. one w i l l embark on i nterpretation or Verstehen . By contra. t, whoe ver regard. the real world a. a sy tem of concrete . y, tern w i l l go out and explore some of them-thou gh of cour. e reme m be ri ng that i f the system o f i nterest arc 'ocial they will b compo ed of ani m al w i th su praphy i al t rait , such a ' the abi l i t i 's to thi n k and peak . A ny e riou pol i to l og ic a l tudy i nv o l v e s m r ' than I i ten i n g to spec he and read i ng edi torial , part i u larly w hen the ' pee hes have b 'en produ d by gh stwriter and the edi t rial ' di tated by pre s ty coon ' rather than wri tten by career jou rnali 'ts. M o t pol itical docum n mask a much as they r eal . Be i des, all pol i t ic al y stem , in parti u l ar government and parties have output. of two k i nd. -word . and deeds . The latter a r . ur l y far more i mportan t than the fonner . i nc pol i tic. i s not j u. t an xerc i s i n rhetoric . For i n. tane , to f i n d out who are th w i n n rs and lo. e rs of any gi ven . oc i al program or pol i t ic al event w mu. t c heck it. i m pact u pon such i te ms a. u n m pl oy me nt rat company arn i ng. d i scount rat . con. u mer price. trade d ficit . to k market i ndex . •
and n u m ber of n w construct ion perm its. I n 'urn, to evaluate the real oci a l value of any pol i tical i tem check i t s effect on rea l l i fe. H owever, we have reached the next 'ection. 6 . The Case o f Political Science
A pol i to logical project i ' 'cient i fi c i f and only i f it abi des by the c ientifi c method po i t · no gho tly entitie , and make. onta t w i t h o t h r oci al ' t u d i ' . For example, pol i t i cal ' c ience re L i e on tati t i c ociology economic ' , h i toriography, and rnore. B eau e o f u h partial o erlap arnong th variou re earch fi eld " any part i c u l ar cien e mu t b d fi ned a a corn ponent of the 'y t rn of the c ie nce . Thu , we . hal l charact rize pol itical . c i n c a the ordered d atuple J
=
,
whe re C = The pol i t i cal c ience
ommltnif) : the g roup w hose member en
gage in p l i tologi al re earch and xchang politological k n w l edge;
36
Political Philosoph
S = the socief) ho ting C w i th
ome tolerance and su pport-a con
dition met only by de moc rat i c , oc ietie. w i th enl i gh tened rather than ph i l i . ti ne) cultural policie . D = the domain of di scouLe or . tudy i.e., the pol i ty or pol i tie, studi ed by the Cs ; G = the len eral outLook or philo. ophy adopted by the Cs : (a real i, m-the pol i ty e x i . ts out ide the reo earcher , brai n , i, a soc ial system rath r than a y tern of id a ' and n orm in them e l , and it can b ' i nvestigated obj ctively; b dynanl i c i m-e ve ry oc iety i al way i n a tat o f fl u x ' c t h ethos f c i en e - c ie nti fi c r e earch i the fr ' earch for tru th , which i to be shared w i t h the w rld com m u n ity of re arch r ; F = th 'jo nn al logical and mathemati at tool u t i l izab le i n poli to l gy, which i n pri ncipl i s the who) of math matics, but so far in prac tice i. l i m i t d to el m n tafY logic alg bra, and mathematical . tati . t ic s ; B = t h e SP ? 'ifi ba 'k round kilo\< l ?dge: the e x tant body of data and theori , out. i de pol itology but reI ant to i t such as soc iology econom ics and h i story ' P = the probL ?malics, or system of problem, tac kled by the C, , ' uch .
as whether democracy i ' 'u 'tai nable w i thout c it i :te n participat ion, and which electora l 'y 'tem i more democratic : s i m pl pl u ral ity or p ropor tional repre 'entation ; K = the fund of knowledge: the e xtant body of pIau ' ible pol itological data and theorie� ; A = the aims of pol i tological research, from understanding pol i t ical proce e. to de igning 'oc ia] pol ic ie . . M = the me/hodie r;. or col l ection of method for gathering pol i t ical data and te t i ng pol i tologieal h ypothe. e , from ' u rv y and tal i ,tic to mall -group experiment .
How w 1 1 do contemporary pol itology meet th abov c ri teria . Perhap not worse than socio logy or economics, though certa i n l y not a weU a h i tory . The main flaw of pol i to logy are the carc i ty of rel iable poLitjcal data, pol itical i nd i cator , quantitative model s and em p i rical te ts. For example, the low voter turnout i n Ameri can e lecti on s has been e xplained alternati ely by low ci ic con c ience. di i ntere t apathy , lac k of contra t. contentment, a n d d i affection (10 of fai t h i n government . B u t nobody ha put th . e fi ve rival h y pothese to reality he k s : they are adopted r r je ted dogmatical l y-a m ar k f n n-scien e .
Philosophical Background
37
A nother example of the ame k i n d i the collection of rational-choice ( i n particular game-theoretical ) models . I . ubm i t that they are u n scienti fi c becau. e they are nei ther conceptual l y preci e n o r empi rical l y validated. Let u. take a clo. er look at the former feature . The rat ional -choice models are i m prec i . e becau, e they i ncl u de , u h fuzzy concepts a. . ubj ecti e probabil i ty, . ubj ecti e util ity, and payoff-al l of which can be adj u, ted at w i l l to produce the desi re d reo u l L B unge 1 989b, 1 99 1 a . B e i des, the very oc u rr 'n ' of probabil ity, w he ther ubjec t i ve or bj t i e, i objectionable i n most of so i a l science bccau ' 0 ial pr ce e , uch a war , arc cau sal rather than rand m . A nd the u t i l i ties and d i '-uti l i tic ) attached t m i l i tary enterpri " hould be objec t i e: body ounts, square kil met rs and oil barrel conquered or 1 0 't, and 0 on. For ex ample, B ueno de M e qu ita s 1 989 book on w ar i nclud ' S probabi l i ti e a n d u t i lj t ie t o two d c i m al points-mo t of t h e m made up. Thi work i gnor . the wel l -know n fact that most of th rec n t wars were l ost by th aggre . . ors . I nc id n ta l ly this . how. that m i l i tary aggr . sion, i n ad d i t ion to bei n g i m moral and ill ga1 . i . often pol i tical l y and econom ical l y w ron g a . wel l . As i f conceptual fuzzi ness were not bad enough all t h rational-choic mod I s incl ude th central assumpt i on of . tandard conomics t hat peopl alway s act '0 as to m ax i m i ze their expected utj l itie� . Th i . a ' 'umption is at be , t fa l e , bec au 'e real- l i f agents 'ometi me ' behave al tru istical l y , a n d a t other t i me� i n sel f- de ' t ruct i v way -a ' w hen t hey i gnore fact ' and al low i deology to pr vai l over 'cience . Three vent · i n recent pobtic ' holl id suffice to ,how that i n pol i ti c ' d llmbne ' , i ' at least a . common a ' rationali ty . I ) A maj ority of American vot r ' re lected i n 2004 th govern ment that had di t i ngui 'hed it e l f by 1a h i ng oci al erv i c . . i n adi ng two ountri u ing ' 0 rci v i n t rrogation' on pol itical pri oner . and borrow i ng at the rate of two b i l l i on dollar. a day to fi nance i t di a 'trou pol ic i e (2) R cently the A merican Secretary of S tate a ked Congr . . for 7 5 m i l l ion doll ar. to fi n ance op po ition grou p in I ran, i gnori ng that if uch fund were to reach tho e group rather than corrupt ex i le , the I rani an poli tical pol ice nlight arre t thei r member and force them to con fe be i n g foreign age n ts�on ly to hoot them afterward . 3 I n 2006 the I rae li army shel led and i n vaded Lebanon for the th i rd t i me, k i l J i n g again i n nocent peop le and demoli h ing c i v i l i an in tal lations apparently bel i e jng that b rute force i prefe rable to negotiat i ng in good fai th-that i , start i ng by w ithdrawing from the .
oc upied Pale t i n i an territ ries and rele, ing the thou. ands of Pale tini an j a iled n u spic ion of terrori s nl. R at i nality i ndeed !
38
Political Philosoph
ThL i . not t o d iscourage pol i t ic al theoriz i ng but t o encourage realistic pol i tical theori zing. Regrettably , most . tudent. of pol itics lack theorie. capable of explai n i ng the myriad of data they gather from pe ri od i al . and offi c i al document . For example, they can tell u , i n bori ng detai l what h appened where and when , but not why al l that happened, that i s . what were the i ntere. ts of the actor i n question and which , oc ial me han i . m . they t ri ggered. The i r sci ence i a t t h e stage b i ology w a , before D arwi n : descripti ve n atura l h i tory rather than b iolog ic al c i n e . T b e u re , there are a � w ' grand th ric , ' uch a ' M arxi ' m and fu nctiona l i m, laim ing t plmn everything' and ther ' arc plenty f rational -choice model pu rport i ng to acc unt for pol i t i al event taken out of c n t 'xt u h a Pre i d n t K 'nnedy ' s a as i nation. But we l ac k w hat M 'rton 1 95 7 alled " nl iddle-range theori e , ' m deL refe rrin g t o ' t s of so i a l event ' n ' ither too s m a l l u c h a s I toral e p i o d , nor too large, . uch a. th rol l i n g back of . oc i al , erv ice . . Small fact. are grist for th journ al i . t , m i l l . wh reas big fact are the pre. erve of phi losoph rs . Th pol i tical . c ienti. t . hould tackle mid-. i ze fact. , and craft testabl theori es abou t th m. Only th i s re, earch .trategy w i l l promot theor t ical progress in pol i tical . cience . The grand wto n i an , y nth si. wa. po. s i bl e on l y becau se A rchim d " S tevi nu" G a l i l 0, Torri ce l l i , Kepler and Huygen � had earl ier built l i ttle theories model s ) about restri cted ran ge ' of facts . The e m i n i -theorie did not entai l the Newtoni an ynthe ' is, but they motivated and t ted i t . 7. Value Theory and Ethics
A l l soci a l act ion ' are preceded by deliberat i on ' invoLv i ng preference� and the matc h ing or v iolat ion of moral norm . For example, w h n a gov ernment r o rt to m i l jtary aggr . · jon it e x h i bit b l i nd n . . abou t what i . right and what wrong a . w I I a prefe rence for v ictory over decency and u nconc rn about the aftermath of war. I n general , pol i t ic i not abo e value and rnoral : i t i the tool that allow u ' to e i th r realiz or cru h v alue on a large 'cal . It j what anled the B ri ti sh Labor Party near u n i er a] appro a] when i t constructed the Nati onal Health Sen/ ice and what earned the Joh n on, N ixon George W. B u h and B La i r adm in i strat i on near uni ersal condem nation w hen they bombed c i v il i an populations. We w i l J g l i m p e at the nature of a] ue and moral in Chapter 3 . Value theory , o r ax i o logy . deaJ w ith the nature o f value , from truth and beauty to peace and pro perity . The fi r t poj n t that m u st b nlade is that aLues ar relational pr pertie : ne ays that a is valuabl to b
Philosophical Background
for purpo. c
39
or \lab for . hort. ThL shows that V j at least a triadic
relation . When a value i . q uant i tati ve, one write V( Q b , , £I ) d . where u name. the u n i t e.g. calorie, dol l ar and d i . t h e numeri c . V al ue j udgment. have t raditionally been regarded a, s ubjecti e, hence a, i m pregnable to criticism and em p i ri cal teo t , and therefore out. ide . c i ence. Whi le th i . holds for , o m e v a l u e j udgments particularly t h e ae, thet ics one. it fai l for the mo. t i mportant ones. w h i ch are the techn ical and =
moral n rm . For in tanc ' the value j udgment m ade by m petent a nd re ' pon ibl ' physicians engineer and ocia! tec hnologi ts are exp ted to b ' obj ctive and t table. Obvious examples: ' S moking and po rty are bad for heal t h ," , Good wage and decent treatment i mprove pr du tiv i ty , " and ' C r ruption and i mpunity e rode g vernment leg i t i m a y. ' De ription and pres ri ption hou ld be d i · ti ngu ished but n t parated. For e x ample, when deal i ng w ith di. t ributi e j ustic the . oc i al . cientist "need. a normat i e theory both to n able h i m to d i . ti ngu i sh bel i f. and p i ceo of behav i or that ex pre . . j ustice from those that do not and to xplain . uch bel i ef. and beha ior adeq uately" M i l l er 1 999 : 59). Furthermore w henever po . . ible value j udgm nts . hou l d re .t on w 1 1 corroborated factual statements. Tn particular th v alue statement. m ad i n normat i ve pol i t ical theory 'hould be based on 'otid �ocial -science data and hypothe �e '. For e xample John F. Kennedy ' ' famous statement that when the t ide ri 'es [ meaning when the GDP g row 'J al l the yacht , ri e, overl ook ' the fact � that tho�e who do not 'ail yachts risk drown i ng w hen the t ide ri �e ' and that extre me i nequaliti ' are bad for health and dign i ty a ' well a � [or ' ocial coh ' ion . 1 regard thic a the appl ication of v al u theory to ocial action. L t
u . . t art by d fi n i ng the ontro er i al concept of a rnoral action. From a ociolog ical v i ewpo i n t pro odal or valuable) acti o n ' are moral and anti ocial d i valuable o n are i mmoral w herea oc iall y i rr levant acti on are amoral. H ence any fa t i n vo l ving a moral action i it elf moral . For i n . tance, 'cratching one head i amoral , w h rea aggr i ng i s i m moral, and ori e nt i ng a pa erby i moral . Obv iou ly, there are degree of morality and i m morality, from g lut tony to m u rdering. G luttony i i mmoral becau e i t i n volve u n nece ary wa te, wh ich i n t u rn may e n tai l dep ri ving other from food. Lying i s i mmoral b cau e i t i nli sleading and weakens de i rable ocial ties. The ft-from burgl ary to swindle to p lagiari m-i i m moral becau e i t harms. Oppre ion rape torture and m u rder are far \v r becau. e they au e i rreparable h arm. The same appl i e to i rrespon ible procr ati on by hav i ng c h i l dren w ho are u n l ike ly to be properly rai sed and educated .
40
Political Philosoph
This al
0
appl i
t o c O ·jal pol icie that favor the powerfu l a t the exp n
c
of the weak. Our equat i n g of " moral w i th ' prosoc ial i . at odd, w i th t h e main eth i cal t raditions. The, e h o l d that moral . are gi ven from above and therefore ca. t in tone, or that they are purely matter. of emotion or i ntuition. T n ei ther ca, e moral norm , are regarded a s non-cog n i t i ve and therefore a. i m m une to both rational di cu . . ion and empirical tee t. Con, equently ou r d fi ni tion w i l l be r jec ted by the 1 g ian as wel l a by the ethi al emoti v i st l i ke H u m and th pO ' iti v i and the i ntuiti ni t . Th ' lat ter fol lowing G . E . M oore, w i l l i nd i t ou r d fi n i tion as an instance f th '0- al led naturali ti fa l lacy . B u t our defi n i tion has the ad antag that it av ids ethical u bjecti v i ' m and i rrationa l i s m , a w e l l a ' the ncomi tant moral r lativi m . I ndeed, it a l l w s u to d raw ro -cultural compari ons and adopt a u n i vcr ali t (or non-trihal ) moral ity. Th i . moral ity cont rary to th t ribal moral itie. enshri ned i n th so-call ed sacred . cri ptures i . soc ially progre . . i ve he cau se it condemns oppre . . i on exploitation serfdom . la ery , torture, and m i l i tary agg re. , ion wher ver and w henever they occ u r. r t a l so condemns a, i mmoral all the pol iticians. pol i tolog i . t and economist. who j u. t i fy such ant i soc ial practices. rn sum we adopt moral real i . m or obj ec ti vi · m . B ecau 'e politic ' i . bound to change ' o m people I i ves, i t ha a moral compon nt, albe it ordi nari l y a tacit one . Moreover I agree with Crick ( 1 99 2 : 1 4 1 ) that the moral component of pol i tical action ' i ' the most i mportant if the lea �t v i ible one, ' i mply becau 'e i t in olves ben e fi t � and harm ' . I al �o sugge ,t that i t i � a task of the pol i tical phi l o opher to un eit uch compo n nt. To a cornpli h thi . ta k it w i l l not ' u ffi e to r ad pol i tical platform or ' pe he. hecau e all too oft n th e d i 'gui e th real i n tere t . that dri v pol i tical action. I n pol i t i d ed ' count more than word. and word are u . ed now to b ri ng fact to light now to h ide them . A the ancient Roman ' u e d t o demand. re , llOll erba. The tao k of exhibiting the rnoral or i m moral ' ide of pol i t ic i par ticul arly urgent nowaday , becau e in the U n ited S tates, l i ke in Europ between the two great wars, the reJ i giou ri ght claim to monopo l i ze the high moral ground. They a re the ones w ho rant about fam i l y value and born -again honesty in bu i ne and politks. M any of the e arne people were eventua l ly found to be i n vol ved in corporate candal , in lobby ing parliame ntarian for pri vate i n te re t , or applauding the pro ecution of Pre id nt C l inton for marital i nfi de li ty w h i l e appro v i ng f m i litary aggre ion violating U resoluti ns condoni ng tort u re rai l ing against
Philosophical Background
the Unit d
41
atione and t h e I n t marional Criminal Court among other
thing . . Su h dupli ity is not acc i denta1 . The neocon. er ati ve. ha e a double moral . tandard, one for the "herd and none for themselves-the upermen. M an y of them l earned th i . from ietzsche v i a hi adm i rer Leo Strau . . , who taught some of the mo. t i m portant membe r. and adv L or. of the po. t-Ni xon Republ icans . ee R y n 2003 ; Drury 2005 . J u . t a. pol itic. ha. a moral component. so moral philo. ophie. ha e p l i tical impli ation , sometim 's by what they tate and at ther t i me by w hat they d n ' t and i n a l l c a e w i t h reference t o i al act ion. Thu egoism from Schop ' nhauer and N ietzsche to Ayn Rand and M i l ton Friedm an , i s ant i social and therefore antid m rati . Un ' u rpri si ngly, N ie tz c he wa H i tler' fav rit , pop philo 'oph 'r. And the m tt f the squadri ti-the member of the fa ci t param i l itary-wa Me ne frega, ( 'I u l d not care less." Common decency inv l e on 'rn for othr. . x t to egoism come. u t i l itarianism of w h ich we di. t i nguish thr ari t i e . : i nd i v i d u a l i s t pro. ocial . and negat i v e . Th cent rp iece of i ndi v idual ist u t i l itarian i . m i s the old h doni. tic princ iple o f u t i l i t y , "whic h approves or d i sappro e. of every action what. oever accordi ng to th t nde ncy w h ich it appears to have to augment or d i m i n i . h th happi ne ' , of the party w ho 'e i nter , t i ' i n question' (B entham 1 98 2 : 1 2 ). T h e pol itical cou nte rpart o f uti l itariaui m i s Mach iave l l iani ' m . For e ample, a u t i l i tari an w i l l condon war c ri me � a s l o n g a ' he expect ' them to advance h i s cau e , Howe ver, utilitariani ' m i . n o t inhe rently e l fi sh : it c a n al 0 b e com b ined with cooperat i v i 'm Regan 1 980 . Actua lly Hel vetiu � ' cla ' ' ical principle, that e nj o i n u to . ek ' the great t happi ne of the g reat t n u m b r,' u m m arize pro . oc ial u t i l itarian i ' m . B ut for better or for wor e th i princ iple cannot be i mplemented : it i i mpo ible to m ax i m i ze at t h e arne t i m both variable , u t i l i ty and n u mber. e e hapt r 3 , Section 7 . The t h i rd ver ion of u t i l i tariani m advoc ate ' doing no h arrn . It i called "negat i ve uti l i tarianism " and ha been advocated by the B uddha Epic uru , and Popper. I t pol i tical coun terpart i pol i tical apathy . I ndeed w hoe er enjoin u to hmit our e lves to ab tain i ng from harm i ng anyone tacitly condemn not only tyrann y but a l 0 participati e democracy becau e the good c it i zen i ex pected to contribute to the pub l i c good i n addition t o a b tai n i n g from robbing and beating u p people. L i kewise Ari totle ' . ethj of v i rtue does not help demo racy becau . e i t c u n . el bravery i n batt l e but d es n t d i t in g u i h battles to defe nd
42
Political Philosoph
the fath rland fronl battle, to attack oth r countric -b
c
i dc w hi - h that
great thi nker wa. , l i k e h i . tea h e r Plato, a w o rn enemy o f democracy and the t utor of a war c ri mi nal . From onfu i u , to K ant, the eth ic. of duty e x horts u, to perform our duty . in partic ular to the , tate . regardless of the good or evil it may do. Deonto]ogL m i s i n deed the c ode of beha ior of the exemplary function ary rather than a mora] ph i l o, ophy, be au e an gen u i ne ph i losophy i . cri t ical . B a u i t prea hes b l i n d bedienc ' deontol g i m i ' a c nrvati v ' moral ity that m ay be u t i l i zed by any pol i tical movement or regi m except a parti i pat i ve d m oc racy . I ndeed, the latter an only b ' constructed by c it izens ready not n l y to do the i r i ic duty but al so to blow the w h i st l ' at i ol ation ' of democratic ru le : Th y are expected to denounce fraud corrupti n , the c u rtai lment f ba i l iberti 's and m i l i tary aggr ' , ' i o n . I n a n y event 4 [ t J O act moral l y i n p l iti i s t o consider the reo u l ts of on ' s action. ' Crick 1 992: ] 54 . Thu . the Confucian or K antian pol i tician or bur aucrat may act i mmorall y ven while . trutti ng on th high moral grou nd. Only a moral phi lo. ophy that advocates both altru i . m and contributing to the com mon good can support democracy. This is agathonism, whose top max i m i. 'Enjoy l ife and help I i e ' B u nge 1 989a . Sti l l thi. proso c ial morality i not enough to in 'pire democrats: It mu �t be � uppl mented w i th a pinc h of methodological kept ici � m . I ndeed, thi ' episte mology enjoin ' u ' to c ritical ly anal y z i deas and practice ' '0 a ' to weed out fal 'ities and avoid harmfu l ac tions while plan n i ng and executing good one ' . Wh rea ' a dogmati ,t m ake� a good subj ect of any regi m e and a radical skepti c mu t mbrac anarchism a good democrat, l i ke a good c ienti t, i a m thodologic al · keptic. The moral ' of a pol i t i c i an ar be. t reveal d by defeat. The pol it ic i an . w ho work o r fi g h t for an i m p r 'onal c a u e t a k d feat a a · jgn that t h y , thei r movement or t h e i r c a u e have been a t faul t and ne d correction. B y ontra t w h n def at d, the per on who goe i nto pol it i only for per. onal advancem nt m ay b tem pted to abandon pol itic or even j o i n the ictor-the ca e of the Reagan Democrats the Sarkozy Socialist , and the aparat 'hiki turned oli garchs. Thi i s w hy the Youth branche of partie are 0 i m portant : these can be the con c ie nce of their party . For a i m ilar rea on, there hould be no p rofe ional reformer or revo lutionarie : In eeking to maxi m ize e fficiency they w i l l re lax p ri nciple , turning i nto ei ther t i m id manager -l i ke the German ocia1 democrat of the early 1 900 -or rut h le str ngmen l i ke th B o l hevj k leaders . N i ke j a moral but N ike worshi p j i m mora l .
Philosophical Background
43
8. Action Theory
Action theory or p raxiology i abou t action in general : what trigger it. and how the concurren t action of variou indiv i dual omb i ne to produce a oci al fa t, uch a the v ictory of a party in an election. What pa e for action theory i n rnain tream conternporary phi l o ophy i an appl i cation of the phi l o oph y of m ind, which i n turn j often concei ed of a an appL i ation of the phi l o ophy of language-j u t becau e a C homsky put i t ' language i the m irror of the m ind.' U n u rp ri singly tandard acti on theory i s only concemed w i th tri ial everyday action uch a. p i ' k i ng up a hoc . I t docs not tackle problems of the kind that nl n of action such a. pol i t ic i ans and bu inc m anagers, or even craftsmen and hopkeepe r fa 'e for the e oc 'upation call for x pert knowledge de l iberation and planning. The A u trian school of econo m ics-Lcd by M eng r von ML es, and Hayek-i nvol ves a , l i ght]y more oph i . ticated theory of action, o n e that revol ve around the . o-cal led rational i ty postul ate. Th L is the a . umption that the rational agent i. the homo oe onomi us of neocJ as. ical m i croeco nomics, that i the individual who act. , 0 a to max i m i ze his ow n expected uti l i tie. regardl� , of h i . o w n moral �enti ment and o ther people' right. ( on Mi e. 1 949 . B ut thi s is none other than Bentham , hedon i, tic "pri n c iple f utility. ' The only difference i · that Bentham, th ugh writing in the A ge f R ason, did not att 'mpt to d i sgui e sel fi hness a rat i nality. Oi ven th d i smal fai l u re of tandard mi roc onomi to ac unt for b th h uman bchav i r and th ' a tual fun tioning of the bu inc s firm, th re i no rca n t h pe that i t m ay hed any l ight on pol itic , parti u l arly on the manag 'mcnt of publi good , w hi c h i ' subject to confl ict and negot i ation. For cri ti c i sm. of rational choice theory see , . g . M arch and S i mon 1 95 8 B u ng 1 998a. The si mplest model of individual action i s the desire-belief-opportu nity tri ple. 1 choose to do , o methi ng b eau. e 1 h a the opport u n i ty to do it. and belie e that this act i on wil1 bri ng about th d . i red outcome ( , e Hedstrom 2006 . Thou gh insightful th i . s c h m a i . seriou, ly incomplet . for it m isse . i nterest � b lief� and com mi t ment " as well a ' al l the 'tep ' that p recede and fol low the tak i ng of act ion : Del i berat i on plan n i ng, deci 'ion, mean ' outcome and the evaluat ion that may induce the actor to correct the o rigin al cour 'e of acti on . For i n ' tan ce, I wan t to ' upport a certain party becau 'e I bel ieve ( rightly or wrongly that i t advances the in tere 'ts of m y group. I there fore del i berate what to do about it g i v n th opport u n itie, at hand e.g. c
c
44
Political Philosoph
an u pcoming cle ·tion . 1 then nlake a dec ision (e.g. to raL e fu nds for the party . To i mplement th i . dec i s i on I draw a plan. Thi, lead, m e to proc u ri ng the requ i i te mean . e.g., transportation . T fi nally take action , watch i ts outcome and e a] uate the l atter. If the eval uation i s negat i ve I analY7.e the enti re fl ow chart to fi nd what went wron g and re, tart. F i gu re 1 .3 genera l i 7.e and . ummari zes the preceding anal y , i . . I ntcrc t
/
\
� ue
Pr bl Mean
III � �
Del iberation
Action
�
�
Planning � De i ion
Outcome
�
�
Evaluatj n
/ Bel ief
Fig. 1 .3. Flow chart of indh'idual action. " Deliberation
or political action r' plae'
with 'Contention.
The previou d i agram may uggest that all d l iberate acti ons have predictabl e ·onsequence . . But of cour e thi s i not so : A prediction may not be borne out e ither becalL e the act i on wa accompanied by an overl ooked c i rcum, tance, or becau e unforesee n event interpo. ed between the emergence of the problem and the e xecution of the action , to the poi nt that the plan became outdated. Lea ing out the unfore, een for the , ake of s i mpl i c i ty we are led to replace the , i ngle "Act i on � Outcome �c hema with two or more arrow, : A & C, � O I , A & C � O w her ' the C' s denote i rcu m tances. H w er ord i nari l y we have a choice betw en two r m re acti ns to r l e an i ue. U uall y n ' make a rough co t-benefit anal y i : One pre fer ' 0 , to 0 2 ju t i n a ' th co t/ben 'fit ratio f r action A I i ' ' maIler than for ac tion A . Rational choice theori . ts c l ai m that one c an go ev n furth r allotti ng prohahi l i tie. as well a. uti l it i s to the outcom s of actions. Mor over, they claim that a rational actor w i n do A J rath r than A j ust in c ase the e x pected uti l i ty _ P l,t , of A I i s greate r than the expected u t i l i ty P 2 U 2 of A . Howev r th i . _ holds o n l y w h n play ing game. o f chance : Outside c a, i no, and stock market. , r , ponsibl agent. are not gamblers : Th y always t ry to a oid chance becau e th y are ba � ically ri � k-avoide[' . ( Accident ' or coinc i dence ' are a di fferent m atter altogether: M o , t o f them re� u lt from cau 'al processe� �o that they cannot be a ' s igned probab i l itie '. Mor on thi � in B unge 2006c .
T .
M .
K NOX
45
where he says that the end of the State is the happiness of the citizens, and that the State' s footing is insecure if it is not the means of satisfying subjective aims. ) In face, therefore, of Hegel's own exegesis of this paragraph, which Mr.
Carritt
regards as crucial, I find it hard to understand how he can still hold that Hegel believes the individual to be a mere means to the State's ends (see pp. 3 7ff., above) . To one who reads the Philosophie des Rechts as a whole and does not rely on isolated passages, the tenor of Hegel's view of the State is not really in doubt. He believes that the essence of the nation State is a tension between the State's power on the one side and the individual's freedom on the other. If the tension is destroyed by laying exclusive emphasis on the latter, the result is anarchy and the disappearance of the State; if by laying emphasis exclusively on the former, then the State be comes "mere might and a synonym for despotism" ( § 278) . As I indicated in my article, it is open to a critic to consider H egel's safeguards for private freedom and to maintain that they are insufficient; what perplexes me is criticism like Mr. Carritt's, which ignores these safeguards, implies that they do not exist, and consequently misses what for Hegel is the very essence of the State, namely the tension to which I have referred. Mr. Carritt concludes his reply by summarizing an interpre tation of Hegel which he claims has been current for eighty years, and to which he seems to subscribe. I should like to make some comments on his summary-a summary which I do not believe those whom he quotes would accept. (i)
"Hegel thinks that might indicates right . " This is certain
ly an overstatement, if not actually false . Hegel believes that right is mighty, but that is not what Mr. Carritt says. If he had believed that "might indicates right" there would have been no sense in his clear distinction between brute force and the "might of the Idea"
(see, e.g., footnote to § 25 8 )
and his
repudiation of despotism (e.g. , Anmerkung to § 278) . (ii)
"Hegel defends the suppression of free speech . " Here
again we have an overstatement. Hegel defended the dismissal
46
Political Philosoph
other . R ea l i st should settl e for a more mode t goal : contain ing anti so i al action . . I submit that an a lion i s s o iall adm issibl � �f it rnakes m ost peop l � belt 'r
off � \ e n
l
h ile both e ring an tisocial indi iduals o r
g roups. Th L p ri n c i p l e re move, from the market cert a i n act i v i ties,
such as e n i ronmen tal p rote tion, publ ic health c are a n d gun manu fac t u re ' b u t i t i s compat i b l e w i th any acti i ti e s t h at w h i l e seek i n g priv ate pro fi t , do n o t th r i v e on harm. M ore on p rax i o l ogy i n B u nge 1 989a, 1 998a and thc In terna tional A n n ual of Practi a l Philo oph and Methodolog . 9. Political Philo ophy
Pol i tical philo 'ophy i ' the philo ophical m panion to pol iti al c i ence. The troublc with bo t h is that mu h f thcm arc i rr 'le a n t t o r 'al-1jD' pol i t ics. A , Gerri ng and Ye, now i tz ( 2006 : 1 05 say "the se l f-appoint d job of the rpoli tical l theorist . eem, to be to keep t rack of w hat the pol iti cal philosoph rs ha e , aid or are . ayi n g . Expl icit normati e theory about what i t would be good to do i s r legated to the m argins." Contem porary philo. ophy can a1 . 0 be accu, ed of schol asticism : see B u n ge 200 I . ) Pol i tical philo, ophy is normat i ve rathe r than descriptive; i t que, tion. n arly v ryth i ng that pol i t ic al . cience takes for granted : and i t imagi ne. pol i t ical ' y stem ' and 'ituation ' that pol i tical 'cience does not ordinari l y exami ne, for i t foc use ' o n fact � . More preci �ely polit ical p h i lo ophy i � the di �cipline characteri zed by th decatuple J � = ,
wh re C = the ol1lmunil of pol i t ic al philo ' opher from A ri totl e A q u i na ' , I b n Khaldun, M achia e l l i Spi noza. H obbe , Locke. a n d R o u eau. to Dah l , L i ndblom. Rawl , Wolin, Bobbio M il l r and S n-to be di · tin gui 'hed from pol itical ideologue , uch a P lato Burk . H gel N ietz 'che, L n i n , A fon, S trau . " and A rendt. S = the socief) ho ting C-unti l recently on l y a We tern European or North American oci ety ; D = the domain : the coUection of po li tical facts; i f cienti fi c, the pol itical p h i lo opher wi l l look at such fact only through the len e of rel i able data and i n te l li g i ble theorie : G = the general outlook or p h i lo ophy onto logical. epi temological, ethi al etc. being presu ppo ed; i f scientific the pol i t ic al phi l opher w i l l adopt hyl real i . m t h e combinat i n of material i 111 w i th real i In '
Philosophical Background F =
47
thc formal background i s the ct of formal tools; thc cxa ,t phi
l o opher o f pol itic. w i l 1 help h i m �elf to whatever m athematical ideas he m ay requ i re to analyze or , y . te matize i dea. ; B the spe '�fi ba k 'found is a col l ection of pert i nent pol i tological data and h ypothe, e . . P the problemafi s con. i sts in q ue tion i ng al l the ba, ic concept and princ iple. of pol i tology . For exampl e : i , the concept of pol itical ri k =
=
wel l-de fi ned, i democracy m ral l y superior to other p l i tical reg imes, a nd are game-the r tic mode s ientifi ? K theJu nd ofkflOl-dedge i s a o l lccti n f up- to-date and rea onably wel l-co n fi ml d i te m i n all th sc i e n 's relevant t p l i tology' A the aim or g als i n Jude th ' larifi cati n f pol i t 1 g ical i dea a nd the design of pol icie and p latform . M = the m "thodi ,. includes such phi l osoph ical tech n iq u , as logical anal y s i s and sc ientifi c techn i q ue. such a. statL t ical , ampl i ng . I f . c i n t i ti c , t h e pol i tical ph i losoph r w i l l test i deas by contrasti n g them t o t h r levan t . oc i al s c i n e . Otherw i . e h e w i l l j u, t c heck whether th i dea, i n q uest ion are con s i , tent w i t h h i . o w n ideology . Thu . , most of us d i s m i , , out of h and each other s i dea. i n , t ad of arg u i ng rat ional l y about th m and seeking to val i date or confute them em pirical l y . =
=
1 0 . Concluding Remark
Phi losophies are rele vant to both politics and politi cal 'c ience becau 'e they 'tand at the very center of very ideology . H ence they u nderlie m any a dec i 'ion to ' t udy a pol i ty , de 'ign a pol icy, and adopt a pol i t ical stance. For e xample anyone who uppo ' d that the worl d i i 1 l u ory woul d not attempt to e i ther e xplore or c h ang it. In ' hort anti r al i m i pol it ically and cientifi a l l y n i h i l i tic. L i ke w i e , anyone h ari ng H obb . po t u l at that oc i a l l i f i the fi ght of everyone agai n t everyone e l e or Kant . pri nci ple that duty b at · con equ nce w i l l not c are to j o i n w i th other to i ther protect or change the oci a l order. That i . i rreali m, egoi m and deontologi m i nduce con e r ati m and di courage poli tical participation. B y contra t real i m and hum ani m sti m ulate ocial reform and pol i t ical action . I n u rn , t e U me what your p h i l o ophy i s a n d I U tel l y o u w hat your poli t ical preference ough t to be if you w i h to b con i tent. S i nce phi l o ophy i s una oidable , we had better keep i t exp l i c i t, clean , reali stic and w e l l organi zed . A freewheeling e capi t and fragmentary philo ophy j at be t u se I e . By contrast good phi l osophies can help i denti fy problem , uncover
48
Political Philosoph
pre u ppo i tions analy ze and hone 'oncept and theorie and suggest sci enti fi c hypothec es a. wel1 a. bri dge. among di. c i pl i ne . . N ote the \f i rtuou. c i rc1e: Sc i ence bene fit from good philo. ophy, which i n turn . m a y i n spi re deep sci e n e .
2 Citizen and Polity: Diversity and Unity Pol itics may be de fi ned as the art of faci ng or evadi ng
i al pr blem ;
pol i tical . ci e nce, as the m thodical an obj ect i ve . tudy of the pol i tical i. . ue. raL d by soc i al problem. ; and pol itical philo. ophy a. a alue-Iaden del i b ration on major pol i tic al i. . u . and the ways to reo o l v the m. A l l . erious pol itical issue. ari se from soc i al problem. but th con ers is false. For e x ample poverty ha. always been a . oc ial problem-and. if we ar to b Ii e the B ible it alway . w i l l be . B ut pov fty b came a pol i tical i 'su only around the year 1 8 0, w hen the earliest anti-poverty pol i tical group ' and movements emerged . L i kew i ' ' lavery became a pol i tical i . 'ue once the abol i t ionist movement became p romi nent ; op pre ' ' i ve labor cond i tion ' in land and factory gave ri 'e to pea 'ant and l abor movements r pectivel y ' race and gender di 'cri mination turned into pol i tical i ' ue ' when the c i i l right ' organ ization ' took to the street-and o on. Con eq uently th v iew that poljtical i u are noth jng but in titu t ional problem ' be t left to j u ri t and pol itician i · a up rfi cjal a ept ic and ah i torical account of pol jtic . Section of the publ i c h ave to be mob i l i z d before a oc ial i u emerg on th pol i tical leve l : �
So ial issue
Social m \ emenl � Political i Hue
Thi sugge t that ocial i ssue and mo ement are be t tudi ed by po l i tical soc iol ogy. Th i i the hybrid c ience that t udies the pol itical con fl i ct generated by the inequa ] i t i e of a] J kind that now ble , now c u r e humankind-i nequal i t ie of sex and age occupation and comp tence i ncome and a ets, c lass and statu . per on a] l oyalty and c ivic duty oci al capjtal and pol i t ical p \ver partic ipati n and efficien y i deological orientation and pol i t i a l al l egjan e and on. B u t no di cipli ne i ff e from philo ophy. And as ugge ted in the preceding chapter the core of e e ry authe n ti c phi los phi al . y tern is
49
50
Political Philosoph
a coherent world v i ew. M odem pol it ical t heory and pol i t i -al phi lo ophy h ave been dom i n ated by two m utually oppo, ed ontological t radi tions: indi vidualL m , w h ich foc u se. on the ruler and the ruled , and hol i sm or collect i v i sm w h i ch focu, e on such polari tie a. i n d i v idual -, tate and l oc al -global . 1 , ubmit that each of these two t radi tion contai n. a g rain of truth but nei ther i . completely true. B oth o f them deny that , oci e ty 1 . a , y . te m of ub y 'tem of variou typ ; they also deny the oexi ' tenee of ri aIry and cooperation w ithin and between social systems. I ugge t that pol itology, l i ke any other 0 ial ' e i 'n ' hould sta11 by adm itting the tru i m that e ery n ' i ' b m i nto a society on tnt ted by our for bear , and that hapes u tronger than th mo t i n fl uen t i al prea her or th most pow r fu l d i tator. For 'xample, I am a fam il y man, wa t ra ined as a ' i 'ntist, do and tea h pru l osophy, and am i n te re ted i n p l ities. All th ' 'e trai t , 1. e. I am that charact ri ze me are , oc i al not bi olog ic al . Like ev ryon a c h i l d of my ancestor. and m y time; and a. father. t acher and writ r, ] am aL 0 one among s i x b i l l ion prog n itors of the future. E en th hu mble.t and mo. t withdrawn of u , exert . ome . oc ial i mpact, b cau. ev ryon is capabl of st i m ulating in enti ng, tak i ng i n i tiat i ve, , and i m prov i . i ng . H n c i t wou l d b a m i . tak t o regard indi iduals a . e i ther fu l l y heteronomous ( dependent o r a s utterly autonomou ' ' I f governed . We are a l l i nterdependent to 'ome extent. C h i ld r n depe n d on t h e i r parent � and teac he rs, who i n turn wou l d not enact uch role � w i thout depende nts. Employee and employed, ru lers and ru led, pol i t i c a l l eaders a n d t h e i r constituents a n d �o on, parallel this. I t i ' 'ystem � al l the way dow n and up. on-sy tems, ueh a ' pol i tie and crowds, are i nc luded i n . y t m . namel y 0 ietie · . and prov id the member h i p of y . tern ' , uch a tate ' and pol i t i cal partie . Ev ry 0 i a l y · tem contru n 'orne i n d i v idual w i l l i ng to a u rn heav ier reo pon ' ib i l iti . and r i k s than other ' . and apable of organiz i ng l i ke - m i nded per on to ffect . oci al c hange. of ariou typ . and ize , from tart i ng a arpool to c anl Pru g n i ng for a pi ce of l eg i l ation to topp l i n g a government. The e are, of cour e, the leader : indiv i d ual w ho mobi l i ze people to partici pate in common cau es and ay we at lea t as often as 1. Leader and rna e belong together. A lthough t h i i a plati tude i t i at variance w i th the two mo t popu l ar v iew of pol itks: that i t a leader game i nd i v idual i sm ) . and that it i about pontaneou ma movements collecti i m . Individual i m and ol lecti v i s m are , at be t part i al l y true. The f mler can not be completel y true if only because it f cu e on the actor and
Citizen and Polity
51
i gnor c the react ion o f t h ma c t o the e l i te' actionc . A n d colle - t i i s m cannot b e completely true either becau, e i t overlook. the fact that the components of a ma . . of people have indi i dual iew , and i nterest. that . hape thei r reaction to the e l i te . action . . Actually the sou rce of everything . oci al i . the individual-in-. oc iety rather than either the . i ngle i ndividual or . ociety a. a whole. Pol itic. i. made by interacti ng i ndividual. . . orne of whom-the pol i ti i an. and hi gh nUlking - i v i l servant. -ar ' career pol iticians. Thi s alternative to both i ndividuabs m and holi s m may b ' alled (emi m, the social ontology that focu . on social . y te m- or networks su -h as fan1jlies 'chools, business fi n11 ' and political group- that nurtu re . orne i ndividuals whilc sti fl i ng other ' ( 'ce Bungc 1 996a, 1 998a, 1 999a . 1. Human
ature
All pol itical ideologie. involv . ome i ew of human natur : that w ar ither born or made good or bad, aggre . . ive or cooperativ , obedi nt or r bel lious, l azy or indu. trious, educable or . rubborn, generous or s l fi sh . rede mabl or incorri gible, a n d . 0 on. For in. tanc . Chri . tians bel ieve i n Original S i n, th reI ntJess decay of hu mankind s i n c t h e expUlsion from Paradi . . work a s a c u r. e, a n d sufferi ng as t he best way to aton for s i n . Con servatives and reactionari . concur: obi lity of character and i t . dual are inborn. Ari 'totIe and N iel:l 'che taught that men are born to be either free or slaves ; the 'ocial Darw i n i ·t " t hat the 'ocial c la ' 'e . are re ' u lt ' of biological evolution, not 'ocial olution ' the early ethologist " that man i , the 'ki l l r ape '� and the geneti c determi n i · t " that al l the trait , of every i ndividual are fi xed in h i s genome which would be compo 'ed of If- u ffici nt and omnipotent ' e l fi h g ne '. B iological reductioni m i fal ' . for i t ignor ' that h u m an ' ar not j u t ocial l i ke chimp but ' u ltra- oci al . That i s i n addition to being able to communicat ooperate, and compete with con p i fic" 'hu m an ha al 0 vol v d ' k i l l ' that nab] them to actuall y c reat different c ultural group. each operating w i th a d i tinctive t of arti fact " y mbol , and odal practice and in titution ' ( Herrmann et al. 2007 . B iological evo l ution ha certai nly equipped u to think and act a human but it does not tel l u what to think and do: on ly exp rience can fi l l this gap. Leo Tol toy 1 999: 2 1 1 , who knew more about h u man nature than many a p ycho]ogi t, w rote that " [m ]en are l ike ri ers: the water i the arne in one and all ; but every river is narrow here, more rapi d there, here lower th re broad r now clear n w d u l l , now cold, n w wam1 . E ery m an bear i n h i m elf the gern1 of every h u m an quality; but s metimes '
52
Political Philosoph
one quality nlan i fe t i tsel f sometime . •mother and the man often be comes u n l i ke him. elf while . t i l l remai ning the same man. ' NeuroscientL t. expl ai n why that i . . o. Becau. e the h uman brai n, unlike the ant. , i . eminently pIa, tic. I n deed, i t rewi re. i t. elf every t i me i t learn. or forget. somethi n CJ . And neural pIa. ticity i. a source of . oc ial pIa. ti ity, that is, the abi l ity to adopt or i nvent new behavior nonn s, a� wel l a. to orCJan i ze and reorganize . oci al . ystems. I n , hort, to be i . to becom e ; a n d to b e human i t o l ive today somewhat differ 'ntl y from yest 'rday. Thi s nlUtabil ity generat 'S the paradox noted by Veblen 1 96 1 : 1 4 that , the in ,titution. of to-day-the pre ent accepted sch 'me of l i fe-do not entir 'ly fit the i tuation of to-day,' becau 'e today s in titutions were mad ' ye terday. Hence the u navoidable ten ion betw ' 'n social l i fe and pol itical tradi t ion-a t 'n ion that ome people resolv ' by adopting onservati ' m and oth 'rs reformi s m . Whoe e r b liev . that h uman natur i . unalt rabl i s l i kely t o be poli t icall y n i h i l i . tic, h nce conser ative. H w i l l bel iev , with Lao Tzu, that the individual i . i mpotent, whence t h e contemplat i e l i fe i. b tter than th acti e on . The Roman Cato is a case in point, and this is why a pow rful ons rvativ t h i nk tank bear. h i . n ame. Thi . i s also why Han n ah Arendt. H i d gg r'. pup i l c lose. her popul ar book on the h uman condi tion with a quot from Cato: ' ever i ' he more active than when he doe ' nothing, never i ' he Ie . . alone t han when he is by him 'elf' ( A rendt 1 989: 325 . A ' ' u ming that thi ' 'entence makes sense, it rai 'es thi . ques tion . I f t he active l i fe i ' to be 'hunned, why wer 'ome pol i ti cal n i h i l i st " such as Calo, the Taoist monk " the Lamai st and Zen B uddhi 'lS, as w 1 1 a s ielz 'che Heidegger, a n d thei r adm irer Leo Slrau 'S '0 fascinated by pow r and . 0 eag r to eek or erve i t? Some think r" from Rousseau onward are optim i tic to t h point of bel ie i ng that whiI men are born ignorant, good and equal , society shap and corrupt u w h nee the need for ocial reform to all ow for the de e lopment of our potential for good. Thi idea that the i ncliv i dual i ' originally good w h i le . oc i et y i not, ha dri n progr i v . oe ia l reformer of al l political t r i p -anarchi t s , c o m m u n i t s , ocial i t , and l i beral . I f the c ience of man were to challenge this i dea, wou ld it fol low that social reform are at be t useles , and at wor e harmful ? Let u see. owaday there are two popular model of human nature: (1 the bal l of putty at the mercy of i t env i ronment and 2 the automaton pro grammed by it gen me ( . e , e.g., Lewontin 2000 P inker 2003 B uller 2005 ) . W hoev r adopt the putty r tabula rasa) m del w i ll tend to
Citizen and Polity
53
advocat educati on and egalitarian ocial e ngine ring to i mprove human l i fe, wherea, the bel ie er in genetic predestination w i l l let indi i duals fend for them. el es with the hel p of God, Dad and good conne tion. of cour. e. Which of the two modeL should we adopt? I sub m i t that neither becau. e both are i ncompatible w i th contemporary scien e. I ndeed, biol Ogy and psychology . how that we are the product of two i ntertw i n i n CJ factor. : gene and experience. A baby with . eriou. genetic di. order, cannot b 'come a normal adult [md on ' w i t h th ' b ' 't genonle w i l l not make i t i f neglected o r abused for a long time. F irstborn get higher i ntelligence te t scores than thei r . iblings because they get mor ' attention and enjoy a higher ' 0 - ial ran k i n th ' fam i ly Kri tensen and Bjerkedal 2007 ) . I t i s th 'refore t 'm pt i ng to equate d e v 'lop nl 'nt to the product o f g 'netic endowment by 'nvi ronment or D = G x E for 'hort . But thL popu l ar fornll11a i phony for none of th ' variabl ' occulTing i n it i s mathematical1y w e l l d fi ned. H owever t h e formula does . ugge. t two true and val uabl idea . . Fir. t, human natur i. for real rather than a su per. tition. si nce human g nomes are distinct from th g nom . of other . pec ie . . A nd not every environment i. favorabl to human l i fe-which i s why we t ry to build our own n iches. Second, si nce th en i ronm nt i . changeable rather than i m mutable . . 0 i . h uman natur . T h re i s neither genetic prede · t i nation nor env i ronmental omnipotence. B ut, ' ince we c,m all r the env i ronment, let u . fa ' hion it so as to gi e good genes a c hance, and to compen 'ate for bad gene ' w ith extra fam i l y, medical ,md educational · upporl. S tandard economic theory in particular neoda . - ical m ic roeconomic " propo 'e ' a p 'ychological alternative to both biologi ' m ,md env i ronmen tal i ' m. I nde d, i t a u me th p ' ychological hypothe i . that w are all If- r garding; mor preci ely that i n making any deci ion and taking any a tion. w all attempt to m ax i miz our expected util itie r gardl 'S of other people . i nter .t Th expect d utili ty of an action i d fi ned a the product of i t , ubjec tive util ity by the probab i l ity of ucce of th a tion in qu · tion . Th concept ar well d fi ned in the particular ca e of game of chance . B u t both notion are vague and m i splaced every where else particularly whe re a in bu i ness, pol i ti c . and educa tion, ordinarily we leave nothing to chance but, on the contrary, attempt to i n fl uence or e en set up cau al chain . I gnore for the moment the conceptual i mpreci ion of the po tulate i n question, and a k who conducted the empirical t e t requi red t o regard it as true. The an w er i N obody. Why then hav mo t conomics pro f r and their i mi tat r taught that assum ption as . elf-e i dent ever .
54
Political Philosoph
for two centuries . Presumably t hey taught it becau e th y leamt it at school. Indeed the trai ning of economi . t� i nvol es neither experi ment. nor scientific methodology. They leam econom ic theory a. i f i t were a branch of mathematic, -which it i . not, for i t claim. t o de. cribe the real world even while making unreal istic a" umption, about it ( See B unge 1 996a 1 998a . ) . Thi. situation . tarted to hange in recent ti me. , when a number of s ' ienti ts put th ' ' econom i c rational i ty" postulate to the te t, thus found ing the n 'w field of experimental or behav ioral 'conomic ( ee c.g., Dav i s and Holt 1 99 3 ) . A wcll - known re 'ult of thi s work i s that most busi n '. . nl 'n do not bchav ' a utibty m ax i m jzcr but rathcr, as ' ati s fic 'rs": Far from waiting for the id 'al deal to comc along they grab th ' fi r 't opportunity to makc a deal unlikely to y ield a 10 ( 'ce, e .g. M arch and S i mon 1 95 . U suaJly we ar ' forced to bargain [md . 'ule for th ' second-b . t sol ution. Only s ctarians remain pure, a. a consequ nce of which they r main pol i t ical l y m arginal . The more infectiou. a para. i te, the less effici ntly i t . pread. , becau. i t surround. its I f w ith a . h i Id of infected ho. t. that block its tran. m i ssion. M od ration. wheth r m icrobi al or pol i tical spreads fast r and w ider than xtremism. A nother batch of i mportant n gati reo ult. cam from Daniel Kah neman and h i s ·tudents. he 'e psychoeconom i 'ts have ' hown , among many other thing ' that people u ' uaUy get attached to their po . 'e ' ' i on " and keep them long after they have outlived thei r initial function. For in 'tance, 'hareholders tend to ' lick to their 'hare ' even a , their book val ue plummet '. I deologies and pol i tical allegi,mces tend to out l i ve whatever u 'efu l ness they may have had at birth. For e ample, the i dea that people ot w i th their wall t pIau ibl om d ade ago in France is at vari ance w i th th fact that nowaday . nearly erywh r . a l arge perc ntag of the poor vote for parti . that fa or big busine but know how to I i . The lat t de e lopment in x perim ntal conomic i . the tudy of th impact of moral 'entiment u h a· m pathy and ympathy, on economic lif . Some of th 010 t int re ting r earch on thi problem wa conducted by E rn t Feh r and h i col leagues at the I n titute for Empirical Re earch in Econom i c , i n the U n i ver i ty of ZUrich ( Fehr and Gachter 2000, Gin tis et a1 . 2005 They found that utter e l fi hness i the exception rather than the ru le. In fact, the human fam il y is j u t a aried a psychologist , soci ologi t and anth ropologi t had always know n . Be i de the rare egot i t and aints, there are reci procator and cooperator of everal type . In fact t he , t maj rity of us are re i pr cators while the rest are rati nal m ax imiz rs ." .
Citizen and Polity
55
Mo t P opic b ha e altrui tically a long a oth rs do the amc: th y practice quid pro quo. M o, t are aL 0 w i l l i n g to pun i . h those who do not reciprocate : They are "altruistic puni hers,' and are w i l l i ng to run the ri o k of punL her. for the good of al 1 (Henrich et a1. 2006 . Be. i des, mo. t people prefer entering cooperative venture. to goi ng i t alone : they tend to be . trong reciprocator. G i nti . 000 . Furthermore nearly al 1 of lL re, pect and tend to fa or people who have earned a reputation for g 'n 'rosity (Rock'nbach and M il i n ' k i 2006 ) . A nd nearly all of u de p i 'e and . hun free-loader. . I n ho11, the ba ic po ,tulate of al l rational-choice theories i fal e. We ar ' not nearly a sel fi ' h a ' economist , have painted u . . By contrast, chimp[mzces fit tandard econonlic ' Jensen et a1 . 2007) . T h i finding con fi nl1 the hypothe i s that fai rne " i uniqu 'ly human ( F 'hr [md Fi hbacher 2003 . B ut so i s cruelty. For b 'tter or for worse, both ar ' educable . •
Social cOl/dllcr
....
/ --
� �
ScJfish '" �(lk=
I'
ciprocal altruism
/800/, badforbad
(good for
R 'cipm ator �Strong
=
reciprocal altruism
+
. cooperatlOll
Alrrllisri
J<'ig. 2. 1 . Three types of social conduct
I t may wel l be, though . that the ordinary person behave. in al 1 of the abovementioned way. on d i fferent occa. ions. Tn particular, one'. con t ri bution to other people , welfare depends on , uch vari ables a. . ocial rel atedness, . ocial . en. i ti i ty, and perception of the need and worth of the rec i pient. M ore preci . ely, the total in e. tment in anyone s . oci al action m ay be conjectured to equal the sum of three term , :
C= r+ where r = expect d return e = quity parameter = d 'gree of social rel atedne III = moral comm itment
e. '
+
171,
5
Political Philosoph
The fou r variable arc ,L u med to rang between ° and 1 . The O 'ial rel atedne . . of a per. on to another, or to a soci al . ystem ha. not been defi ned but may be mea. u red by the time . pent in contact w ith it. The equity or . oci al . ensiti i ty parameter mea, ure. the i nten. ity of the subject s pro-. oci al or good w i l l atti tu de . Extreme al ues are c
c
Homo oe onomi u e = 111 = 0, hence C = r A ltruist e = 111 = I , hence C» r Recipr calor e » 0, m > 0 hence C > r.
H wever, since n ne of the i n d pendent ariable ha been w e l l defined, the above formu l a constitu t o n l y a . k t c h of a research proj ect. A con equence of the abov r u Its and sugge. t ion for pol itical sci ence i that m ateri al i n t re t explai n n l y p l it i ca l action. f e rtain k i nd . For i n tan e. they explai n re ource war but not why a large percentage of poor people vote for the i r enernie ; they explain why the rich are ob e ed w i th tax c ut . but not why orne wealthy people give genero u ly to charitie ; they expl ain why on the whole cap i tali rn h a fa ored c ientifi c re earch. but not why the religiou rj gh� which i fi ercely pro-capitaU t, fight evolutionary biology and tern ell reearch-and 0 on. in hort economic con iderati on explain much of pol itic but n vcr all of it. A ful l u ndeLtanding of pol i tic. i nvolve aL a moral ent i ment uch a y nl pathy and empathy a. well a i rrat ional ity, gullibility re p ct for unexam incd trad i tion, i deology, the c hari ma of onl lcadcL patriotism both genuine and rhetorical c lientc 1 i m, ot r i n t i midation and more. The heterodox fi nding. of experi mental economic. should ha e thei r stron ge, t i mpa t on p ubl i policy a n d governance. Tn fact, i f mo. t people are not egoist. but . trong rec i procator. , then the . tate can engage them in endeavor. of p ubl ic i n tere. t, from block watches and carpool. to par ern-teacher and anti-crime a . . oc iation. , such a. the Chi cago Alternati ve Pol icinCJ S trategy' l iteracy and voter regi. trati on campai gns· town hal 1 debate o n wa te iting and chool taxe . support for A mnesty i nterna tional and Do tors W i thout B order and so on. Th ' cconomi vi w of human nature ugge ts u p 'rv i ion and puni h m 'nt me haru m uch as fin i ng, jailing and executing characteri zed by both h igh '0 t and low effici 'n 'y. For exam p le the Time and robb 'ry rates roo ' s igni ficantl y i n the U ni ted tates u nder the adm i n istration of Georg W. B u . h along with th hardening of t h penal code effected by
66
Political Philosoph
An economy per se rai c no moral problem . I t i ju t a urvival tool. By contra. t, . ome markets, particularly the . l ave market, are con. i dered i mmoral becau. e they only thrive on human . uffering. The , tock market i. con. idered morally problematic becau, e a stockbroker can earn as m uch in one day a, a producer i n one year. Mu h the same can be . aid about the u nregulated capital i st m arket� that pro oked the moral indi gnation of the e arly so ial ist and . uch social noveli st. a, Charles Dicken. , E m i le Zola and M ax i m Gorky. Howe er let u go ba 'k to the basic d i i ion of 'ociety into four nuun sub y tems. The proposed distinction b 'tween the biolog ical , e onomi " pol it ical , and cultu ral , looks obvious but it is not general l y acc ·pted. I n fact, most students of society fo u on only one of th . sub ystems, and con- equently adopt 'ither a biological, economic, political or c u ltural paradigm a ' Tou rain ( 2005 ) would . ay. lnd ed, . ociobiolog i st. and vol utionary p. ychologi. ts try to reduce everything . ocial to the biological wherea. the sel f-. tyled economic i mperial i sts, or rational-choic theori sts beli eve that all h u man. fit the homo oe 'ol1omicus . chema. Oth r. adopt th OOIl POlilikofl mod 1; and . t i n other. the id al i. t. , try to reduce eryth i ng soc i al to i dea . . E ide ntl y e e ry one of the fou r school . offer. confirm ing e ample ' but overlook ' counterexamples. Only 'y 'te m i ,t ' try to do j u ' (i ce to all [ou r v iewpoint ' B u nge 1 979, 1 998, 2003 ). Ideally, all adu lts are m m ber ' o[ all [ou r 'ubsystem · . But in 'ome societi ' , particularly the underdeveloped one ' most i nd i iduals are exc luded from mo 't 'ub 'ystems. For example, recent i m m igrant ' may not belong to any biosocial 'Y'( m; the chron ically u nemployed have be n 1 ft out of the economy or m ay . u rv i ve only a caveng rs or beg gar. ) ; und r a di tatorship mo t citiz n are politically di. enfranchi d or u . ed a ' lectoral fodd r; and th u n ducat d have no acce to th h igher level of c u ltur . A progre i e pol itical movement m ay be haract rized as hav i ng a. it main goal the dec l i ne of marg inali ty of all k i nds: at protecting fami l i e , creating job , fa oring pol i t ical partic ipation. and faci l i tating the access to culture. Pol itical progre i v i m i identical w i th the promotion of m ultiple i nc l usion or partici pation. Corre pond i ng]y, con ervative and reactionarie favor the maintenance or i n crea e of exc ) u ion and margi nal i ty. The i mpact of the the i that every indivi dual i embedded i n oci al sy terns of diffi r n t k i nds and s izes, is that it contribute to explai n i ng b th the e ffe t f individual acti n n social w h I , and the way these shap individual aeti n . C n ider for example t h aggregate e ffec t of
58
Political Philosoph
Mor preci se l y the 0 iaL apita/ of a per on i the network of rel a tive. , friend. and acquaintance. on whom she m ay count for help of some ki nd, from obtaining inform ation to l and i n g a job. horter: Soc i al capital equal. connections. A word of warn i n g : , oci al capital should not be confounded w ith c ivi l society which i. the part of so iety . ubstantially free from . tate control . The expression pol i tical capital , often u. ed but seldom i f ever de fined, may be regard 'd as a palticul ar a e of ' so ' ia l capita l .' lnd 'cd, th ' political capital of an individual or political organization may be defi ncd a the network of citizen. w i l l i ng to ' upport the p 'r. on or organi zation in qu 'stion . uch capital w i l l mcrea. ' a new r 'cruits b 'lie " rightly or w rongl y that their int 'r 'st or 'ause tand to gain from the a ,tions of th ' poJ i t i al unit i n question ; and of course that capital w i l l de l ine i f fonller supporters fe I di. appointed. Of al l k i nds of capital pol itical capita l i. the hardest to accumulat honestly, and it i s the asiest to . quander. I n al l wal k s of l i fe a n w n t work formal or inform al , m rges wh n p opl ral l y around an i nnovator. I n pol i tic. thi s and a1 . 0 the conver. e may occur. A powerful network m ay make a 1 ader out of a nobody w i 1 1ing to serve i t, or break an auth ntic leader who i s either i ncorruptible or no longer u ·efu l . Occa ' ionally a ' ingle per 'on or party enact · both role ' at different t i me ' . For example i n 1 96 the C IA , acti ng on behalf of the oil network, backed the coup that i nstalled the Ba' ath Party, which buil t up a precociou ' a s 'a ' ' i n , Saddam H u . ' e i n w h o e enlually was made pre ' ident of I raq, a friendly dictator w ho was u l t imately toppled by the very same net work. Social lif . in part i c u l ar political action i . characterized not only by int rper onal rel ation . orne of which ar conflicti and other. coop erativ . It i ' al 0 marked by t n ' ion betw en p rson and ociety. i n particular b y confl ict. betw n individual and ocial i ntere t and alue , indi v idual right , and . oci a1 dutie. -that i . b tween what i ' good for th per. on and what i good for . oc i ty. No wond r then that, wher a om politjcal j deologie are individuali t other are hol i t, and t i l l other sy tem i t . I n particular l iberaH m j individuali t wherea totaHtarian i m , communitariani m and nationali m are holi t ; and the parti an of integral democracy practice y temi m-not to be confu ed w i th holi m For the y temic approach ee, e. g., Easton 1 95 3 ; B uckley 1 968; Emery ] 969 ' and B unge ] 979a. Becau e of the pers n-soci ty duality, any . 0 iety can be spl i t i nto two phere. ' or subsy tem s : private and public. It ha been clai med t hat there i no such plit i n prim it ive ocietie. but thi c laim is u ntru e . (E en
Citizen and Polity
59
i n pri. tine A m azoni
60
Political Philosoph
H obbes famou l y ,L u med that we ar a l l e l f-concerned , hence i n need o f stron g govern ment i f any . oei al goal . , particul arly per. onal sec u rity and peace, are to be attai ned. B ut, as we . aw in ection 1 , ex peri mental econom i . t, h ave falsifi ed H obbe, ' a, , u m ption. A . a pioneer in thi. field put it a con, t itution de, i gned for knaves tend. to drive out civi v i rtues ( Frey 1 997 : 44) . I n po, itive term s : People tend to cooper ate when they h ave a . take in the affair in que. tion and participate in it. adm in i . tration. The good citizen cares for the ommon good to the point of punishing antisocial behavior parti - ipating i n pol i tics and volunte 'ring in non-gov ernmental organization GO ) or civic a . 0 i ations. These have been particu larly acti v ' and effect ive for th ' pa t two centuries i n West 'rn Europe N orth Am 'rica, ,md el ewhere. At this writing they have been dec l ining in the U ni ted State 0 er the pa t thre ' decades, partly b 'cau ' the . tate support for the m ha. be n weakened, and partl y because of the increa. ed work demand. specially on women ( . e Andersen t al . 2006). B ut GOs are flouri. hing I . ewher , particularly i n the ex-Co m m un i st countries, wher non ex i st d before, Mo. t people , horizon. are rath r n arrow. Their curiosity i. ord i n aril y l i mited t o j ust rel ative, . friend, fenow workers, and n x t-door neighbors. Next come ' the public' , fa 'ci nation w ith th pri ate liv ' of celebri tie . as demonstrated by TV ratings and th 'ale ' of 'en 'ational tabloids. For example, Pre ' i dent C bnton s try ,t w ith M on ica Lew i n ' ky attracted far more attention and moral condenlnati on than any of hi ' poli t ical action " both good ,md bad. I n people ' w ith a low civic culture concern for nation and world comes far behind inte rest i n go ' 'ip and local affair ' , H owever, such ind i ff r nce abate i f the rul r ' . ucceed i n per u ading people that they ar und r attack . Som exampl . ar th Y l I ow p ril , R d care, M u s l i m terror, i llegal i mm i gration or v n-horror of horror ' !-gay marriag ombi ned w i th stem cel1 re. e arch . A nother factor that erode i v i c cultur i doubl allegiance, Thi oc cur. wh ne r ideology in particular r l igion . becom trong enough to divide societie or nation along rigid i deological l ine , For example, a Pew pol l conducted in 2006 showed that in the U nited S tate 429< of the peop le think of them e lve a hri tian first and citizen second, wherea in France 83� regard themsel e a French fir t . Paradoxically, hri tian fundamentali ts at 0 tend to be j ingoi t rather than ecumenical . Thi points to a eriou deficit i n American ci ic education, and it explain why rel i g ion play such an i mportan t role in contemp rary A rneri an p litics, by contra t to Europe J apan and Lat i n A rneri a. c
•
Citizen and Polity
61
O n l y M u l i m i ndo ' trination h a had a n even tronger political e ffect than fundamentali . t Christian i ty. For example, the . arne Pew pol l showed that 8 1 Oh of the B ritish M uslim. thi nk of themselve. fi r. t as fai thfu l , ec ond as Briti. h c i tizen. ; the correspondin g fi gure i n France i s 460h . This contrast may be explained by a di fference i n cultural margi nality. Wherea. the B ri tish Mu. l i m . came originally from area, without . tronCJ ties to the United K ingdom, the French M u. l i ms came from former French colonies, where Fr 'n h i. ,ti l l the second language-an int 'gration factor. W hat holds for pol it ical all 'gi ance also holds for moral standards. The Roma or gyp.ies a tateles peopl ' i ll u trate the moral aspe t of double all 'giance which i only worsen d by the host i l ity of the ho t country. It has been noted that, wh 'r ' they ar ' strongl y di c ri m inated again t, the Roma practic ' a double nloral standard: rigorou for their interaction s w i th fel low gypsie ' and l ax for i nt 'ractions with the re t . e . .g., M artInez-Selva 1 98 1 . or i s moral tribal ism l im i ted to m arginal group . . I n fact it fl ar . up in e ry international conflict. N ormal l y rational , kind h igh-m i nded. and l aw-abiding i ndividual . can suddenly become irrational , cm I and w i l d t ribe. m n when th ir pol itical leaders, t he pr� s, or profe. SOT. at elit universities as. u re them that a gi n nation is justi fied in attacking another. i n retaliating again ·t a hostile group, or ven in tort uring 'uspect '. In 'uch c i rcum ·tance " tho 'e 'ame normal ly kind people 'uddenly forget that all aggre 'sion i ' c ri m inal ; that revenge i ' barbaric and counterproductive ; that even terrori ·t . are entitled to legal defen 'e; and that there i . a huge difference between a handful of ' uicide bomber ' and a powerful army in the service of a rapacious if sel f-styled democratic go ernment. They also tend to forget that as rael Chi f J u t ice Barak tated in J 999 wh n some ra Ii soldi r ' were brought to justice for ha i ng tortured Arab pri 'oner . 'Thi i the d . tiny of democracy as not all mean. are acceptable to i t and not all practice ' mployed by i� en rni es are open b fore it" ( in Sands 2005 : 209 . U nder democratic rule, the c i v i l soci ty i tak n for granted. It. impor tanc is only r alized w h n thr atened by dictator h i p ' and when th are topp led-whence the popularity of the very concept in Eastern Europe i nce 1 989. Finall y, in the i n terstice between the civil ociety and the tate, there is the un i il ociety : the one compo ed of c ri mi nal of ari ou sizes, from pickpoc ket , embezzler , reckless financier , predatory corporation , and mal1 - cale m u rderers to war monger , mercenaries terrori t , tort u rer . and ecocide . W hereas all democracies rec gnize and protect the private phere all totalitarian i m -whether se u l ar or thea ratie left or right-reje t
62
Political Philosoph
the private/public d i tinction render the i nd i idual a mere s r ant of the state, and attempt to find out and cont rol what their , u bject. feel, think, and i n tend to do. A. M u ssol i n i and h i s mini. ter of edu ation, the neo H egelian philo. opher Giovann i Gent i le 1 975 . w rote in 1 93 2 . "for the Fa�ci . t everythi n CJ i . i n t h e S tate, and nothing h uman o r spiri tual exist. , m u h Ie . . ha. al ue, out. i de the S tate. In this . ense Fa. ci. m is total itar ian.' L i t tle wonder that u nder total i tarian i . m c i tizen. are encouraged to spy and report on one other, and children arc r 'ward 'd for denoun ing th 'ir parents. I n th ' course of 2006, th ' Pre ident of the U ni ted S tates an null 'd hundreds of laws prot 'cting pri vacy and c i i1 rights, and adm itted that hi government had been spying on m illion ' of thei r subje t '-for th 'ir own protection, of 'ours '. Very �'w profe or of political 'ci 'nc ' prote ' t d. I t i not known whether their silence wa ' due to ympathy, prudence or indif�'r 'n , to real- l i fe pol itic . . A pol ity, or pol i t ical commu n it y i . t he . ubsyst m o f a public . phere whose component s hav the pol i tical right. and duti s speci fied by the ( formal or i nformal poli t ical rul s or norm. of th publ ic . pher in qu s tion. U nd r democracy thes norms i nc l ude t h rights to "l i f . l i b rty and the pursui t of happin s. , ' as wen as to vote and run for public offie . and the duty to abide by th law of t h l and. The right to private property of good ' of certain kinds i . guaranteed, but al '0 r 'tricted, in al l ·ocietie ' . More i n Chapter 3 Section 4 . The ba ' i c right , and dutie . o f the indi iduaJ i n a 'oci t y a t a g iven time are ord inari ly ' peci fied by a con ,titut ion. A l t hough consti t u tion ' are someti me ' pr 'en ted as sacred and abo v politic ' , real ist · know t hat they are hi 'torical product · of pol i tical ' t ruggle ' and compromi 'e ' . F rdi nand L a aI le put i t. w i t h Max Weber s approval . constitutional i ' 'ue ' ar at bot tom q u · t ion · of power: and writt n con t i t ut ion ar ju t printed matter unle they accurat ly r pr nt th pr vai li ng power rel ation . H nc e ry radical political change i . bound to call for 'om con 'titu t ional reform . T h i hold , in particular for t h d i m i nution, exacerbation, or rn a king of ocial i nequalities, uch as gender or ethnic d i crim i na tion, and the real (a di tinct from t he formaJ) ability to run for publ ic office. For example, the pri nd ple of i onomy ( or equality before the law h i ft al l the biological econom ic, and c u l tural inequal itie to the pri ate phere . A Anatole France wrote a century ago, "The law, in i t i n fi n i te w i dom, give everyone, whether poor o r rich the right t o leep u nder the Pari bridge . '
Citizen and Polity
63
Three example may iBu trate the the i that legal equal ity may nlac k rather than el i mi nate . oci al i nequ i tie. . I T n 1 85 7 the go e rn me n t of Ecuador awarded c i t i ze rL h i p to a l l I nd i a n s . H e n cefort h the market took 0 er the l abor . upply, which u n t i l then h a d been reCJ u l ated by the gO ern ment. It took one ce ntury for the I n di an oice to reach the p u b l i c domai n . Con. equently the com pl ai n t� of the I ndian. were . h u n ted to the pri ate . phere . ( Tn 1 962 th i . writer w i tne . . ed a h u ge mas. demon tration by 0 havalo I nd ia n i n Qu i to carry i n g post 'rs read i ng 4 j A bajo el feudalismo ! " ) 2 The B razi l ia n sugar and cotton p l an ter ' benefi ted from the abo l ition of s l avery in the 1 8 Os becau e henceforth they had to pay t h e i r l abore r o n ly d u ri ng the plan t i ng and harves t i ng sea 'ons-wage that w ere far i n f 'rior to the c o ' t of h o u s i ng 'lot h i ng and f 'edi n g the m th ' year round . Thi s i w h y many of the fr 'dnlen, upon been ' icted from t he fa .endas, took u p arm. deman d i ng th r t u rn to , l av ry. ( 3 ) Our fi nal x a mp l e is the pol i tical nfranc h i s ment of women in m any coun tri e , duri ng the t w n t i th century. Th i . pol it i cal ad ancement, though i mportant, ha. not el i m i nated de facto patriarchy. Wom n are . ti l l far from enjoy i ng t h . am conomic and cultural statu. a. men: the glass cei l ing is . t i l l th reo Tn . hort. isonomy and ful l c i tizen. hip do not op n th doors to workplac . 'chool , or church: t hey are useful only as tool ' for fighting for i ntegral 'oeial reform. So far w have be n u ' ing the intuitive concept ' of individual i ' m , holi 'm and ·ystem i ' m . It i s t i me t o l ucidate them , becau 'e t h y are central to social p h i lo ·phy. 3. I n dividualism H o l isnl and .. ystemism
Th r are thre m ai n i W ' conc rni ng the part-whol rel ation: i n d iv iduali m . hol i ' m and 'y tem i m . I ndividuali t , focu on the part hol i t on whol " and ' y t m i t · deal at one w ith whole and their part . Actual l y, individuali m and holi m are m u h mor than 'ocial philo 'ophi '. U nbeknow n t to mo t of th ir u pholder . they are entir world iew . I n deed, each of them ha many face : logical, semantical epistemological, ontological, ethical, and more B unge 2003a . I ubm i t that a U o f these face are p lai n o r e e n ugly when looked at eparately becau e everythi ng, except for the unive r e a a whole, i related to omething el e; and becau e ome interaction lead to the emergence of upraindi idual y tern endowed with bu lk ( emergent) properties
64
Political Philosoph
that their component l ack-for in tanc nation that arc mor or Ie cohe. ive and cooperate or compete as whole. with one another, though of cour, e through i ndi i duaL representing them rather than a t i n g on thei r own . In soci al , tudie" individual i. m i . the view that� a s M argaret Thatcher put it, "there L no , uch thing a. . ociety : there are only i ndividuals.' "There no sen tences, onl y letter, that can be combined.' And yet, no s 'riou . oe ial e ienti t ean help i nvestigate . y 'tem 'u -h as fami l i ' . , finn- , s -hools, and nation ; a k what hold their omponent together or what puU ' th 'Ill apmt· and look for the corre. ponding bul k or systemi - propcrti ' . The rca on i that hUIllan i ndividual arc studied by orh 'r di ipli n '. , u h a. biology and psy -hology. A nd 'ven the e tudy indi idual ' in their ocial context : the per on as child or parent 'mploy 'r or eIllploy " con. umer or uppli 'r citizen or ruler, and 0 on . Thu ' those science explain, for ins tance why disempowered individual. are more stre. sed and th refore more . u. c ptibl to . ickne . . than other. . and why people in certain . oci a] strata take poli tics more (or I " at heart than p rsons in oth rs. The oppo. ite of individual ism i . of course hol i . m ( or col 1ecti i. m ) . Bolist. . t art from soci al whole. and seem to b lie e, with Ari.totle, that whole. are prior to t h ir i nd i idual compon nt. , rat h r t han e merg i ng as a result of i nteraction ' among indi iduals. They also tend to attri bute whole ' certai n trai t , that only i ndividual ' can po ' 'e " ' uch a ' having inter ·ts and goal . , virtues and v ice . , among other thi ng ' . Holi ' m , or structural- functional i ' m ; wa ' t he dominant 'ocial ontology when Talc ott Parsons ( 1 95 1 dominated the d i scipline in the U n i ted S tates, But i t i . currently unpopul ar i n all t he 'ocial 'cience ', where rdd ically individuali ,t theorie" . uch a ' neoc l a . . ica] m icroeconomic. and other rational choic model , that t ak I f-r gard i ng b ha ior for granted pre ail . Such x c l u iv fo u on i ndividual i n t r e t . h a. pr vented 'ocial scienti t from und r tandi ng the ry e x i t n e of ocial ' y tem . In parti u l ar it i pre nting mo t pol itologist. from u nder t andi ng why a many young and abl M u l i m ' around th world are w i lling to . acrifi c t h e m e ive w h i l e at the a m e t i me m urdering innocent by stander . i n fi del and fai thfu l alike . These elf- tyled martyr belong to network of individual who e uppermo t loyalty i to a comm un ity of bel i evers that has been oppre ed di possessed and h um i l i ated by ruthie armi e of 'infi del ' intere ted only in land, water or oil that i not their . Tho e sel fte a assi n are victi m of a fierce com m u n a l i m un w i tt in g l y stre ngth ned by t h e greedy ( and u l t im atel y tupid ) occupier. Their sac rifice puzzle u becau e we in the o-called West are expected t be
Citizen and Polity
65
rugged i ndividuali t -and do not have ,L much faith i n the afterlife . We also feel c ulturally closer to the Crusaders than to thei r haple . . victi m s . Thi . i . the moral e ffec t o f radical individuali . m al lousne, s. I n addition to i ndividual i s m and hol i . m there i . s y . tem i . m, t h e iew that i ndividual s group together into . y. terns posse. . inCJ bulk (or emer gent propertie. . uch a. cohe. ion, i ab i l i ty_ d i i. ion of l abor, . ocial . trati fication, and . oei al order. I n poli tical m at ters, wherea. i nd ividual i st , and holi. ts oppo , the individual to the tate . y tCl11i ts i ntcrpol ate mesoso -ial . y tcm- bctwcen thcl11- uch a fam il ie ' ,md clans, gangs and parties, lub ' and u nions, and so on. A nd they e 'k to identify the divi 'iv ' a w '11 a ' thc u n i fy i ng traits. S ec Figur ' 2 . 2 . Mel mso 'ial Me 'OSo ial
M icrosocial Fig. 2.2. I ndhriduals group into mesosocial systems ( families gangs firms union , etc.) which in turn join to form higher-level systems federations towns, etc.).
1 submit that the m
t basi or oarsest d i v i ion f any s ciety i that between its b iological cono m ic pol i ti cal and u l tu ral . ubsy terns. The bond that join i nd i idual into b i 0 ial sy terns ar kin hip and . ym pathy ; the mechani m characterizing an e nomi sy tern are produc tion and trade' a poli tical . ystem i hara terized by g emance and the truggle for power- and a c u ltural ystem or cultu re in the ociol g ical en e, not the anthropological one i a group of people uni ted by the u e of cultural i te m , uch a l anguage and a bel ief y tern . Parenthetically, we houl d recal l a di tinc tion that, though elernen tary. i often 0 erlooked w hen i t come to the econorny. the market, and capita l i rn. Every ociety, however backward, ha an economy. e en i f i t only con i t o f gathering, hunting. and bartering. An ocietie have rnarket too, even if they i nvolve the practi e of bartering in tead of u s i ng money to e l l and buy. By contra t capitalism i. modem. It did not emerge u nt il the fifteenth c ntury, and then only i n the form of conl mercial capitali m a fi rst pract iced by V nice, Genoa, Pi a Florence and a few oth r republic B raudc1 1 982). I ndu t rial -apitali m e merged only toward the eighteenth century fue led by the team engine and also oddl y by the lav trade.
66
Political Philosoph
An economy per se rai c no moral problem . I t i ju t a urvival tool. By contra. t, . ome markets, particularly the . l ave market, are con. idered i mmoral becau. e they only thrive on human . uffering. The , tock market i. con. idered morally problematic becau, e a stockbroker can earn as m uch in one day a, a producer in one year. Mu h the same can be . aid about the u nregulated capital i st m arket� that pro oked the moral indi gnation of the e arly so ial ist and . uch social novel ist. a, Charles Dicken. , E m i le Zola and M ax i m Gorky. Howe er let u go ba 'k to the basic di i ion of 'ociety into four nuun sub y tems. The proposed distinction b 'tween the biological , e onomi " pol itical, and cultu ral , looks obvious but it is not general l y acc ·pted. I n fact, most students of society fo u on only one of th . sub ystems, and con- equently adopt 'ither a biological, economic, political or c u ltural paradigm a ' Tou rain ( 2005 ) would . ay. lnd ed, . ociobiologist. and vol utionary p. ychologi. ts try to reduce everything . ocial to the biological wherea. the sel f-. tyled econom ic i mperi al i sts, or rational-choic theori sts believe that all h u man. fit the homo oe 'ol1omicus . chema. Oth r. adopt th OOIl POlilikofl mod 1 ; and . tin other. the id al i. t. , try to reduce erything soc ial to idea . . E ide ntl y e e ry one of the fou r school . offer. confirm ing e ample ' but overlook ' counterexamples. Only 'y 'temi ,t ' try to do j u ' (ice to all [ou r v iewpoint ' B unge 1 979, 1 998, 2003 ). Ideally, all adu lts are m m ber ' o[ all [ou r 'ubsystem · . But i n 'ome societi ' , particularly the underdeveloped one ' most i nd i iduals are exc luded from mo 't 'ub 'ystems. For example, recent i m migrant ' may not belong to any biosocial 'Y'( m; the chronically u nemployed have be n 1 ft out of the economy or m ay . u rv i ve only a caveng rs or beg gar. ) ; und r a di tatorship mo t c itiz n are politically di. enfranchi d or u . ed a ' lectoral fodd r; and th u n ducat d have no acce to th h igher level of c u ltur . A progre i e political movement m ay be haract rized as hav ing a. it main goal the dec line of marg inality of all kinds: at protecting fami lie , creating job , fa oring pol i tical participation. a n d fac i l itating the access to culture. Pol i tical progre ivi m i identical with the promotion of m ultiple i nc l usion or participation. Corre ponding]y, con ervative and reactionarie favor the maintenance or i ncrea e of exc)u ion and marginal i ty. The impact of the the i that every i ndividual i embedded in ocial sy terns of diffi r n t k i nds and sizes, i s that i t contribute to explaining b th the e ffe t f individual acti n n social w h I , and the way these shap individual aeti n . C n ider for example t h aggregate e ffec t of
Citizen and Polity
67
voti ng one of the i mplest pol i tical actionc and the way i t L i n fl uenced by central authoritie . . MacIV MicIV
ovcrnmcnt chang"
i
Voting
�
Ncw l aw 'cw attitud"
Fig. 2.3. Individual action when multiple. tan impact meso and matroentities. which in turn can a lter ub equent indhridual action.
otice the d i fference betw en oci al sy tem and i n st i tu t ions. A pruticular fami l y i s a rnemb r of the i n tituti n called 'family,' and a pruticulru' st re bel ng. in the i n st itution called "co mmerce." I n g neral an i nstitution m ay be defined a the fami l y of all the s i al . y terns that perf m1 the same pec i fi c fun t ion -thos that n other . y tern perform . Soc ia l y tern are to in titution what organi m are to their peci e . Wherea oci al y tem are ju t a concrete (or m ateri al a phy i al y tern , in t i tution are fictitiou , but of cour e not heer fan ta ie -i ndivi dual i t notwith tanding. Like bio pecie , in titution are real i tic but not real . A l l tudent of ociety fa e the indi iduali mlhoU ml y tern i m trl lemma. ot only poU tical ienti t but al 0 poli t ical phi lo opher and c tatc. men policymakers and pol itical activL ts face thL trilemma. Take for in tance the foll ow i ng i c ue . 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Lib rt)' lndi idual i s m : unre tricted . H o l i . m : M i n imal . stemism: freedom to d hate er does not jeopardize membership i n desirable S ia1 . y. tems. Equa/it lncli iduali m : legaJ and poli t i aL. H Ii m : i l l u ory. Sy tem i � m : biolog i 'al , e c nomic, cultural . and p l i ti al Private prop rl) I lldividuali s m : acr a n t . H o l i 111: s a ro an t right w i ng or l i mi ted t hou ehold g ods l e ft- w i nJ . Systemi:m: pri ate hou ehold go ds , cooperati e me�ms of pr du t ion and ex 'hange , and . tatc-control lcd publ ic good ). PlIbli ' Joods. Indi idualism: None. Holi m: all 0\ ned and managed by the . tatc . S ystcmism: thc s tate owns and managcs only and all thc trategic good , such a land , n n-rene\vable natural resource , and i n fra tructurc . Slale lndiv idual i 111 : nonc Icft- w i ng l ibcrtariani. m r m i n i mal ri ght wing l i b rtarianism . H o l i m: max i mal. . y temi m: l i m i ted t th management f indi i � ible public go d s . Taxation Individual i m : o n l y o n good a n d to fund eCllrity. Holi m : n both i n 'ome and goods, and to fund t he t talitarian state . System i ' m : n l y on i ncomc and to fund t h e managcmcnt o f public good. .
68
Political Philosoph
7.
Edu ati
11
I n d i i d ua l i m : left t o each p r o n ' s r sour e . H o l i m : i n
charne o f the slate. S Y ' le m i s m : i n c harge o f the
GO . Health are I nd i
tate and
ompetent
idual i s m : 0 I i ered exclu i ely by pri ate profession
a l and c 1 i n i , . H o l i m : del i ered e x ' l u i v e l y by t h e tate. S y . tem i s m : De l i ered b y profcs. i o nals, pri a t e c l i n i cs a n d stat funded and
uper · Led by the state the
War and peae I n d i v idual i . m : E ery n a tj o n for i tself 111 : th mo, t pow rfu l n at i on s h a e the ri ght to
H Ii
weaker lj - n.
1 0.
0
ne . Sy t e m i
hosp i ta l s . but
anad i an mode l ) . i . olationi m ) . dom i n ate the
reg i nal hI c� and u l t i mately w rId federa
111 :
r at l east rl bal g veman e .
ialjllstice I ndiv iduali
m : charit . . Hol i s m : t h e tate e i t her m anage a
m i n i mal ,' afely net to keep the ' u bj e ts conte n ted or determi nes wages and carn i n g
rcgardlcs
of prod uc t i v i ty. Sy te m i m :
cial ju. ticc i
the 'oncem of everyone and of e ery soc i a l . ystem; t he o n l y fu nction of thc · tatc i ' to sce to it that a l l the systems operate i n such a way that the basi c need ' of e cr onc bc met. that e e ryone's leg i t i m ate ambi t ion
will be rea l i zed, and that
the comm n go d ; and t y tern
moti vated only b
e ryone con tribute, his fai r s hare to
pre e n t the acc u m u l ati n
f weal t h in a few
pri ate profit.
The above l ist ' hould m ake a ' trong case for the centrality of ontology to poli t ical philo ·ophy. And yet the very word "ontology" hardy occu r ' i n our d i ciplin . 4. Sociodhrersity
Poli tic i ' about m anag i ng h terog n i t y : about e i th r securing or controlling ocial divi ion ' . W hat di ide people� Belonging to differ ent group. -e.g., for havi ng i ncompatibl i nt re ts and knowing about them . And what unites people . B e longing to the same grou p-e.g., for hav i ng the arne or complementary i ntere t and know ing about them . W hat promotes ocia] i ntegration . M i xing group instead o f ghettoizing them, and faci Htat i ng ocial mobi l i ty. And what makes a ociety u tai n able? Combin ing cohesion w i th efficiency. The preceding the e look obviou . However, ju t i fy i ng them i a tal l order. 1 w i l l only t ry to l arify them and i n parti u l ar t e l u idate and int rrelat the key concept i nv l ved in them. The pres n t se tion and the next m ay be regarded as u pplements t both my own mathematical analy i s of so i al tructure B u nge 1 974a; G arcia-S u 11 and B u nge 1 976 and B lau ' cIa i c tudy of i nequ al i ty and h terogeneity B l au 1 977 . Every c iety however prim i t i e is notori usly divided int a number of group . Think. for in tance. of ex . age, ethnic i ty, oc u pation, i ncome bracket , educational achi e ernent, rel i giou allegiance, and poli t ical ori-
Citizen and Polity
69
e ntation . Whereas mcnl bcLhi p i n c omc group i by b irth i n otheL it i s b y choice. A . ociety w ith a large n um ber o f di . tinct social group, m ay be . aid to be characterized by a h i gh heterogeneity or . ociodiversity. The emergence of civ i l i zation and the Indu, trial Revol ution were accompa nied by . ociodi er. ity explo. ion, . And democrati zation i. accompan ied by a ri o e i n the ratio of electi e member, h i p to forced membe rship. B y contra. t 1 the decline o f the ancient c i v i l i zations wa. accompanied by dra. ti ' . hri nk i ng i n . o i odiver. ity and decl i n ' in opportun i t ie. to ' hoose group member 'hip. W hereas ome oci al groups are m u tu a l ly exc l u ' ive other partly o e rlap. Furthermore, wherea i n some 'ocietie the bar ri 'r. among son1 ' social groups of th ' same kind (e.g. economic ) are imp 'rn1eable, in others th 'y are porou . . That i , different societies ar ' ohara 'te ri red by d i fferences in soci od i ersity and mobil i ty. Cons qu 'ntly th 'y are also characteri zed by different d grees of cohe. ion. We . hall try to defi ne the. traits. B ut before doing . 0 w mu. t lucidat th notion of sociodiver. i ty. th . oci al analog of biodi er. i ty. [n th . i mplest case, that of a commun ity split i nto j u st two . ocial group. the degre ? of sodal difJ.?�?nliation of S may be defi ned as th r l ative n umber of p opl who fai l to b long to both group. at t he . am t i m . ( More formally, call i ng A and B the two groups in que ·tion, we define th ir relati e d i fferentiation as LiB I / N wher /j, ·tand ' for the 'et-theoretic symmetric d i fference of the 'et ' A and B and N for the popu lalion of S. For the general ca 'e of a 'ociely spl i t into a large n u m ber of more or Ie ' . homogeneous social groups, we need a more 'ophi ·ticated mea ' ure, a ' wel l a ' a c lear explicit criterion of 'ocial division. Let us e how on may proceed . A oci al group l i ke any oth r k i nd o r 'peci may b e defin d b y one o r m o r trait or propertie . . I n t h ' hard ' c i nce" one may pick well-d fined pr d icat . uch a ' atom ic n u m ber, al nce or mode of r production. By contra t in the ' oft ' ci nce one u u al l y g t. hold of a 'alient if om what fuzzy trait . in i ther ca. e one forms the equi va lence) cia of al1 the i ndividual po e i ng the trait in que tion. Let us recal l how thi i done. Con ider two indi idual caned a and b, that share a given prop rty P, although they are bound to differ in other re pect E en if we do not have an exact de cription of P, we may ha e a criteri on al low i ng u to tate that the indi idual a and b are equivalent w i th respect to P, or P quival n t f r sh rt. I n standard y m bol a p b. .
-
70
Political Philosoph
Next we exam i ne the entir population S i n que tion, and fonn the subset of i t that i ncl ude al l the P-equ i valent i ndi i duals. For example, poli tics . pl i ts any . oci ety S i n to a n umber of . ubgroup. of i ndividua1 . with the . arne pol itical orientation . uch a . left, center, and right. One says that the equ i valence relation ", ame poli tics ' i nduces the partit ion of i n to a certai n n umber It of equ i valence cla . . es, namely al 1 the (form al or i nformal pol i tical groups in the given so iety at the given time. One may w rite S /- f = { Cl , 2 " " CJ } , wh 're thc ; arc the cqu i al 'nc ' cia '. in question. Thi ' paltition nlaY bc i uali z 'd a a pie hart. A nd the whol , fam i ly of partition induccd by In d i ffcrcnt equi al 'n 'c r 'lations may bc i magi ncd a a tac k of fll pie c harts. Thi s 'ocial cia 'sification has two d i mensions: horizontal fi ncn ' . of d istinction and vertical (number of di t ingui 'hin g traits . I n g neral t h e i t h q uivalenc r l at ion w i l l i nduc t h e part i tion of S i nto n cel 1 . S i wh r i i s t h e a . pect or trait b ing con. id red ( i .e., a l' particular pie c ha rt), and .i names a sector of that particul ar pie. We can keep trac k of the d i i sion of soc i ty into various social group. by recording them in mat ri x form. Con. id r fi r. t th particular type. of division . uch a. by economic cla . . , pol i tical affi l i at ion. ethnic ity and . 0 on. Suppo 'e there are In of t hese type ' of divi sion u nder consideration, which we label di w i th i run n i ng from I to m . Ne t, we note the variou . subc ategori ' within each of the ' divi -ions. For example, th econom i c cla ' 'e ' c a n b e 'pht i n t o low, m iddl and upper; t he pol itical ones into Con 'er ative, Liberal, Social i ·t, and Indifferent; the eth n iciti . into ab origi nal and i nlmigrant, and ' 0 on. S uppo 'e t hat for each type of divi si on d, here are Il ; uch ubcategorie , and let IZ b the m ax i mum of the ' Il l " Then we can ummarjze our anal y · j of the m mb r ' h ip of a ociety by the m x n m atrjx D = I SIJ. ! . In our exampl . thi m atrix j .
Lower Con. ervative Aboriginal
M iddle L iberal I m m ig rant
U pper Sociali t
o
o
o
I ndiffer nt
where 0 tand for the e mpty cel l . ote that the entrie i n thi m atrix are group of p ople not n u m ber . For the mathematjcs of et m at rice ee B unge 1 974a . ) I n urn t h e analy i o f t h e member h i p o f a ociety i n to m respect b it down to forming the m x n matr i x D = 1 5;j- ' Thi may b c al l d the qualitative dh er if) matrix f the ciety. A nd the n u mb r d = m. 1l may be regarded as t h degree ofsociodi ersi!) . Sjne the c hoice of the
Citizen and Polity
71
n um ber In o f respe -ts depe nd. l argely u pon the i ntere t s and abi li ty of the analy. t . orne elements of D are bound to be empty. o far, thi s h as been a purely q ual itative exerci. e. H owever, given . u i table . tati. tical data, fOnll ing the quantitat i ve cou nterpart of D is a routine tao k. I ndeed, al l we ha e to do i s to count the n umber i . of people in ea h cell S,)' and divide it by the total number P of people in the society S. We thue get the quantitativ div rsity matrix � = ( 1 IP ) [N ..] . u Thi matri x i an In X n array of fraction . Let u finally g l i mp ' at the oncept of a social c lass fi r 't brought to the fore by M arx ,md Eng ' l ' i n their m 'morable ommunist Manife to of 1 848, ,md d i stingui hed from that of tatus by Weber 1 922 . For example, the 'tatus of white-collar work'r i ' h igher than that of blue col lars although both groups are pccie ' of the working- -la genus. Sti l l , m o . t American . oci al . c ienti. t. hav either i gnored th concept of cIa . . or confu , ed i t w ith that of , tatu , ( B u n ge 1 99 a; han and Goldthorp 2007 . Yet i t i s q u i t obvious that occupation, are grouped into . ocial cIa . . es. wh nce the form r are rel iable i ndicators of the l att r. For i n . tance i n m o , t soc i ties th ruling class is composed of th executive. o f big corporations, landown r , and ranch r s or th i r mod r n counterpart. . agribu 'ine ' , C EO ' ) banke r ' , and rentier ' . S u rely the 'e people are not in the 'ame social cia ' , as the i r employee ': th ir i ncome, I j fe ,tyle, and pol j tical clout are far ' uperior tho ' o f their 'ubord i nate ' and ' 0 are their a 'set ' and l i fe xpectancies. There fore, as ari zny 2003 : 2 1 7 put i t, we 'hould "wr , t the concept of cla ' ' i n terest ' from the dyi ng clutche ' of M arxi ' m" ( See also G iddens and H ld ed ' . 1 98 2 ; W ri ght ed. 005 . To i gnor cIa d i ff r nc . i s j u , t a s w rong a hol d i ng that o n l y uch d i ff r nee ' matt r in both daily l i fe and i n 0 ial ' c i nee. Ignoring th variou. ' tation in lif ' i n daily matter can cau offen e and creat po ible reaction from . nubb i ng to puni 'hment for in ' ubordination . And i gnoring them whi l doing . ocial re earch amount. to overlooking trikes riot , pea ' an t revolt . and oci al re olution , a w 1 1 a. variou mecha ni m of ocial control and ocial rel ief from giv i ng aIm and promi i ng j u tice i n the afterl i fe to beat i ng up labor organi zers, and replac ing democracy with dictatorship. Socia] cla e are not M arxi t i n ention : their emergence i coeval with that of civili zation. W hat i characte ri stic of M arxi m i the thesi that c ia t ruggle i the engine of history. While this the i ha an i mportant grain of t ruth, i t faH to g ive proper c redi t to ther ngine. f 0 ial c hange such a. r i alri over natural re ourc technol g ical i nno ati n and the pread f l iteracy. Worse, the thesi of the prima y of cla, leads t exa erbating the u Ithe m spli t, and exhorting
72
Political Philosoph
to cla s . ol idarity when appeal i ng to common i n tcrc ts and patrioti m mi ght be more effective-and less conducive to iolence. The thesi s al so ignore. the fact that becau. e mo. t people do not "de fine them. elve. exclu, i ely or even pri mari l y in economic tenn s, they do not align them. elve. pol i tical l y the way M arxi. t� u. ed to think. Thu . A me rican . teelworker, and tru kers d o not . e e them . el e s a . member. of the work i n g cIa . . , and are more l i kely to identify w i th touCJh-talking m il l ionairc s w ·aring jcan. and w indbreaker than with educated l i beral ' in u its. I n pobtic and m ark ·ting, appcarance tru mps r ·al i ty. 5. Participation and 10bi l i ty
The sou rcc of all so 'ial strife i the u. vs. thcm spli t . I n L u i on m ak > , for i n t >gration and ' L u ion for ·onft ict. The m chani - TIl at the m j cro. oci al Ie el i . thi. : I f an individual is allowed to participat in the act i v it ies of a e rtain group h w i l l not oppos it. By contra. t , h w i l l t n d to . hun o r e v n fi g h t whate er group xc1ude. h i m . I n oth r words: Participation-part i c u l arly c ooperation-u n i tes. where as m argi nal i ty divid . . I n particular, participation of any k ind-i n the economy, the c u lture, or th pol i ty-induce. the acqu i . i t ion or reinfore m nt of the ruling ideology. in particular b lief in the I gitimacy of the soc ial order. Such shared belief ' w i l l di 'courage reb Il ion . It i . only wh n the di 'crep ancy between i deal s or m y th · and real i ty become ' obviou " that people start to doubt received opinion , prole ·t again ·t 'them; and eventual l y w i 'h for regime change. Participation i ' t h e cement of 'ociety, wherea . marg inal ity generate ' 'ocial stri fe or apathy. It i ' therefore i mportant to c lari fy the concept · of participation and i t dual, that of marg i nali ty. Let u con ider two arbi trary ocial group" A and B i n a giv n . oe i ty. Th d gree of participation of th A i n B . aet i v it i e or p(A,B), may be ' t equ al to th n umero.ity of the i nter ec tion of the 'e� A and B d i vided by the popul ation of B. Likew i ' . th d gree of participation of the B . in A activiti m ay b equ ated to th n umero ity of the rune i n ter eetion divid d by th popul at ion of A. I n standard y m bol . .
p(A,B) = IA
n
BI / IBI p B,A ) = IA
n
BI / IA I ,
where n symbol i ze logical inter ection , and IA n BI the degree of overlap between the et A and B. The generabzation of the e formu lae for an arbi trary n u mb r f social gr ups i left t th reader.
Citizen and Polity
73
Corre pondi ngly, the marginality of the A 's w i th regard to B is the complement of p A, B ) to u n i ty while the marCJi nal ity of the B's with reo pect to A i . the complement of p( B, A ) to unity. I n ob ious . y m bo\ . ,
m (A , B ) = 1 p(A , B), m(B, A ) = I p (B, A ) -
-
Clearly, the val ue. of the two p . and the two m . l i e between ° and 1 . Zero and 1 COlT ' pond to nil [md total parti ipation (or marginal it y ) respecti ely. The standard m e a u re of i ncome i nequali ty namely the G i n i i nd 'X, can double as ,Ul i ndi cator of economic marg i nali ty. A noth 'r such i ndicator i s the rate of u ne mployment. L i kewi e , voting turnout i . an i ndicator o f pol i tical parti i pati on , ,Uld the n umber o f schooling y 'ar. i nd icate cultu ral partic ipation. ext I po. i t that th d gree of global participation i n a two-ti r soci ety q uaIs the a erag of th two degrees of participation: 1t
Th
=( 1 /2 rp(A.B) + pCB A )l
xtreme cases are
Total in lusion A = B, p(A , B) = p(B,A ) = 1 1t = 1 Total exclusion A (l B = 0 p(A , B) = p(B,A ) = 0,
1t
=°
The fir ' l ca 'e i ' exem p l ified by the ' mall Amazonian and Inuit tri bes, where the only ' igni ficant divi ' ion ' are biological sex and ag ) . The cond ca. i that of the ca · t 'Y tern. M od rn soc i tie ar in beh¥een tho ' two extr me . Th gen ralization of the previou formula. to an arbitrary number of oci al groups i straightforward , Let u next tackl another factor of coh ' ion: mobil i ty. S oc ial mobil i ty i of our ' the abi l i ty to move betwe n ocial group . Mobil i ty may be either horizontal hangi ng 0 cupation or v rtical ( moving upward or down ward in a tratifi ed odety ). I ubmit that so c ial mob i l ity of both kind contri bute to oci a l cohe ion becau e the i nd i idual w i th opport u n i ti e . in tead of resenting social excl usion. can hope to either change occupation or climb up the social ladder. An early example i that of ancient Chine e ociety of the Confucian era, where the rul i ng i deology m ade i t po sible for any gifted man to attain the h igher echel n of the w l l-paid and h i ghly re pected bureaucracy-by ontrast t the rigidity of th I ndian aste sy tern . Tw m i llennia l ater the Ott man Empi re ffered . i mi l ar opportun itie . And until recently the
74
Political Philosoph
U nited State too enticed m il l ion of people around the world w i th the promi. e. of rio i n CJ through the ranks throuCJh , heer meri t , and of goi ng from rag, to riche. through hard work . Rank i. be. t tolerated when . trongly as. ociated w i th meri t. owadays, the weakness of the l abor mo ement in the U n i ted tates compared w i th We, tern E u rope may be due not only to the rel u tance of A meri can employer. to h ire union i zed workers, but al . 0 to the per, i . tence of the so-cal led A merican dream ev 'n i n the face of th ' harp i ncrease in in come i ncquabty inc ' the 1 980s. Howe e r thi. i an empiri cal question to be i nv ' tigated w ith the help of a rel i able mobility indi 'ator. Let u ' th 'r 'for ' t ry to set up on ' such a oci al i nd icator-that of mob i l ity in a society rather than of an indi idual in a oci ,ty. The fornler, u n li ke th ' latter, i . a bul k trai t . ) We hall fo u ' o n vert ical nlob il i ty bccau 'e being th ' hard '. t to attain , i t i s also the more pol iticaUy relevant. However, ther i. on thing that needs to be mentioned: S oc i al mob i li ty ha. nothing to do w i th the "flex ibili ty" of the l abor market-that i. the unre. trict d fr edom to fi r -that the neoliberaL and their academ ic hel p r. d mand today in ord r to "mod rniz ' th economy. A po . . ible i ndicator of ertical , ocial mob i l i ty i s the frequ ncy w i th which people c l i mb up and down the . oci al scale over a certain period , such a . the t i me between censu 'e . . I n the sim plest ca 'e, that of two strata, H and L, the corre ' ponding frequencie . w i l l b called IIPl'\ ard mobili!) L � H : ,,+ downward mobility H � L : "
"
Let u s final l y tudy th gen ral ca ' : that of ociety w ith N member" divid d at a given time i nto ' v ral group of a g iven k i nd : conomic, political, or cultural, or what have you. on i der further t h n u mb r Mlj of people w ho over a giv n p riod. uch as th i nter al b tween cen use , rna e from group i to group j. We gather the. e number ' i nto th m atrix M = 11 [M). The diagonal e le ment Mii N i the fraction of people who stay in group i. B y contra t. the element M; . I N represents the i ntensity of the social traffic between the cel l i and j. Si nce only the off-diagonal element of M repre ent social mobi l i ty, the number ,, =
l iN) IL I. i' .
MIj. . -Tr M I
Citizen and Polity
75
w here Tr M read the tra e of M " ) i th u n1 of the d i agonal c le ments Mil of M, measure, the mobi l ity of the given , oc iety duri n g the period in quest i on . H e re are the two extreme ca. e. : 1/
( a) Sta 'IlWlt so 'i t M . = 8. M. where 81, = 1 i f i = , and 0 � otherw i . e, J.1 = 0 b Maximall mobile societ M .. = 0, �l = l IN) L.I:;tJM U... I
J
/I
, •
,
', •
I
So far we have not di tingui ' hed fon11al l y between upper and low 'r social ' trata nor, cons qu 'ntly, betw 'en upward ,md downward mo b i l ity. Thi di ,tinction can be introduced i n the '0 ' ia l mob i li ty matrix M. alling M + lj. the upward and M ' . ., the downward mov '. , it seen1. lj reasonable to , et J.1 = J.1- =
( l IN) L , . M IJ. . I¢J l IN) L . . M - . " I ¢J
IJ
W ca11 net so 'iol mobilit
t he exee . . of upward mobi l ity over downward mobi l i ty. Thi ' indicator of 'ocial change w i l l be u 'ed in the next ·ection. F i nal ly, how i ' mobil i ty related to i nequality'. I conjecture that, as trat ification merg . vertical mobil ity b come po. . ibl -unle ' xplic itly prohibited, a i n t h H i nd u ca te y 't m. r furth r hypothe ' iz that in fact mob i l ity rj es .leeply until the dj tance between rung m ak i t practically i m po ' ' jble for a n i ndividual to c l i m b up the l adder; from then on it i. all the way dow n . I n . hort, I ubmit that the mobil i ty - i nequal i ty c u r ha the . hape of an i nverted U . Socioeconomic tati tic for th la t three decades i n the U n i ted S tate con firm the downward ection of the curve Al brecht and A lbrecht 2007 ; te ting of the upward part of the hypothesized curve requ i re ob erv i ng a ociety in quick tran i tion from equality to strat i fication . W hether vertical pol itical mobil i ty i sim ilar i s yet to be i nve tigated. 6. Cohesion
A l l so ieti are m re or Ie het r g neou , but . orne are more 0he i ve l ess divided than other . Let u i nt r duce a i mple mea. u re of
76
Political Philosoph
the degree of cohe jon of a ocial network. A network of any kind may be repre. ented by a graph, a mathemat ical object that consi. ts of a set of node. joi ned by edge . . I n the case of social network, or . y. tern. , the node, represent per, orL or organization. , and the edge. the bond. that keep them together.
f'ig. 2.4.
network formed by fou r units joined by at most ix bonds.
inee tbere are everal kinds of odal relation, from friendship to cooperation, a society m ust be represented by a fam ily of graphs-as many as kinds.
Call i ng N the n u m ber of nod . and t: th n u m b r of edge ' we defi ne the cohesion of th network as 1( = 2E 1N(
-
I .
Thi ' i ' a number that l ie ' betwee n 0 and I . I n the graph of Figure 4, i ble edge ' i E = 1 /2 N (N - 1 6. H ere ar fou r out of the . even po. ' ibl eohe ion valu . :
N = 4 and th m ax imal n umber of po =
E=O.
=
0; E = 2.
K =
1 13 ' E = 4. K = 2/3 ' E = 6, K = 1 .
We next i ntroduce a mea 'ur of the ial power of an i nd i idual or organi zation. u h a th abi lity of a person to recrui t n w m mb r for an organi zation, and the abi l i ty of an organization to change the truc ture of another ocial y tern . W e defi ne uch power P a s the abi li ty to create or de troy ocial bond in an organi zation; more p ci fical ly. a the ratio of the u rn of the n umber C of newly c reated ocial bonds and the number D of de troyed ocial bond by the total n u m ber of possible bond in the network: p
C + D ) 1 # f possible bonds where C + D � E and # possibl bonds = ( 1 /2 N N - 1 ). =
Obviou l y there are a m any k ind. of s c i al power as facets f c ial l i fe : pol itical e nomic and cultural . Thus pol i ti a l power i the abi li ty
78
Political Philosoph
N otice that w here'L the fi r t colum n l L t properti c o f per o n the traits i n the second and third col umns are global or , y . temi . H ere, a. eL ewhere, col 1ective or bulk ) propertie, emerge from individual action. and att itude, -which i n t u rn are infl uenced by the former see, e . g . , Coleman 1 990; B unge 2003a . H owever, participation fa ors cohe. ion only up to a point, after which it erode, cohe, i on . The rea, on i s that, when too many people compete for th . , arne resource , [md when ev 'ryone m 'ddles i n th . affa i rs of oth er , membership in the group cea e to be adv(Ul tageou . Thus it may be uppo, ed that the i ntegration vs. palticipation curve i an i nv 'rted U . More pre isely, I t 'nlatively , uggest that the form o f the dependence of integration l upon parti i pati on n i ' 1
= 4n I - n).
Thi . function takes t h e val ue 0 for e i t h r nil or total participation. and attain, it max i m u m nam ly I , for middling partici pation (n = 1 /2 ) . A, for social mob i l ity, I , uggest that, whereas upward mobil ity contrib utes to cohe, ion, downward mobility weaken, it. Roughly most p ople feel contented, or at least not i ncl i ned to revolt again, t the , tatu, quo, if every year they 'ee more new rich than new poor-or ar just led to bel ieve that thi ' i ' '0. More preci 'ely, a po - i l i e n e t mob i lity J.l » 0) enhanc ' cohesion, whereas a negative net mob i l i ty J.l « 0 ) weaken ' it. And of cour 'e J.l = 0 makes no d ifference ilher way. Final ly, I propo 'e that 'oc ial eohe ' ion re 'ult ' from both i ntegrati on and mob ility with equal weight ' : K =
t /2 t + J.l
Thu h igh net mob i l ity may ompen. at for low i nt gration du to parti i pation, and can er. 1 y. B ut a negative net mob i l ity can off et th b n fi t of participation to th point that K = O. Thi w i l l r ult in oei al col lap e unle tools of efficient ocial control are employed c un ni ngly and ruthle · ly. Ha i n g prai ed oci al cohe i o n , l e t me warn agai n t the ho l i tic tendency to regard it a the summum bonum. I ndeed, maxi m al ocial cohe ion, a advocated by totalitarians and comm unitarian both secular and re ligiou . i t i ft i ng becau e every i ndividual i n a tightl y k n i t com munity i be i ng watched lectured (uld puni hed by all h i s neighbors. Thi s i s n f the rea. ons that young people who yearn � r i ndependence
Citizen and Polity
79
tend to leave e mail town and trict rc1i giou communities. A S p,UlLh pro erb puts i t s ucci nctl y : "S mall town, bi CJ hel l .' Let us therefore aim for m i ddling rather than max i m al so ial cohesion. The . arne hold. for everything else. othi ng i n excess . Ne er m ax i m ize anythi ng, because all the propertie. of a thing are interrel ated so that m ax i m i zi n g one of them i. l i ke l y to m i n i m ize others . oci al cohee ion can be regulated through legi. l ation . Indeed a . tate can eith 'r enfor e cultural ass i m ilation the melti ng pot paradigm or en courage m u l t iculturali. TIl the mosai . paragon . l ubmit that both forced a i m ilation and unrestrict d m u lticulturali m af ' Und 'TI10 ratk. The former because it i 'oer i ve, and the l atter b 'cau e it tolerates w hatev 'r u ndemocratic tradition. an ,thnic group m ay wi h to i m port- uch a. w idow burn i ng, honor k i l l i ng, c l itoridectomy, a rranged matTiage, forced rel igiou ' i ndoctrination and violent ectarian practices. I n addi t ion to threatening human ri ght. and democracy unr . tricted multicultural i . m i n olve. t he division of society i nto ghettoe . . I . u gge.t rej ec ting both forced a. . i m i l ation and u nr . tricted multicultural i . m a n d practicing s c>lecli e muLti 'uLlttralisrn instead. ThL can. i sts i n m utual accommoda tion and i n tal rati ng whatever practice. do not iolate h uman rights. Mar i n hapt r 3 , Section 4. At al l events, a social order i . worth pr 'erving only if i l i . both fai r and ' U 'tainable. Otherw i se ilS member ' a r better 0[[ either ·triving [or · t ructural reform ' or m i grating. H owever, the matter o[ ' U ·tainabi l ity cal l s for a special ·ec l ion. 7. Sustai nability : Tbe
fficiency Factor
a m atter how coh iv a 0 iety may be it won ' t be v i able, I alon u tainabl i n the long term, if i t l ack ' the req u i i t natural and human re our . Think of a nomadi trib of h rd m n during a e r drought or of a nIral society d pend nt on a ' i ngle cult ivar vuln rabl to a plague. Tru pillaging cara an . plund ring of coloni e , and for ign a i ' tance may b ource ' of income for a whil . B u t l arg -scal iol nc and i m perial i m are notoriously hazardou , a well a characterized by d i m i n i h i ng retu rn , 0 that they do not en ure teady re enue. As for h u man i tarian rel ief, it i more often prom i ed than delivered; when delivered i t often come with politi cal stri ng attached; and when continued for purely pol itical rea on it ruin local farmer and craft men . B e i de . genuine and la ting development i many - i ded and elf-gen erated. I t re u l t from 10 a1 eff rt ompetent management and h n t leadersh i p, rather than by occasional handouts . This i why the early
SO
Political Philosoph
enthusia. m for top-down development hown by i n t mational agcneic h as cooled down over the past two decade. (. ee Kennedy 2(06) . I submi t that the only safe hedge agai nst social dec l i ne i . h igh overal l efficiency. Thi s L defi ned as £ = Outputllnput, where the output come. from diver. i fied productive work rather than from thie ery, banditry, co lon i al . poi l . foreign s ubsidy. or mo ing money. U si ng effi ciency rather than, . ay, GOP. ha. the follow i n g advantage . . Fi r. t efficien y in l ude. non-moneta ry good , such a. oeial e rv ice . S 'cond, i t i ncludes tacitly th ' re. oure 'fulness of th ' people and ' l ude the i ncome deriving from acti i ties other than honest toi l ' finally it dL suad 's u from u ing a11ificial wealth units such a th ' A merican dollar. Actual l y, the i nput should indud ' w i th a negative sign the valu ' of 'nvi ronm 'ntal depr dation both at home ,UJd abroad-,UJ in lu ion that decreases of cour e th ' rati o i n que tion. Thi i becau. ' though un. u . pected by mO.t economi. t . t he non-r newable re. ources are fi n i te and moreover dwi nd l i n g fa. t . I n . hort. the Output in the d fi n ition of efficiency i . t h e total rev n ue from honest work or rather t h e efficiency of thi. activ i ty ; and th I nput includes all the re. ource. u ti l i z d, both natural and cultural , I ss the gree n co. t. Regrettably th Ian r can only b gu . . d, b cau. e nobody k now. how to m a. u re it, and anyway no government keeps track of it. Finally, I 'uggest t hat the degree of susfainabilif) a of a 'ociety equal ' the product of it ' co he ' ion by it . e ffi ciency : a = 1( . £
onsider th fol l ow ing l i m i t case . : CriminaL 0 iet : £ = 0 h n c cr = 0 regardl o f t h alue o f K . CO Ie ociet : K = 0 h n c cr = 0 regardl o f t h value o f £ . Cooperative society o f k i l l d people: larg K and £ h nce l arg cr.
The above formula " a = K . E , " um marize the chal lenge to pre ent day soc ietie : To i nven t way to increa e both their social cohe ion within rea on and their efficiency, i n order to enhance their survival chance. Let me clo e this ection by posing three open problem for further researc h . The fir t i t h i . We have treated cohe i on and efficiency a m u tually i ndependent variable , but actual ly they are not. In fact, c h ion i ncreas in me becaus i t fac i li tat ollective endeav r and decrea expenditures on se u ri ty. A l 0 a h igh national i n orne
Citizen and Polity
81
faci litates w ide pread acce t o natural and cultu ral re ource . A more . ophL ticated model . hould be free from these l i mi tati on . . Another problem concern. the po . . i ble dependence of v i ab i l i ty u pon . ociodi er. i ty. Ecologi . t, u �ed to think that biod i ver, i ty increa. e. i abi l i ty. This hypothe. i s i s no longer held: nature can only provi de . 0 m any habitat. . J u. t a. there . eems to be an opt i m al biodiver. i ty val ue, it i. l i kely that there i s an opt i m al . ociodi er. i ty al ue which i. neither maxi mal nor m i n i mal. The reason i l i ke ly to b ' that as ociodiver ity i ncrease , 0 does the n u m ber of special i nterests some of which are bound to be m utually confl i -ting. The third and l ast problem i the toughest : All of th ' above hypoth e '. are empiri ally te table but they have yet to pa ' , empirical t 'sts. M y ' u 'e for i ncluding them is that h 'r ' we are doing philo- ophy, not science. And i t i part of the job description that pol it i al philo 'oph 'rs . hould l ook b yond the horizon. 8. I nterests: You r
�l ine and Ours
ormal peopl are both sel f-regardi ng and other-regard i n g . They look after th ir ow n intere. t. but th y a1 . o tak oth r peopl ' s i nterests i nto account. That is they often do favors to others participate in coopera tive ventures and seldom i f ever engage in anti 'ocial behavior. Only p ' ychopaths ar utte rl y 'elfi 'h. Yet the upholders of radi cal rational" choic theories hold that everyone attempt ' to maxi m i :te hi ' own xpected uti l i t ie " w i th total disregard for other people ' , interest · . I n part icular, the econom i c theory o f pol i tics o r rather voting behav ior hol d ' that the rational citizen has no i n tere , t i n voti ng becau 'e he know that a i ngle vote is u n l ikely to make a diffi rence ( Down 1 957' 01 on J 965 . Moreover thi theory holds that citizen ordinarily vote for th i r ( p rcei ed) i nter . � : They alway ote w ith th ir wallets. Undoubtedly uch a choice i tark]y i mmoral according to the ociological definition ' I m moral = Anti ocial . B ut wh ther peopl d o a t i n that way i a n mpirical question, not a moral one. Let U ' glimp e at the empiri cal e idence. Over the pa t few decade , a numbe r of p ycholog i t ha e conducted experi ment to check whether i n fact al l p opie are m ax i m i zer . We hall not review in deta i l the c lassical expe ri mental tudjes of K ah neman and h i coworker ( Kahneman, Slov ic, and Tver ky 1 982 , becau e they are rather well known. One of them i that we tend to g row fond of things uch as tie , long after we have ceased u ing them-whence the hab i t f a cumulat ing junk i n t h e att ic . L e t u report i n tead n a D w re ent tudie that c n fi rm and enlarg the previou fi nding .
H2
Political Philosoph
1.
'
Human i11fants are mpathi and altrui ti . A l l parent know t hat y ung pre-, c hool chil dren and even 1 - month old i n fants, feel concerned for peer in di tres . Warneken and Toma ello 2006 ha e recently 'onfirmed this finding, shmv i ng that i n fant: will aI . 0 do something to help ad ults faced w i th a practical problem that they are unable to '01 e. H t; punish f;'ee riders. Fehr and Ga hter _000 f und t hat ordi narii pe pie punish "free rider ,. e en know i ng that t hey run a ri. k . That i. people are w i ll ing to put up with re enge \"hen i t corne t upholding omm n decen y in their community. C uld thi . b becau 'e we cheri h cial value ? We d not kn w yet. Men ordina ri i Plllli h unfair (. pponelll but mpathi ,e l'\ ith fai r on s ( S i nger et al. 2006). That i:, moral on ideration may outweidh "rati nal" calculation ven w hen j udging people we d i s l i ke . I t h i becau. e our en e of Cairnes has not been utterly corrupted by the struggle for l i fe We do n t know. We judge the o mpe ten ce of 'cmdid aes on tlwir fa ial app a ran. 'e i n stantly and without b theri ng to examine thei r record Tod ro et al . 2005 ). l . thi: b e au. e we are hi ldren of the screen and lave, t advert i . i n g . We d n t know. We ra� ly make mplex decisions Oil the basi of areful deliberation ( D�j k terhui et at. 2006 . F r exampl , difficult choi s, a b twe n hOll e , are mor often unc n c i u than hoi e between si mpl item su h a,' 'ocks, whi 'h d not i n olve areful cal u lalion. More er, nap deci ion may lead to good ch ice . I thi. because del i berati n tend, to focus on ,elected trait of the thing i n que:tion while m i ssing the \ hole? Or bec au se most of us are too lazy to learn \ hat it takes to make well grounded deci i ons? Or else be ause emotion override, reason on matters that are l i kely t i n fl uen e our l i fe, lyle'. We do not kn w yet. Mo r (A meri 'an ) \ oters aI" ab small) i /lorant (�r politi s, and the candidates 'OUTll 011 this H ard i n 2002 . For e x ample, Cal i f rn i an otef vot d for the so-cal led thr e- tri ke law, that mandate pri on sentences for repeat offender regardless of the magnitude of their of fenses which can be as petty as steali ng a s l i e of p izza. .
3.
'
.
4.
5.
'
-
6.
The fir t three fi nding underm ine the pe i m j tic hypothe i that we are an ba ical l y bad (anti oci al , i mmoral . Actual1 y, a Robert Loui S teven on arg ued per ua i ely, we are neither ful ly bad nor ful ly good, but hal f and half. By ontra t, the Ia t three fi ndi ng ugge t that we are not a rati onal (not even economical l y a po tulated by rati onal-choice thcorics. W h i l tru thi doce not confi nTI i rrationali . m that i , th v iew that irrational i ty is good for lL . Relying on fcar or greed fi rst i mprcs ion or good TV i m age, flamboyant rhetoric or deep-scated prejudi ·c can b dL astrous: it can lead to tyranny and war. W mu t try and ovcrcome irra-
Citizen and Polity
83
t ionality i nstead of allowing i t to rule u . So, the defenders of reason nlay ha e been descri ptively wrong even while bei ng normatively right. R at ional ity should be the moral and pol i tical nonn preci. ely because it is not the statL t i al norm. Let two example, suffi ce to gau ge the di . a, trou. re, ult. of i rrational pol i t i c . . When peop l e feel under t h reat they tend to fol l ow any l eader. w ho m ag n i fy the t h reat and pro m L e to save them from the ' ene m y,' w hether re al or i m ag i n ary. Th L wa� M ar ' h a l l Gori n g ' a n w 'r t o t h e question : H ow d i d y o u a n d y o u r friends ' u cc ' e d i n rall y i n g thc G e rman peopJ c around H i tler? S c 'ond c x a m p le : Wh 'n thc A m crican arnled forces l a u nched t h e i r attac k on I raq i n 2003 th 'y had no plan for governi n g I raq, prcv en t i n g the fore 'ceabl ' in u rgency and 'cctarian i o lcnce o r reco n t ru c t i n g w hat they would be dc. troy i n g . T h c aggr ' s i o n wa ' largely fu e l 'd by g r 'ed for oil ,md planned by i dcologue ' traincd or i n spir 'd by the pol i tical philo. opher Leo Strau, , . However the pol itical rol of intel lectuals deserve, a new . ection. 9 . Intellectuals a n d Politics
A l l i deologies ha e b n in ented, defended, or c ri t ic ized by intel lectuals, and all go rnment. have been , upported or u ndermined by i ntellectual '-acquie 'cing silently more often than vocally, but 'ometime ' i n ' p iring malefic policies. I n The Guilded Age, a 'at i re of corruption of Wash i ngton, D.C., i n the 1 70s M ark Twain and CharJe ' Warner q uoted the fol lowi n g from the great German poet Christoph Wieland: ' Thrasy l lu " with h i ' unaided i n tellect, woul d not have ' ucceeded, but ' uch wort hie ' can alway ' find rogue ' who for money w i J l lend b rains, which i j u st a w 11 a. to hav brai n ' of t h i r own . ' Th intellectual ' ta k is-a-\ i politi . whether con tnlctive or criti caL rai ' moral confl ict. : Shall I enter th pol i tical fray at all . I f 0 how? a ' a frallc-lireur or a ' a party m mb r . I f I do join a party w i l l J u rr nder my ind pend nc to party di ciplin ? I f I r main indifi r nt will J b tray my £ lIow c it izens? And i f I parti i pat a a di cipl ined party member, w i l l I eventually betray my cience, for what d ri ves politics are i ntere t rather than e i ther knowledge or moral s . As a m atter of fac t i ntel1ectual participate i n politics i n either of three capacities: a techno]ogi t , i deo]ogue , or c ri tic . The expert may be non-partisan, a i n the ca e of the public work engi neer and the public health or public education official; or he made work in a politi ally en i ti ve departm nt, such as i n terior exte rnal affairs defense or i nf ffilati n . I f the x pe rt work i n a purely t chnical apacity h i only
S4
Political Philosoph
moral conCClll is to do the b t hc can i n the public ervice. B u t i f the expert is charged w ith executing a parti e an pol i tical agenda1 , u h a. ai le iati ng poverty or utt i n g taxe. on the ri h, he cannot evade moral di lemma. . The . ame applie. , ajorfiori, to the i deologue and the designer of pol icies and plan, . Fi nal ly, the moral respon, ibil ity of the c ri ti al i n tel lectual ie double: to his profe . . i on and to h i e fellow c i tizen . . R egret tably, only a few i ntel lectual . , econded Wi I li am James 1 987 when he denounced the Phi l i pp i ne occupation in hi. 1 903 peech to th ' ew England A nti- Imp 'riali t League' only a handfu l agre d with E inste i n a n d R u ' 'el l wh 'n they oppo ' d World War I ' b u t quite a f ' w when, half a century l ater they joined Bohr and th ' Pugwa h g roup to warn against nuclear A rm ageddon. The fi r. t moral dil ' m ma of the i ntel l 'ctual in pol itics i thi ' : Shall h ' e press h i m elf clearly, or shall he 'p 'ak oracularly, ' ither becau ' he ha ' nothing to say or b cau. e h do . not want ordinary fol k t o understand h i m . I f honest, he w i l l choos c1arity. If not, he wiJl x pres. h imself in the opaque styl of Heidegg r, th Mexican pre. id nt L u i . Ech verrfa, and the central bank r A l an G re nspan. To be hon . t, th pol i tical me . . age h as got to be clear, 0 that th citizen may form a w l 1 - i n formed opi nion and act intell i gently i n.lead of blindly follow ing . logans or exhortation . . The c lari ty condition i ' '0 criti cal that the Canadian parliam nt pa . 'ed the C larity ct to force the Quebec 'eparati st · to frame c learly the ref erendum que 'ti on, whether th voter ' favor i n dependence-which the Parti Quebecois had attempted to d i 'gui 'e as sovereignty-a ' sociation" and ' ren wed federalism: related moral d i lemma faced by the i ntel lectual who enter ' poli t ic ' in any capacity i . w h th r or not to 'wear what may be called th A l thic Oath, n amely I will 'e k th t ruth and tell i t ." A handfu l of publ i i ntel I ctual - i n particu l ar Voltaire M arx, D icken Zola. Bin 'tein, R u " e l l , K ynes Galbraith. and C hom ky-a w I I a u ncounted scienti · t , hav honored th oath. B y contra t Plato, N i tzsch Heidegger Leo S trau " Henry K i ssinger and other champion ' of the ' noble l i e doctrine hav not e en taken the oath . A for A ristotle and M ac hiave l l i , the honest scienti t in them honored the oath, wherea the cunning pol i tical advi s er betrayed i t . Fortunately, the betrayal of i ntel1ectual s of al l cali ber to the cause of truth has occasional ly been expo ed ( B enda 2006 [ 1 92 7 ] ; Kol nai 1 93 8 ; L i l la 200 1 ; Popper 1 962 [ 1 945 ] - Wol i n 1 99 3 ; Vacher 2004; B ri c mont 2005 ). The C ld War 1 945- 1 990 teo ted the objectivity of public intelle tuals. For in tan e a n umber of famou profe s r , such a Pr derick H ay k c
.
4
SO
Political Philosoph
enthusia. m for top-down development hown by i n t mational agcneic h as cooled down over the past two decade. (. ee Kennedy 2(06) . I submi t that the only safe hedge agai nst social dec l i ne i . h igh overal l efficiency. Thi s L defi ned as £ = Outputllnput, where the output come. from diver. i fied productive work rather than from thie ery, banditry, co lon i al . poi l . foreign s ubsidy. or mo ing money. U si ng effi ciency rather than, . ay, GOP. ha. the follow i n g advantage . . Fi r. t efficien y in l ude. non-moneta ry good , such a. oeial e rv ice . S 'cond, i t i ncludes tacitly th ' re. oure 'fulness of th ' people and ' l ude the i ncome deriving from acti i ties other than honest toi l ' finally it dL suad 's u from u ing a11ificial wealth units such a th ' A merican dollar. Actual l y, the i nput should indud ' w i th a negative sign the valu ' of 'nvi ronm 'ntal depr dation both at home ,UJd abroad-,UJ in lu ion that decreases of cour e th ' rati o i n que tion. Thi i becau. ' though un. u . pected by mO.t economi. t . t he non-r newable re. ources are fi n i te and moreover dwi nd l i n g fa. t . I n . hort. the Output in the d fi n ition of efficiency i . t h e total rev n ue from honest work or rather t h e efficiency of thi. activ i ty ; and th I nput includes all the re. ource. u ti l i z d, both natural and cultural , I ss the gree n co. t. Regrettably th Ian r can only b gu . . d, b cau. e nobody k now. how to m a. u re it, and anyway no government keeps track of it. Finally, I 'uggest t hat the degree of susfainabilif) a of a 'ociety equal ' the product of it ' co he ' ion by it . e ffi ciency : a = 1( . £
onsider th fol l ow ing l i m i t case . : CriminaL 0 iet : £ = 0 h n c cr = 0 regardl o f t h alue o f K . CO Ie ociet : K = 0 h n c cr = 0 regardl o f t h value o f £ . Cooperative society o f k i l l d people: larg K and £ h nce l arg cr.
The above formula " a = K . E , " um marize the chal lenge to pre ent day soc ietie : To i nven t way to increa e both their social cohe ion within rea on and their efficiency, i n order to enhance their survival chance. Let me clo e this ection by posing three open problem for further researc h . The fir t i t h i . We have treated cohe i on and efficiency a m u tually i ndependent variable , but actual ly they are not. In fact, c h ion i ncreas in me becaus i t fac i li tat ollective endeav r and decrea expenditures on se u ri ty. A l 0 a h igh national i n orne
Citizen and Polity
81
faci litates w ide pread acce t o natural and cultu ral re ource . A more . ophL ticated model . hould be free from these l i mi tati on . . Another problem concern. the po . . i ble dependence of v i ab i l i ty u pon . ociodi er. i ty. Ecologi . t, u �ed to think that biod i ver, i ty increa. e. i abi l i ty. This hypothe. i s i s no longer held: nature can only provi de . 0 m any habitat. . J u. t a. there . eems to be an opt i m al biodiver. i ty val ue, it i. l i kely that there i s an opt i m al . ociodi er. i ty al ue which i. neither maxi mal nor m i n i mal. The reason i l i ke ly to b ' that as ociodiver ity i ncrease , 0 does the n u m ber of special i nterests some of which are bound to be m utually confl i -ting. The third and l ast problem i the toughest : All of th ' above hypoth e '. are empiri ally te table but they have yet to pa ' , empirical t 'sts. M y ' u 'e for i ncluding them is that h 'r ' we are doing philo- ophy, not science. And i t i part of the job description that pol it i al philo 'oph 'rs . hould l ook b yond the horizon. 8. I nterests: You r
�l ine and Ours
ormal peopl are both sel f-regardi ng and other-regard i n g . They look after th ir ow n intere. t. but th y a1 . o tak oth r peopl ' s i nterests i nto account. That is they often do favors to others participate in coopera tive ventures and seldom i f ever engage in anti 'ocial behavior. Only p ' ychopaths ar utte rl y 'elfi 'h. Yet the upholders of radi cal rational" choic theories hold that everyone attempt ' to maxi m i :te hi ' own xpected uti l i t ie " w i th total disregard for other people ' , interest · . I n part icular, the econom i c theory o f pol i tics o r rather voting behav ior hol d ' that the rational citizen has no i n tere , t i n voti ng becau 'e he know that a i ngle vote is u n l ikely to make a diffi rence ( Down 1 957' 01 on J 965 . Moreover thi theory holds that citizen ordinarily vote for th i r ( p rcei ed) i nter . � : They alway ote w ith th ir wallets. Undoubtedly uch a choice i tark]y i mmoral according to the ociological definition ' I m moral = Anti ocial . B ut wh ther peopl d o a t i n that way i a n mpirical question, not a moral one. Let U ' glimp e at the empiri cal e idence. Over the pa t few decade , a numbe r of p ycholog i t ha e conducted experi ment to check whether i n fact al l p opie are m ax i m i zer . We hall not review in deta i l the c lassical expe ri mental tudjes of K ah neman and h i coworker ( Kahneman, Slov ic, and Tver ky 1 982 , becau e they are rather well known. One of them i that we tend to g row fond of things uch as tie , long after we have ceased u ing them-whence the hab i t f a cumulat ing junk i n t h e att ic . L e t u report i n tead n a D w re ent tudie that c n fi rm and enlarg the previou fi nding .
3 alues and Morals : Individual and Social M o. t pol itical j u are abou t soci al problem , and the e in t u rn in olv . uc h value a curity, fairn i nclu i ven '" quality and freedom. e ery one of which can be eith r expand d or hrunk. Values ha r cent l y become all the rage in Am rican pol itic '. l nde d, m any Am riean · have been p rsuad d that pol itic ha. uddenl y beeom a cIa h b twe n those concern d about valu . and tho ' who are not. Mor over the Chri tian Right claim to have a monopoly on val ues. S anctimony is cheaper than v i rtue. Even the pre tigious Science echoed that v ul gar opi n ion about the recency of values. In it February 1 1 , 2005 edi tori a l the publication claimed that ' cience a n d i t products are i nter eet i ng . more frequently [than i n the pa t] with certain h uman bel ief and val ue . And i t added that "certain recent experience [ pre umably President Bu h reelecti n two month earlier l sugge t that the value d imen ion is here to tay:' I n fa t all purposive h uman acti ns ha e al1,t a) s had a val u d imen ion.' I ndeed e ery t i me w do omething deliberately-wh ther fishing r trading, c njecturing r checking a hypothe i s-we make m re or Ie s explicit value j udgmen . One take acti n A because one alues e ither A in i tsel f or an expected con equence of A. In particular, ienti fi e r e eareh h a alway been p u lled b y ecular val ue , u e h a knowledge and peer recognjtion. And politic m ay be regarded a the ocial action that endeavor to e ither i mplement or block value y tern . The q ue tion i not whether we hold value but whether we can ju tify and debate rat ionall y about them I t i here where ehol ar differ. Max Weber 1 988a) warned h i collcague agai n t making value j udgment for he bel ieved them to b i ncurably ubjecti c. B y contrast G u nnar M y rdal 1 969 enjoined ocial c i cn t i L to tart by declaring their value . The rea on j that w herea thc phy ical univcr c j valuc-free the 0 "'i al world j value-Iadcn and 0 i s any ugg lion or command H7
HH
Political Philosoph
to 'on er e or rcforn1 it. Hcnce the interest of pol itical ci nti. ts and philo. ophers in identi fy i ng and defi ning val ue. in both pol i tical action and pol itical discourse-a. , for i n . tance, i n regard i n g the competency or fai rne . . of an admini. trator. This i . aLo why we get embroi led in rati onal and someti me. i rrati onal debates about val ue, and their ranki n g in al 1 walks of l i fe . U n l i ke tao teo . whi h are l argely , u bjective, some al ue. , su h a� l ivabi l i ty and peace, are objecti e. and therefore deserve bei ng d i 'u cd rationall y. Pre sumably, values emerg d only about three-and-a-half b i l lion year ' ago togcther w i th the fi r t l i ving beings. I nde d whereas 'ome thing. , such a ' water are valuable to all organi illS other , ' u ' h a s u l furic acid arc halll1ful to all of th '111 . Obj 'cti e valu ' , exi. t a. prop 'rti '. , not 'ntit ic ) whether or not they arc known or felt. Ordinaril y they ar ' rccognized i n the ourse of i ndivi dual dev 'lopl11 'nt. I n parti u lar Jcan Piaget d isco ered that shared (that is, . ocial valu . , . uch as reciproci ty and sol idarity ar learnt at home, . chool . or . treet, and more through coli ctiv gam . than . ermon. . e M oessin ger 1 98 . What hold. for alue. al. 0 holds for moral. . Inanimate natur and the lower animals are amoral. Perhaps only the gregarious animal. practice moral. for the si mple rea. on that morality amounts to pro-sociality, which in tum i . nece 'sary for coexistence. To put thi ' in negative term " immorality is equivalent to anti- 'ociality, which in tum i ' incompatible with c xi 'tence. Henc the ancient root ' of th monu emotion '----empathy, 'ympathy, and sham a ' well a ' of th old ·t and mo ·t wide 'pread of moral patterns, namely reciprocal altrui ' m-returning good for good and bad for bad. Because value ' and moral s are anchored i n both brains and 'ocietie ' , rather than hovering above th m. e r brain dam ag a n d 'ocial d i rup tion may cau ' th 10 . . of th moral n e. For x am ple, bilateral damage of th ntrom d i al pr frontal cort x i mpair th ability to tel l right from wrong ee, e.g. Ko n i g t al . 2007 ; l ikewi e war m ake u forg t that the nemy i. j ust a ' human a u . Thu contrary to r c iv d opinion, only a bio 0 ial, henc m ateri al i 1 . approach to valu and moral can save u from both relativi m ( 'al l val ues and moral s are equivalent") and authori tarianism ( "only a uperior bei ng whether dei ty or ruler, can know what i good for u " . It m ay al 0 save u from the hypocrite who invoke sacred value to bette r advance m aterial intere t . 1 . I nterests and Val u e
P pIe are dri e n or motivated by i nterest . E ve ry i n terest i the in t r t f om ne i n omething . S tr i tly peak i ng nly i ndividual s an
Values and
lorals
89
have i n tere ts, bccau the e ar biolog ical u rgcs or mental dri c . . S t i l l i n tere. t. can be attributed i n a figurative sense to suprai ndividual entities, . uch as groups, firm . parties. and nation . . For example, one may say that it i. in the intere. t of a con rete sy. tem that . uch and such condi tion. be met becau. e they are fa orable to i ts persi. tence. A fOnllal social organ i zation. such as a l abor union, may be . aid to repre. ent adequately nor not) the intere, ts . hared by i t� member. . And a pol itical organ ization, such a a party m ay ad anc ' th ' public intere t. I n fact once in a while i t m U . t do . o or a t l e a t must app 'ar t o d o s o i f i t w i he ' t o gain o r keep the favor of it ' upporter . I nterest ' are oft 'n equated with economi i nt 'r 'sts. Thi ' i s u nder standable, as th ' struggl ' for l i fe [md geopolit ical power are basical ly struggle over e onomic re 'ource ' such a l and, water, fore ts m i ne and oil. For i n Umc ' th ' M i ddle Ea t ha. b ' 'n a lrongly con fl icti e regi on . i nc th Fal l of th Ottoman Empire becau. e it happen. to contai n th rich st oil field on Earth. Pre. tunably. thi. confl ict wou l d not have fl ared up if Pale. t i ne and the J w i . h homeland w re . ituated in a resou rc -poor r gion, . uch as Patagon ia or Uganda-a. Theodor H e rzl , the fou nder of Zionism, dr amed for a w h i l . Howe r ther ar int r . ts of . e e ral ki nd. : not only economic but a lso env ironmental, biological, political, and cultural. I sugge ,t the p lati tude that every responsi ble adult has intere ,t . of all fi ve k i nd " though i n d ifferent proportions, a ' can b e 'een from the e ffort, r 'ource ' o r time d ifferent people spend procuring the me,m ' to 'ati -fy them. For e ample, wherea ' politicians spend mo ,t of their time 'eek i ng or keepi ng power, pol i tical ·cienti st · are e pected to sp nd theirs trying to u nder ' t,md pol iti . Look at th follow i ng table. T. pe of inlere 5(
Example
En i ronm ntal B iological Economic Poli tical C u l tu ra l
R ic h. div r ' . af n i ronment Safety. good health food Effi ciency reward, job security Power, good governance, libe rty Know ledge, beauty education
L i ting typical human intere t i pedagogically fi ne but insufficient. We al 0 need a general and rea on ably c lear answer to the ontological que. ti n : W hat i s an i nterest . The fol lowing onventi n may hel p an wer t hi s qu tion.
90
Political Philosoph
Definition . I te m A i an i n tcrc t of c O 'ial unit B = A ttain i ng or prc serv i n CJ A is nece . . ary for the wel fare of B. Next comes the methodological question : H ow do we know that . ome thing i. really in the i n tere. t of an i ndi i dual or a . oc ial u n i t, regardle . . of the i nterest or l ack of i t that the u n i t may admit? To fi nd this out we need , omething l ike the follow i ng Criterion . Item A i s in the i ntere. t of a gi en . oci al u n i t B i f and only if, w henev 'r thr 'at 'ned to hav ' it acc 'ss to A blocked, B u " a sig n i fi cant fraction of i t r ' 'ource t o atta i n i ng or con. 'r i n g A . A l though ord inari ly people w i th s i m il ar i ntere t tend t o g , t together to d 'f 'nd them , th 'y may delude th ' mselves a to th 'ir real i nterest . For instance, i n th ' US the manufa turers associ ation and th 'ir thi n k tanks preach global free trade even though i t i gutting A m 'rican manu factu res, And i n r cent decades the Am rican l abor unions . upported the statu. q uo and even m i l i tary adventures. I n short, perceived int r st do not neces. ari ly coi ncide w i t h real i n terests, These ar examples of what Marx cal l ed faJ . e can. c iou. ness. ' I t has b n k nown . i nce t he tim of Machi a 1 1 i that pol itic. i . about int re. t , A nd very inter . t i . a need or d . i re for . am l i m ited resou rce, w hether physi cal l ike l and water, and en rgy; 'ocial l i ke trade route " the state, and friend 'hip; or cultu ral 'uch a . knowledge, m yth, and beauty. W ha e no particul ar i nterest for w hat we (perhap , m i · takenly) take for granted; we 'eldom de 'ire that which we cannot attain. Ordinarily we value only acee ' ' i ble but 'carce re 'ouree ', that i " i tem ' that can be enjoyed directly, l ike love, or put to u 'e, l i ke a plot of land. For better or for worse, w a. 'ign l i tt l or no alu to w hat r se m . to b freely a ail abl lik c lean air or unsought adv ice. BlIt what we greatly value we do a to th point of d taching t he item vallled from it Valli . and . peaki ng of vallie. a· i f th Y w re thing . How v r, on refl ection we realiz that alu ar prop rti . of t h i ng or event not n t i ti e ' , H n it i wrong to . ay, for in tance, that health and trut h ar vallie : th y ar val u abl , Moreover val ue are relational properties not i ntrin i c ones. That i , every alue i the wort h of omething for omeone . For i n tance, food i valuable for aU organi ms, and know ledge of pol i tics i valuable for any adu lt hum an . n logical term alue are n-p lace predicate , w here 11 � 2 . ) And wherea some i tem are val uable i n them elve , other are valuable a means and t i l l other are val uable both i ntrinsicaHy and in. t ru mentall y. For i nstan e, in principle all t ruth j go d to know-proided it d es not harm ' and some truth are valuabl as mean t attain pract i al ends. •
Values and
lorals
91
A n y s e t of val u m a y b e split i n different way . We arc particularly i nterested in two different partitions: . ubjective/objective, and indi i dual! . ocia1. Subje tive or personal alues depend on the biological m ake-up, ba kground, per. onal i ty, and . oc i al statu. of i ndividual . . Thus. whereas . ome person. l i ke com merc ial mu. ic, other. de. pise i t . B y contra. t, ob jecti e value. are those who. e attai nment i. objectively nece . . ary for the wel l - be i ng of . ome or all people . For example, e eryone benefi ts from c lean air and poJ i ten 'ss. Again i nd i idual alues, . u h as well -bei ng, arc sought for one' pri ate ake, w hereas . o i al valu '. , such as j u ,tice, d 'ri ' from soci ety or contribu te to . oc ial welfare . H erc we arc palticu l ady i nterested in social alue of th ' politi cal k i nd-tho ' that 'mcrge or 'ubmerg ' a a con equence of political action or i na ·ti on . I ubmi t that a social order i th ' b 'tter, the more pobtical val u ' , i t sUPPOtt . . Few ta 'ks arc as d 'm,mding a ' avoiding alue con ft i ts. For example, Christian . . hould not x al t '"family alues" for, i f we are to bel i e M atth w ( 1 0: 34 1 9: 29) Christ enjoi ned h i s di. c iples to abandon their fami l ies. or shoul d M arxi st. seek p ac , for th y plac gr at value on chan g . and at th same ti me b Ii ve in dialectical materiali. m, according to w hich all chang comes from confl ict. or. fi nal 1 y . hould l iberal. b democratic. becau. democracy invol es r stricting l iberties, in particular tho 'e of own i ng, exploiting and c heati ng people. H owever, the t hree value con fl ict · we hav ju ,t noted are a ' nothi ng by compari 'on w ith the confl ict , rai sed by the 'God, country, fam i l y" i deology shared by the pre-war Catholi c fa 'cist ' and the contemporary right-w i ng Evangel icals . Indeed, God can only prevail i f country and fam i ly are placed behi nd H i m ; 'My country right or w rong ' only i f God o r fam i l y ar betrayed; and fam i ly can stay o n top o f the alue l ad d r only if God or country ar for 'aken . For bett r or for wor , uch confl ict occur only rarel y, because ord in aril y a fou rth alu nam l y p r i ate i nt r · t pr vai l o v r all other. . it may be thought that val u con i · tency hould not be harder to attain than a oiding contrad iction i n mathematic or any oth r di 'ciplin . But i t i s harder, because value con flict m a y i nvol e emotions a w e l l a right of other people, and 0 they may requ i re either v iolating them or ome acrifice of elf. Yet, val ue confl ict can be re olved, at lea t conceptual ly w i th the hel p of a human i t morality that enjoins u to both enjoying l i fe and helping others enjoy life . For i nstance w hen drafted to fight for the unj u t aggre i e) side in a m i l i tary conflict the peace 10 e r w i l l honor both brother and country by be o m i ng a c ns ientiou. objector and vol u n teering to work in an aux i li a ry ervice, such a. cooking r nurs i ng . c
92
Political Philosoph
I n hort, value confl icL arc unavoidabl and th y arc not rec olved by axiological re. earch but by exam i n i n g the concrete . i tuation w here they emerge, and recommending or adopti n g the course of a tion that be, t fit. a moral code that ad an es the i ntere. ts of both Ego and A her. AI. 0, alue. do not exi. t i n a Platoni real m of pure i dea . . Val ue. are held or rejected by real per. on. , and poli tical action may tran. foml them i n to ri ghts . The. e, i n tum, give people the abi l i ty to perfoml a tion inte nded to cmbody tho c alu ' i nto things uch as br 'ad loav ' , and procc. scs uch as 111 'cting other pcoplc . I n h011, valucs or rathcr valuations trigger proce '. of th ' following typ ': Valucs
�
Pol i ti c
�
R i ght
�
A ,tion.
�
Goods
1 ubmit that u i ng pol itics for tran ' formi ng valu 's i nto right , and
util izing rights and actions a. int rmedi arie. betwe n value. and good. , are typical of modernity from th Enligh tenment onwards. B efore that p riod, talk of right w as rare and ordi nari l y inane, for they were not en shri ned in the ba. ic law of the land. I ndeed, i t al1 started with the A merican R volu tion of 1 776 which proclai med the right. to l i fe, lib rty, and the pursuit of happi ness. The French R vol ution of 1 789 en. hri ned a some w hat d ifferent triple: l i be rty equality, and fraternity or ·ol idari ty ) . ote the mod rni ty of fou r of the val ues exalted by tho 'e revolution ': li berty, equal i ty fraternity, and the pur ' u it of happine ' '-none of which occu r ' in the Scriptures of ,my of the so-cal led great rel igion ' . otice also t hat only the third sol idari ty, has never inspired any rna . . m urders. We w i l l examine t hree of tho 'e four value ' : l i fe (or secu rity), equal ity and ol i darity. Lat r on w hal l add j u . tic freedom. and compe t nce. 2 . Biosocial
alues I:
ecu r ity Eq uality Solidarity
It i hardly controversi al that security both i n ternal and x ternal, is a mu. t . A s onfuciu. said ' In. ecu ri ty i wor e th an pov rty. ' B u t what i ecuri ty and which i the be t means to ach ieve it are subject of controver y because of it conceptual i mpreci ion. There are two type of ecu ri ty : i ndividual and col lective. The former cover uch d iver e desiderata as bei ng able to walk the treet afe)y whi le col lecti ve ecu rity can be national or i nternational. Let u tart with per onal ecu ri ty, or protect ion of elf. P rsonal ecurity has three main d imension -environmental, bioi gi cal and e nomi . Envi ronmental ecurity i protecti n again t nanlral
Values and
lorals
93
dL a ters, uch as tornadoes and man-m ade dL aster . uch a indu. trial pol 1 ution and global warm i n g . Di. aster. of both k inds tree pa. . pri vate properties and even borders, and they m ake l i fe hard or even i mpo. . ible. Hence protecti on again. t them cal l . for . tronCJ tate i ntervention, prefer abl y of the pre entive type. T . uggest that protection agai n. t envi ronmental hazard. of ea h of the two k i nd. req ui re mea. u re. of differen t types. N atural di. a. ters an be met by a oidin g di. a. ter-prone area. , , u h a. the notorious Tornado A lley i n the U n i ted tate ' a w ' 1 1 a by bui lding on afe ground and w i th state of the art techniqu '. , such as ant i-sci ' Inic and ant i-tsunami eng i neering. By contra t g lobal w arming and pollution cal l for stronger tate i n terference i n p r i ate affair. , bccau e it L cau cd m ai n ly by larg '- 'ale i ndust ry and transpoltation . Only now aft 'r fou r decades of campaigni ng by NOO ' and the 'tubborn resistance of 'Illploy 'r. ' a 'so ' iations, the oil-car- road complex, and their pol itical r pre. entati es, nearly e ery one adm i ts the conclu. ions of th 2007 U N pan 1 of expert. on c l i mat chang . Th y are that 90� of thi . change has been caused by human acti v i ty and that to pre ent further det rioration of th nvi ronment w mu. t adopt draconian m a. u re. that are bound to affect not onl y busi nes. s but also the i ndi idual l i s of veryon . B iological 'ecurity, or 'afety, consi ·ts i n protection from all kind ' of v iolence wh ther at home, the 'treet, the workplace the neighborhood, or the nat ion. 0 one l i ke ' to b beaten up, not even by their loved ones. We all desire domestic and street-related ·ecurity. Eve ryone need ' to be able to walk the 'treets i n 'af 1y. The workplace too 'hould be 'afe, and work ' hould be rewarding. Fi nal ly, every citizen ha . the right to be i mmune from u nj u t i fi d viol nce on the part of it own · tate and oth r tate : p ace both internal and i n ternat ional ar mu t . L t u fi nall y p ek at econom ic . ecurity. Econom i . t " fi nan i a l analy ts and busine " x pe rts a r u n d r 'ta ndabl y i nt r · ted i n bu in " ri ks-although t h y are not yet agreed on the corr ct ri ' k mea· u r . Fai l ur fr quency? Varian ? in e tment . iz t i me fai l u r frequ n y � ) B ut they seem i ndifferent t o the various ri k that employee ometime run : job-related tress, i nj u ry, hara ment, punish ment for joining a labor union depre ed labor market, di m i al, lock-out, wage drop, or 10 of retirement benefits. Econonlic ecurity i such an i m portant value that the International Labor Office 2004a) a UN organi zation. regard i t a a b a i c human right. Regrettably mo t moral and legal philo ophers have verlooked thi val ue. c
•
94
Political Philosoph
Let u now gather tog ther the variou d imcnc ion of ccuri ty. 1 un der. tand by ' l i abi l i ty, integral . ecurity,' or j u. t ', ecuri ty, the set of mate ri al condition. of exi . tence, such a. food housi ng, empl oyment, health care, protection from violence, a clean and peacefu l en i ronment, and old-age pension. L i fe cannot be ful l y enjoyed w i thout them . And the hungry, homele. . or . ick can not be expected to be capable and w i l l i ng of helpinCJ others l i e-that i . , o f exerci. i tlcY . ol idarity. Note aJ . 0 that, contrary to both standard economjcs and neoliberali m I am not w ri t i ng about prosperity but j ust about l ivab i lity-cn i ronmental biological, and econom i c . Thi . i s a more affordable goal, and one compati b l ' w i th the m oderation, or even frugality, n cded to ach i eve e nv i ronmental sustai nabil ity. By contrast t he ten11 ' 'affiuen e ' and ' prosperit y ' evok . l u x u ry and wa te. l n hort we hould add ' l i vabi l ity," or 'integral per , sonal 'ecurity to th . admi rabl ' tri n i ty W ' i nherited from the French Re olution. But of cour. int gral p rsona] security-the . et of mat rial condi tion. of existe nce-do s not fal l from heaven but mU.t be earned by individual. or groups. A . Locke and S m i th argued, l abor i . the ulti mate source of al l I giti mate wealth . And, a. M arx added work can a1 . o be a mean. of emancipation and . If-real ization. However many occupation. invol ving m anual work are l iterall y 'dirty, ' others are dangerou " and ' (i l l other ' are ·tigmatized i n certain 'oc ietie ' for purely cultural reasons. For in 'tance, in India only low-caste people can work a ' ' weepers, garbage col lectors, tanner ' , or even 'hoemaker '. B u t in more ad ,meed 'oc ietie ' many previously d 'pi 'ed occ upat ions are no longer · tigmat i :ted and i t . worker ' get paid well . For in ' lance bookkeeper ' once t he low ' l i n the white-collar h ierarchy. ha risen to m anag r tatus; Toronto garbage col I ctor earn 40 per hour and i n New York t h y call th m ' I e ' ' an itary engineer ' .' Thu . ' occupation may d velop u ph mism , cl i n ic al t rm , and a u n iq ue argot to mut the ' al i nce of d i rt and edify trunted ta ks" Kreiner et a1 2006: 627 ) . I n a n y vent, all adults mu t work t o l i ve and al l normal peopl want to work. For. contrary to both the B ible and tandard economic i nce S m i th, exp riment ha shown that ' m an ha an inherent need of work ' to the point of dec l i n i ng good pay in exchange for idlene ( Hebb 1 95 3 . Thu , far from being a c u rse work i h ighly val uable to the indi i dual a well a to ociety. Hence i t i de i rable to guarantee the right and duty to gai nful work. B ut at present thi right i hard to i mplement, and it ha n t ev n been nshri ned in l aw. I ndeed, rn a pr duction and free trade among unequal nations-two trademark f i ndu trial apitalism-breed
Values and
lorals
95
unemploy ment, which i n the Thi rd World often rcache 50� of the adu l t population . As for national secu rity. traditional l y i t h a � been . ought through m i l i tary m i ght. B u t a ci i l i zed and democ ratic . ociety , hould u. e force onl y a s t h e l a . t reo ort. Thi . j . . 0 n o t o n l y becau, e i olence attack. basic ri g h ts, but also because victory by force ha . . eldom l a. ting reo u1t�. I ndeed to attain . ecuri ty it i s better to make friend. or neutraL than enemie . . This is why ' i nce time i nl nlemorial when me ·ting trangers people ha e shown their empty hand. rather than a weapon. Furthernlore the habitual re 'ort to force empowers exc ' i vely the law-and-order and arm 'd forces. I n te rnal peace i b '. t 'cur 'd through justi " [md international peace through fairn . [md cooperation i n international rel ations as well a the observance of i nternational law. The Maginot Line, the strongest and mo t sophi ticated t rench in h istory did not protect France from th . German onslaught. It j ust gave the French ruler. a false sen. of . curi ty. It is well k nown that concern for internal and international . ecu ri ty can grow to the point of ob. e . . ion. in which case it invit . c u rtai l ing c i v i l rights. The U n i ted S tat . ha. a tradition of trading . ecu ri ty for c i v i l right. . Thus the Anarchi. t Scar in the 1 80 wa. manufactured to beat up and e n hang l abor organ izer. . There had to be a bomb in every u ni on local. The Red Scares i n the 1 920 ' ,md 1 950 ' w r u 'ed to p r 'ecute lefti st · of all strip . ; there m u · t b a Red under very bed. And th Terror Scare engi neered ' ince the 9/ 1 1 attack ' has rendered detention without trial, tort u re, and pre-emptive m i l i tary aggre ' ' ion legal i n the eye ' of many A me ric,m ' a reaction that ha ' fueled a 'omewhat i rrational anti Americ,m wave around the world . Peac i both a goal i n i t , I f and a means to bui ld ecuri ty-whenc th perennial r I ance of paci fi m. H owever, we must di t i ng u i h two k i nd of pa i fi m : Radical or u n onditional and m od rate or conditional . The radical pac i fi t w i l l not only ab 'tain from e ngaging i n aggre '. ion. He will al 0 oft r th oth r heek . That i h w i l l not counterattack. and w i l l work for th di band i ng of all security force . . Th m od rate pac i fi .t by contra l, w i 1 l re i t aggre ion and favor reducing and reforming the armed force . arguing that their member shoul d be peacekeep rs, earch and re c ue agent , and re lief workers w hen natura] disa ter strike . W hen national ecuri ty become the central concern of a government al l other aspect of life are ubordi nated to i t. People are a ked to acri fice property, l iberty, and even life to national ecurity. Thi i why pol itician metime invent ecu rity i u , in order t i n rea e thei r wn power r that of t heir wn country. Thus, B i m ar k engineered the war w i th
9
Political Philosoph
Au tria to u ni fy Gcrnumy· ll it lcr i n cntcd thc Jcw i sh- B oL hcv i k Pcril to . eize power; and George W. B ush i nvented I raq s W M Ds to invade i t and t o p u t h i . own country o n a penllanent , tate o f emergency and thu. intim i date hL opponent. . When national . ecuri ty i. an authentic i ssue, the fi rst hone. t and intel 1 i gent thing to do i . to u nvei l it. root. Thi . exercise may re eal that the cau. e l ie. w i th us, not them . For i nstance, I. rael . chron ic . ecurity problem i ' due not only to the inept poli ies of it neighbor. , but also to it continued ill 'gal 0 cupation of Pal 'stinian tCITitoric . M 're withdrawal from them woul d . 01 ve half thc problem ' and A m 'ri can neutra l ity i n t h ' confl ict would solve t h ' oth 'r half. O n ' reason thi s i s 0 d i fficult to achieve i that th ' politicians on both i d " of the D'n 'C nccd cach other to r 'tain powcr another, far more i mportant, rcason i. that thc U nitcd Stat '. us ' I.fa '1 to guard th ' gatc to the oil well s next door. War-. tate-conducted mas. m urder-i. undoubtedly the mo. t i rratio nal wastefu l , and i mmoral of al l antisoc ial activitie . . It i . the ulti mate cri m , as my compatriot Alb rdi 1 870 argued more than a c ntury ago. Indeed, war v iolates th right to l i f of c i v i l ians as well a. combat ants-unless these l i m i t th ir activ i ty to droppi ng bombs from a safe altitude. Be. ide. , war drain. the trea. u ry and thr at n. c i i l libertie. , since i n wartime the citizen i s x pected to shut up and pay up. And yet u nt i l recently war was regarded as a calanlity on a par w ith droughts. It took a world war to real i ze that war is avoi dable because it i man-made. - igned th General And it wa only in 1 928 that a l mo ° t al l th ·tat Treaty for the Renunciation of War. The League of alion ' ,md the U ni ted at ions were organi zed after the first and econd world war ' re. pectively because all that had finall y b e n u n d rstood. T h fail u re o f th League and the l i m i ted ucce " o f th U do not prove that war i . i n v i tabl . but that th x i t i ng Olechani. Ol. to pre nt ar t i l l imperfect. The. xp ri nc . al 0 uggest that int ma tional org an izations hould be u ppl mented w i th regional on --c i i li an allianc rather than m i l i tary pact though. To r v r e the anci nt Roman dictu m : If you want peace, prepare for peace. ext i n our agenda come equality, which i primarily a mora] i ue. So much so, that ocial i nequality wa taken for granted from the begi n nings of c i i ] i zation , fi ve m i l lennia ago, tiH the m i d 1 700 . when a few intel1ectua] , particular]y Rou eau Diderot, and Morelly declared social ineq ual ity to be both unnatural and i mmoral. There i s no que tion but that the egali tarian ideal ha i n spir d mu h cial ref rm ver the past two centuries particul arly sinc the emergence f the welfare tate ar und 0
0
0
Values and
lorals
97
1 900 and the end of nlan i fe t coloni al i m in the 1 960 . How vcr before going ahead we m u . t recall that there are many k ind. of equal i ty, amonCJ them pol i tical and econom ic at variou. leveL and differe n t functi ons (. ee, e.g. Ti l ly 1 998 . U nder pol i tical democracy, al 1 citizen. are sai d to be free to vote and run for offi ce, but some may be m uch weal th ier than other. -a dio pari ty that may be u. ed to pol i tical advan tage. Political equal ity ha� rLen nearly e erywhere . i nce the end of the World War ll. B y contra. t economi i nequality among individual ' and na tion ' ha increa 'ed . ince the 1 980s, and w i th it th . threat to dome tic and i nt 'rnational democracy. Paradoxical ly, economic i nequal i ty ha ' b 'come more pronounced in the rich '. t and m o- t powerful nation ' (see Ja ob. and S kocpol 2005 ) . And yet 'conomic i nequal ity i . not o n t h e research agenda of nl0st 'ontemporary pol i ti cal scienti ' r . It i . particul arly ab ent from the w riting ' of politologi t seduced by the rational-choic . paradignl . u gge.ted by that most i l l u . trious of i nt l l ectual cada ers. neoclassical m icroeconomics. Thu . only on of th 1 4 most r cent pre. id n ts of th A merican Pol itical Sci nce A . . oc i ation A PS A xpr . . d concern for the neglect of in qual ity i ssue. in the cont mporary politological literatur H och. child 2005 . This may be taken as a sad indicator of the irr I vanc of contemporary pol i tical philo. ophy to current pol itical . cience . B y contrast, i nequali ty i ' the fi r ,t item in t he ' u mmary of Contempo rO I Sociology, a publi cation of th merican S oc iological A . · ociation. I t i s al so the subject oC the i nvestigation ' for which Amarlya Sen 1 999) was awarded the so-cal led obel Prize i n economic ' . Contra ry to the orthodox economi ·t " who focu ' on GDP and econom i c growth Sen ha ' focu 'ed on individual capab i l ity (or po ' i ti ve freedom ) ; '0 ha ' M artha Nu baum 2000). Thi . is th abi lity of a p r 'on to function adequat ly and with dignity i n h r ociety. I ' uggest that a p r on be om . capabl to the xtent that . he can meet all h r prim ary objective n ed nouri h m nt l odgi ng company, t c . a ' w e l l a ' h e r 1 gitimate d ire -tho who e ' ati ' fact ion do not pr v nt any on el 'e from me ting their pri mary n ed B unge J 989a) . I al 0 ubm i t that t h e capabil i ty i n q u e t i o n m a y b e anal yzed i n to two component : odaL and i ncome c u m a et . H igh i ncome doe not com p nsate socially and p ychologica l ly for low ocial tatu , wherea high odal tatu doe compen ate for low income. Ord i narily a dark- ki nned eng ineer i s not made felt the equal of h i White col leagues whereas an i mpoverished European or Indian ari tocrat m ingle effortle ly w ith wealthy statu peer .
98
Political Philosoph
Pol i ti cal ci nti ts arc u nder tandably i n tere tcd i n pol i tical cqual i ty, as in the fomlula. "one man, one ote and "one natlon, one ote. B y contra. t, , 0 iologi. t and moral phi l o. ophers ought to be i nterested i n se eral other equal itie. a . wel 1 , particularly i n gender, ethnic, econom ic, and cultu ral equal itie . . I n all the. e ca, e. "equal ity" can be under. tood in arious way. particularly in two . en. e. : equal i ty of right. (or oppor tunity) and equal ity of outcome . . I hall dismi. . out of hand equality of out ome because equal out comes 'an only be attain 'd by the brutal e l i m i nation of th . be t endowed and mo- t original i nd i idual -th ' way the K h mer Rouge d ictator h i p d i d i n Cambodia ( 1 975-79 . B abeu f propo ed forced equality a t the 'nd of the eighteenth c 'ntury ; Kurt Vonnegut and Pat Cook sat i ri zed it i n th ' mid- 1 950s. Th ' main haracter i n their dy ,topia wa. the H [mdi 'apper General, who . . ta. k was to make sure that everyon ·'s brain works at th . lowest common Ie 1 . O n the oth r h and, w e should b e very concerned about sharp i nequal i ti . of i n itial endowment. and opportunities becaus they deri from u nj u. t i fled privilege and are . tron gly corr l ated with po rty, unem ployment, ignorance, cri m . and u nhappin . s. Conservati es c laim that earnings ar far more i mportant than rank. I m portant to whom . ot to the vast majori ty of wage earner '. For them r lative deprivation is just as bad a ' i n ' u fficient i ncome, for it m ake ' them fe I worthle ' ' . I t doe ' not make an A frican American feel good to know t hat he earn ' 1 00 t imes more than an Angolan . ormal ly, people care j ust a ' m uch for thei r r lative standing a ' for th i r i ncome. U n like orthodox economist · and poli tologi ,t " sociolog i ·t ' have known thi ' ver ' ince th pioneeri n g work of Robert M rton a n d A l i Ro 'si i n 1 950 e.g. M erton 1 96 8 ) o n t h e refer n c e g roup, and of R u nc i man 1 966) a n d S n ( 1 999) on relativ d pri ation. M oreover rec nt p ychological xperiment ' hav hown that most people d i appro of 'harp i nequ al i tie . and are w i l li ng to do 'omething to corr ct th m: they " ngage i n co tly act that promot equ i tabl r o urce di.t ribution " Daw t al . 2007 ) . Stati tic how that people I i e healthier and longer i n the more egali tarian ocietie , such a the ordic nation , the Netherland , Japan Costa Rica, U ruguay and C uba, than i n the i negalitarian ocietie , uch as the U nited State and B ri tain. I n particular. tati tic how t hat i nequality of i ncome and a et is the mo t rel i able indicator, hence predictor. of cri me rate ( G i l ligan 200 1 . Regrettabl y, tati tics al o how that i nce the 1 980. i n me i nequal i ty ha ri en harply in all c untrie even i n the affluent ones G albraith and B erner 200 1 ' Ken worthy and P ntuss n
Values and
lorals
99
2005 . Who can doubt that thi degradation of one of the main indicators of modern i ty is an effect of the i ncrea. i n CJ power of corporation. and the concomitant shift to the pol i tical right around the world? H owever, let u. reo ume our conceptual d i scu . . ion of equality. i nce no two individuals are identical , and since we should cheri . h diver, i ty, I . ubmit that we . hould aim for a . ocial order that prom ote. d i ver. i ty a n d e q u al opport u n i t i e . rather than forc i ng eq ual i t y ; a regi m ' that e n s u re the rig ht to d ' ' lop e e ryon e ' capac i t i " p ro v i ded they are not anti- oci a! , and th ' obl i gation to pay soc i ety back w h at ociety i nvest in the i n d i v idual " education . Thi s is t h ' i dea t hat Loui B l an c ( 1 847 called ' proportional i ty ' and u mmarized i n t h e famou. form u l a adopt 'd by 0 ' i a l i ts of a l l tripe. : To each a cording to hi needs, and from each ac 'ore/ing to h is abilitie T h i . i . proportionalism rather t h a n egal i t ari a n i s m . We shall d ' elop t h i s t h me i n t h e l ao t chapter. F o r now l e t u s g l i mp. e at t h re . ubj ct. : t h ori g i n . of egal itarianism, a n d th equal i ty-l iberty a n d equ al ity-de mocracy connections. It h as be n . aid that gal i tarian i . m i s part of th J w ish, hri . tian and I. l am ic t raditions, because th y hold t h at we are a l l c h i l d ren of God. H owev r, non of th s "gr at r l i g i on . ' conde m ned . l av ry or 'erfdom u n t i l recently, and all of them ex c l uded the i n fi de l ' from the com m onwealth. I ' l am i ' the m o ,t advanced of the t h ree, for i t proc l a i m ' the eq ual i ty o f the fai t h fu l . U n i ver ' a l ega l itari an i ' m i s a m odern idea l . I t i . l i ke l y to have be n i nvented by pinoza who i n fl uenced Locke , who i n t u rn i n fl u need Rou . ' eau , D iderot , a n d other m e m ber ' o f the Fr nch E n l ightenment. S t i l l , the main or yen only q u al ity they advocat d w a. political. 0 era] ] equal i ty wa promot d o n l y by the German A n ab ap t i . t , i n the i x teenth century and by t h Engl i ' h L e ll e r ' i n th next. T h l ater Social i st · a n d ommuni t w r gal i tarians too, but they added that w ith p c ial abi litie come added r pon ibilitie . . Start i ng i n 1 964 th U n i ted S tat . enacted Affi rmative Action l aw ' and rule that as ign merit poin t for race ( and gender . at a time when that was the mo t raci t of all the ad anced nation . I n e ence. those laws aJlow people to catch up b fore being req u i red to compete . Affi rm a tive action ha been criticized a a form of rever e d i cri m i nation. Thi c ri ti c i m i unfair. W hat i t doe i to g ive opportunitie to people who lacked them before j ust becau e of their ex or color a a con equence f which they were not well pr pared to ent r competition for job a nd ollege . A ffi rmati e action i thu i n the same league a the handicap i n '.
1 00
Political Philosophy
golf. It low r th barri r to entry but not the barriers to exit: i t seeks to equal i ze opportun itie. w i thout loweri ng standard" . 0 that it is con. L tent with meri tocracy (. ee H i l l 1 99 1 ). I t would seem obviou. that demo racy combine, equali ty w i th l i berty Garz6n -Valde. .... 000 ) . Only conservat i ves di. agree : They hold that l i berty i incompatible with equal i ty and, moreover, that equality threat ens l i berty. They do not , ay why but one may guess that they are only i nterested in free 'nterpri se, which i i ndeed threat 'ned by labor u nion ' and left-leani ng g roup . ceking to decrea ' inequality or e en attempt to attai n 'ocial ju ,tice. How ' er aft 'r th ' d i 'a trou performance of th ' so-cal led ' really exi ,ting '0 'iali 111 ' a genuine l i beral uch as Dwork i n 1 9 1 i s justified i n l11i trusting egalitariani . m . B u t h ' i ' hardly j u .tificd in redefining equal ity as ' equal concern for all" (Dworkin 2000 , for thi ' is only pat 'rnali s m . Equabty i not a good to b ' di 'pens d from above: it i . th ba. ic trait of . ocial r l aUon. among the citiz n. of a democ racy. The idea of authoritarian or paternal i . t equal i ty is an oxymoron. U n like conser ati es, progressive think r. regard equal i ty and l iberty as d pending upon one anoth r. In particular wher a. l i b ral de mocrat. hold that l i bert y i. a precondition of equality, social ist. clai m that only equal i ty can guarantee l i b rty. I sub m i t that each of th se v iews ha. a grain of truth, for neither of those value ' c,m be real ized wi thout the other. Indeed, l i bert y i . nee " ary to 'eek equality, and only equality can prevent the concentration of freedom in a few hand '. In ' hort, l iberty and equal i ty ' hould be pursued joi nt ly. H ow er, the pursuit of thi ' or any other pro-social goal al so requ i re ' solidarity rather t han 'elfi shne ·s. Thi . i . so becau 'e no one can get anything i mportant without the disinterested a· i tanc of oth r ' . In hort, th French r vol u t ionaries of 1 789 had got i t ba ical l y right : Liberte e aLite, fralenzile. Let U ' now tackle th third i te m in our agenda, nam 1y fraternity or sol idarity, to u e a gend r-n u tral t rm . Solidarity, or concern for other" comes in thr e k i nds: 1. 2. 3.
or both cooperation and m urual a i d am ng equal . Top down, or private charity and tate-, upported poor-relief. Bottom-lip, or corporate "vel fare : the p ri i leges a llotted arm m a n u Horizontal,
facturers. petroleum and pharmaceu t ical compan ies. and others. at the
taxpayer' expe n
e.
Top-down charity i . of cour. a v i rtue exto]) ed by both atholici . m and L lam and i t go s from alm s-giving to the adm i rabl l arge-scale work done by . ome fou ndations, to the mod rn r Ii f state u. ual1 y
alues and Morals
101
cal led welfare state .' 1 use the ncologi m 'bottom-up olidari t y ' w i th ton gue in cheek . I t i ncl udes the h uge m i l itary and admi n i strative ex penses i nc u rred by a1 1 empi re. to "pacify" the nati e, of the subjected land. , tax b reak. to oi l compan ie. , . ub. idie. given to ph amlaceuti cal companies to . ell pre. cript i on druCJ• to . enior. , and more . Tn a g ood ociety only hori zontal sol i darity, that i. , cooperation, . hou l d cou n t . This L w hat m ake. , ur i al i n . han tytown. po. sible (Lomn i tz 1 977), and what explain ' the r 'silience of the J 'wi . h people . I roni cally the ghettos i mposed by the C hr i tians rei n forced olidarity by forci ng Jew. to l i ve elbow-to-elbow. The site of horizontal solidari ty is the ci i t ociety. Thi s i a collection of voluntary associ ation. -fronl food bank and mutual-aid '0 'ieties to political parties-that intend to either u pplement or critici ze the gov 'rn ment. Ev 'ry advanced country i nc ludes a trong 'ivil ociety. Because th GO. c i v i l -society organ i zat ion. gov rn them. I es and perform . ocial functions. they ar seen d i fferently by pol iticians of diff ren t tri pe . . The neo-lib raJ . w ho ar anti-. tate would l ike to transf r all th . oci al . rvices to charitable i nstitution. -th "points of light' onc r ferred to cryptica11y by th fi rst Pre. ident B ush; t hey woul d a l . 0 l ike to tar e or even harass the associations, . uch a. the Am rican i il L iber tie ' U n ion Amnesty International and even ati onal Public Radio, that are thorn ' on their 'ide. By contra ,t, the cla . ' ical authoritarians, who-u n b ke t he traditional conservatives-are 'tati st · , advocate either de · troyi n g t he civil 'oc iety or captu ri ng i t . One of t he most ' uccessful capture operation ' wa . the Fundaci6n y uda S ocial, active in A rgent ina from 1 948 to 1 95 5 , and run t i l l her death by Evita Peron the pr id nt . wife. Thi ' harity ga handouts of many k ind ' . from ca h to ' w i ng m ac h i n , to whoev r cou l d prove both need and pol i tical l oyalty. I t wa. funded by voluntary" contribution ' from labor u nion . public employ and bu i nes m n. and run by th · tate-inc luding th 'oldier that tran ported and del ivered th gift . That fou ndation ' s aim s were to t u rn the poor i nto 'upplicant ' i n exchange for ote . D u ring the same p riod the Peron government gave the dome ticated labor unions a large n umber of large and we ll-located buildings, where they i n tai led retirement homes, c li n i c , holiday hotel , and other e tab I i h ments, for u e of the union member and their fami li e . It wa rare for the benefi c iarie not to u pport the ru ling power-e. g. , by attendi ng party rallies and abstain from striking. I n short an auth ritarian- popu l i st g v e rn ment m ay h ij ack i v i l ociety t o convert c i ti zens i nto uppli cant . ·
·
·
4
1 02
Political Philosophy
Let u . now witch from c harity ac a . oci al control tool to cooperation as a tool for freedom in the . en. e of . elf-go emance . Cooperation L of course de. i rable to carry out any col 1 ecti e endeavor, not only among people but aL 0 amonCJ eu. oci al in, ects, raven" hyena" chimpanzee. , and other animal. . This i. why i t i . l ikely that people have cooperated from the beginni ng. of our specie. : in gathering, scavenging, hunting, defending their territory and so on. And yet most 'vol utionary p. ychologi t and 'conomi 'ts hay ' found coop 'ration paradoxica l be au e i t i nvol ve s co- ts to th ' indi i dual . Therefore they have onstru ted i ngeniou. but unte table hypothe. es to account for th ' per a lve occurrenc ' of coop 'ration ( ee e.g., B us 2004 . Apparently th 'y have neither heard about moral entiment nor p ,rfonned a co. t-benefit analy i of c oop 'ration compared to competition. either of their th orie explain c oop 'ration . In part icular, kin ' I ction theory doe. not explain coop ration among gen ticany unre lat d i ndividua1 . such a s spou ses. friend. , coworker. soldier. , and fel l ow o l u nteer. in GO . . And rec iprocal altruism ("I . cratch your bac k if you scratch m i ne" ) doe. not account for the genuine genero. i ty at work in oluntary organi zation. or ev n in the stre t. A r a. on for this failure i. that the theory i gnores th exi. tence of moral e motions . uch as mpathy and sympathy- ,tudied by the young A da m S mith-as w 11 as the need for other-regardi n g behavior i n any 'ocial group. On the po ' i tive ' i de, recent experi ment · hay ' hown that other-re gard i ng behavi or, i n part icular cooperation, i ' per a 'i e, not j u ,t among col lege ' ludent · i n indu · triali zed ' ocieties ( G i ntis et ai., ed ' 2005 . The 'e result ' were confi rmed by fou rteen re 'earcher ' who performed expe ri m nt on 1 762 adu l t sampled from 1 5 diverse popul ation at 1 . o f d e lopment o n fi d i fferent continents Henrich t differ nt I al . 2006 The subject. exhi bi ted altr u i ,tic b havior to the point of bei ng w i l l i ng to adm i n i ter co t l y puni h m n t on sel fi . h beha ior. Mor i n Chapt r 2 , S ction J . I n 'hort xp riment h a fal ' i fi d the central dogma of ' tandard eco nom i c theory that all human are e l fi h, hence incapable of compassion and empathy, a wel l a born enemie of equal ity. Thi fi ndi ng wou ld not have urpri ed D iderot, Rou eau. or S mith. for they p laced great val ue on ocia] emotion long before it wa di covered that we cannot help hav i ng them becau e we are born w ith a l imbic y stem , the organ of emotion. The moral for political theori t should be obviou : Stop aping the b lete econom ics the ry that assumes people to be perfectl y fr e "rational ' and well i n formed a w e l l a s sel fi h and obsessed with .
.
alues and Morals
103
cconomizing on olidarity and 10 c. Sc Phe l ps 1 975 for Titici m of this fi ction . H owever, before j umpi n CJ to the conclu. ion that solidarity i. attainable o emi CJht on the planetary , cale, let u s peek at another piece of empirical data. Recent experiment. cond u ted on member, of some of the moo t egal itarian com m un itie. , indigenou. g roup. in Papua New G u i nea, sug ge. t that "natural " altru i . m i . parochi al o r tribal. Indeed, punishers of norm violators tend to protect i n-group v ictim much mor ' than th 'y do out-group subjects (Bernhard Fis 'hbacher and Fehr 2006 ) . S t i l l there i s hope for global cooperation namely th ' e x i t ' n c ' of i ntergovernm 'ntal org,Ulizations, ' uc h as the I nternational A tronomical U n ion, and i n ter national NGOs of ariou k i nd , from the Red C ross to Doctor Without B order . There arc uch thi ngs as valu 's w ithout borders- alue shared by very d i fferent oci ,tic ' . o t that, far from b i ng i ndepend nt o f other alue. , ol idarity de pend. u pon l i b rty and equal i ty. S lav . and s rfs mu. t obey and assi. t. but th y do not really cooperat w i th their masters. For two per. ons to cooperate w i th on another they In U . t be fre to do . 0, and th y must r gard and treat each oth r as equa1. rather than i th r mao ter or servant. In sum, equal i ty and liberty ar jointly necessary for . ol idarity. Con. e quently the - logan i berty, equal i ty fratern i ty or 'ol idarity " could be ' h ru n k to Sol idarity.' 3. Political Values : Ju tice Freedom Competence
Let u . start w i th the ery fir ,t of pol i t ical val ues: ju ·tice. In pri m itive and archaic t i me ' , j u ' lice was ' ynonymou ' with revenge. I n modem thought, t h two idea. are u tt rly d i tinct. Fir t, re nge r t ribution or retaliation i . i ncrea. i ngly b i ng r garded a ' barbaric and i mmoral . Second. reveng i s to b avoided for pmd ntial reasons becau i t breeds r tal i ation. a ' in fami l y feud. and in th Near Ea · t confl ict , . Thi rd ng i s your. or mine j u tic i our : it i a ocial or hared wh rea ' r value b cau e it con i t i n fairness to all concerned . Let u tart by recal ling that there are two main concept of j u t ice : legal and moral . The former con i t i n the rule or law. regardle of whether the law i fai r or u nfair, equitable, or inequitable. Obviou l y j u ri t are far more i ntere ted i n legal j u t i c e than i n moral j u tice-par ticu larly i f they adopt legal po itivism, the variety of relat i v i m accord i ng to which only the l aw of the land m atter . Legal po itivi m , which i s only tenu u l y rel ated to phi l . ophical po itivi m i s the d m inant legal philo ophy becau e i t support the power that be . By contrast
1 04
Political Philosophy
moral legal and political phi loc ophcrs foc u on moral just ice and tend to eval uate the l aw of the land from a u niver, al i st moral stand, . uch a. Spinoza s, Rou" eau '. , or Kant , . For i n , tance, they w i l l arCJue that the rule of l aw i. a . oc ial de. i deratum provi ded the l aw it. elf L equ itable: otherw i . e nomocracy is malefi c . We dL tingui. h , i x main kind. of moral ju. tice according as i t concern. indi vidual. interpersonal rel ations, . ociety the envi ronment the state, or the i nternati onal com m u n i ty. The fir t equals re p ct for i ndividual rights ' the second, the considerate tr 'atm 'nt of oth 'rs ' the third, social ju Lice, or th ' equ itable al lotment of benefits and burd 'ns; the fou rth, env i ronmental justic ' con i t in the equ itable haring of env i ronmental benefits' th ' fifth i ' id 'ntical with i mpartiality when ke 'ping law and order; and the sixth onsi ,t in equal right for all nations. From th ' preceding sket -hy descri ptions it hould be c le ar that th ' common factor of al l k inds ofjustic is /a irn ?SS or ?quil , a, Rawls ( 1 97 1 ) h Id. Even toddler. show th y k now thi . . When depri ved of what other children get, or when puni. hed for acts that oth r chi ldr n com m i t w ith impunity, th y c ry 'No fair!' And labor organi zers rightly complain that in the U . S . wag . hav remai ned practical l y stagnant over the pa. t 25 y ars while producti ity ha. i ncre ased 4 � per y ar-an g regiou. ca. e of i ndu · t ri al u n fairn . · . I t tak . a Nobel Laureate in econom i c ' , such as Pau l Sam uel 'on, to blame labor co ·t " rather than i nabi lity to i nnovate and to earn the work r ' loyalty, for the gutting o[ merican i nd u 'try i n recent year ' . Being treated fai rly i ' a basic human need, hence a human right. I t take ' a Hegelian or a legal po 'itivi ,t to c laim that j u ·tice i . defi ned by po ' i t ive law, no m atter how barbari it m ay b . From a moral iewpoint. a legal cod i ' ju t only if q u itabl and quitabl onl y if omme n u rat w ith our need and m an '. Writt n l aw ' can at b · t entr nch ju ti equ ity ), at wor t i nj u · tice i neq u i ty ) . Juri , t and philo oph r ' a r i n t rested i n a l l i x k j nd o f j u stice, And, w ith t h . 01 exception of Hobb . Hegel, tyran t " neo l i b ral and legal positivi t ( "M ight make right ' . everyone agree that ethic i relevant to ju tice of all kind . This i becau e the concept of equ i ty, which i common to all p cia] concept of j u tice i moral . There i al 0 con en su about the need for legal code i n any society and any supranati onal organizati on . The problem for the political phi l o opher i whether a given legal norm is equi table or favor the i ntere ts of the few. Let u now gi ve thumb sketche of retributive (or correcti e) and di tribu t ive r 0 ial ju. t i ce which w i l l be examined in hapters 8 and 9 r pectively.
alues and Morals
105
Each of thc two k i nd of dome tic ju t i 'c 'ome i n variou hadc . ome of whieh get close to inj ustice. In particular, ret ributive j u. tice can be a. barbaric a. retaliation, as i. the case of the biblical l aw "A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye '; or it can be a, advanced a, the wed i . h penal code, which ai m. ulti mate l y at the reeducation. rehabi 1 itation and rei n tegration of cri m i nal . i n society. L i kew i . e, di stributi e or . oci al j u. tice ) can be under, tood in arious ways. In h i ' magi. terial h i .tory of the concept, PI 'is hacker 2004: 4 ) d 'fines i t thus: " D i tributi e j u ,tice' i n i t s mod 'rn ense cal l s o n the state to guarante ' that property i di 'tri buted throughout soc i ,ty 0 that everyone i uppli ed with a c 'rta i n lev '1 of material mean ." Th ' same author op. c i t . : 1 26 rem arks that thi ' r 'cent i deal did not emerge and spread along w i th scienti fic and technological advance , but as a resu lt of "a change in people " en ' i b i l ities.' In tum, moral progress wa helped by novel ists w i th soci al . n. ibi l i ty . uch a. Dickens, Zola, and Gorky, as m uch a. by the works of the e arly social ist. and anarc hists. Howe r di. t ri buti e j ustic i . a w i d range of doctrin s and pol i c ie . , from m e r rel ief o f m i s r y t o fun-fledged . ocial j u . t i c i n th form of eith r equitable or 'proportional' allotm nt of bene fit. and hurd n s . A nd j u . t i c e of th i . k i nd can b e d i spen . d from above, b y th . tat , or conquered from below, by th free a ' ' oc iation of workers i nto eoop e rativ " a . Loui . B l an c ( 1 847 and John Stuart M i l l 1 965 p roposed. I n eith r ca 'e I subm i t that , to d 'erv being ealled " oeially ju ·t ' a ' oe i a l order m u ,t balance rights w ith dutie . i n ·tead of bei ng r ' t ri cted to e i ther rights or dutie ' . I also sugge · t re ' tric t i ng 'di stri but i ve ju ' t i ce" to redistribution pol icie ' from above, r e 'erv i n g 'oe i a l j u stice" for the . tat of ociety wh re e e ryon . urvi ve r g ardless of merit but th bett r endow d or more enterpri ing are giv n the chane of ser ing oci ty to the be t of th ir abi l i t ie -a ort of ynthe i of gal i tarian i ' m w ith meritocracy. Justi e (1.\'
Prill 'jple
Ri�ht.\
To ea h a c ord i ng to th ir right . 1'\0 mention of duties. � ea h a cor ling I th ir need . N menli n of dutie . To ea h ac ord ing to their de crt . Dutie arc i mplied by d" e rts. ..tquitable di. tribution f b th benefit. and burden . . To ca h a cording to their need , from ca h ac ord i n o to t h i f abi l itin ' Lou i s B l a n
eed.\· D ert Equity Proporriollality
.
Table 3. 1
lain conceptions of distributhre ju lice.
1 06
Political Philosophy
ThL table uggc. ts that ncithcr of thc fi rst two trad i t ional con 'cp tion, of j ustice-the ari . tocrat'. and the beggar'. re, pectively-L fair, becau , e neither say. anything about . oci al rights and burdens: both are individualL t and there fore antisocial. They are a1 . 0 i mpractical , as any ac ountant w i l 1 confi rm . for no . oci ety can support a l arge ma . . of i ndi vidua1 . demandin g that other. provide for their needs and de, i re. without cont ributing anythi n g in ret u rn . I ndeed a . u , tainable . oci al sy. tem w i l l balance i t budget: it r 'venues ( from burden ' or duti " m u t b ' larger than or equal to i t 'xpendi tu r '. i n meet i ng benefi t or entitl 'ments . The variety of cone 'ption of justice ugge. t ' that thi s i a hi 'torica) category : there is no such thing a. natural and th -refore i mm utable j u tic ' anchor d i n our g 'n -tic h -ritage. L 'gal ociology and legal h istory have taught u that j u stice, far fronl being either God-given or natural , is a social con truction u nder permanent recon. truction. Thi i ' why n1Uch of what used to be regarded a. j ust, such a. revenge capital pun i . h ment, and i n oluntary u n mploymen4 i . now w i dely regarded a. u nju. t . Be cause j ustic is a soci al construction. i t i . a hi. torical category subject to poli tical action ai m d at reforming it. A nother obvious poi nt, though one l i kely to b mi . . ed by the ratio nal-choice theori. t. i s that j u stice i . a soc ial trait, and one that do , not flow from i ndividual acti on . Rather ju 'lice inh r . in the ' t ructure of every ' ociety, hence i t i ' part of the legacy everyone recei ve ' at b irth, and one that anyone may w i 'h to ither re 'pect or challeng and perfect in the nam of h igher val ues. Consequently i f an indi idual migrate ' from one country to another he w i l l be expected to obey the laws of hi . new land-which po 'e ' well-known d i fficuhie . to the i ndividua l ' who re i t integration. i ther becau ' th y keep . trong tribal or national l i nks, or b cau e they regard th m ' 1 e a faithfu l fi r 't and n wly i nduct d Clttz n econd. Next come l i b rty or freedom . We adopt the traditional di t inction b twe n negativ or pa ' ' ive and po ' i tive (or a t i l ib fty : betw n the l i b rtyfrom con ' traint and th l i b rty to act ee B rli n 1 969 . Take, for example the famous Four Freedom s li sted by Roo evel t in h i 1 94 1 S tate of the Union peech: Freedom of peech and wor hip, freedom from want and fear. The fir t two are po itive. the la t two negative. H owe er, far from bei n g m utually i ndependent the two kind of freedom, active and passive, are intimately related: Acti e l iberty, or the power to act, i ncl ude the ability to remove certain con traint , a in e caping fr In a j ai l and d i c nnecting one ell phone. In ther w rds oncept active freed In i mpli pass ive freed m . M ore vel' the tw
alues and Morals
107
can be subsumed u nder the i n g lc concept of sc1 f-dcternu nation or au tonomy. Thu. an i ndi i d ual is the free. t i f he can forCJe hi. own fate (li fe cour. e) ; but. , ince to do . 0 he need. the help of other. , he won ' t aehie e freedom i n the herm i t s cave, but through fi tting into one o r more . upport i e . oc i al networks-whi h w i l l in turn put de mands on h i m . Tn . hort, the pri e of per. onal freedom is social bondi ng. W hat hold, for indi vidual. also hold. I'1wtatis mutandis for . ocial syst ' m s . A fi rm i ' e 'ononl i all y free if uc e s , fu l l y self- nuUlag 'd ( w ithout trong intervention from banks or gOY 'rnment departm 'nt. ) . A n d a community i s poli t i 'ally free i f i t manage ' i t , affairs b y i t 'If. I n short, posi ti v ' ( o r active freedonl beat negati ve or passive freedom. Henceforth we hal l adopt the . trong ( activ ' po itive . 'n ' of the word . That i W ' ' hall equate freedom o r l i b 'rty with . 'If-determj nation o r autonomy. Furthermor , we di. t inguish . e ral k i nds of fr edom , in particular conomic to work and trade ) cultural (to learn and worship), and pol iti cal ( to participate in publ ic affair . . And we regard pol i tical freedom as a mean. for . ecuring economic and cultu ral fre dom . In l i beral . oc ieti . we tend to t ake pol itical freedom for g ranted. B ut of cour. e philo. opher. ar exp cted to qu stion n arly e rything. I n particular. we . hould a. k why w value freedom . The obviou ' an ' w r i s that l i berty i ' valued for two reasons : Becau 'e it con ' i ,t , i n doing or becoming what we want; and because it feel ' good to be free-even to imag i ne that one ha . the abil ity o f doing or becomi ng what one want ' . Thi ' i ' why people and other animals are w i l l i ng to pay a pric for freedom . I f i n dou bt, watch an ani mal tak i ng ri sks to get the food it need ' or the mat he wants; or read abou t th opponent of a dictator. hip who take to t h treet a t th ri k of their Ii gat i ve l iberty the only l ib rty neolib ral ' h ri h i ne r nough if only becau it do . not feed. This i why t h anci nt Roman citizen while proud of their civic lib rti . wh n hung ry t h y che r d any tyrant who gay out br ad. Thi s i w hat d m agogue or populi t do. Th y exchange pol i t ical freedom for freedom from want. They u e pol itical democracy a a mean to uppre pol i tical freedom . I n traditional ocietie brute force wa the only mean to attai n free dom or to deprive other from i t . There were no in ti tution de i gned to protect individual freedom. In democrati c odetie we can li e w ithout fearing to ]0 e our freedom a long a we don t behave anti ocial ly-or e le t govenl lnent l i kely to re. trict i t . Tru i n the cap italist dem cracies m ney buys p w r, whi h in tum can buy freed m from on traint as •
,
1 08
Political Philosophy
well , L freedom to act . But the bu i ness ty 'oon payc for h i power in worries and ulcers, and i n t i me . pent in the company of people whom he despi. e,. H e ha. the materi al mean. to enjoy the be, t thing. in l i fe-. uch as the company of friends, good m u. i , cYood l iterature trave l , and the abi li ty to help other. -but he ha. neither the ta, te nor the t i me for the m . H e pay. too h igh a price for too restri cted a freedom. The idea of forcing people to be free i n particular of imposing freedom by the for e of arms i- a contradiction in terms, and ju 't a propaganda ploy to di guise imp '1;al anlbition. The notion of forced freedom, hardly distingui 'h abl ' from that of free s 'tfdonl, is just a ludicrous a that of i nner freedom, sung by Kant Ficht ', and other tam ' profe SOI ' . And H 'idegger's 1 976) ,. statements that 'th , es 'ene ' of fr 'dom is truth and "the e s 'nee of truth i- fr 'dom,' are not ju t non ensical. They are a lso hypocriti al comi n g from . omeone w ho b 'l ie d i n neither fr 'edom n o r truth n o r ethic . Let u. a1. 0 note that l i berty i . pl u ral not s i ngular. Ther are as many kinds of l ibert y a. ki nd. of . oc ial act i ity and . orne of them ar incom patibl w ith oth rs. For in. t anc , free ent rprise i nvol . a skel ton . tate and thu. m i nimal . ocial . ervice. , which in turn curtail . fr edom from want, dis ase, and ignoranc . Fr ( wage labor, as opposed to . la e l abor, force. people to fend for them. I es rather than depending on rna. ter. for their livebhood-a ' counlle " 'lave ' i n B razi l i an plantation ' learned to the i r c hagrin when ' la ery wa ' aboli 'hed in 1 88 . bout 20,000 ex sla e ' , led by th prie ·t Antonio Con ' l heiro, took arm ' again ,t abolition and were massacred by the oppo ' i ng army i n 1 896. As for free trade among unequal partners i t l i m it . the abi l i ty of ' mall scale farmer ' ,md craftsmen to 'ell thei r product · in a market flooded by m ao - produc d good " ' uch a agricultu re produc e njoy i ng stat subsidie . Unr tricted fr e ' pe ch mak hatred propaganda po ible. U nre 'tricted freedom of a oci ation al low ' for the formation of crimi nal gang . Free ac e to . oc ia l erv ice ' c an only b fi n anced by i mpo i ng tax ' . And unf ttered free nt rpri e faci l itat reckle . . ne and fraud. To ch ck corporate soci al i rre pon ' ib i l ity th American Congress c re ated the Pen ion B enefi t Guaran ty Corp ( 1 974 ), which i n 2004 alone took 0 er 1 86 failed company pen ion fund -at the taxpayer's exp n e, of cour e. And in 2002, after the E nron wi ndle, Congre passed the Sarbane -Ox ley Act, which created the Public Company Accounting Over ight B oard, the auditor of company auditor : ee A rtus and Virard 2005 . I n hort , e ery l i berty is attained at the price of some other free d m. In fashi nable i f metaphori al terms: Th exer i e of l ibertie i a zer - u m game.
alues and Morals
109
H ow does freedom relate to equal ity? CommunisL from B ab u f and Cabet to M arx , Engel s. and Lenin, argued that l iberty mu. t be restricted or po, tponed for the . ake of equality. The ei ghteenth century phy. io rat. did not care for either: They combi ned free enterprise laiss -fair ) with pol i tical abo oluti . m . Thei r ontemporary s ucce . . or. -the neol iberals . uch as H ayek, Friedman, B uchanan, and Nozick-argue that l iberty prevai1. 0 er equal ity. They are eager to protect property ri CJht, and the e 'onom i c freedom and sec u rity of th ' m i nority : they do not worry about the tyranny of the nli nority that w ield 'conomi pow 'r. In the pa. t a few i ndividual could own l [md ,md people-slav ' , serf , or i ndentur d laborer . Modern capi taJ i. ts-wh ,th 'r a owners or as m anager. -need not own anything '0 tang ible as long a they own jobs or occupations that they can d '.ign r design mo e around, export im port or suppre ' ' . Job own 'rs may rent lea 'e or borrow nearly everything lse-land, bui lding. , machines truck. , . h ip. and even mon y-pro ided th y own jobs that th y can al1ot, w ithhold, or w i thdraw at w il l . Economic pow r reside. not i n mat rial pos. S. ion. but i n the power to generate or k i 1 1 jobs-to h i r and fir . Thi. abil ity gi es capitalist. a power over people'. l i v . that no other own i ng c l ass in the pa. t njoyed: th abi lity to nurtu r or cut down l i fe h i storie. on a l arg . cale. Thus this awe 'ome freedom of the few curtails the l iberty of the many. Tawney 1 964: 1 70) put it loq uently in hi . 1 93 8 cla . ' ic : econoolic power i ' a form idabl menace to the freedom o f common men. The pre ' ' ur of ' uch power is felt by the consumer when h pureha 'es nec e ' 'arie . which d i rectly or indirectly, are controlled by a monopoly. It i s f I t i o t h e work 'hop where, w i t h i n the l imit , set b y industrial leg i ' lation and coIl t i agr m nt th comfort and amenity of the wage- arnr ' ' u rrounding , the di cipl i ne and tone of factory l i f . t h e . ecnrity of mploy m nt and method of promotion, th re rui t m nt and dism i . 'al of work r ' the degr e to whi h ' ucc . ' i v rel ay . of cheap .i u n i l l abor ar mployed. th opportun ity to ecure con ideration for g ri e anc d pend ultimately u pon th pol icy pur ued by a board of director w ho may ha e litt le ) o e i ndeed, for their hareho)der but who repre ent in the ) a t re ort, their fi nancial i ntere t and who, in 0 far a they are hareholder them el e are neces arily j udge i n thei r own cause.' I n urn, the o-cal led free market threaten freedom becau e i t allow orne i nd i idual to accumulate econom ic, poli t i cal, and cultu ral power. or i s it true that equali ty i i ncompatible w ith democracy. The neo l i beral c l ai m that democracy i the tyranny of the maj rity hen e th y are ready t acri fice demo ra y at the free m arket altar. For example
1 10
Political Philosophy
M il ton Friedman and Frederick H ayek vL i ted Chilean dictator General A ugusto Pinoehet whom they prai. ed for having , aved "freedom.' Fried man a1. 0 . ent h i . " h icago boy. ' to advice Pi nochet and other dictator. on economic matter . . M arCJaret Thatcher, the former Prime M i n i . ter of the U ni ted K i ngdom, pral. ed the dictator while he wa. under hou. e arrest ac u. ed of hav i n g ordered murder. and torture, galore . In a gen u i ne demo racy every one h as the , ame basic ( o r human ) rights . Moreover, d 'mo -racy entai l s l i be rty but not con ersely. I ndeed, to make democracy work, a l l ' i tizens must enjoy the . arne l ibe11y to e erc i e th 'ir ba 'i ' right and to do their ba ic duti '. , i n particular th ' c i v ic ones. A uthentic democracy al o entail s equali ty, sin e w hen om ' hav ' much more power than nl0st th 'y can i m pos ' th 'ir w i l l on th ' weak and thus deprive most people of th . right to go e rn themsel v '. . Intere t ingly at the beg inning of th ' n ineteenth c 'ntury the A merican advocates of slavery u. ed the freedom argum nt-which i. e idence for the thesi. that freedom m i nus equal i ty equaL privi leg . I n short. , ubtl ties a. ide, here are the fol low ing possible combi nation. b tween fr edom equal ity. and thei r opposit , : FE -
=
Democratic soci al i . m
F E = So iet com muni ' m
-
FE
=
C l assical l iberalism
FE = Fa 'ci ' m
I f i deology were the mo ·t i mportant factor i n pol i t ic ' , t here should be only four neat pol itical blocs in the world scene-the on . shown abo e, but pol itical reali ty is mor complex . There i ' us in the fi rst place, and them i n the econd. For i n tance, b fore the decoloni zation proce in the 1 960 ' . the B ritish . French, Dutch. Germ an, B 19ian" and Ameri an. wer poli ticall y lib ra] at hom but oppre ive i n th ir oloni " Only the Spani ard and Portugue e wer con ' i t ntly i l l ibe ral both at hom and i n th i r coloni . . And . although t h Cold War i ' t i l l . aid to have b n about fre dom, in fact it brought together l i beral and de pot a well a comm u n i t and m i li tary d ictator . plu a large bloc of non-aligned nation , ome democratic l i ke India and other authoritarian like uba. The pol itical theorist or phi losopher who look only at i deologie and partie is bound to m i the real mover and shakers, namely the material i ntere t behind ideologi e and partie . More i n Chapter 5.) Let u s n w g limp e at the general idea of c iv i l right or l ibeltie ) . To beg i n w i th n te the f Bowing two feature f c iv i l right . They me i n
alues and Morals
111
bundles o r y . t m e rather than i n i olation and their cxcrc L c L bound to 1 ead to profound pol itical change . . Thus, the right to free expre . . i on and a . . oci ation faci l itate the right to vote, which i u . ed by progre. si e parties to attempt to i ntroduce socia1 reforms or e en chan CJe the . ocia1 order, wherea. con. ervative. see it a. a threat to privi1ege and attempt accordin g1y to thwart i t . For example, u. uany the Catholic Church e ither recom mended electoral abstention, or exhorted i t. faithfu 1 to vote for right-wing parties. And i n all three A merica the con 'ervatives wh 'n i n power, have perpetrated, o r tried t o perp 'trat ' electoral frauds. W henev 'r pol i ti cal right hav ' b ' 'n protected and exer i sed, they ha e I 'd to ' ig n i ficant pol i t ical changes. For example, the i ntrodu ,tion of univer al male) suffrage in Western Europe, the United S tat '. and the British dominions in the cour. ' of th ' n i neteenth 'ntury Illultipl ied tenfold the rate of politi cal partic i pation and di ersifi d the 'ompo ition of parl i ament . ome of which pa. . d progressi e 1 aws. Above al 1 u n i ersal . uffrage . trengthened d mocracy a n d b l ief i n i t . pow r t o ffec t progre . . iv . ocia1 changes. Thu. , around 1 900 t h e Arg ntine S ocial i st Party cal l ed i ts 1 f '"the party of univ rsal suffrage .' M ost proclam ation. of n w right. though, have been pur 1y formal act. w ithout major . ocial consequence . . Some xampl s of thi s are th American Const itution i n the 'outhern U nited States until the m 1d- 1 960 ' ; t he Latin A me rica con ,ti tution ' 'inc the 1 850 ' ; and the Soviet charter of rights . H owever, in 'ome case ' words have been fol lowed by deeds . For example, when t h e ' hort-lived French government i ' sued from the 1 848 revol ution proclaimed the right to work, i t i mmediately proceeded to organi ze the ational Work ' hop ' , to create jobs for the unemployed. Roo 'eve1t ' w D al tac itly r cognized nearly a c n tury l at r, the right to work w hen mbarking on l arg -. cale program of public work ' to r Ii ve u n m ployment-which actual1 y cau ed only a mode t dec 1 i n i n unemploy m nt b u t boo ted the I f-r p ct a n d hope of t h e common p opl e . S o much for i v i l rights. They are i m portant b u t i n u ffic i nt a. com p tence and hone ty are requ i red for the efficient g o emance o f any od al sy tem, from the fam i ly to the world ystem. U n l i ke it partners competence i an amoral alue. though one w ithout which livabi l i ty and l iberty-self-govern ment-are hardly po ible. Thi n k of the dependence of children and the handicapped, and of the vulnerabil i ty of the workers cooperati e without ki l lful management or up-to-date technology. I f i n doubt about the i mportan e of ompetence in attempting to achi eve any goal beyond rel i ving an itch by cratching, recall the pri e
1 12
Political Philosophy
the C h i ne e had to pay for the technical i ncompet nee of M ao Zedong ' dictator. hip. The Great Leap Forward 1 959-6 1 , which mobi l i zed hun dreds of m i l l i on Chine. e, was expected to produce . teel and thus s upply the raw m ateri al for the na. cent heavy indu. try. Thi s wa. hoped to result from melti nCJ i ron i tems, even kit hen uten. i t , i n domestic clay-furnaces. The result� were pathetic lumps of brittle cast i ron, usele" even for mak ing simple tools as any metal1 urgL t, if con. ulted, woul d have warned. But of cour. , the G reat Helm m an knew better. The hunlan co t of thi ' combination of i n ompetence with dictator h i p wa. an estimated 30 m il l ion dead from the fam i ne that re ulted from diverting l arge ma ' , of peasants from food production to an i m provi 'd [md failed steel i n duo try m i l 1 999 . I n thi s 'e tion we 'xanlj ned three new val ues-j u ti ' , freedom [md compet 'n '-in addi t ion to the bio- ocial al ue - 'curity 'quali ty, [md sol idari ty-we had . tudied i n th previou. section. An . i x value. hang together in th . ns that neither of them can b ful 1 y real ized unless the other fi e too are real ized. H owever for each member of thi . sy. tem of alu s ther is a count r ail ing or compensatory counterpart that curtail. it to . om x tent: Justi e
Se 'urit \
/
Libert - is facilitated but Cit the same time urtailed b) - Fraterni' /
\
J:.'quality
Competence 4. Rjghts and D u ties
Let u now pa. from c i i l right to right i n g neral. A right i of course a I i n ' t o d o 'om thing. This permi . ' ion, w h ther explicit or taci t i. gi n by 0 iety, and om t i me . . anctioned by the tat w h re i t exi , t . A l l oc ial regi m " v n t he mo. t de potic, r cogn ize som ba ic right , for wi thout them l i fe woul d be i mpo i ble . In countrie w i th legal sy tem i n pired by Roman l aw the rights are explicitly enumerated i n the legal code . By contra t the com mon-l aw legal y tern which are more liberal, l i t only the prohi bition and a ume that whate er i not explicitl y prohibited is pe rm itted. Whether expl icit or i mplicit, right and dutie are cia] not natural, as shown by the e mergence and submergence of the vafi u rights along hi. t ry. Thus in mo t countrie. males sti l l e nj y rights deni ed fem ales'
alues and Morals
1 13
and until rec ntly no one d i putcd the righL to pol lute and beat u p wi e chi1dren, and ser ant. . I n short, right. and dutie. are made. Hence, . triet1y . peaki n CJ, the expression "hu man ri ght. i. anyth i n g but c lear. Thi s expression only denote. t h e right. that are taken for granted in modem democ ratic societies. H owever, thi s does not entai l that h uman ri ght, are "non. en. e on sti l t. , ' a, B entham thouCJht, mere bourgeoi. in ention. a . . ome M arx i st. ha e held, or "a man i fe, tation of rational i. t fanaticL m, a Web ' [ 1 976: 2 w rote . I n fact, . ome human right , ' uch as th ' right to l i fc l i b 'rty and se 'urity of per 011 ' to bc treat d w ith dignity or respe t · to 10 e and be lovcd' to obta i n gainful employment; to lcarn and teach to hold bcl i 'f. and join a. sociation ' and to vote and run for pubbc office, arc i m por tant acmc cm 'nt. formerly dcnied women lav '. , cds and ev 'n land tcnants. So much so, that mo t of thcm ha e bCCOTI1C 'n hrin 'd i n the U n i v r. al Declaration of H uman R ights proclai med by the n i ted a rion. in 1 948. My on1y reservation about this admirabl document i. that it should be u pdated as n ed d a. w 11 as broadened to i nclude duti s, on t he str ngth of the thica1 pri ncipl that in a j u . t . oci ty e ry right i m pl i . a duty and conver. ely ( Bu nge 1 989a . The conn ction bet\veen rights and dutie. i s . 0 . trong that they may change i nto on another. For xample, according to the B ible work i ' a cur 'e ,md a duty, ,md con 'ervatives bel ieve that po erty i , the be ,t work i ncentive, By contrast, other ,-thi . w riter included-wi 'h that both the right ,md the duty to gainfu l work were entrenched in al l con ,titution ' . Any deep d i ' c u . ' ion of t h e nature of right ' a n d d u t i e ' i s bound t o i n volv , at 'ome point, t h e i dealism/mate riali ' m d i lemma. I ndeed, wherea ' p h i l o 'ophical id al i ·t l i k D worki n 1 986 believ that law mak p ople philosophical mat riali t hold that people m ak or r p al l aw . that l aw and their r p a1 r ' u 1 t from ' oc i al action and ar .i u t printed m atter unl backed by people w i l l i ng to fight for them w heth r in courts of l aw or i n th ' treet. Thi holds i n particular for bill of right · . Only l it igation and pol itical action can protect th m . A Epp J 996: 777 put it. " [ b J i ll of right matter, but on ly i f c iv i l oeietie have the capacity to upport and develop the m ." This hold of cour e for all law . U n le s enforceable, they are j u t word ; and i f obeyed only u nder coercion, they are bound to be eluded. Leges sine m ribu vanae. A nother phi lo ophieal proble m encountered by anyone who reflect on right and the po i ti e law that guarantee them i the i ndivi dual i m ho1i m-sy temi m trilemma ( Bu nge 2003a . Indeed whereas individual i st ( li ke Bentham, Spencer, D workin and N ozi k) clai m that the r Ie of
1 14
Political Philosophy
indi v idual rights L to protect the per on again t . ociety, holi L m aintain that indi i dual right� , hould be l i m ited by the need to pursue the common good. The , ystemist i . more real i stic than doctrinaire. He know . that i n e ery . ociety there are common good. who. e pre. ervation requi re, the l i m i tation of individual rights. Thi . L why the sy. tem i . t admit. the need to i mpo. e progressi e taxation and to observe anti-trust law. to l i m i t the concentration of wealth ' to expropri ate pri ately owned l and for the con struction o f public work or ven to di ide it up among individual farmer. ; to mak' vaccination [md basi ' education compu l sory, and '0 on . N o oci ·ty i i able w ithout some tradeoff b ·tween private interest ' and the common good. S ince uch tradeoffs arc bound to h u rt th . short term i ntere ts of on1 ' i ndividual s, they cannot b . i mplemented w ith th ' consent of all th . part ' concern ·d. Th . state ha. to st ·p i n and sec to i t that sel fi sh individuals d o not wreck the common good. W' 'hall r ·turn to thi. matt r in the next . ection. L t u s now r . um our . tudy of right. in gen ral . There are as m any rights a. k i nds of action. Indeed, th re ar en. g . , to enjoy clean air) biolog ical rights e.g. to ironmental right reproduce , economic right ( .g., to work , c ultural right. e .g . to wor shi p or not to worshi p ), and pol i tical right e.g. to vote and be vot d for). None of t hese rights can exist 'eparately from th others. They con ·titute a 'yst m, becau 'e th y are interdependent. I ndeed, without pol i t ical rights w can nei ther conquer nor defend the oth r right · by legal mean '. L ikewi 'e th free exerci 'e of econom ic rights allow ' us to earn th wherewithal to Ii e, learn, a . 'oe iat , vote, etc . B ut o f eouce we won ' t get a decent job unle ' , we hav learnt 'ome ski l l ; and our vote w i l l b fooli h i f w have m ad no u e of our right to be i nformed about matters of public int re t . Such i nterdepend nce of righ� i expli itly i nvoked i n am resolution. of th U n i ted Nation. and it. agencie. a. i . the ca. with H u man R i ght. Re olution 2005/66 concerni ng th right to k now the truth about v iolation of human right . A l l oci tie ' ecure om right , w ithout moral j u ti ti cation. On of them i the right to own large tract of land whole fore ts, or entire lake or mountain . In his eloquent and i nfl uential Di c urse 11 inequalif) , Rou eau ] 755 ) argued that pri vate property i the hi torical root of social inequal ity which in turn i the source of mo t con flict . Thoma More had gone even further in h i 1 5 ] 6 work, Utopia. He argued that, a long a there i private prop rty there w i l l be poverty and unhappine . I ndeed unr tricted private pr pelty is rn rall y u nj u t becau e i t deprive many people from their right to e nj y orne be ic g od . F r example .
alues and Morals
1 15
patents sti m u l ate tc 'hnological innovati on by e n uring a temporary monopoly, but they al . 0 block the diffusion of knowled CJe, and h i nder the acce, , to nece, sities s uch a. prescription drugs. Thu, , the co, t of the drug, u, ed nowadays to treat A I DS i . , l ightly abo e $ 1 00 per person per year, but they are , old at about . 1 0 000. ThL fact alone arou, e, the , u, picion that onl y the wealthy can afford cap i tali, m . H owever, not pri vate property but i t s u se a t the expen, e o f others i , anti ocial . The owner h ip o f the necessari '. of l i fe i so i m portant to phy i al ,md mental wel l -b 'ing, that ev 'ryone shou ld 'njoy it. G i ven that nee '. . arie are l i m i ted or even ar 'e the i r universal ac ' ail s for l i m i ting t h 'ir pri a t e appropriation. A nd o n l y radi ' a l . oc ial r 'fornl. could avoid or at least c ircum- c ri b ' the antisocial con equences of un restrict d private property particularly of l and. Thi. i why a number of soci a l a ·tivi st , from the young H e rb 'rt pencer to H enry George to the Mex ican revolutionary E m i li ano Zapata, have ad ocated l and r form . Thi s i , also why there are communal l ands . uch as the Mexican ejidos a, w 1 1 a. public fac i l i t ies. Th sam case can b made for al l the other natural resource, i n par ticular , ea. l ake. and river. , as well as ore and oil d po, it . Rousseau 1 97 3 : 4 ) b Ii ed that ' th frui t o f th earth belong t o u. a l l , a n d t h earth i t · I f t o nobody." M any people around t h e planet have i mplemented t h i s i deal by 'eH i ng up voluntary, governmental, or i nternation al bodies for the collective manage ment of collective goods see Ostrom 1 990) . Wherever pri vate property fai l " col lectiv m anag ment should b e tried, becau 'e i t combine ' property with equality. Let u . now re 'ume our di ' c u . -ion of right · i n general . A ny et of right i s bound to giv ri. e to right. conft ict . For instanc m y right to ' pe h confl ict w i th your. to i lenc and my right to dri is on trained by yours to breath clean air and use treet in · afety. I n daily lif w olve the e conft i t , by fol lowi ng common en ical rul of coex i tence civil i zed conver 'ation . and bargain i ng. But wh n i t comes to public good ' . the tat must i ntervene to r in i n antisoci al behavior. Thi i why we have red Hght and speed l i m i t . and w hy l i ttering and public drunkenne are fi ned in ad anced ocietie . And in pol itic and bu i ness right confl ict may in olve big intere t and therefore acute confl ict that only bargai n i ng, arbitration court of law or popul ar pro te t can re olve. The population bomb, which ro e to public awarene duri ng the 1 960 po ed the pr blem of the right t reproduc . Can it be regarded a, a basic hum an right when it conft ic with the surv ival of the sped ? .
1 16
Political Philosophy
In 1 979 the Chi ne e government faced with the d i l mma reproduction/ star ation, took this bull by the horn. , and adopted the one-child family policy. I t was m uch c ri ticized by civil l ibertarians but i t worked. The a erage number of chi ldren born per woman dropped from 2 .9 in 1 979 to 1 .7 in 2004 ( Hesketh Lu, and X i n g 2005 . To be , u re, thi. harsh policy infrin ged on the ri ght to reproduce: but , urely when i t comes to sur ivaI , offspri ng l imit. are j u . t a. reasonable as . peed l i m i t. , si nce popul ation e e lead to 'tarvation e m igration or terr itori al exp[m ion. D 'mo graphi ' di 'tator 'hip i. unncc 'ssary in nation. that enjoy eith 'r pro perity or a w 'lfar ' stat " for e l ewhere peopl ' tend to have m any children for fear of de titution i n old-age, whereas adequate p 'n ion plan ' weaken or ev 'n ' l i m i nat ' fi nancial depend 'n e on off pring. The right to 'njoy a c lean en i ronment emerged rec 'ntly. The rec ogn ition of this n w right ha ' generated a n w body of I 'gi lation- 'ni ronmental l aw. Thi . legal i n . tru m n t r strict. the right to op rate smokestacks and vehic1 . l acking devic s to capture and treat nox iou. fume. as w 1 1 as that of using waterway. as i ndustrial or domestic , ew er, . M ost of u s accept these l i m itations on property rights as the price of ci i l i zed coex istenc . B u t . ome corporation. manage to skirt some of the. e legal r . trictions; and dev loping countries do not e en have environmental law " which i . why some tran 'mltional corporation ' prefer to work there . Every society guarante . property right · o f 'ome kind, but only in 'lave and feudal 'ocietie ' a ' well a ' i n protocapital i ,t 'ocieties do property right · override aU other rights. In ad anced democracie . property right · are l i mited by other rights ' uch as human right " the right to a 'af enironment, and th right of the stat to u e l and for pub l i fac i l itie '. Thi . i . w h y h ighly pol l uting firm can b e fined o r even expropriated, and why the tat ha ' the right to appropriate trac� of l and for the con tnlction of public work . That i th sam rea on that in om place quatter ' i n abandoned lot or hou ' . b om own r ' after a n u m b r o f y a r . A mor recent ca ' of infring ment of property right i ' thi : Se ral countrie , particularly I ndia. are produci ng generic drug at a tiny frac tion of the price charged by the patent holder . The e complain b itterly for that brazen v iolation of i nte llectual property right . B ut the aid or gani zation , such as Doctor Without B order , counter that the right of patients prevai l over patents. True, de elopi ng new drugs i very co tly. But mo t of the basic re earch required for 'tran lating" biochemical and pharmaceu ti c al scien e int new drug. i carried out at u niver i ti e . The pharmaceu ti c al c m panie. inve t only 1 7 � f their rev nue i n research'
alues and Morals
117
t h e re.t goc . to m arket i ng which i n c l udes swc tening up doc tor ) . hareholder. , and managers. t i l l , property right. m ay prevai l 0 er human ri ght. even i n l iberal democ racie. -a. when employer, c u t jobs d u ring bu. ine . . . l umps. In a fai r so iety. the ri ght to Ii el i h ood . hou l d override property ri ght. . The l atter should be l i mi ted to propertie. that do not precl ude the ri ght to gainful work-a moral h uman right. This is why property right. are hardly mentioned in U documents, [md do not occu r at all i n the constitution. of . ome nation , 'u ' h a anada. Property rights arc tricky b 'cau 'e they empower the prop 'rt i 'd while d i 'empowering th ' destitute. I n fact my owning A pr 'vent you from u ing A w hi ch i unfair if you happen to ne d A to survive. Th ' 'olution would of 'ourse be to har ' A i f A happen ' to be sharable, a ' i th ' ca e with the means of production trad ' finance transportation , and comm u nication, as well a. with culture. In other word. , wh re prop rty is . har d rather than . quest r d, no property confl icts fl are up. Which is why cooperati ha been extolled by such . cholar. as M i l l ( 1 965 Dahl 1 9 9) M il ler 1 9 9), B ung 1 9 9a), and oth r. . W shall return to this theme near th nd of the book . Let u. now tackle a few older ethical prohl ms. W h ich com . fir. t the right or the good? Kant thought that right. precede the good, wherea . M i l l held the contrary. It would 'eem, though, t hat thi ' i ' a p 'eudo-problem, becau 'e a right i ' a permi . 'ion to pursue 'ome good, and goods are unattainable without the corre ' pond i ng rights. t fi r 't ' ight, the que ' (ion in hand re 'emble ' P lotinus' con undru m : I ' 'omething good becau 'e we desire it, or i ' i t des i rable becau 'e i t i s good? T h i . problem i ' i n 'oluble u n l e ' s w e d i ·tingui · h 'ubjecti ve from obj ti alue . If w do draw thi di ,tinction, we r alize that h uman ' ar not alway. axiologicall y rea. onable. Som t i me. we de ' i r what i ' obj ti l y bad for u and at other tim we underrat or v n overlook what i good for u . Someth i ng ' i m i l ar can b aid of t he question whether right , preced duti or on r Iy. Again. wh rea utilitarian place right. befor dutie deontologi ts tre dutie . Actual1 y, i n any rea onably well-organi zed odety rights are paired off to dutie . Thu the right to procreate ought to entai l the duty to rear one chi ldren. but thi duty can only be met i f parents have the right to gai n ful employ ment. L i kewi e. the right to ote ought to entai l the duty to ca t wel l -i n formed bal lot . All of which ugge ts that e entual1y the UN hould adopt a Charter of H u man Right and Dllties-ba ical l y, the right to enjoy l i fe and the duty to hel p t hers do the ame.
1 18
Political Philosophy
Unfortunately most 'ontemporary pol itical th orie i gnore the m atter of , 0 ial dutie. , in particular the lea. t burden. ome of all. that of ot ing. Wor. e, one of the mo. t infl uential theorie. of voter turnout regard. votin g a. paradox i al Down. 1 95 7 ) , because the "rat ional ' citi zen L a freeloader. H owe er, the good citizen of any ad anced democracy know. that votin g i . a duty a . wel 1 a . a right. We shan retu rn t o the econom ic theory of democracy i n Chapter 5 Secti on 5 . One o f the right that give r i . t o onft icts is the right t o 'trike in th ' public ector. Wher a . trikes in the private ector harm mo. tly the owner ' and m anag 'rs of business fi n11 ' tri k '. i n the publ ic ector harm nearly e eryon ' . A ho pital worker ' strike puts liv ' , in jeopardy; a protra 'ted tea ' her'. . trij(,' m ay seriously di Tupt the l i fe course of ome young people' and a garbage collectors ' t rik' end[mger ' the health of entir ' neighborhood . Besides uch strike backfir ' pol itical ly. They push th ' publ ic to support anti-labor mea. ure. and vote for Con. ervativ partie. as i t happened i n B ritain in 1 979. What to do? Some leg i . l ature. p a. . em rgency bil l s outlaw i ng . t rike. in th public . ector. B ut . uch bill. may b unconst itutional and i n any ca. th y set dangerous pr ced nt. for further anti-labor leg i . lation. The pow rfu l Ital i an labor union. i n ented long ago a far . m arter . trat egy-the i nteml ittent ·tri ke-whereby work i s interrupted during an hour or two every day at a fi xed t i me while th negotiation ' with management proceed. I ' ubmi t that thi . i ' a fai r and pol itically i ntell igent compromi 'e between the right to stri ke and the duty to serve. I n general, right · imply dutie ' and conver ·ely. (See a proof o f t h i , th 'is i n B un ge 1 989a. Th pol i t i cal phi losopher i ' c n t ra l l y i nt re 'ted in the p rac t i cal problem po. ed by th e x i t n e of m u l tipl value y . tem ' and th or re ponding moral code in any l iberal ociety. I ' u h valu plurali . m con ' i t nt w i th a common good? In particular, what about th trad i tion. of i m m igrant ' com i ng from ountries w i th ery d i fferent norm from our ? S hould w all ow th i n troduction of e thnic di i ' ion on top of th exi ,ting econom i c and pol i tical one � Thi . problem gai n d pro m i n nc since the 1 960 , and it ha divi ded pol i tician and political cienti ts ever since it ha pitted m u lticultu ral i ts or relat i i ts agai n t cosmopol i tan or uni e rsal i t . Thi divi ion i s at once phi lo ophical and poli t ical, for i t revol ve around both the plurality of value and i m m i gration policie . Thi i ue has been exacerbated by the anthropologi t who, l i ke Geertz (1 983 , have c l ai med that all bel ief are 1 cal . Yet i t w u ld se m ob i ous that where, some idea and custom are indeed 1 cal ther. are uni er aI .
alues and Morals
1 19
For example CUlSlIle dre and fol k mu ic are local' but mathematic . cience and phi lo. ophy are univer. al . Thi s i . why we can cheri . h at once . ome regional trad i tion. and the com mon heri tage of h um ankind It i s in the matter of ba. ic human ri ght. where we m u. t make a choice. Democracy in olve. tolerance to any bel ief. and practice. that do not v iolate any human right. . In particular i t i nvol e, freedom of and from religion. ( B y contrast, the founder of l i berali . m excluded Cathol ic. and atheist from the commonwealth: Locke 1 6 9. It re ' pects wearing and not wearing) headscarv 's, war . hipping at a "foreign' temple, or eating "e otic" food but not m urdering women w ho date outside th 'ir parents' faith, or pr venting hildren of i mmigrants from attending ecular chool . Hence, a democrati . go emment w i l l practice 'ele ·tive multi ·ulturalism . Ac 'pt ev 'rythi ng harml es e en i f offen. ive, but reject ' erything hanl1fu l . We should tel l pro pecti e i mm igrants. 'Welconle . Do e nrich our cultu re and custom. , but I a e your barbari. m behi nd, for we ha e enough of our own." We . hall retu rn to thi . problem in hapt r , Section 4. It i. ironic that . ome promi nent pol i tical philo. ophers, such a. Wil l Kyml icka, harle. Taylor, and M i chael Wal zer are a t once communitar ians. multicult urali sts, and l i bera1 . . I . ubmit that consi. tent com munitar i ans . hould be i l 1 i beral and a . . i m i l ationi. is, for they place the community abov i ndividual ' regardle ' , of the harm thal 'ome communal backward t radition ' may cause it . member ' . F i nal ly, recall thal n o t all valu . c a n b e pursued a t t h e 'ame t i me . I n particular, pol iticians confront con fl ict · between regional and national i nterest . ; between th de 'ire ' of potential voter ' and the needs of the · tate; between ri sk and 'afely, 'ecuri ty and l i be rty tradition and new know ledg and 0 on. S i nce the re ources they comm and are l i mited and mor ov r carce tate men mu t mak choice ' that w i l l ati fy only om of their con t i tuent . H owe r. i n a d mocra y 'some' w i ll b " mo · t" rath r than ' th cho ' n f w.' Thi ntail. d i allow i ng anti 'ocial practic . inher nt i n barbaric traditions 'uch a . forced arranged marriag g n ital m utilation. and honor k i l l i ng . In other word ci ilized coexi tenc i nvol ve tolerance to harm le s idio yncra ie . but i n tolerance to cu toms that iolate human right . 5.
he Common G ood
The good citizen in the good ociety i expected not only to refrai n from harmi n g other but a l 0 t o contribute t o the com mon . T h i i why the concept f com m n good or condomi n i u m i entral to pol itical phi l , ophy. H owe er f r better or for worse that concept i s nei ther clear
1 20
Political Philosophy
nor i deologically neutral . Thu for the economic l ib ral the nucleu of the com mon good is the proverbial free market: for social l i beral. and so i al ist. the public good is the set of thi n CJs and proce . . e. that can be neither d i i ded nor sold, from the atmo. phere and the . eas to the legal court. to . cience , the human ities, and the art. . r . hal l adopt thi s concep tion of the common good a. the com monwealth or common property of a CJroup of people . On the other hand j u ,tice, equality and pea e arc not goods b 'cau. ' th 'y ar ' neith 'r thing. nor processes. Th 'y ar ' states of society worth ach iev ing, p reser ed or perfected . I n parti u lar, although ju ,tice i ' usually regarded as a common good, actual l y it i not such. or e m] i t b e own d b y any individuals. I n fact, a common good i s a thi ng owned colle ,tively, wh 'reas j u ti ' is a common goal, and goal. arc des i rabl ' end-stat 's or pro ' . " . I n hort we a i m at ju ,tice but we do not own it. What i . a common good in a democratic society i . i t s j udicial s y . tem, warts and an-that i . , the . y . te m composed by the court. of l aw and thei r members, from j udge. and l awyers to clerk . a n d archi i sts. The same hold� for . ecurity wel far , and high l iteracy rates. They are aim. , not good . . The next question i s, who. common good . For Rousseau i t wa. the smal l city-state or republic, . uch a . late-medi al and Renai 'sa nee Ven ice or Genoa. For mo ,t modern " the com mon good i ' the ent i re nation. For the world federali 't · it i . humankind. I propo 'e that the member ' of every 'ocial 'yst m shar i t · own common good. In each case the com mon good i , th 'et of item ' acee ' ' ible to all the member ' of the group in que ·tion. See the fol lowi n g table, wh r i n eaeh ca 'e only two typical good ' and on or two goal are Ii · ted. .5ocia/ SySft>ll1
Com mOil goode
Fiuni l y
Home, ussets
I
Public . ch
ommOIl gonl
)
B u i lding( ). teac h i ng aids
Public ho pital
s)
Secur i ty, n u rtllfing
B u i lding( ). medical fac i liti�
n
ocial i 7.ati Health
edu ati 11
arc
NGO
B u i l d i ng( s ), fac i l i l i , .
Public scrvic '
Chw-ch
Temple s
Wor'hip
La ngu age . l i te r a l ur '
Com m u n i ation
Ideolog , organization
Pol itical power
H u i ld i n g . rac i l i t i
E 'o n om i
Lingll i I i
mmlln i l y
Pol itical party oop r;lIi
'
il
rban c 'nler
Prov i nce territOl
Provi nce
of nutions
I nternational
it
&
go ernment
OUlltr
N ali n B loc
hal l
comm u ni ty
l
'
' uri l),
'rnane
Provi nce go ernance N ali nal
Member nutions, regional authori ty · arth. h u mankind.
go
�
I ntra·bloc
VCrIIUIICC peace
W rid peace and
&
cooper. peratiOIl
alues and Morals
121
The public corporation i s an i nterest i ng hybrid 'asc . In principlc i t is the common property of i t. . hareholder. but in practice e ery corporation i s dominated by the individual or CJroup w i th the l arge. t bloc of shares, often a , mall fraction of the total . B esides, the dom inant , hareholder can i n fl uence the corporation ', , trategy though not it. tactic" let alone it. day-to-day operation, whi h are i n the hands of the manager, -a, i t , hould be. Only ooperati e fi nn s are sel f-managed, i n the . en. e that all thei r member ' arc co-owner ' and havc an i nput on managcment, so that the gap betw 'n own 'r hip and m an agemcnt i far smaller than i n t h e casc o f th ' 'apital i t corporation. Wc hall return t o t h i ' i n thc l a t chapter. At fi r t ' ight the common intere t of a l arge plural i ,t y ,t 'nl mu t bc extrcmely rcdu 'cd bccausc of i t. diversity. I ubmit that thL i ' m istaken, and that the m i. take ari '. fronl 10oking only at pol itical i ntercst . Peacc and n i ronmental protection are in the interest of the overwhelm ing ma jority of the citizens of a modern nation. and . 0 are economic effici ncy. for ign t rade, scienti fic and technological advanc m nt, good publ ic health and education , y stems, adeq uat protection of the art. , and , 0 on and . 0 fort h . Ti ny de mocratic Athens cared not only for its territori al i ntegrity and its fleet, but also for its t mples s tatue. theatres. and even playwright . : every year it ga e prize ' in cash to the be ·t play ' . Th more ad anced a 'oeiety, the richer it . common int r ·ts, 6. Corruption a n d Crime
It i . wel l known that the pursui t o f power of any kind can corrupt nearly everyone and everything. In particular, government i . corrupted when p ople bribe publi ervant · j u · t to mo e a fi le. Democracy i . cormpted wh n vote are bought· when th out orne ' of el tion. depend critical l y u pon th amount o f mon y . pent on campaigning' wh n corporation ' m ak larg donation. to elec toral chest. · when ctor or firm engag lobbyi ts to pI ad for their intere t . w h n fi rm bribe bureaucra� to g t government contract ; wh n criminal buy j u tic through retaining mart lawyer : when prie ts threaten to e xcommunicate the pari shioners who ote for the w rong party ; when lyi ng to the pub l ic goe unpun i hed-and o on and so forth . Nor i corruption l i m i ted to the economic and politi cal sphere . Even peer review, the tandard quality -control mechani m i n the acade m ic com m u n ity, i corrupted when u ed to reward friends puni h ri al , strengthen c l iques, or cen or heterodox views. A nd yet S amuel H untington 1 96 : 69 the wel l -k nown Har ard poLitologi st he tated t hat corruption is "a w lc me lubri ant ea ing the
1 22
Political Philosophy
path to modcrnization"-a thcsL hared by some academic econonu ts. The human right. activi. t may beg to di ffer. They remember the igeri an stron gman General Sani Abacha, who had writer Ken- aro Wivwa and eight fel 1 0w environmental i . t, executed i n 1 995 . Their cri me had been with fi ghting the Shel l - B P Oi l Company-a generou. supporter of the dictator. hi p-for . everely pol 1uting the er. twh i le fertile i ger delta. Fortunately . ome soci al , cientist. , . uch a, G unnar M yrdal , have noted that COlTuption i a h indrance to m odernization, if only be au e orruption is preci sely one of th ' traits of u nder-d 'velopment. S ome aid agenci ' , hay ' d 'nounced that a l arge fracti on of aid mon 'ys and goods go to l i n ' th ' pocket of tyrants. ( M oral : Don ' t send money or goods ' send only e pert to help produce, heal , educate or build. I n r 'cent years e en th ' World Bank has denoun 'd corru ption after ha ing supported for decad '. OlTUpt government around the plan 't. And 'very year sine ' 1 993 Tran. parency I nt rnational ha. been publ ishing its own ranking of corrupt . tate . . Accord i ng to it, th c lean , t European countri . are the Nordic one. , particularly Finl and, wherea. G r ec , I taly, and mo. t of the ex-Com m u nist countri s ar near th bottom. Corruption de. troys not only character and trust: i t also harm. I giti mat bu. i ne, , weaken, th state, and con. equently generat . cyn ici . m and pol i tical apathy. B e -ide ' , i n pri vati Ling public 'ervice ·-that i s , i n demanding bribe ' [or t hem-corruption breed ' poverty ZULowski 2005 . I n many ' develop ing' ,md ex-com muni · t countrie . corrupti on i ' '0 com mon, that bribe ' are regarded as normal income supp lement · and th only e ffi cient mechani ' m for getting anythi ng done . Further, paradoxically, in ' uch 'ocieties bri be ry is now a means to c heat equal i ty, now the only way to e xtract fai r tr atment from public ervant . I nter .tingly, th re i ' an i nv r ' r lation betwe n corruption and par tic ipation for the parti i pant own a piec of the action in ' tead of being al i n to it. and therefore i . not i nd i n d to cheat h i m ' I f. Th evid nc that thi i 0 i th fi nd i ng that corruption i. highe. t in hi rarchical soc i al y -rem and 'oci tie , which ar typical l y opaqu and lowest in odal y tem and societie where the rank and fi le ha e acce s to the rudder of power, uch as m al l m u n ic i pal itie and profe ional and cultural association . A Robert Putnam 1 993 famou ly noted by contra t to Northern I ta] y, Southern I taly is characterized by both low ci ic virtue and h igh cOlTuption. The root of this ituation go back one m i l lenni um, when the N orman i nva ion i mported French-style feudali m i n t Southern Italy. The l anded ari. t cracy and the tate it e rved prevented that reg i n from c
alues and Morals
1 23
participating i n the Renai ssance the I ndu trial Re olution , .md even the Ri. orCJi mento that the reo t of the country enjoyed fol low i n g i nde pendence. The u nderl y i n CJ . ocial mechan i . m s explain the South- orth d i fference . . In the republ ican North, people . ought to sol ve local i. sue. b y debating fighting, and ooperating, wherea� in the feudal South they exchanged favors w i th the powerfu l . For i n stance e en nowadays the S outhern priest, pol i tician, or m afi a bo . . obtain. pri v i leges for h i . client i n exchange for obedience, conlpl icity, votes, or participation i n public ccremonic : T h . c i ti ze n i ' transfonllcd i nto a upplicant, ,md thc pobtical i n titutions ar ' bypa ·d . Th ' S ou th-N orth contrast i how n i n thc fol lowi ng d i agram : North South
Rcpubli 'an Feudal --7
--7
R ich c ivic-n ·ss Poor c ivic- ness
--7 --7
E ffcctivc in titution Ineffccti c i n stitutions
onte mporary example. of the disengagement of the citize n ry from th polity are Afghani . tan, ongo I raq, Pal , ti ne Somali a a n d H a it i . A t thi . w riting none o f th , countrie. has ither an effective . tat or a net\vork of voluntary and , ecular association. ; and what l ittl h lp their c i ti zen. get ar handout. from warlord. or param i l itary-c u m -charity organi lation ' . H owever, t he mo ·t 'en 'alional recent case ' of corruption, both pol i t i cal a n d corporale have been ' e e n i n ' uch h i g h l y developed cou n t rie ' a ' t he United State ' , Fnmce, I taly, and R u . -ia. The intimat relation 'hips between h ighl y placed A me rican officer ' ,md big comp,mie ' l ike Hal l i bu rton , or former companies l ike Enron, have become proverbial. So ha t h hug c am paign he. t req u i r d to run for offic in that country. I n a plutocracy, pow r fol l ow money. In it mon y i for the politician what dope i . for the athl teo I t allow h i m to get ahead of th oth r ' r gardle of merit. Wh n i t become wid pread and d ply rooted in the cultu re of a p ople corru pt ion cal l . for poli t ical agitation gra . . -root · campaign trong judicial mea · u res, and above all the emergence of c lean pol itical forces app aling to the moral revulsion of plain citizen . Regrettably reform 010 ement and partie are typical ly hort-li ved. Thus, the famous mani puliti ( c lean hands trial in I taly in the early 1 990 d i credited and de troyed the two main ruling partie ; but the e were q u ickly replaced by a new al l i ance, equally corrupt but better organized and funded by the main b neficiary of the c rruption and yet voted thri e for prime m i ni s ter by h a l f t h e elect rate . I n the end, t h e wealt h i t c rook i n t h e country
1 24
Political Philosophy
beat J udg Antonio Di Pietro th moral hero of the year. To paraphrase Jeffer. on the price of public hone. ty is eternal v i CJi l ance. N ote that corruption, l ike i rtue, L per. onal. B ut, j u. t l i ke i rtue. cor ruption can spread throughout a group or e en an entire society becau�e of either need or CJreed accompanied by opportun ity. When many member. of a . oci al group cheat. e ade taxes, take or give bri bes, embezzle public funds, al low public companie. to lobby the government, or entru. t public works to relativ 's or donor ' to the party campai g n hest, i t i ju. t i fi able t o tal k of group corruption or even of institutionaliz ' d ·oITu pt ion . Corruption th 'n b 'com ' a poli tical i ' ' ue that can onl y b ' ta k l 'd by pol i t i al acti on and, spec i fi 'all y by seeking democratization. A l i na M u ngiu-Pippidi 2006 the Roman ian political ·ienti · t and . uc ce ' ' fu l ,mt i - oITuption acti i st has propo. ed ,ill i n tere ting typology of th ' connection between orruption and the distribution of pobtical power. J hav taken th l i berty of translat i ng th author . unusual expres. ion. 'pure particulari. m, 'comp titi e particularism,' and 'universal ism' i n to 'autocracy,' ' ol igarchy ' and 'democracy respectively. Her i. her table in my own word. : Regim
POII' r Distrib/ltion
Alllocracy
Monopoly
" 011'11 { the
r hip " tale
One or few
Distribution
Social
Pllbliclpril'lue
ifvub/i
at' eptabilit '
Distill ti n
'ood.,·
of corrllptioll
nfair but
r"toderate
No
Low
V\" ,
prcdi table ligor II
'
ncven and
'On l ''. lcd
disputed D('motmc '
R
'lativ ' l
equal
nfair and unpredictable
A uton m u
air and
Y 'ry
10
harp
predictable
Finall y does 'orruption ever tou h the judicial 'ystem? Indeed it often doe . Drug cart ' 1 ' ,md mafias have been know n to bribe , i ntilnidate or kil l j udges a n d j u ri . . B . ides, th r are t w o legal ways o f bending justice. One i . for a go ernment to pack th j udiciary w ith poli tical appointee . . The other method i s to buy good I gal adv ice . ThL i. how white-coll ar cri m . often go unpunished. And African A merican m u rderer. are about t n t i m . more l i kely to b sentenced to death than thei r W h i te coun t rparts ju. t becau . the form r cannot afford competent legal advice. So, in the end, ye " someti me ' money buy ' j u ,tice. Thi ' po 'es a pol iti cal, legal and moral problem for the j udiciary, bar a ' 'ociation " GO ' speciabzed i n legal matter ' , ,md, of cour 'e, poli tical part ies. Organ ized civic vigilance may work where isolated whi 'tleblowers fai l .
alues and Morals
1 25
H owever corruption i. only one kind of crime. Indeed whether private or governmental, cri me comes in . e eral ki nd. and . i zes. The fol 1 owincY type. may be di t i n gu i . hed B u n ge 2006a). 1.
Environm "tal: against the natural or . oci al env i ronment a ) Poll ution (b ) Wanton de. truction of non-renewable reo ources or public goods 2 . Biologi 'af: again st health o r l i fe a M edical quack 'ry 'alternati e nlcdici ne' ) Sale of harnlfu l or greatl y 0 erpriced product c A ' 'au l t Torture M urder S ex ism Raci. m Ethnic ' clean. ing' ollec t ive puni. hm nt War 3. E onomi : agai n ,t property a S maU- 'cal theft Vandal i ' m c Corporate ' w i ndle Embezzlement e Land grab 4. Politi aL: again ,t political en m i a ) E l c toral fraud (b I n t i m idation c) Group- pon 'or d gra root t rrori , m d S tate terrorism ) War 5. ultura/: again t know ledge o r a rt (a PLagiari m and fraud ( b ) harLatani sm e.g., po t modern i m ( c P e u d o c ience (e.g. ' inte l l i gent de i gn ' ) ( d ) Decepti e adverti i ng (e Hate propaganda ( f) Ide 1 g ical censorship (g Atta k on cultural h ritage r organ izati n
1 26
Political Philosophy
The e arc only anal ytical d i t incti on . I n real . oc ial l i fe very c ri me of a certai n type ( i .e., w i th a certain goal ) i . u , uany accompanied by cri me. of d i fferent type . . For instance, murder i . . ometi me. com m i tted as a mean. for theft or political power. And m i l i tary aggre . . ion i. the ultimate rime, for it L at once en i ronmental, biological, econom ic, poli tical , and cultura1. Cri me po. e. i n tere. ting and d i fficult problems for pol i tician. and pol i t i al philosophers . early everyone agrees that we ' hou ld seck to decrea e c ri minabty, but th 'r ' i. no consensu. on how to ach ieve thi ' goal . Trad itionali ts beli 've that Tim inality i s i nborn, so that all w . can about it do i ' to repre it. H owever, th con 'en us among psycholog ist , sociologi ts and oci al technologi ts i. that, except for a tiny fra ,tion of psychopath. , Timinal are m ade not born. H ence th 'y ad ocat · crim . pre ention and c ri m inal reeducat ion and rei n sertion i n oci ·ty. Mor . on thi . i n hapter 8, Section 6 •
7. C lassical Mora l Philo ophies
Except for N i etz. ch , who de. pi. ed thic. and Heidegger who de creed i t i mpos. ible e ryon admit the need for i t . I n particular the philo. ophical core of any pol itical philo. ophy is a moral phi losophy or elhic " that is, a theory of moral '. The mo ·t popular of a l l mora l philoso phies are relativism, deontologism, util i ta riani ' m, ,md contraclari anism. Moral r lalivi ' m hold ' that every h u man group ha . i t own moral code " and that n i ther can b said to be superior to any other. Deontologism, advanced by Confuciu ' and Kant state ' that one m u ,t do what is right. Utjlitarian i ' m, i n ented by C laude Hel eti u ' , holds lhat we 'hould pro cure the greate t happine of the gr at ·t n umber. And contractarian i . m maintain that morality l i ke bu in i . a m atter of contract agreed upon rational ly and for the m utual ben fit of the contracting parti . A l l four doctrine are secular, and each of th m contai n a ali d g rain: rel ativi. m account for the plu rality of tribal morali tie. : d ontologi m tre e. du ti ' ; util i tarian i 'm empha. i z . right ; and contra tarian i m und rli n . the advantages i n keepi n g one ' word. However, we hall argue that al l the e moral philo ophie are otherwi e flawed. M oral relat i i m ha two component : de cripti e and normative. W hereas the former i correct, the latter i s not. In fact, explorer . anthro polog i st and sociologi ts d i covered that d i fferent tri bes ocietie , and even profes ional group have different moral norm . B ut the proper ta k of moral philos phy, r t hics i different fr m that of s cial science: the former' s i to analyze and critically xamine m ral norms. It i one thing
alues and Morals
127
to report that a certain trib practices head hrinking and another to i ndict this practice as cri m ina1. Again, objecting to certai n moral noml . i . not the , ame a. condem n i n CJ customs that we fi nd uncongeni al for moral ity i s about conduct that may benefi t or harm other. , hence actions that can be e aluated objecti ely. Whence, we reject M i l ton Friedman . 1 96 .... : 1 2 advice to 'leave the ethical problem for the i ndividual to w re , tie w i th . A l l moral code. however di fferent, . hare . ome norms. B ut, wherea. tradi tional 'oc ietie. presc ri be pro 'ocia! moral ) b 'ha i or ex - I u iv 'Iy for members of the i r tribe or nation 'ver i ne ' the E n li ght 'nm 'nt w ' ha e tended to d 'l11and moral uruv 'r ali ty on the ground that all humans arc ba 'ically equal , or at least houid be treated equ itably. I n oth 'r words, we adopt 'rtain codes of behavior while rejecting orh 'r. , by conlparing them w ith the ba ic human rights. Thus the Univer a l D 'daration of H u man R ights 1 948) i. the grav , yard of moral r l ativi. m. As Bobbio ( 1 990) w rote, that was th fi r. t tim i n h istory that univer. al agreement was r ached on any alue sy. t m. From then on p opl have b en condemning certai n practices such a. capital punishment and torture not just a. barbaric and i nefficient, but also as v iolating th basic human rights n. h ri ned in a doc u ment formall y . u b . c ribed by a l l nations. What hold , for moral phi losophy a1 . 0 holds for legal phi losophy : thi s too i ' a component of cult ural relati v i o m , becau 'e i t ab 'olutize ' the law of the land. From 1 948 on we can evaluat every ' i ngle piece of legi ' lation as bei ng objecti v Iy j ust or u nj ust accordi ng a ' i t matche ' or v iolat ' hum,m right , or i ntemati onal l aw. The n xt do trin in our Ii , t i ' deontologi o m . It , v irtue i ' that it rem i nd ' u ' that we have moral obligation ' i n addition to contractual legal , com m rcial, and c i i duti . Thi s doctrin ha been particularly i m portant i nc the t i me of the French Re olution which accu tomed u to tri i ng for an expanding Ii t of right , . H ow ver deontologi m h a two main fl aw ' . One i that i t doe ' not tell u 1 arly what i right: Tradition fair n , ' . what th boss the lergyman or th pol i man ord red. o r what? The other fl aw of t h i doctrin i that i t h ardly addre e ' th matt r of right : i t i everely bia ed toward dutie . S t i l l , Kant form u lated three i m portant humanist principle . One i that all p r on hould be regarded a end i n them e l e , not a means. The econd-the o-cal led categorical i mpe rative-i that we hou ld not adopt or i mpo e any moral norm that cannot apply to e eryone. A nd the third i that we should procu re peace. However, becau e non- Kantian deontologism i s not u niversalistic i t may be i nv ked by b th parti i n any confl ict. c
1 28
Political Philosophy
The be. t-know n rivals of dcontologi TIl arc t he ethical theories grouped around the fa. hionable i dea of rational choice : Rational egoi . m (e. g . , R a n d 1 964), neolibertari an ism e.g. ozick 1 974 util i tarianism (e. g . , S mart 1 973 and contractarianism e.g. Gauthier 1 986 ) . The fi rst two doctrines are version. of . trai ght egoi. m and therefore they hardly qualify as moral so that we need not dwel l on the m . Indeed, the utterl y . eHL h individual i s one who flaunts al l moral ity. M oreover, rational egoism and neo l ibe11ariani 111 are part of the i deologi °al baggage of the w R ight, which i obses ed w i th prote ting pri v i l 'ge rath 'r than eeki ng fairn ' . . A for utili tari[m i s m and contra otariani. TI1, they i mpl ' m 'nt the nom] of enlight 'n 'd sel f-intere 1. Let u ha e a qu ick look at them. The paragon of rational hoice ,thical theory i of cou r 'e utilitarian ism w hether egoistic or ooperativ ' , and of the act or of ru le k i nd. Act util i tarians ' aluate each act i n ad hoc fa h ion, w h 'r 'as ru le uti l itarian ' claim to know general rul s of conduct ) Egoi. t ic uti l i tari an i . m has al way. b en the rul i ng morality of th powerfu l in th We. tern world: it h as g uided the . l av m aster and the feudal baron, the conqu ror and the robb r baron. For example H itler'. offi cer. nev r had any qual m . about thei r . rial w ar c ri mes. And tho. e who took part i n the fai l d conspiracy against him in 1 944 did not reject h i . i m moral ideology : They only condemned h i . strategic i ncompetence. For example ' S tauffenberg [ the head con 'pirator] wanted the m i l itary dictator 'hip of the true' ationa) Sociali ,t . " ( Hoffmann 2005 : 255 ) . So far egoistic util itariani ' m . B y contra ,t, c l a ' sical utilitariani ' m, a . u nder · tood by Bentham and M i ll or by Har 'anyi and Smart, propose ' that we maxi m ize the aggregate or social util ity, or col lective welfare. R gr ttably thi princi pl e at fir t ight a ' clear a i t i nobl , i in u r ably fuzzy. I ndeed, it i nvolv the notion of ubjec tive utility which i . neither mathematical l y w I I defi n d nor empirical l y a c ible . A k any util i tarian or any rational-choice th ori 't. w hat h i ' u t i lity function i . . B i d u t i l i tarian have not propo ' d any function that m ap ' individual util i t ie ' onto th aggregate or oci al utility. Con equently the payoff matrice i nvoked by orne uti l i tarian to defend warfare, and by other to bol ter peacemaking, are phony. They a i gn value to non-exi ting key function , and they do so arbi traril y-a procedure that i anything but rational ( ee B unge 1 996a and 1 999 for technical objection ). Let u examine the popu lar util i tarian formula tated at the time of the Enlightenment by the materi a l i t philosopher C laude Hel etiu , and adopted by the ch mi. t philo pher and theologian Jo ph Pri tley, who i n turn taught i t to the i n fl uenti al legal phil . opher B enj am i n Bentham. 0
alues and Morals
1 29
The formu la i n que tion L Seek th greatest happiness of th greate t number. At fi r. t . i ght thi s . logan is adm irable becau , e i t combines sel f i shne . . , which we need to sur ive, w ith alt ru i sm, requ i red to coexi. t . For better o r for wor. e, the maxi m cannot b e p u t i n to effect becau. e i t i . i mpOSe i ble t o max i m ize a t once the two variable. , happi ne . . and number. I n deed . uppo. e that there i. a total good G to be d i . t ributed equally among n persons. and cal l g the fracti on of G that every i ndividual L to receive. I n other words, G = Ilg . Thi s fOll11ula may b ' regard d a the area of a rectangle of ba e Il and height g. C learly if the ba e 11 n u nlber i . maximal the h 'ight g ( i nd i idual shar ' w i ll b ' m i ni mal, ,md conv 'rsely. In other words, the two condition cannot be met jointly. Thu using an exce 'di ngly m ode t formal tool we fi nd that a famou formu la, that ha. outlived two centuri '. of v 'rbal di. cu ion i. i nappl icable. 0 much for i n xact moral philo. ophy. How er, not al1 i. lost. Drop the qual i fier "greate. t,' and the galitar i an formula remai n. : Seek e er one 's happiness. Still , . i nce happiness is a subjecti feeling, i t is hard to q uantitat . A nd whate er it i s happine . . i s unattainable by the crippled, the depressive and the unluck)'. Henc i t i . unreal i . tic to a. k anyon to di. pense equal dol1op. of happine . . . I t i s more reali stic to propo ' e that veryone be given the 'ame rights alld opportunities to do what they need to attain or maintain a ·tate of well being. I n other words, qual i fied egal i ta riani ' m i n term ' of acce . . t o the available resou rces i ' mor real i ' lie than u t i l i tariani ·m. M ore on thi ' in C hapter 9, Section 4 on social j u ,tice. To be sure, the word 'happi ne " " hardly occur ' in the contemporary philo 'oph ical l it ratur . where it ha been replaced w ith 'util i ty:' I n mo ' t ca e thi word i s tak n i n th n. e o f 'ubjectiv value. Thi s is u n fortunat b cau. 'ubj ctive alue ar not int r 'ubjecti e l et alon objecti e. Thu mayb th reader l ike ' the kind of m u 'ic lit rature food p opl e ) that repel ' me, and nei th r of u can g i any good rea on for our preference other than that they ar acquir d ta te . so. w agre to di sagree, in oking the old dictum de gu tibus 11011 e t disputandum . B y contra t, objective value , uch a the n utritional alue of a cereal bow l , or the pol itical value of a peace treaty, can be weJ l g rounded and therefore rat iona] ]y discussed. Worse, utilitarian i m ha no moral code of i t own : It conta i n no defi n i te moral norm capable of guiding our action . I n particular act u t i li tariani m hare the tenet of rational h i e theory, that every acti on hould b weighed on i t wn merit regardl f the nOll11 f social beha ior entrenched in tradi t i n. To be u re rule u t i l i tarian are om-
1 30
Political Philosophy
m itted to propo i ng general non11 of conduct. B ut a a matter of fact they have done nothi ng of the sort. They often j u . t adopt the rule. of con entional moral ity. (For an example . ee H aT. anyi 1 985 . ) In practice, then, util i tari an i . m i s as much of an empty . hell a. contractarianL m or Kantian i . m . Yet u ti l i tariani. m ha. undeniable merits. I t i . ecular consequential ist, and concemed w i th both i ndividual and soci al welfare. So, de. pite it. shortcoming ' utili tari[m i s m i . the least defect ive o f a l l rati onal-choic ' ethical theorie . For example, i t teache. that warfare i far worse than smal l-ca. e murd 'r because it ham] m any more p ople; and that exploit ing p ople i . wor 'e th(ul depri i ng them from civic right , bccaus ' th ' for m 'r han1] i n TIumy ways whereas the l atter re 'trict 'If-govern m 'nt. Let u now look at contra 'tariani. TIl or contractual i m . Thi. moral philo 'ophy ori g inated i n H obbe ' i d 'a of the oci al contract. Thi . i ' the i magi nary compromi. wh r by the monarch u ndertak . to defe nd u . from ourset . i n xchange for our loyalty to the Crow n . Spinoza and Rousseau were contractarians but republ i c an. rather than i ther monarchist. or democrat. . and above all, they hop d that thic. woul d ev ntuall y rul e pol itic . . B y contrast, t h gist of contemporary cont ractari ani s m i s that ( 1 ) i t i . radically i negal i tarian ; 2 i t a . 'ert . that an acti on i ' right i f a n d o n l y i f it con form ' t o ' i n formed, unforced general agreement" Scanlon 2002 : 1 3 2 ) ' ,md 3 ) it hold ' t hat morals ar a byproduct of contracts (Gauth ier 1 986 . A ' a consequenc of 1 ) and 2 modern day contractari,m ism ' has no place for duties that are 'triclly redi ·tri butive in th ir e ffect ' transfer ring but not inc reasing bene fi t , or dutie ' t hat do not as ' u me reciprocity from other per 'on ' ' (Gauthier op. i t . : J 6), I t follow. in particul ar t hat w hav no duties to chiIdr n, th w ak th destitute or the pri 'on inmate" for non of th m ha ' th abi l ity to .ign on the dotted l i ne. ontra tariani m i ' not for the Good Samaritan or for Don Quixote. I t is the cod of behav ior of the ' rational' actor i magi ned by 'tandard economic theory. I n other word it i . de ' igned for th powerful (uld th fl i nt-hearted : for tho e who w ri te contract and have the c lout to either enforce or break them . Un u rpri ingly mo t contemporary contractarian worship the market, which is unconcerned w ith ocial value uch a eco nomic secu ri ty, peace, and ocial welfare. I n particu lar, market-oriented contractari an have nothing to ay to the a t m asses of the Thi rd World, for the e participate only marginal ly if at all, in the market economy. And when t h y do participate, they u ual l y u nder ell thei r skil l or the a. h crops t hat sub titute the f odst u ff they h uld b cultivating t nouri . h
alues and Morals
131
them c 1 ve , and buy nlany manufactu red good . uch a cigarette becr and gun" that they do not rea]] y need. H owever. a. anyone know. who ha. been in bu. ine . . contractarian i. m doe, not work for i nter-firm rel at ion. any more than it does for i n tra-firm one, . I ndeed, no contract can fore, ee e ery problem. Most busine. s prob lems are tackled as they come, by del iberating, negoti ating, barCJaining, and cajoling, not by i n oking contract�. I f the l awyer i. cal led after the contract ha b 'en signed, i t i u . uaU y because the bu iness a ociation i s com i ng to a bad end. Hence although contractarian i ' m looks at fi r t blu. h l i ke the bu. ines m an " ode, busines m 'n would be i l l ad i . ed to adopt it. A on tract that fail s to conform to the norms of common decency and fai rness i 'asily broken, and it m ay e en be 'ontested in a court of law a. Shy lock learn 'd. Th . wi e businessman doe not propo 'e u tt 'rly unfair deals and doe. not d al w i th crooks. S uch deal ing. ha e not only h igh i ndividual co. t : B y dri i ng hon . t dealers out of the market. th y may de. troy th market itself (Akerlof 1 984 . Th r fore contractari an i s m notw ith. t anding, though in agre m nt w i th B n Franklin, ther i . . uch thing as busine . . moral ity . e . . g . Etzioni 1 98 lannon 1 989. Sen 1 987 . I n . hort, moral i ty precede. contract not the oth r way round. ( For more 'ee B u nge 1 989a . ) L e t u . now rai 'e t w o objection ' t o all rational c hoice ethical theories. One is that they overlook moral . nti ments, ' uch as compa ' si o n , fai r ne " eq u i ty , ' o l i dari ty, and t h w i ' h to h e l p other ' w i thout neces ' ar il y e pec t i n g rec i p roci t y. Yet 'ocial l i fe is hard to i magine w ithout ' uch feel i ng s . A n d tho 'e m oral [e l i ng s are m o r relevant to ' oc i a l .i u t i ce t han economi 'rational ity '-w hich i i ncompatible with 'ocial .i u t i e. A . econd objection to rational hoic theory i that the a ' 'umption that all agent ar totall y fr e to choo. i. unreal i ,tic. l ndeed, th ry notion of fre w il l i omewhat fuzzy u n 1 defined technical l y a nont i mu l u -bound attitud or beha ior. M o t . cular think r. have denied free w i ll altogether-which, of cour e. contradict our everyday experi ence of choice under no external comp u l ion. Other ha e admitted i t w i th what the Jesuit u ed t o call mental re ervation . Still other uch a S pinoza, Hegel, and Engel , have regarded freedom as noth i ng but "the knowledge of nece i ty '-a mere ophi o1. Sti l l other equal free dom with predi c tabil i ty-an ob iou category O1i take, for it confu e an ntolog i a1 category w i th an epi. temolog ical ne. I n um, the rati nal hoi e appr ach ha, not , ugg ted any real i , tic eth ical t he ry.
1 32
Political Philosophy
G ivcn th fatal fl aw c of the cxtant moral philo ophics let u break with trad i tion. 8. H umanist Ethics
Humani. t ethic. L anthropocentric rather than theocentric . and i t clai m . that there are univer, a l moral norms . e e Lamont 1 982 K n i ght and Herri k 1 995 ) . Agathoni sm i s the particular humanist moral credo that i cone 'fned w i t h h u mankind a w ' 1 1 as w i th i nd i iduals. Its maxi m a l prin 'iple i s Live and help live ( B unge 1 989a ). otice t h e d iffi'f 'nc ' betw ' 'n this TIuu
alues and Morals
133
S uch treaties pre uppos that there are u n i ver. al moral nonll be.ides whatever local u. toms may be in force . While i t L true that , ome of tho. e norm, were ant i ipated by . orne great thinkers-among them Spinoza, Kan t, Tol stoy, and K ropotk in-it wa. poli tics rather than philo. ophy that brough t about the CJreat moral progre . . embodied in the Gene a Convention, , the U N Charter, the Rome S tatute, and other . uch international document . Not phi lo. opher. but son1 ' pol i tical leaders and int 'rnational fun 'tionaries, while bui ld i ng the U N real ized that protecting c iv i lization and preventing the m utual annihilat ion of nation requir d adopti ng and enforcing c 'rtain basic moral norm ' . True there still arc rogu ' go 'rnment that i , g o eflln1 'nts who b 'lie ' that nat ional i nterests override th ' i nter ' ts of humankind. The pobtical c i 'ntist w ho adopt thi j i ngoistic stance all th 'l11. 'lves ' real i sts." B ut, though very powerful . . uch govern m nts ar few and u npopular i n the i nternational commu n i ty. l ron ical 1 y, t he ry same p ople w ho condon mi l i tary aggression, col1ectiv puni. hment the death penalty. torture, and other barbarous practic . claim to constitute the M oral M ajority, and campaign against same-sex u n ion, abortion, .tem-cel l re . arch, and th t achi n g of . afe-sex methods and evolutionary biology. a ' i f they were the worst ' i n ' . 9 . Scientific Ethics?
According to the tradi tional moral philosophie ., there can be no moral t ruths becau 'e there would b no moral fact .: All moral principle ' and j udgments would be emoli e, i ntui t i e, or utilitarian. They woul d be dogma ' rath r than te ' table hypoth 'e . r d i agr : 1 ubmit that t h r ar moral t ruth ' becau ' th re ar moral fact . A moral fact may b d fi ned a a ocial fact that affe ts the well -b i n g of other . For in tance · tarva tion phy ical viol nc , political oppre ion i nvolunta ry u n mploy m nt m i litary aggr 'sion. and forcibl cultural depri ation ar moral fact · . So ar t h ir dual : R Ii f from ·tarvation. job creation cont E t r 'olution political participation , peace-making, and c u ltural diffusion. Pro oci a l behavior i mora l wherea a n t i oci al behavior i i m m oral. T h i defi n i t i o n avoid u bjectivi m a n d re lativism. If there are moral fac ts there m ust be mora l truth . H e re are a few . candidate . "Li fe shou ld be enjoyable, "Fairne i right, ' "Lying i . wrong, "The end does not alway j u tify the mean 'Exploitation i " u nj u t," "Cruelty i ab m inable " "Altru i m i s c m mendable "L yal ty i s a v i rtue " and 'Ju t and La ting peace i s preferable t v i tory." .
1 34
Political Philosophy
M oral need be neither dogmatic nor mere ly e mpiri cal. Th y can and should be scienti fic, in the , ense that their rule. can and should be compat ible w i th what i. known through . ienti fi c research about human nature and so ial l i fe ( . ee B unge 1 989a). Four examples w i l 1 have to suffice to m ake thL point A fi r. t example i s thi e . Contrary t o the preachi n g of uti l itarians and neo- l i beral s. rec iprocal altru i sm hac a firm ba. i in . oci al sci ence. I ndeed, i t i. conducive to soc ial j u. tice and soci al cohe. ion, and thu ' to both social harmony and progrc . Second cxam ple : Unbkc traditional pedagogy, its contcmporary uc cc ' 'or empha i zes thc joy of lcarning. Consequcntly in 'tcad of u ing punishment a an i nduccm 'nt, i t u 'cs rcward and the w ithholdi ng of rcward. Thi s reoricntation ha ' two roots. One i thc th ' .i ' that, pa ·c M ar tin Luthcr, W ' are not born to u ffcr: We oftcn enjoy l i fe and we should hav ' the right to do so. Thc other root of thc procedurc in qucstion i ' the finding of modern psychology and pedagogy that childre n respond b tt r to reward or th withholdi n g of it than to punishment. B oth idea. are al i n to t h myth of salvation through sufferi ng. A thi rd exampl is the ca. for reo ponsibl procreation. Secular hu mani. t. hold that i t i. cruel to proc reate chi ldren who, b ing unwanted, w i 1 1 not b prop rly rai . d and ducated, a. a con . equence of which they are l ikely to become unhappy a . well as a burden to ·ociety. And ' ince cru Ity is abonl i nable, t he opposition to contraception i ' · tarkly i mmoral. The i mmorali ty of condemning t he u 'e of condom ' i s compounded by the current A I D S epidemic, ' ince this deadly sickness i ' lran ' m itted through unprotected . X . Another example o f c ruelty, and there for i mmoralily, i . the ban on the re 'earch and therapeuti u 'e of m bryonic stem- 1 1 to repl ac d i ea. ed or dead t i u becau i t cond mn ' to death th ictims of 'uch neurodegenerati e di. ea a Parkin. on ' A lzheim r" and H untington , who might greatly ben fit from ,t m cel l tran plant · . Th ca 'e of reproduc tiv human cloning i. quite different, for there are . ientific rea on again 't it i n addition to religiou objection ' . First, our ov rpopulated world doe ' not need artificial reproduction: Far from being an endangered specie , ou is th mo t endangering of an. Second, many of the known artificial mammalian clones have exhibited e ere defect . A cau e of these i the hortening of th telomere . or tai l of the chromo omes, a we age. Apparently arti ficial clones are born old, hence prone to ufferi ng old-age ail ment from bi rt h . E ither of the two rea on should ·uffice to ban human cloning for the moment. And i n both case the moral norm i ba ed n . c ie ntifi c on. i derations : Trut h m ay how t he way t o t h e g o d a n d t h right.
alues and Morals
135
Let us now j u mp from a h.mdfu l of ca e to a few generaliti A moral code can be either tradit ional or updated w i th the help of science and technoloCJY. If traditional , a code w i l l ignore or even reject i mportant truths found in recent centurie . . Con , equently such a code w i l l condone . eriou, m i. matche. between morals and modern l i fe, thus contri buting to the unhappine, s of m any people. By contra. t, a . c ienti fic moral i ty would . tart by identi fy i ng basic need. and legitimate wants, both old and new, a well as way ' of meeting th 'm w i thout harm ing others. It would adopt the nlaxim Enjo life and help Lil e. In sunl, whereas traditi onal morals are bound to be ob 'oletc, oppr 's sive [md divisive a scien t i fi moral codc would nlatch mod 'rn bfe and woul d bc l i b 'rating and i nclusivc, in b ' ing ba 'd on objcctive truth and in putt i ng thc moral norm to ' mp irical t 'sts, the way E in ste i n 1 950) sugge 't 'd . I nde 'd the scienti fic truth (or rather i t re ogn i tion ) 'halt m ak thee free ! Th i w of morals that I ha e .i u . t sketched i s called moral realism. and it is compatible w i th phi l osophical mat rial ism and r al i . m . becaus i t i s worldl y rather than other-worldly. Howev r i t mu. t b di. t ingui shed from moral naturalism, or th v iew that moral ity is only a survi al de ic neod d in the h um an genome. If it were we should pr fer lying to tell i ng t he truth, and con formi ty to i ndependence ; moreo er, moral rul ' 'hould be inborn and therefor u niver 'al . In other words the vef' ion of moral real i ' m and materialism I hav advocated ( Bu nge 1 989a, 2006c ) i s not a form of b iologica l reductioni 'm, I t coh r ' w i t h emergenti ,t material i sm which e mpha ' i :te , qual itative novelty and the exi stence of lev Is of organi zation , from the phy ' ical to th biolog ical to th social to the tech nological B ung 2003a). I n hort, I ubmit that all moral norm , far from b j ng det rm ined by our gene ar made, repair d, and r jected in th cour e of hi ' tory along with oth r ' oc i al norms. H ence ethic ' can b m ad ci ntinc B ung 2007b . W hat hold for ethi al 0 hold for i t next-door neighbor nam l y pol itical ideology. T h trad itional v iew i ' of c o u r that id ologi ' ar un cien t i fic. Thi s i i ndeed the ca e with all the extant ideologie . B ut i n my v iew i t i po ible to c raft a cienti fi c political ideology. that i s one ba ed o n oci al cience. Take, for i n tance, the problem o f ocial j u tice : W hy hould i t be objectively desirable'. Fir t, because exp riment u ing fMR I how that i nequi table reward affec t the ventral t ri atum : fai rne i s bui lt i nto the human brain Flie bach e t a L 2007 . Thi re u l t onfi ml refer nee gr u p theory: People are d i a t i fi ed n t onl y w hen deprived but a l w h n they are notably and u nj u . t i fi ably d i criminated c
.
1 36
Political Philosophy
again t M erton 1 968 . Epide m iology concurs : Morbidity .md m011ality increase with economic inequality. Second, . oci al inequaJi ty is objectively unde, i rable becau, e . oc ial cohe. ion i ncrea. e, with . oci al participation and dec rea, es with soc i al exc1 u. ion. Fi na] ] y, equi ty i de, i rable becau�e poli t ical scien e has . hown that a deeply divided society i . plagued by confl ict and rime, and L therefore political l y unstable as well a, defi cient i n , ecuri ty. I n , hort , there i . , ol i d scientifi c e i dence for pol i ti al philo 'ophics and ocial programs that ad ancc equality. The pr 'ced i ng i a utilitarian ju tifi 'ation of thc earch for equabty. B u t in fact equality i ' not only a mean. to realize other value : It is al o an 'nd i n i t 'elf, for it feel good to b ' among peer , and bad to be eithcr put down or raised to an und ' 'er d and thcrcfore u nstablc pede. tal . The . arne hold for the other so ' ia l valu ' '-l i b 'rty o l idari ty, secu ri ty, peace and cornp 'tent go e rmmce : Th 'y af ' all m '[ill a ' well a. goal. . Moreover, those values con. titute a package or . y. tem, for neith r of them can b ful ly realized w i thout the other, . I n . um, although scienc x udes n i ther morals nor ideology it of fers a prom i sing fou ndation for both. Indeed i t show. that human i st ethic, far from bei ng on more phi losophical fanta, y, i. consi ste nt w ith p. ychology and soc ial sci nce . How ver id ology d . er s a whole chapter-the next one . 1 0. Concludi ng Remark
There ar i ndividual value ' , ' uch a ' w l l -being and privacy; bio 'oc ial val ue " such as security and soli darity ; and social value ' , 'uch as ju ,tice and peace. Yet fa ' hi onable so i al 'cienee, which aUempt . to reduce al l the soc i al 'ci nce ' to n ocla ical m icro conomic" adm i t · only i ndividual alu , or rath r valu . n am I y pecuniary gain . Thu ' it d i torts t h rol of alues by tr ati ng th m a a ort of consumption choice" Orr n J 988: J 5 . Con quently i t i th r d i regard the bio ocial and soc ial val u or regard th common per 'on ' conc rn for good-fellow 'hip. ecu rity. j u tic . peace and other u pra-indi idual value as paradoxical. Therefore, for all it mathematical or p eudo-m athemat ical apparatu . fa h ionable soci al cience ha become l argely i rrelevant to ocial real i ty, i n particular politics B unge 1 996a, 1 998a) . B y contrast. we have attempted to place i ndivi d ual alue i n the i r social context- i nce no p e r o n i a n i land-and have empha i zed three bio ocial val ue - ec u ri ty. equal ity and fratern i ty-as wel] a three politi cal value -j u. t i ce fr edom and c m petence. We have regarded these alue. as basic rather than derivative r reduc ible t oth rs . But onl y the
alues and Morals
137
reali zation of ome of thes value renders other po ible. For example equal ity (E l iberty (L , . e u ri t y S) and j ustice J are joi ntly . ufficient for human di g n i ty D . That i . , E & L & S & J � D . Inc identall y, thi. deri ati ve i f i m portant al ue, dignity, doe, not occu r in any rel i gion - in particular, according to Chri st i anity h uman. were not worthy after the Fal 1 . H u man dignity-reo pect for , elf and others-wa. fi r. t i denti fied by Pico del l a M i randola and other R enaL . ance phi losophers ; i t wa. given promjnence by K mlt ,md ha b 'en entrenched in both the U hat1 'r and the UN U ni versal D 'daration of H u man R i ghts. Mor 'ov 'r, we hav ' argu 'd that, although tho 'e 'ix pri mary aiue. arc logicall i ndependent from one another i .e . , not i nter-defi nable) in practice th 'y hang together for th ' realization of 'ach of th 'nl d 'pend. u pon that of the oth 'r . Consequently none of the s i x an be said to be more i mpo11,mt than its partner . In particular . ccuri ty S) j u stice J), q uality ( E frat rnity (F and compet nce C are jointly nee . . ary for l iberty (L . In ob iou. sy mbols: L �S & J & E & F & C. H ne th cIa . . ical French . logan . hould b compl ted to r ad Vi? liberte i· alit ->, fralerllite justi e, omp irence. I sub m i t that the. e . i x valu . shape i ntegral democracy, in contradi. tinction to purely pol i tical de mocracy. The . ystem of alue. i n q ue. tion may be pictured a ' formjng this hexagon : ,
C
E J
O
F L
S
The e value , or their dual , in pire i deologie , which i n turn frame pol i tical i ue and thu mob i li ze or paralyze pol i tical action . Let u s then analyze ideologic .
4 Ideology : Issues and Ideals Cynic ' t nd to downplay ideology a j ust epiph nom non or even w i ndow-dre i n g . Th i may hold for I f-righteou 1 ader but not for their fol lower. . Pre u mabl y, t h pea ' ant · who volu nteered for th m ade ' w r moti ated by their r l ig iou. bel i f. not by the gr d of th ir m i l itary leader . B l ief. m att r i n all field part i c u l arly in politic b cau. e they guid voluntary action . in particular, peopl can b pol iti cally mobi lized or paralyzed not only by material i ntere ts but also by i deal . whether noble l ike democracy and equali ty. or ignoble l i ke ethnic c lean i ng and world domination. S uffice i t to recall the abi lity of national i m to mobi l i ze the m asses i nce the American Revolut ion . The Lati n A me ri can i ndependence wars fir t again t Spain and a century later again t the U n i ted S tate ' i m i lar m ement in A i a and A fri a particularly i n China, india Kenya Rho de i a A lgeria I ndonesia, Ind c hina A ngola and M ozambique agai n t the United Kingdom France J apan the N etherlands or P rtugal. Duri ng the twentieth c ntury M arxi. m played a s i m i l ar role i n the Thi rd W rId i multaneou ly fighting olonial powers and attempting-ala , un uc essfu l ly except in C uba-to l i gh t the fu e of so i al rev luti n. A t ab ut the aIne t i me I lam in pi red national i ndependence mo eInent join tl y w i th antimodem i t reaction . I n a l l t h e e a e . j u t a i n t h e ca e o f t h e A merican a n d French Re olution , ideology mobil i zed t h e Ina e . A i ngle book M adero 1 908 ) . by the fi r t democrati c pre ident after a long U .S . - u pported dictator h i p, reputed l y triggered the M e x ican Re ol ution of 1 9 1 0. Whether tme or fal pol i ti cal or apolitical interested or d isintere ted b l ief are not i nnat . They emerg i n braine fron1 both experience learn i ng, anal y zi ng doubti n g reca ting and ocial i n teraction per ua i on debating, doing . Thu wherea belie i ng, d isbeliev i ng and doubting are per onal bel ief b come oeial to th extent that t hey e pread. True 139
1 40
Political Philosophy
ome belieL are i nt imate but w hen so they are pol i tical l y in. ignifi 'ant. Pol i tical bel ief are public: They concern the pol L , are u, ual l y learned through . oc i al i n teraction, and are debated i n publ i . U n li ke m athemat ical or chem ical bel ief. pol i t i al bel ief are inti mately bound to , ocial . t ructure becau. e, far from bei n CJ di . i n tere, ted, they rei nforce or weaken the existing , 0 ial order. For example, the Cru sader. proclaimed that they wished to free the H ol y Land from T. l am ic domi nation, wh 'n th 'y were actually d rivcn by greed for loot and l and. The Europ 'an powcr that conqucred thc A meri 'as ,md A fr i a, a wcll a ' big chunk of Asia, dcclar 'd that their a i m wa to ' ang 'lizc thc nativ '. , whilc thcir actual nloti ation wa to gct a hold of rare spi 'c ' prc iou ' m 'tais, or sla c . . And 'ontcmporary l lami ' national i s m i s the i deology of groups that e 'k i nd 'pcnd 'nc ' from foreign powers which in turn d i gui 'c thc i r i n t 'rfcfcncc a a noble fight for fre 'dom and dcmoc racy, while being i nt rested in other peopl 's natural r source . . Imperial ambition wa. expres. ed q uite clearly i n th Project for a New Am rican entury, the neocon. r ative m anif , to . i gned i n 1 997 by the architect. of the ' War on Terror, ' that guided the foreign pol icy of the Bu. h- heney A d m i n i. tration 2000-2(08 ) : "W n ed to . trength n our ti . to democratic all i , and 10 hall?fl e rc> imes hostile 10 our interesls Clnd values; we need to promote the cau 'e of political and econom i c freedom abroad ; we need t o accept r e ' ponsib i l ity for merica" unique role i n pre 'erv ing and xtendi ng an intenwlional order friendl) to our se 'uri!), our prmqJerif), and our prin 'iples [emphase . added]." The new century was to be Ameri cm-dominated by the U nited State ' in the inter ·ts of the U n i ted States in the name of freedom and democ racy. The moral i. ob iou . Look for mat rial i nter 't. behi nd any rh toric of loft y i deal . W hat v r the nature of a do trine on pol i tical r g i me, th re are thre possible v iew about i t · r lation to oci al tructure. Belief
0
0
0
0
1
SO 'iety
a
i b
0
i
0 c
Fig. 4. 1 . Three "iews on the belief-society connection. (a Idealism : beliefs arc the uncaused prime mover · (b wlLgar materialism : belief are epiphenom
ena (caused hy society and without causal efficacy of their own · (d ) .'\ystemic
materialism : belief are part.iaUy baped by odety and in turn react upon it by
changing behavior.
WA L T E R
KA U F MANN
141
velopment o f his ideas. There i s even a two-volume study by Franz Rosenzweig, the friend of Martin Buber, that specifically treats the development of those ideas with which Popper is concerned above all : Hegel und der Staat. Furthermore, Popper has relied largely on Scribner's Hegel Selections, a little anthology for students that contain not a single complete work. Like Gilson in The Unity of Philosoph ical Experience
(p.
246 ) , Popper takes over such a gross
mistranslation as "the State is the march of God through the world, " although the original says merely that it is the way of God with the world that there should be the State, and even this sentence is lacking in the text published by Hegel and comes from one of the editor's additions to the posthumous edition of The Philosophy of Right-and the editor admitted in his Preface that, though these additions were based on lecture notes, "the choice of words" was sometimes his rather than Hegel's. Popper also appears to be unaware of crucial passages, if not entire works, that are not included in these Selections; for example, the passage on war in Hegel's first book, which shows that his later conception of war, which is far more moderate, was not adopted to accomodate the king of Prussia, as Pop per maintains. The passage on war in Hegel's Phenomenology of the Spirit, in the section on "The Ethical World," was written when Hegel-a Swabian,
not a
Prussian-admired
Napoleon and was published in 1 807, a year after Prussia's devastating defeat at lena. Hegel's views on war will be con sidered soon (in section 1 1 ); but questions of method require our attention first.
4.
Q UILT Q UOTATIONS
This device, used by other writers, too, has not received the criticism it deserves. Sentences are picked from various con texts, often even out of different books, enclosed by a single set of quotation marks, and separated only by three dots, which
1 42
The Hegel Myth and Its Method
are generally taken to indicate no more than the omission of a few words. Plainly, this device can be used to impute to an author views he never held. Here, for example, is a quilt quotation about war and ar son : "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword . . . . I came to cast fire upon the earth . . . . Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you . . . . Let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one . " This is scarcely the best way to establish Jesus' views of war and arson. In the works of some philosophers, too-notably, Nietzsche-only the context can show whether a word is meant literally. The writings of Hegel and Plato abound in admittedly one sided statements that are clearly meant to formulate points of view that are then shown to be inadequate and are countered by another perspective . Thus an impressive quilt quotation could be patched together to convince gullible readers that Hegel was-depending on the "scholar's" plans-either em phatically for or utterly opposed to, say, "equality. " But the understanding of Hegel would be advanced ever so much more by citing one of his remarks about equality in con text, showing how it is a step in an argument that is designed to lead the reader to a better comprehension of equality and not to enlist his emotions either for it or against it. Even those who would not reduce all philosophy to such analyses should surely grant the ambiguity of words like equal ity and freedom, good and God-and also that philosophers can be of service by distinguishing some of the different mean ings of such terms instead of aping politicians by assuring us that they are heartily in favor of all four. Popper writes like a district
attorney who wants to
persuade
his
audience
that
Hegel was against God, freedom, and equality-and uses qUilt quotations to convince us. The first of these (p. 227 ) consists of eight fragments of which every single one is due to one of Hegel's students and was
not
published
by
him.
Although Popper
scrupulously
marks references to Gans's additions to the Philosophy of
WA LT E R
KA U F MAN N
143
Right with an "L" and invariably gives all the references for
his quilt quotations-e.g., "For the eight quotations in this paragraph, cf. Selections . . ." -a few readers indeed will recall when they come to the Notes at the end of the book that "the eight quotations" are the quilt quotations that they took for a single passage. And Popper advises his readers "first to read without interruption through the text of a chapter, and then to turn to the Notes. " Quilt quotations invite comparison with composite photo graphs. In a campaign for a seat in the U . S. Senate, one such photograph was used that showed one candidate shaking hands with the head of the Communist party. It matters little whether it was labeled in fine print "composite photograph. " To be sure, quotations and photographs that are not patched together may be grossly unfair. But a self-respecting candidate will not use patched-up photographs of his opponent; and a scholar should not use a quilt quotation to indict the men he criticizes.
5. "INFLUENCE" No conception is bandied about more unscrupulously in the history of ideas than "influence. " Popper's notion of it is so utterly unscientific that one should never guess that he has done important work on logic and on scientific method. At best, it i s reducible to post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Thus he speaks of "the Hegelian Bergson"
(p. 25 6 and n. 66) and
assumes, without giving any evidence whatever, that Bergson, Smuts, Alexander, and Whitehead were all interested in Hegel, simply because they were "evolutionists" (p. 225 and n. 6 ) . What especially concerns Popper-and many another critic of German thinkers-is the "influence" that the accused had on the Nazis. His Hegel chapter is studded with quotations from recent German writers, almost all of which are taken from The War Against the West by Kolnai. In this remarkable book Friedrich Gundolf, Werner Jaeger (Harvard ), and Max
1 44
Political Philosophy
int n s i fy to the point of schL m . A nother cau se i the interaction betwcen C and the pol i ty of the ho. t . oci ety: D i fferent . ecl. may sympath i ze w i th different . oc ial mo emenl. , which i n turn are l i kely to . eek the . u pport of C or, on the contrary, to try and ban one of its . ecl. , a. in the ca. e of the rivalry between Je. uit, and Dominican . . The general outlook or phi l osophy G con. i sl. of a metaphysic, or ontology), an epi. temology_ a val ue theory, and a moral c ode. The mela ph ics of a n y rel ig ion i ' u pernaturali t a n d therefore a t odds w i th that of science and te -hnology. I ndeed, a rebgious nletaphysic con. ist i n a colle lion o f doctrines about t h ' upematu ral and our rel ations t o it, a well as about the i nlmaterial ouI. S u - h m 'taphy 'ic. r 'volv '. around two foci : God and nUll. The epistemolog i n G i s u 'ually reabst (objectivi t) l i ke Thonla ' Aq u i n a s, be au e rad ical u bje -ti i . nl, . uc h a B erkeley ' s Km] f '. , Fichte ' . , and H u . . erl'. , p l ac s man rath r than the deity, at the center and . ou rce of the u nivers . A noth r feature of an epi. te mology ac ceptable to any rel i gion i s dog m at i s m . because c ritici s m of any basic dog ma, such as that of th i mmat rial ity and im mortality of th . oul , i . a seriou. h resy. G al. 0 i ncludes an axiolog) that ranks all being. from m icrobe to man to cherub, according to their proxi mity to God as well a ' to thei r goodne · s . E very b i n g has i t . p lace i n the Great Chain of B eing Lovejoy 1 95 3 ) . In particular, archangel ' are higher than angel " men ' uperior to women, fel low bel iever- beller than i nfi del . , and personal 'alvation i . worth more t han community ·ervice. The ethi 's of any rel igion is a rel igious deontology : one of dutie . without right wh r th very first duty i ' to wor 'hip the right deity. not to car for on depend nt . A l l r l i g iou moralitie. at 0 command u . t o oppo or e n m it t h e i n fi de l-un l t h e i n fidel happe n ' to be a m i l i tary ally or va al as happened with the nat i ve oldier. of the B rit i 'h, Fr n h and German m pire , Franco ' M oori h troops and both the A fghan M uhaj ddin ( i n itially funded by t h U n i ted State ' ) and th Pale tinian Hama initially supported by I rae] . Let us now tum to the fourth coordinate of R, it fund of knowledge K. Thi i a body of fi xed, or at 010 t lowly changing, article of re] igiou faith. W hate e r change m ay occu r i n K are not due to newly di covered fact , but almo t entirely the re ult of e ither c hange i n the exege i s of trad itional doctrine , or pol i tical quabbles between ri val faction . Re search n r l i g i n i done n t insid a rel i g iou ommunity but outside i t namely by th h istorian. and s i I gi ts f religion. M reover, the
Ideology
145
c ienc of rel igion are u n l i kely to weaken adhesion to any religious doc trine . The i . . ue. addressed by any rel i gion the I component of 'j( are both conceptual and practical . The former consi st. in the cogn i tive problem of how to get to know the dei ty and how i t want. u , to l ive. The practical problem. are those of . al ation, one , conduct w i th regard to corel i gion i st. and i n fi de1 . church maintenance, and att itude toward. the . ocial order. Thi . i where the articles o f fai t h may clash w i th the practical aim -the s i x th component of our octuple . The a i m A of th ' b 'l i e ers i n any rel ig ion arc mainly pra tical: they consist i n 'ecuri ng th ' aft 'dife. Worshipping proselytizing, and I i ing a v i rtuou l i fe are only means to de e rve d i i ne ble s i ng. Thu. , altru i s m , w h 'n practi ced i n t h e light of a n y religion oth 'r than alv i n i ' m , i s only disgui . ed . ' l fi hness. I w i l l d o you a good t u rn because H e w i l l ventuall y r w ard m e for i t . T h pol icie. P a d anced b y an organized r ligion are o f t w o k i nds: Self-preservation and growth of the share of the part ic u lar 7( i n the rel i gious mark t, and helping t h e cau. e o f t h friend. o f tJ i n busines. and pol i tical circl . . An example is the ffort of rel igiou. leader. to obtain privi l ge. for th i r churche. in exchange for endor. ing the goals of a pol i tical campaign . A l though God . de ' ign . are i n 'crutable, ll i . v icar ' u ' ually gu . . correctly w hat ll i . economic and pol i tical pr ferenc ' are. And the 'e prefe rence ' nearly alway ' happen to coinci de w i th those of the rul ing cia ' 'e '. God never told anyone to go on strike, join a l abor union, or vote for partie ' that promi 'e to fight gender d iscrim ination or ad ocat increa 'ed social expenditure ' . early aU th predecessors of th pope John Paul II upported oppr i regi me ' and got mbro iled in war . W h n Pope Pius X I I w a blamed for u pporting all the fasci t r g i me around th world he claimed that he did i t to 'a th Church 'e .g., De chn r J 988 ) . F i na l ly t h e means M o f a rel igion i a col l ection o f pra tice , ' uch a ' pray r i ncantation med i tation. fa ting. eat i ng or refraining from ati ng ) p cia] food candle burning, practicing charity, o r making converts. H owe er, cen oring publ ications beating up heretic , or e en burni ng them at the take placing bomb in market , temple , or aborti on cl inics or even waging holy war, are not exc luded. A l l mean are allowed w hen the goa] i either to earn a place in Hea en or to promote the i ntere t of the faith. 0 wonder that, on the whole, religion i politically consen1a tive r wor e. Thi p i n t w i l l be tackled i n hapter 5 Se t ion 4. c
c
1 46
Political Philosophy
Let u next g l i nlp. c at the rel igion- moral ity and rel i g i on-science connection. , both of which are relevant to our iew of decent pol i tic. a. organized prosoci al action. The Fren h Enlightenment demol i. hed the traditional the. is that onl y religion can g uarantee moral i ty. Contemporary so i al , tati . tic. confi ml the view that rel i gion i . necessary nor . ufficient for moral behavior. For example, the rel i gi ou. moraJ i ty prevalent i n the U ni ted S tates coex i . t w i th the h i CJhe, t murder rate i n the i ndust rialized world, wh 'r 'as th ' non-r 'ligious moral ity domi nant i n Japan co ' ist , w i th the lowest crim ' rate i n the . arne region Pau l 2005 . The U n i ted States has at o the har hest criminal code in the W'. tern world along w ith th ' h ighe. t jail popUl at ion in the world which sugg ' 'ts that the p 'nal code i no mor ' an effectiv ' crime d 'terrent than rel jgion. R 'ligion and cience ha e alway been at odds, i f only because c ienc ' rcq u i r 's evi dence wher 'a ' rel igion all s for b l i nd faith, and becau. ' or gan ized rel igion has oft n be n part or accompl ice of th . tat . How ver, toward. the beginning of th twentieth century a truce bet\ve n . cience and r l igion had b n tac itly agreed on in most plac s. Thi. truc wa. expected to allow . c ienti. t. to get on w it h their work, and rel igionist. w i th theirs. The most persuasiv advocacy for . uch d i i . ion of l abor cam nearl y a century l ater from an u nexpected quarter: Har ard's l ate paleontolo gi ,t and public intellectual Steven Jay Gould 1 999), best known to the general public [or his 'pi rited attack ' upon 'creation 'cience : Gould propo 'ed what he called OMA, ' hort for 'non-overlapping magi ·teria." Thi s i ' the opin ion that here i . no con fl ict bet ween science and opin ion becau 'e they deal w i th non-overlapping domains: 'cienc deal ' with the mat rial world wherea r l igion deal w i th i ntangibl . llch as val u . and oul ' . Thi compro m i look. d ign d to . e k a truc in the c nturi e -old war between . ci nc and r l i g ion, and per uade con. ervative l awm aker. that they . hould ' upport . ci nce inc it po 'e ' no threat to rel igion. Thi . tactic ucceed. a. long a ' i t focu e on th end re ult or ' finding ," of th effort of scienti fi c i nve tigator and religiou preacher . But it overlooks two i mportant component : the common core of the B ig Question , and the divergent procedures to tackle them . Some of the B i g Question that i ntere t both cienti ts a n d religi on i t are the e . Did the univer e have an ori g i n and, i f 0, how did it begin? W hat was the origin of l i fe'. How did the m any biospecies originate and e l ve? W hat i the m ind and h w d es i t originate both i n th c u rse of e olution and in that f i nd i idual de el pm n t . H ow do r l ig i n
Ideology
147
emerge and decl i ne and what fun ,tion do t hey pcrfornl? The set of the e problem. con. titutes the overlap between science and religion. However, they are treated differently in each field. S ientist ta kle them anned w i th the . ientifi c method SM). The l atter i. roughly, the cy Ie Ba 'kground knO\,\ led le-Probl )/tl TI. ntati e solution Test of the solution-TI. mporQI) 'on 'Iusion-R )\ ision of solution, problem or background bum /edge.
B y 'ontrast what may charitably be called the r ligiou m ,thod (RM) i. a j umb! ' of procedure La 'king i n rational or empirical ju. tification. I ndeed, religioni ,t d ,fend th 'ir bel iefs by re 'orting to grace (or illumination 0called sacred 'criptures, or in£ 'rence drawn from the Latt 'r. The u ltimate check of any th oLogical propo i tion i i ts compatibility w ith dogma' and the ultimate . ource of dogma i . said to b a direct commun ication of th deity to a r l igious leader such a. M os " Chri st, or M oh am med. To . u m marize. one and th same set of questions is giv n two disjoint . ts of answer. as they are handled accordingly by the SM or th RM: Testable finding.
SM
B ig question -
/ �
RM
Dogmas
There ar further B ig Questi on - that 'cienti -ts do not tackle. For ex ampl did the pre ' umed Cr ator leav unmi takable track from whi h we m ight infer Hi intention ,? And, a . Vol tair asked Leibniz . follow rs why do . an allegedly mer i fu l omni cient and omnipot nt deity tol rat ueh cata trophes a earthquak . to which we now add nud ar and ch m ical weapon , global warming and rna. i e p i xtin tion? Th are legiti mate qu rie ' put by th k pti to the belie er. B ut they ar not ci ntific que tion becau e they presuppo e the ex i tence of a Creator. And thi i not preci ely a cient i fic hypothe i , i f only becau e i t i not te table. ow, the non cienti fi c hypothe i s that nature wa c reated i mpl i e that all bio peci e were created too. H ence c reationi sm, w hether traight or in i t ' cientific ' or "inte l l i gent de ign ' ver ion, i non cienti fic as wel1 . Therefore evolutionary biologist , who rightly fight c reationi m , hould take a stand again t all Creator-centered reL igion w h ther tacitly r ex plicitly. The qual i fication i needed to m ake room for Ari totIe, wh e
1 48
Political Philosophy
dei ty wa '0 val with the u ni ve rse. By the ame token th y can not adopt the non-overlapping mag i . teri a tactics w i thout contradictin g them, elves. I f evolutionary bioloCJY i s true, then NOMA is faJ. e . Moreover, thi . do trine block, any fruitfu l i n teraction. between science. on the one hand, and val ue theory and ethic. on the other. For i n . tance, i t i. psy hologi . t. , . oc iologL t. and epidemiologi. t , not theologian. , who have di. co ered that l arge soci al (in particular i ncome ) in 'qualitie ' are bad for health and worse for oci al coh ·sion. Thu ' in a famou study, S apol ky 2005a found ,U] i nv 'r . cOlTelation betwee n health and 0 ial nmk among th . baboons of the erengeti Park. M u h th . same holds for people. M arked i nequality i s bad for indi idual health on top of b 'ing ' 0 'ially 'orrosiv ' Wilki n on 2(05 ). So, we hou ld compler · th Y M C A s famous . logan Men ' sCina in corpore 'ano w i th Mentes et orpora sanae in ivitas sana. •
3.
ociopolitical I deologie
A . ociopol itical id ology is a gen ral v iew or conception of th . oc i al world. That i. , the general propo. ition. principl s al ue j udgment. , and prac tical propo. als of a sociopol itical ideology conc rn the . oci al order and way. to con. er or tran. form it. M ore pr cisely a . oc iopolitical i de ology at any given time may be characterized a ' the ordered oCluple = ,
where C = A g roup of l i k - m i nded individual : the parti an ' and y mpathiz er of , S = The oci ty that ho t C. wh th r tolerantly or not· e = Th world iew g n ral outlook or phi lo ophy h ld by P opl i n thei r capacity a ' m mb r s of C; B = The body of ociopol itical b l ief h ld by th Cs . uch a ' m ark t worship or egal itariani m ; I = The i u e addre . ed by the Cs uch a po erty and war: A = The aim of the C , uch a to hore up, or el e de tab i l i ze. the exi ling pol i t ical regime: P = The policie ad anced by the C uch a the poli ti cal e nfranchi e ment of a m i nority ; M = The mean u. ed by the C to i mplement P and thus attain A su h as voter regi stration r pa i e resi tance.
Ideology
149
Let lL analyze t he 'omponen t of the above 0 'tuple . To begi n with C is a group of i deological 1 y clo. e indi iduals, the partisan, of -which, when organized, i. cal 1 ed a pol i tical party or l ub, w i th a l ocal, regional , o r national membership. Pol itical groups come i n vari ou. degrees o f co he. i vene . . , from the monol ithic and di. cipli ned total itarian parties to the rather amorphous and tolerant democratic one . . Tn a total i tarian . ociety, there i . a . i ngle official1y recogn ized C, which i . the sum m i t of both the pobty [md the tat ' . In a th ocracy, thi ' head i the official church. In d 'mo Tatic oci ,tie there are at lea t two uch groups, or at least two w i ngs of the 'ame party. The 'et of all uch pol it ical grou p ' i n a g iven society S may b ' regarded a. one of the two fo i around which th ' pol ity of S t u rns the other fo u ' b ' ing the tat ' or gov 'fllment. ( R 'TIl 'mb 'r the dual natu r ' of pol iti ' : 'ontention and governance. S the cond COTIlpOnent of the 0 ,tupl ' , i the . o i ety that ho ts w i th ariou. degrees of tolerance. S i . a1. 0 the domain of facts or u n i erse of d iscourse, o r reference cIa . . ) that th m e m b r . of C deal with. Thi s dual ity i . pecul i ar t o th soci al sciences a n d technolog ies, a . well a. to the . oc iopol itical i deologies. Thi s a. sertion w i l l b rej ct d by th rad ical m thodological indi idual i . t. , from H obbes and Bentham to Popper and H ayek who regarded society as an abo traction. G, t he general outlook, v iewpoint or philo 'ophy of a 'ociopolitical i deology, i s compo 'ed of five groups o f principles: ontological (or meta physical ) , epi stemological, axiological value-theoretical) , ethical, and praxiological action-theoretical . The more or Ie " xplicit ontolog) of a 'ociopo l itical i deology 'tate ' 'omethi ng about human natur material or spiritual, biological , or bio 'ocial as well a . about society aggregate of i ndividual , indi i ibl whole or 'y tern ) . T h epi temoLo i n h ren t in a ociopol itical ideology i a ' t of pri n c iple. about ocial knowledg : that it i po ible or impo i b l obj t i or 'ubj c t i v . 'ci ntifi c or human i t i . Th a.xioLo of a 0 i opolitic al id ology i nvol i nd i i dual alu ' ' uch a certai n v i rtue. ) ' oc i al valu e ' ( u h a ' pea ). or both . Th ethic of a soc i opolitical i deology i a moral doctri ne uch as H obbes contractariani m, Hume' emoti vism, Bentham ' util i tari ani m, or Kant deontology. F i na l ly the praxiol g) of a ociopol itical i deology i a u ually tacit) et of pri nciple about human action , both indi idual and ocial : whether or not it i s to be p ri mari ly elf-regarding, violent or peacefu l, free or ful l y deteml ined by the 0 ial tru ture, . ubj ct in principle to ci ntific knowledge tc . I
�
1 50
Political Philosophy
The relevance of all of thc. c fi ve component of G to thc design and execution of . ocial policie. ha. always been rather clear to the proponent. of . oci al engi neering, whereas it ha. been overlooked or den ied by the part i . an. of the unfettered but mythical ) free market B, the fou rt h component of I , is the fund of knowled ge used by the pol i tical group i n q ue. tion. B depend. ery m uch u pon the general outlook G. B w i l l be nearly empty if G j. i rrationali . t or anti-real ist, w herea� B w i l l oinc ide w ith 0 i al science and technology i f G include the positiv ' th · e ' of both rat ional i . TIl th ' n 'cd for rational debat · ) and empirici ' 111 the ne d for evidence . And B may or may not i nclud ' any formal tool ' besides the principle of formal logic depending upon the complex ity of th ' ocial i ue addres ed by the C ' and the ophi tication of th ' poli ' ie they promot ' . Thus, w her 'a anyone can promise economic growth only a team of well-train d soc ial . cie nti st. and technologist. can de i se pol icie. fa oring . uch dey lopm nt. I th fifth component of i. th set of social i ssues faced by an ideology. I t ranges from m i ni mal ( for con. rvative. ) to max i m al ( for soc iali st. . l nde d, con. ervative. ar only int reo ted in devi ant behav ior: that of cri m i nals. homo. xual . , and pol itical dissident . B y cont rast, the partisans of a broad or i ntegral democracy biological, econom ic, cultu ral, and pol i tical) tend to tack! problems that, l i ke tho 'e of gover nance, overpopu lation, env i ronmental degradation, gender and income inequal ity poor health, ,md i gnorance, call for expert i 'e as well as for cro ' '-di 'ciplinary ·tudy and m u ltidimen ' ional ' ocial pol icy. A , the 'et o f aims or goal ' of a 'ociopolitical ideology, can be narrow or broad. hort-t rm or long-term reali t ic or utopian. altmi ·tic or 'elfi h, and 0 on. I t realization may accord i ngly requ i re soci al maintenance, i mpro 111 nt reform. or r vol ution. P, th . oc ial pol ici propo 'ed by a ' ociopoli tical i d ology, houl d match th aim ' A . Social pol icie. g o from t h m ai ntenance of l aw and ord r to . oc ial r form to oci al r volution or count rr volution . They may be ectoral ( e. g . , purely econom i c ) or sy tem i c ( m ulti ectoral , short-term or long-term, and 0 on. Fi nal ly M, the method advocated by a oci opoHtical ideology i s the col lection of means hop d to i mplement the policie in P: education , ma mobi li zation or both; taxation or re-engineeri ng: i nvoki ng God help or re orting to armed t rugg]e; organi zation or ma deception ; parli amentaris m r d ic tator h i p and . 0 on. Let u next g l i mp e at the contemporary i deologi al spectrum . We shall exrunine bri e fl y what may be called t h m ajor classical s ciopo-
Ideology
15 1
lifi aL ideoLogi s fron1 anarchism and so - i al i m to con crvatL m and fa. i. m, every one of which ha. had i t� intellec tual champion . . ' M ajor in the preceding . entence refer. to content, not popul arity. Indeed, mo. t people . ideologies are far Ie" articulate than even anarchism or fa. cism. For in. tance, the most popular i deology i n the Arab world . i nce the 1 950. i. Islamic national i . m a blend of I. l am i c rel i gion and anti Western senti ment. . And in the U ni ted S tates it i. the . o-cal led A merican i deology, a hodge-podg , of s logans [md wi h " such a ' , A merica fir 't," , "God-fearing peopl " Family valu 's - You ar ' worth w hat you own," "Shoppi ng t ru mps r 'ading ' 'We are 'ntitled to as much oil a we want," and ' W innable foreign war ar ' O K .' 4. The I d eo l ogical
pectrum
Th contemporary pol i tical id ologie. ar u . ual ly grouped i nto thr mai n cIa . . es: l i beral i . m, con . ervat i s m . and . oc ial i s m (e.g. Fre den 1 996 . The present W stern European pol iti . fit thi . cIa . . i fication, but mo. t others do not For in. tanc . , oci al i . m i . nearly a. absent from con temporary n i ted S tat s, B ritain, hina, and I ndone. i a a. i t was from th anci nt and medie al worlds. The u ' ual I ft-center-right d i i 'ion i ' a typology rat her than a cla ' ' i ficati on proper, for t hose pol i tical groups overlap i n part . That i " every one of them ' hares 'ome principles and procedure ' w ith another i deology. For example, both Fa 'ci 'ts and Comm u n i ·ts r 'ort to v iolence� and 'ocial democracy i . hardly di 'tjngui ' habl from l i beral democracy, ' ince both fa or progr " iv re form . B i d and thi . fact i ldom i f e e r noted, v ry pol i tical m o ment ha ' l ft, cent r and right w i ng . Thu among con rvativ th re are ' red Torie " centri ts, and pro-fa 'ci t , . And w i t h i n th . oc i al i t 1110 m nt th r are i ndividual. who , t i l l bel ie i n oci al i sm, a w I I a Liberal ' and en on. e rvati ves. Th r for the on er ativ Il i berall oci al i t di tinction r called abo i . no long r ery h I pfu l . I ugge t that, while keepi ng the l iberal -con ervative- ociali t typol ogy for We tern Europe we a] 0 u e the di ti nction between progressive conser ative, and reactionary ideologies and political movement . One rea on i that thi econd di tinction eem to be applicable to all Cletle any where and at all time from the dawn of civilization. A econd rea on is that there are progre ive ( the ' red Torle ' among Con ervative . and Con. ervatives among I f-. tyled Communi t and S 'ial i t . For example arguably the Conservati Benj am i n D i . raeli was . ocially more progre sive domestically, n t in the c 1 nies) than Tony B lair's " w Lab u r."
1 52
Political Philosophy
There for 1 ubmit that i n every ci i l i zed . oc iety there ha e been pol i tical group, of three basic type, : pro Jressi e 'onser aliv , and rea 'tiona r . Th i , d i v i . i o n L n ot on l y over profi t . a n d w age s . I t i . al so over i n d i v i d ual a n d ci i l i bert i e s , education a n d h eal th c are, t rad i t i on and the fut u re , m oral i t y and c u l tu re , and s o on. For e x a m p l e , strai g h t not p rogre , s i ve ) Conservative. n o t o n l y f a or t h e ri c h . They are a1 . 0 are ob, e, . ed w i th security. When fri ghtened, they re trict l i b 'rtie ; t hey ' upport the donl inant rel i g ion and ar ' uspi iou ' of cultural no c ity. In ShOlt, ev 'ry pol i ti al 111 0 eInent i actual ly or pot 'ntially ' p l i t into three w i ngs e ith 'r of w h i c h c a n b ' trengthen ' d ( o r weakened) b y forgi ng ta t i al allianccs w ith one of t h e w i ng of a rival pol itical move In 'nt-somc of w hich end up by distorting or ev 'n e l i mi nating th ' wcaker partner. Eve n th ' tudent of pol itics arc divided i nto tho 'c thrce camps: Conservative, from Plato and Ari. tot! to Edmund B u rke, Adam MUll r, Beg 1 , ietz, che, arl Schmitt Leo Strau, , and Michael Oak , hott ; centri . ts l i k Jefferson, M ad i . o n , Tocque i n , omte, Ke1 . n, Popp r, Rawls, B obbio and Dwork i n - and 1 fti. t. , from Rou, s au and Pai ne to the utopian , oci al i . t s t o M i ll and M arx . t o Dahl and M i l ler. A n d each of these faction, is in t u rn spl i t i nto three tendencies. For exampl , M arx i . t o the left of M i l l a n d Dah l t o the l e ft o f R a w l ' . H ow ver, i n ree n t t i mes the mo ·t notoriou ' and i n fl uential pol i tologi 'lS, from Carl Schm itt, Henry K i s ' inger amuel H unti ngton, and Francis F u kuyama to the journal i ·ts 'peechwri te r ' and profes 'or ' who have adv i sed Pre 'idents Reagan and Bu ' h Jr. have been on the far right . Thi s i . under 'tandable. Authoritarian rulers ,md thei r corporate 'ponsor ' are mor w i l ling to pay for h aring what th y l i ke than for I i · tening to scholar who dare tell th m di agreeable truth . The fol low i ng table ' ituate. mo t of the pol iti aJ ideologies of our tim . I t do not i nc lude nationa l i m b cau all nationaii t mo ement. are c i rcum tanti al amalgam. of d iffer nt ideologi aJ tripe -left i t " liberal . and right-winger - i nc their only rallying focu i . . overe ignty. For a i m ilar rea on our table doe not i nc lude comm unitarians femini t , or radical envi ronmentali t aU of whom attract holi t organi c i t on the left, center, and right . Be ide , our table doe not match exactly the politi cal pectrum . In fact, some of the ideologies ha e no i gn i ficant fol lowing at pre ent, and the centri t political parties promi e omething to nearly every one.
Ideology
153
Left
Anar 'hism = Per ona] l i berty, cooperative owner h ip, no coer i ve tate, no pol itic . Communism = Equali ty, col lec tive owner hip. trong tate fated to w ither away. So 'ialism = Equali ty, per onal l iberty, c i v i l right , c ooperative , po l it ical democracy. Center
So ial demo rae) = P r onal l i bert y civil right regulated capital i . m welfare state poli t ical democracy. Liberalism = PeL onal l i be rty civ i l right capitali m cum safety n and pol it ical democ racy. Managerialism = Capital i m c u m technoc ratic gO ernance. Right
Neolihera/ism = Personal l iberty, ci i l right. m arket rule, no , afety net, m i n i mal . tate. Traditionalism = Capital i . m u rn a traditiona l i st ( e . g . , theocratic c ulture . F'Cls ' i In = apitali sl11 c u m dictator. hip.
Let I I go i nto ome detai l ' of th ' abov ' cartoons, at th ' ri k of bei ng u n fair to them. Anarch i ' m i highly fragmented. I t include individuali ts and 'ollecti vists, L ibertarian and Sociali sts d 'stru 'rive type and coop e rati v i , t . It 'Ollllds beau t i fu l when it 'xtols coop 'rati on ov '[ breakneck competition. and fa ors a participatory economy over a rapaciou. on , a. M icha 1 Albert (2003 ) do . . B ut, becau . i t focuses exc1usiv l y on t h economy a n d o n the xce. ses o f govern ment, anarchism neglect c ul tu r . i n particular science and technology, or ev n rejects i t . Th anarchi st. of my youth admir d i tzsche becau. e of his irre erenc and de. truc ti en . s; and recently N oam hom. ky had to rebuke fel low anarchi sts who had adhered to po ·tmodern i ·m. M oreover anarchism overlook ' i nternational relation ' and the i ' ' ue ' they rai 'e: defen 'e, foreign trade, and tran 'national firm ' . B ecau ' e i t applies o n l y on a 'mal l 'cale, anarc h i ' m i s i mpract ical o n a national scale, and en more '0 on an international 'cal . I n any event, becau 'e i t reject · pol itical action, ,marc h i 'm i ' an antipolitical philoso phy rath r than a pol it i aJ one. Thi ' tance led the powerful anarchi t
1 54
Political Philosophy
movement i n Catalonia to attempting to make a soc i al rc olution during the Spanish Civil War in. tead of joining the other Republican faction. in fi ghting the ad an ing fa. cist force. -a blunder that helped fa. cist. win the war. Our next i deology i. com m u n i . m. According to Ari . totle 1 94 1 : B k . T I , 1 266a), Phaleas o f Chalcedon was the fi r, t t o affi rm that t h e c i ti zen. of a . tate ought to have equal po . . e, sion . . ' E ver since the emergence of th ' fi r 't elf-styled comnlUn ist tate, in 1 9 1 7, the is ue of 'ommuni m ha ' been confused bccau e of a d ' l iberate obfu scation on both . ides i nc ' th 'y 'oin id ' i n identi fy i ng Com m u ni m w i th the So iet reg ime. Actuall y 'ontrary to profes ed doc trine So iet-style 'om mu n i . m did not so 'ializ ' the mean. of production. I n fact, i t i nvol ved the nationaliza tion or tatization ) of wealth and the accompanyi ng tate monopoly on e cry thing in l u d i ng pol itic and cultur '. I ronicall y, Engel ( 1 954: 3 5 ) had condemned . tate soc iali s m as "spuriou. social i . m .' The S ov iet state j ai l d or murder d al l . u . pected di. . id nt. , and i t lacked d mocratic organi zations. For exampl . t h . ov i t. or worker. ' counc i l s wer di. banded e arly on: only th word wa. k pt. Therefore i t i. abo u rd to charact rize i t a s "total itarian democracy,' a s Tal mon ( 1 970 did. This is as m uch an oxymoron as the xpr . sion. 'authoritari an so ciali 'm ' and 'top-down communi ' m," -ince the es 'ence of 'ociali 'm and communism is equal i ty. Worse, after i t ' early enthusia 'm for social and cul tural inno ation Soviet- ,tyle com m u n i 'm became social ly con 'erva tive in many field ' from technology to philosophy and art, as well a ' env i ronmental ly un 'u 'tai nable. t il l the Soviet empire had two saving graces. I t rightly boa 'ted the lowest income inequality, and one of the h ighe t education Ie el ' i n the worl d . I n u m the two S in ' U S S R ' wer fak , but mod rni zation and a good deal of qual i ty wer real-and th R d Army wa th one that d troyed th N az i army. Yet, the care r anti Com m un i · t g l o. . over t h e po. i t iv trait o f th So i t U n ion. Democ ratic oci al i . m. th goal of th European ocial i .t b tween ca. 1 880 and 1 940, wa. ne r i mpl m nted : the f w ' ocial democratic par tie that governed left the pri ate ow ner hip of the mean of production, trade and finance nearly i ntact. I ronically, or rather tragicall y, ociali m was defeated by a tacit al liance: the welfare tate, the Comm u n i st attacks on the Social-democrats between the two world war . televi i on-the modern c i rcu -and compu ter addiction. Se eral ocial reforms were carried out from the 1 880 on by con ervative governments uch a tho e presided by D i rae l i B i marck and von Taffe and l ater on by Liberal and Chrt. t i an Democrats, to steal the w i nd off t h sail s f the •
Ideology
155
c O ·iali. t mo cmcnt; thc fcar of communism and thc ctarian fi ghts i n . i de the Left faci l i tated the ascent of fascL m in I taly and Germany ; and TV and I n ternet are of cour. e the most potent opiates of the mao se . . I t i m mobi l izes the m . The k i nd of . oc iali. m practiced i n We. t e rn Europe, particularly i n the Nordi nation. , i , often caned d mo Tali ' so 'ia/ism. True. it is better characteri zed a, ad van 'ed � e�fare 'apitalism ( a1 . 0 cal led so 'ia/ rnar kel bccau e it i - far more g 'nerous thm] the mean w ' l fare capitalL nl practiced i n the U nited S tate and B ritain. B ut it has no -trong c laim to sociali m becau. ' far from ha i ng so ialized th ' bu l k of the mean - of production trade, and fimmce it has I 'ft th ' m i n p ri ate hands. S t i l l , this reg i me i s arguably the most uc e ful, fai r stable and peac 'ful soci a l ord 'r i n h i tory ( u n 2000 B e rman 2006). B 's ides and con tra ry to its detractors, ordic capitali sm is ft ou ri -hing. Quick growth, a h igh g lobal comp t i ti v n ss ( espec ially for Finland and ( except for Finland a h igher employment rat than in most capital i st nations se , . g . , Pontu . . on 20(5 ). Howe r i n recent year. i ncome i nequ al ity i n the ordic countri . ha , b en , lowly catching up with th most i n galitarian among the af fl uent countrie. , namely B ritain and the U n i ted S tate. , where the G i n i i nd x ha ' reached about O.4S-roughly 0. 1 0 poi n t ' m ore than two decades ago. Thi ' sharp i nc rease i n i ncome ineq ua li ty coup led with a ' en 'ational i nc rea 'e i n producti v i ty, hence profi tabi l ity, cast ' ' riou ' doubt on th fai rness and t here fore 'tabil ity of the marriage of ' ocial i ' m and capitali 'm. There i ' of course an alternative to both ad anced w l fare capi tali 'm or " oc i a l mark l" and 'tate 'ocial i ' m , namely m arket 0 i a l i ' m a combination of l abor-managed coop rativ , w i th th m ark t . But it ha. yet to be tri d on a national scale. W hall r turn to t h i , ubject i n th la t chapter. A for Tony B l air' New Labour, inspired by the noted soc iologi t A nthony G idd n " i t i s s ituated to the right of t h Fabian or vol utionary oci al i t of th e arly L 900 such a. G orge B rnard Shaw G orge Wal la , and Sydney and B eatrice Webb. I n dome t i c matters after a decade i n power the Labor govern ment has not yet repaired the damage t o publi c health and education inflicted b y the preceding con er ative governments. U N ICEF i nformed i n 2007 that the U n i ted K i ngdom occupied the fi r t rank in child po erty among the 2 1 most affl uent nati on . And i n external affair the Labor government defied B riti h p ubl ic opi ni on by siding w ith Ge rge W. Bush's aggressive forei gn poli y. Be id , it has alienated m any of i own fo t ldi rs by deciding to u pdate ir. nuclear anl]mnent
1 56
Political Philosophy
and by handi ng out peerage. to i t wealthy donor . I n . hort, New Labour i. i n c rL i s because i t ha. for. aken it, soci al -democratic root. . Except for its rhetori c duri ng election campaign" i t L hardly di. tingui shable from poli t ical 1 i berali . m-Ollf next . u bject. The tradem arks of l ibe ral L m are reo pect for the per. on and l i m ita tion of the power of the . tate : It i s the pol i tical arnl of the ontologi al individualL m or atomi s m ) exami ned i n Chapter 2 . H owever, the ternl , l iberali m ' i s anlbiguous, for it denotes both pol it i 'al and e 'ono m ic liberal i ' m (or possessi e indi idual i m, a B arrington M oore called i t . One can b ' for or again. t e ither or both. For i n tance, M il l wa a political Libe ral but not an e 'onom i c L i beral sine ' he op ' n ly advocat d social ism- 'ave in the colonies. B y contrast, the ty pi a l ontemporary L i be rtari an eol i be ral , or Neoconservati e, is ,U] economi c Lib 'ral and tret hes per onal right , to include the right to bear arms, oppo. e m arket regulation. and i n terna tional obli gation. and favor aggres. iv international policie . . At the . ame ti m , th neoconser ati e. ar pol iticall y and cult u rall y q u i t i l l i b ral . L ike th rel igiou . fundamental i st. , they are characterized by "rigidity, domination, and xclusion' (Carter 2005 : 5 . The m r x istence of right-wing l ibertariani. m, from Spencer to H ayek, Fried m an and Nozick, show ' that, to pro ' per, i ndivi d ual l i be rt i . m u · t be combined w ith the publ i c inte rest, which invol es decrea ' ing ' harp i nequalitie . for the ·ak.e of peace and morali ty. ctuall y right-wi ng l i b ral i 'm i ' not new. B e fore the 1 848 revolu tion ' i n Western Europe t here were few Democrats, and mo ,t L i beral ' oppo 'ed democracy ( 'ee, e.g., B obbio 2005) . Nowaday ' mo ,t L i beral ' in the 'a-called West rn world ar for d mocratic go rnm n t and admit the n d for am legal re ' triction to pr v nt abu e. of fre dam 'uch om economic control to a· that of xploiting childr n ; th y advocat damp n economic fi nanci al c ra 'he and econom ic cy Ie ; and t h y al a favor am redi stribution of w a1th to aBe i ate po erty and a oid c i i l unrest. I n anad i an term , contemporary poli tical l i beralism would b described a progre ive con ervati m ; and i n German term a advocat ing the ocial (a opposed to the free m arket. Poli tical l i bera l i sm tolerate . and on occa ion act i vely promote , social reform uch as i n crea ed 10caJ autonom y, publ i c education, and publ i c heal th care . B ut, bei ng in the m iddJe of the ideological pectrum, li beral s are bound to move now to the left, now to the right. Indeed in thei r que. t f r p wer, w hen i n the m i n rity L i beral p l it ic ians m ay j o i n demo rati S cial i t one day and social Conser ati ves the next. The
Ideology
157
r u lting tactical alliance arc Uk l y to be fragi le but, i f they uccecd in form i n CJ government, this i. bound to be I e . . damaging than a radical one. H owever, let u. move on down our I i. t . Our n e x t i deology i s manageri al i. m . Thl . doct ri ne wac pioneered by Henri de Saint-S imon 2005 )�whom M arx and En ge1 . m i . takenly i dentified as a u topian . oci al i . t . The type of . ocial order and pol itical governance that Saint-Simon cal 1ed ' indu. trial i . m L someti me. d ubbed "technocra y." I t con i sts in 'apita l i m together with scienti fic rna nag ' ment and so 'ial eng i ne 'ri ng. It has nev 'r i mplement 'd although i t con tain the COlTect idea that the tate 'hou ld be numaged rationall y even i f i t d i plea. 'S local voter. . B ecau ' it overlooks the moral fa tor [md seeks to replace pol itical contention with all 'gedl y scientifi ' manag 'ment manageriali m i un reali tic. I ndeed i t overlooks the risk of corruption du ' to the absence of d mocratic controls. It i . aL 0 u ndemocratic becau. e it m i n i m izes pol i tical participation. Th right of th pol itical . pectrum i . no I , . varied than the center or th left . Howe er, al 1 the right- w i ng ideologi s. whether l ib ral or authorit ari an, . c ular or rel i gious . . har two tra i t. : their prefer nc for the wealthy and the concom i tant hatred of equal i ty and m istru. t of d i . 'ent. A ha ' been said, th y know right from I ft, but not right from w rong. They do not j ust i g nore the p l ight o f the poor, w ho hap pen to be the va ,t majority of the population: Th neo l i berals wage a m e rc i less war on the poor, whether person ' or nation s i n oppo 'ing al l weal th red i · t ribulion, The l iberal w i ng o f the right i s called neol i beralism or neocon 'er vati ' m. Thi i ' a ort of right-wing anar h i m . for i t combines pol itical l iberal i s m w i th market wor hip. In fact i t propo es return ing to Victorian or raw capitali m .g. Friedman 1 962 ; Nozick 1 974; H ay k 1 976 . I nd ed th neolib ral eek to hrink the . tate to pro iding only 'ecu rity for per on and property. l avi ng th d · t i tu t to th ir own devices ' pri ate i n itiativ ' ). in fact n ol i b ral i m . or m arket fundam ntali m i s composed of econom i c deregulation and g lobalization , radical red uc tion of ocial ervice , weakening the labor union , " flexibil i zation' of the labor market and pol i tical democracy at home but tolerance or up port of friendly foreign d ictator hip . It ha nothing con t ructive to ay about envi ronmental degradation war chronic u ne mployment. i ncome i nequality. gender d i c ri nli nation, de poti m , publi c health, i ll i teracy, the N rth - South gap, or other c ial i l l . eol i beralism i e l i t i t for it seeks to en ure th rule of the few over the m any. c
'
.
1 58
Political Philosophy
The ncolib raL se cv ry . oc ial issue through the narrowe t po iblc so ial peephole. They practice both i ndividualL m and econom i . m . Their devi. e, are There is no su h thin as so 'iet : There are 01'1.1 individuals M argaret Thatcher and Th market iveth, and the market tuk)th away. Any threat to m arket rule i. to be countered by authoritari ani . m. Thi . i. why the Republ ican CJovern ment. of the U n ited S tate, have been on friendly term. w i th al l the rightist authori ta ri an government around the world . The extreme con 'ptual and pra ,tical narrown ' , , of n 'oli b 'raJ ism i ll u trate the praxiologicaJ principle that w he n 'ver a ingle goal i ' pursued, uch as lib 'rty or 'qual i ty, ev 'ry other goal i s threat ·ned. The practicaJ con 'equenc '. of the n oliberal pol icies (the so-called Wa h ington on ensus designed and i m po 'd by th . I M F th ' World Bank and the WTO were felt in Latin A me rica after they were mas sively adopted during the 1 990s. The r '. ult , were dL appointing to ay the least: Po erty, inequal i ty, and i l l iteracy did not decl i ne productivi ty did not i ncrea. e and publ ic opi n ion was m u ffled N u n 2000; A nd r. on and Nie1. n 2002' U N 2004 . The popular backl a. h came during the pre . ent c ntury. A number of I ft-Ieani ng parties, and even inchoate popul i. t mo ment such as H ugo Chav z '. in ¥ nezuela, came ree ntly to power or near i t, in a n umber of nation ' in that region. W hi ch i . on more counterexample to ocqueville" law ' that people r oIL not when they ar mo ,t oppr . 'ed, but when their situation begi n ' to i mprove and the state i . weakened. Earlier exception ' were the Ru . ' i an, Chi ne 'e, and I ndo-Ch ine 'e r olution · . ) ext i n the i deological 'pectrum comes traditionali ' m , which join ' rel i g ious fundamentalism with the defen 'e of the econom ic ·tatu ' quo. An exampl i the c u rrent l rani an theocracy wher dai l y l i f . pol itic" and cultur ar u bject to trict rel igiou ' cen. or hip. E I ction are held regularly, but t h candidat ' ha e to b vett d by an u n Ie ted Counc i l . l nc id n tally, thi i not xcept iona1 : E n i n t h most d mocratic nation , only the party lit picks the candidate ' or precandidat ee Duverger J 967 . Fi nal ly, we meet fa ci m i n i t many different form , each adapted to a country ' particular condition and trad i tion ( ee Eatwel l 1 995 ; Mann 2004 . W hether ecular or faith-ba ed. al l fa cist regime have been characteri zed by radical i negaJi tariani s m a well a by intolerance, the iden t i fication of government with party and the u e of extreme violence in defen e of the weal thy. And a11 the fasci t regi mes have ben fi ted fr m the ompli i ty xplicit or tacit, of both the Cath l i and Prote tant h u rche . I
Ideology
159
So much for the i deological pcctrum . It w i l l be noted that i t doc not m atch exactly the actual pol itical , pe trum . Indeed four of the i deologi cal , lots-anarchi . m, authentic com m u n i sm, social i . m, and manaCJeri ali . m-have never been fi ned. The fact that , orne regime. have been caned 'com m u n i . t' ' , 0 iali st, or ' national -sociali. t prove. nothing b u t t h e power of t h e word. Camouflage a n d m i m icry are even more common i n society than i n nature . Another featu re of the i deological spectru m i. that i t has not c hanged . ignifi '[mtly 0 e r th ' past century. 0 radical ly n 'w poli t i 'al ideas hav ' emerged during that period . W hat ha changed in recent t imes i the d i tribution of the c itize n ry over that sp 'ctru m . I n fact, there has been a marked shift t o t h ' right o f n 'ady all o f t h ' pobti cal group around the world . Anoth 'r r 'cent developm ' n t i t h e ' ane 'cence of t h e left. E en the h i nese ommunist Party i ' cUlTently II ing i ts enormou. power to impl ' m nt policies that fa or mainly the new bou rgeoi. i , as a con. quenc of which economic and c ultural in q uality, particularly b twe n city and cou n tryside hav i ncr ased markedly over the past f w years. In fact, th G i n i i ndex of i ncom i nequal ity h as increa. ed , ign i ficantJy, while acc . . to fre education and health care h as d d ined. S ti l l the Chinese H um an Developm nt I ndex grew . n. ational1 y, from 0.527 i n 1 975 to 0.768 in 2004 U DP 006 . Only I ndia ha . had a comparable r i 'e, from 0.4 1 to 0.6 1 1 over the la ,t three decade ' , but i t · t i l l lag ' behi nd China " . The c rumbli ng of the Soviet empire, and the concomi t,mt di 'credi t of the comm unist i deology, ha . invigorated neoliberali 'm, for it 'eemed to v i ndicate the c redo of Ronald Reagan and George W. B ush: Us is good and godl l, them i e il and godless. Thi , form u la, '0 popular among red n cks ha. two fl aw . One i th tac i t q uation of ommuni m or . oc i al i s m ) w ith . tat oci al i m o r central planning c u m Stal i n i t d ictator ·hip. The ' ond fl aw i t he extoll i ng of raw or unr gulated capital i m as th best oci al order. W xamined above the fi r 't trave ty. L t u s now g l i mp. e at the . econd contention. M il l , Proudhon, M arx K ropotki n and countl oth rs hav indicted capita l i m as unfair, hence i m m oral . Thi i al 0 how the greatest econo mi t of the twentieth century evaluated capitali m: "The out tanding fauH of the econom i c oeiety in which we l ive are it fai l u re to provi de for ful l employment and its arbitrary and inequitable di t ri bution of wealth and i ncome ' ( Keyne 1 973 [ 1 936] : 372). There i more and wor e yet. Capital i m i i nherently expan ive, for i t can pro per only i f allowed to grow d mestical ly through i n creased producti n and trade along with destructi e m petiti n in particul ar
1 0
Political Philosophy
mcrgcL a wcl l a. to conquer rcc ource and n cw m ark ts abroad, whether through trade or violence. B ut u nchecked growth in production lead. to pol 1 ution and the depletion of non-renewable re. ources; and i n ternational expan, ion L l i kely to lead to war and coloni al i . m, 0 ert or covert. In short, raw capital i . m i. not only i nequ i table, hence morally ob jectionable : it L a1 . 0 economical 1 y un. ustai nable, a. Schumpeter ( 1 950) noted. Moreover, unregu lated capital i. m i . pol itical1 y dan gerou, , for it is unavoidably tempted by d i 'tator 'hip and m i l i ta ry aggressi on . The apologists o f unregulated capi tali sm w i l l d i spute th - pre iou ' statement ' and they are l i k -Iy to claim that the sen. ational e 'ono m ic growth of China ,md India over the pa t few decad - , pro e that capital ism and free trade are aJj - and well . H owever the apologi t of raw capitali sm overlook the i ncreas i ng econonlic and u ltura l gap betwee n both i ndividu al s and nation , a w - 1 1 as th - environnl -ntal degradation both at home and i n countrie. producing th requisit raw materials such as m i nerals and ti mber and en rgy m ai n l y oil and gao . S i nce ther i. a pol itical cap on i ncome inequal ity and a physical l i mi t to th exploitation of natural r . ou rce, th market economy i. not , u . tai nabl . Thi . i . a central the. i . of the ecological economists . i nce th publication in 1 972 of the much-mal igned bombsh 11 Til ? Limilfl to GrO�i Ih . Lawn ( 2005 ha ' held that a mode ·t but firm set of macroeconomic con · traints on production, ' uch a ' 'ecological tax ' ," can deliver the steady- ' late economy w need to attai n 'u 'ta i nability. Thi . is unl i ke ly if only becau 'e economic problem ' cannot ha e purely economic 'olutions, as M i l l warned i n hi . autobi ography. Th rea 'on is that the economy i . only one of the sy 'tern ' at 'take: others are the envi ronment, the biologi cal y tern t he pol i ty, and t he culture Bunge 1 979a . Th refore ffectiv policie. to attain a teady- 'tate economy cum d mocracy can only com from int rdi ciplinary re earch and pol i y-mak i ng in 01 ing nvironmen tal . ienti t . d mograph r . epid m iologi t . ociolog i ts, politologi t culturolog i t5 and even economi t , . S uch re e arch ' hould c u l m i nat i n a sy . tern of pol icie i nvolv i ng birth control the search for alternati en rgy source i ncreasing machi ne effi ciency de ign cooperativ i m a broader democratic debate, and rna ive public education on ocial issue . I n u rn , i nce tate ocial i m ha fai led and unfettered capital i m i li kely to i m plode we are back to q uare one. Indeed we stil l face the pol itical and moral problem that M i l l 1 924 [ 1 873 ] : 1 62 left u w ith: 'how to unite the greate t i ndividual l i berty of action, w ith a conlmon owner hip in t he raw material f the globe, and an equal prutici pati n in all i n th ben fi t f c m b ined l abour." Thl. i a tall if highly de i r,
Ideology
161
able order. S incc thc extant ideologic ha c b cn u n w i l l i ng or incapable of ful fi l 1 ing it, let us try and get hel p from outside them : scien e and h umanL t ethic . . B ut fi r, t let u. exami ne other i deologie. , as well a, the rel ation. between i deology and . cience. 5. Outliers: E nvironmen talism .Fem i nism Communitarianism Cooperativism
ationalism Opportunism
We w i l l now dis u 's ome ideologic ' and the mo ements they i n spire, that do not fit the trad i ti onal left-center- right part ition. Environmental i s m , or th ' G re 'n movement, str 'sses the need to protect the natural environm 'nt. Femi n i m foc u e on the emanc i pation of women . Com m u n i tarian i . m exalt the alue of the com numity. oop 'rativism holds that th ' fi rm owned and manag d by their workers arc socially and morall y sup rior to the pri ate companie. . ational i . m i. th fam i ly of id ologi . that place national sovereignty at the top of the alu l adder. And opportun i . m i s t h e u npri ncipl d and . hort-term tactic of m ak i ng whatever move m ay fac i l i tat acce, , to power. A l l of the abo ementioned mov m nts have philo. ophical underpin n i ngs. Env i ronm ntali st. arg u per. ua. ively that it i. our duty to futur generation. to bequeath them a l i vabl en i ronm nt: th i r cause i . pri marily moral. So i s that of t he fem i n i 'ts, They fi ght gender di 'cri m ina tion, which is c learly u n fa i r and socially c rippl i ng ' i nce it ' stunt ' the development of half of h u manki nd. ommunitarian ' too argue that the i r cau 'e i ' moral because they r ject the i ndividualj ' m hence sel fi 'hne 'S, i nherent in l i bera l i ' m , They advocate h e l p i ng the poor, e i ther t h rough c h u rc h- l i n ked o l un te r i ng athol i c i ' m or t h rough the tate CI l a m ) . N o doubt, charit y i s w I I intention d ; b u t i t r plac . right · w it h t h good w i l l of a f w genero u i nd iv i dual , and fight i ng for right w i th beggi ng . B e ' i d com m u ni tari a n i m i moral l y objectionab l i n sofar a i t underrates pov rty in tead of attempt i n g to erad i cat it. It i a l o obj ecti onabl in that i t rej c t th right o f i nd iv idual ' to br ak away from thei r comm un i t ie s , and t here fore tend t o r e tric t l i berty. F i n a l l y, c o m m u n i taria n i m i the pol i t ical arm of holi m or o rgan i c i m . This i log i c a l l y m i taken becau e i t hare A ri totle 1 94 1 : Bk. I, ch. 2 ] 253a) ab u rd po t u ] ate that "the w hole i of nece i ty prior to the part ." Whole and part co xi t both i n real i ty and logically, ince neither exist or i defi nable w ithout the other. C operati i sm com b i ne no Ie . . than three key . oeial alue. : Equal ity sel f-govenunent or demo ra y in the workplace and olidar ity. I t
1 62
Political Philosophy
come i n at least three versionc : rad ical I i ing i n communes , moder ate (labor-owned c ooperative. ), and lax a" 0 iation. of i ndependent producer. to di. pen. e w i th middlemen ) . The m ai n moral component. of cooperativL m are the rejection of para. itL m, and the adoption of egaJ i tarian procedure. for managing the common i n terest. . We shal 1 take a clo. e l ook at cooperatives i n the la. t chapter. ) N at ional i . m too ha. a moral ba. i s as lon g a, it i . defensive rather than aggre i ve for defensive national i s m a sert the right of peopl ' , to 'If-determination i n th ' face of for 'ign domi nation. B y contrast, aggre i ve nationali sm i . larkly i m moral simply because aggr 'ssion i ' th ' q u i nt ' 'ntial i m nloral ity. Nat ional i ' m fem i n i m , com m u n i tariani. nl, ,md the G reen nlovement af political ,illomali ' S i n that th 'y annot be placed i n the left-center-right spectrum dis 'ussed in the pr ' ious ection. The rea 'on is ob iOll. . Nation alists fem i n i .ts, communitarians and the Gr en. ar prepared to ov rlook all the differ nce. -from class int rest. to cultu ral all giances-for the sake of thei r own goa1. . Yet, each of th fou r mov ments i . actually spl i t into the c l assical socioeconom ic tendenci s . For example, wh reas some Communit arians are Anarchist. , others (particularly i n Europ u nder fa. ci. t r g i mes) ha b n Corporati . t. and "whi te Fa. cist. .' Stil l other. ( most academ i c Communitarians are democrati c ; and quit a few have been m i l i tant Catholics see HeUman 2002 . The left-center- right d i v i ' i on i ' u n l i kely to affect Com m u ni tarian . or Fem i ni ·ts, becau 'e they do not seek pol itical power. Rather, t hey attempt to weaken it and to per ' uade the exi ·ting pol i t ical mo ement · to inc lude their cause i n the i r agendas. But the l atent divi -ion i . bound to eventually de tabiliz the Green mo ment ' that e k parli amentary repre entation. The ' am di i ' ion i. bound to aff t nationali ' m to a far more serioll. d gree. indeed the G reen m m ber of parl iam nt are tempted to forg opportuni tic al1 i ances now w i th the 1 ft now w it h the c n t r. Seldom w i th t h right, which i. openly anti -env i ronmental i t. And any national i · t government i l i kely to i nd ud Social i. t and Fa c i.t ympath i zer. along with Democrat . Con equently it, too, i inc urably un table. The hi torical record show that righti t nationali sm alway end up by el bow i ng out i t left i t partner. The rea on i clear. It i ea ier for righti st nationalism to form a tactical al l i ance w i th a consen1ati ve party, than for left i t nationali m to find a ociali t al ly, i nce authentic oci al i sm i e entially i n ternationali t. N at i nal i m ha. been an i mportant poli ti c al force . ince at least the American R vol uti n and the N ap leonic Wars . Yet u n t i l re ently it wa
Ideology
163
practically 0 erlookcd by all thc major pol it ical theorL t . Wors cven the cia . . ical analy. e, of national i. m Gell ner 1 983 ' Hob. bawm 1 990: Mann 1 993 are seriously fl awed becau. e they do not di. ti ngui. h between bot tom-up and top-down deferL i e and aggres. i e national i. m. nor among economic pol i tical, and cultu ral national i . m . . They treat national L rn a. a blo , while actual 1y i t i s a whole fam i l y of i deologie . . Hence tho. e ac count do not help us understand the emergence and decline of the variou. national i 't mo e nlent . In particu lar tho. ' shldie do not even . how the role of nationali . nl i n the nation-bu ildi ng proce e. , in part icu lar i n the con truction of all the nation ' born in the our e of th ' la t two centuries, from Argentina to Z inlbabw ' and in the U IT 'nt attem pt to rccon truct Russia . ce M cAdam, TmTow, and Til ly 200 1 ; P i 'kel 2006 . or do tho e c lassical studies account for th ' tran formation of na tionali s m . uc h a th ' change of the Ameri 'an defensive nationali m of 1 776 into th aggre . . ive national i . In i mperial i . 1n of th follow i ng two centuries. or, fi nally, do tho. studie. xplain th tactical all i ance. of l ri. h krain i an, and Arg nti nean national i . t. w ith German i m perial i . In . or of the I nd i an nationali sts who fought along with Japanese i m periali. In and sought the . upport of azism. Th lea. t a theory of national i . m . hould pro ide i s a typology of national i ' m . , for each nalional i ,t mo ement ha ' i t own dynanlic. For example, def n 'i e economi c nati onal i ' m i ' a react ion against econonlic dependenc ; defensi e pol i t ical national i ' m a re 'pon 'e to foreign in terference ; and defensive cultural nalional i ' m a d fen 'e of th nation " cultural heritage. One can embrace e ither nationalism without the others . For i nstance the Quebec 'eparat i st · are pol i t ical nationali ,t . but th y ar not bothered by th Am rican pen tration i nto the Quebec conomy and cultur . 1 ha propo. ed el wh r ( B u nge 1 998a: 248-9) the fol lowing distinc tion . To beg i n w ith national i m c an be def n iv henc i n principl b nencial ) or aggre i e hence in principle harmfu l . although i n eith r ca ' i t can u either p acefu l or iolent mean. . For xample, the radical I ri h and Indian ationali t re orted to arms to fi ght the Engli h oc c upant , wherea Gandhi u ed only c i v i l di obedience agai n t the arne enemy. Both movement fought for territory, economy, government. and c u1 ture . B ut neither of them had to re i t genoc ide; and, whereas the Iri h ationali t were uniform ly CathoHc, the Indian one m ade no re ligiou d i t inctions before Partition. Only the Jewi h ational i st defended their very u rvival�until t hey tarted steali ng land and water from t h Pale. tin i an and pract i i ng tate terr rio m agai nst them.
1 4
Political Philosophy
in hort we houl d d i t i ngui h the fol lowi ng pri nlary types of na tional i sm. c
Territorial = Defen. e or conque. t of territory. Riolo 'i al (etlmi ) = Protect ion or oppre . . ion of one or more ethnic group, . Economic = Economic protection i . m or expan. ion i s m . Politi 'al = E mancipation or oppre ssion o f a nation or part of it. ultural = Pr 'crvation h 'gemony or upprc 'sion of a nation ' , cultu ral heritag ' in patticular its J anguag ' . '
•
onsequently, there are altogeth 'r fi V ' basic types of defensive na tionali sm, and another fi ve of aggre i ve nationaJi. nl . The e species can hybridiz . , g iv ing rise t o t 'n couplet , t e n triplet ' fi ve quartet , a n d on ' q uintet total nationalism ) : T, B , E , P. T B , TE, TP T , B E BP B . EP, E . EP TB E, T B P, TB TEP TE TPC, B EP, B EC, B P TBEP, T B E TBPC, TEPC B EP TB EPC
EP
Every one of the 'e kind ' comes in fou r arieti . : defensive, aggres sive bottom- up, and top-down. So there are altogether 4 x 3 1 = 1 24 po 'si ble nationa l i ' m ' . ( Some of the 'e cel l ' may never ha e been fil led . ) I n practice thing ' are even more compl x , for defen ' ive nationali ·t ' may b cowed by an l i te of aggr iv nationali. t . Typical l y, fear g n rate. hatred when a small group of national i st z alot. ignit ' e i ther a c i v i l war or a ma . ' i ve x odus by com mitting atro itie ' again.t th m mb r ' of a differ nt ommunity w ith whom th y have coe x i ' ted pea efu l ly for ag . (Taylor 1 998). Yi t politician and poli tical cienti t eem u naware of the tr m ndou vari ty of nationali 'm '. W hat can philo opher ay about the various kind of nati onal i m? Only thi . All aggre i ve and al l top-down nati onali m are morally reprehensible. becau e aggre ion of any kind deprives i t v ictim of some of their ba ic right . In particular. cultural nationali m not only reject and eek to de troy other p ople cultura l heritage , but it al 0 i m poveri hes the aggre or. For i n tance the typical cu1 tural ationalist refuse to leanl f reign l anguages, tends to mythologize the past of h i own people and rejec t even the good n veltie. t hat h i enemy ha. to
Ideology
165
offer: He i ba icall y a traditionalL t .md ven if initial ly a left-w i nger he w i l l postpone all . oc lal indications for the . ake of the "national q uestion' . ee Vacher 200 1 ) . o m u c h for t h e nationalL t . pectru m . Let u , now look at the next i tem i n our I L t . Env i ronmental i sm , a1 . 0 wron CJly ca11ed 'ecoloCJi . m , L of COUTo e the movement that , eek. to protect the environment. In prin iple, i t i s ba. e d on . ound theoretical and empirical ecology. Regrettably, ecology is not advanced e nough to provide a c ientific ba. is for 'nvironmental i s m , as a consequ 'nce of which thi movement is divided into various fact ion . The . pecie -protection crowd, ' uch a the on ' who. ' d 'vi e i . "Save the potted ow I s 'ek to protect i ngle threatened 'peci '. , which arc u ual l y ut , mammal ' o r beauti fu l bird . They d o not realize that, by favori ng i ng! ' pec i " th 'y may correct one imbalance by reating several n 'w i mbalance . Focu ing on on ' peci c i . practical o n l y i n t h case o f k y. ton specie. . u c h a . th . a u rchin a . entir networks depend on them. As for radical or 'deep ecology " i t r gards all species a. equall y val u a b l to whom? ) a n d i t w i . h e . t o save th eco. phere e en at t h e cost o f th ext inction of h u mankind. Th I a. t that can be . aid about thi. rad i cal movement i s that it i . bound t o rem ai n u npopular. O n l y eco. y .t m pre 'ervation policie ' 'eem rea 'onable, provi ded they m ake room for people-not too many, though, because we human ' are the wor · t preda tors and ecocide ' . The animal-right · movement ( S i nger and Regan 1 976 , i . akin t o 'deep , ecology, in thal it challeng . the common a ' ' um ption t hat human ' are t he h ighest and there fore th most valuable of all speci e ' . It call ' thi ' a . u m ption 'peci - i m ' and r gard i t a .i u t a dam nabl a rac i m and xi m. But human cannot h I p tak ing a human iewpoint in all matter v n moral one , for most of our alue tran ' nd ani mali ty. For i n tan u n l i ke bacteria cow , and thi n g most of u s heri h c i i l right. truth and some form of art. Nor can w a oid competing w i th oth r ' pecies in th ' truggle for surv i al . hart of omm itting u n i versal u ic ide. W hat we can and mu t do i to m i n i m i ze c ruelty to animals, and to promote vegetariani m, for both mora) and economic rea ons. Animal ha e no right , but we may i mpose our elves obligation to them. I t i m i taken to put animal right on the ame level a human right , because legitimate rights, contrary to pri ilege , i mply dutie , and only pet are ordinarily trained to ob erve dutie -but most of u refrai n from eati n g them. Let u now g l i m p e at fem i n i m . Thi movement do n t yet hav a u n i fied and coherent ideology. M . t D m i ni . ts s u c h a . t h e famou suf'
1 6
Political Philosophy
fragettes ha e been political activL t who organized and agi tated again t gender dL c ri m ination i n all terrai ns. Only the career fem i n i st that have popped up in academ ia during the pa. t three decade. have attempted to i nvent femi ni. t theories, , uch as fem i n i . t phi lo, ophy the ", uccessor sci ence.' and the fem i n i st theory of the , tate. Here we mu. t distinguL h the m uddled phi l o. ophy from the l audable i ntention and controver. i al efficacy of the propo�ed legislation . Femi n i st pol i tical philosophy i. rath 'r muddled. For exampl ' t h e au thor of the 'Al l s 'x i ' rape" slogan Cath 'rine Mac K in non 1 989: 239-40 , stated that 'pi. temology m u t be contro l l 'd for ontolog ic al domjlHmc ' to succeed . ' I f she m 'ant that on ' m U . t know ce11ain thing to tak ' ef fective action, why not say it i n plai n word ? And when Andr 'a Dwork i n 1 999 ) advocated the bann i ng of pornography, d i d . he bother t o fi nd th ' border between pornography [md 'rotica, and to exhibit ' iden ' that pornography promot . v iol ne again.t women rather than the oppo. i te . In short academic fe minism i s not academical l y reo pectable because it lacks rigor and mocks the u niver. ali ty of phi losophy, th reby gi i ng poli tical f mini. m a bad name. A long with the rest of postrnode rnism, it i. just h igh-. ounding pop culture. Final l y, opportuni. m too h as a philosophical u nderpinning, namely util itariani ·m. A particularly unre liable kind of it i . phobic opportunism, or the attack on a - ingle enemy : ,mti-Americani ' m , ,mt i-communism, ant i- Se nl i t i ' m , and so on. Its dual, phi lic opportuni 'm, or the uncondi tional support of one side i n a con fl ict i ' equall y problematic . E ither of these narrow per ' pecti e ' i nvites unsuitable bedfellow ' , i s unavoidably shallow and ' hort lasti ng, and can have 'eriou ' negati ve con 'equence '. For exampl . Anglophobi a i n the fi r t hal f of the twenti th century. and anti-Americani m th reaft r, u n i ted ritic of imp rial i m w ith en mi . of d mo racy and mod rni ty. A l ucid and hone ' t ritic of any policy should b abl to e the adm i rabl tog t h r with the de picable a. well a ' to di ,ting u i sh p ople ' from th ir ruler . B ut uch obj ecti ity and impartiality d fy tradition and tribal mora lity. Fi nal ly, we w i ll define the concept of i deological di tance between two per on or group . Ca1 l A and B two i deologie and conceptuali ze them a ets of principle and propo . al , uch a en i ronmenta l concern , gender equaHty, and ocial j u tice. We de fi ne the d i tance between A and B as their et-theoretical y mmetric d i fference, i .e. the et of pri nciple and propo al s that they do not hare. In sym bols, 8 A, B) = A B. Thi is a qualitati ve c ncept. Its quantitative c unterpart can be defi ned a the n umer sity of A � B d iv ided by the n u m r . ity f the t tali ty A u
Ideology
167
B of principle at take : d A , B ) = I A A B I / I A u B I . ThL i s a n umber l y i ng between 0 coinci dence ) and 1 (no i ntersecti on ) . Thi. mea. u re pre. u ppose. the equal worth of an the principle. and proposaL in q ue. tion-an unreal i stic a. . umption. I . ubm i t that neither of the. e extreme val ue. applies to the ideological . pectru m . 6 . Democracy and S ocialism
The term 'democracy ' i notori ou. ly ambiguous. It d 'not '. at once an i deology and the ociopobtical order advan 'd by that i deology. M or , over, there are 'ev 'ral l11ode of d 'mo Tacy : pol itical economic, cultural, and nlore. Thi s i s why pobtical demo ra 'y c[m be combined with eith 'r plutocracy or 'ocial i s m . A s i m i lar ambigui ty affl i ts th ' word 'ocial ism: I nd 'ed, there i ' d '111 0 '[atic or evolutionary oci al i m, that of the . oc i al-d mocratic mov m nts, a. wen a. authoritarian or revol utionary . ociali. m-that of Lenin, Trotsk-y Stal i n Mao, and a. tro. Let u . g l i mp. at th two main k i nd. of pol i tical democracy, l iberal , and social i . t. [n principle democracy i s pop u l ar go ernment Ari. totJe or, in L i ncol n 's famou. word. , govern m nt of the p ople by th people, for th people . S i nce govern ment by the people, or d i rect democracy, is fea. ibl only i n sman poli t ies. mo. t d mocrat have settled for repre sentati (or i nd i rect ) democracy. S uch a regi me may be modeled as a system who 'e i nput · are pol i t ical campaigns, votes, and tax moneys, and that man age ' or produce ' public good ' ' uch as 'ec u ri ty, the ru le of law, public health, public education and h igher culture. A n i m portant featur of l i beral d mocracy i . that i t doe ' not i n ite public participation : I t . citizen ' are only a ' ked to cast vote ' every two y ar ' or . 0. Furthermore t here i. no poli tical a ti i ty b t w n lec tion : i n particular, th re i weak civic ducation and i n fr quent public d bate. And y t mo. t citizen i n such ocietie ay that they val u their d mocratic right and opportuniti ' ev n i f th Y do not mak ful l u of them . Dahl 2000) b lie ' that thi s beha ior i s paradoxic al but not i ncon i · tent. r 'ubmit that it j u . t a . rious an i ncon i st ncy a. agno ti c i m i n a prie t . B e i des I ugge t that poor political participation open the door to d ictator hip. I have j u t u ed the expre ion l i beral democracy.' Though w idely u ed thi expre ion i p uzzl i ng becau e of the trad itional ten ion between i ndividual l i be rty and the ob e rvance of the majority 's w i l 1 . T h i t e n i o n h a s n o t e caped the L ibertarians or the Social Democrats. W herea the f rmer rejec t the welfare tate the Soc i al Dem rats are ready to l i m i t the right to privat pr p rty a well a to fi g ht the c l ai m
1 8
Political Philosophy
that thoc e w ho own the country have the right to rule it. The Canadian health care . ystem hi ghl i ght. thi s ten. ion. for i t provi de. free uni ersal hea1th care and it prevents citizen. from . upplyi ng and buying health care in the market. Thi . , y. tem is thu. at once i l li beral and democratic j ust as laisse -fairism i. both l i beral and undemocratic, . i nce free enterpri. e i. de. i gned to stren gthen the e onomically , tron g . Although nearly everybody cans t h e American political regime a l iberal democracy, the A me rican c i ti z 'n have be 'n cowed i n rec 'nt years to r 'gard ' li beral ' a dangerou. ly close to left-w ing . So i n 2006 a Pew pol l re '[ued that the ov 'rwhelm i ng majority of R 'publi 'ans ar ' stridently anti-Liberal and le. s than 30 perc 'nt of all D 'mo rats regard th ' m. ' lves a ' L i beral . Which of 'our ' on ly onfin11 ' th ' i mpre ion of European and Lat i n A merican pol i ti cal analy ts that the A merican pol i t i al spectrum ha been uffering from a l arge blue-sh i ft e er i nc ' J i m my Carter l o.t h i s re lection campaign ov r th aborted mi . . ion to reo cue th Teheran hostage. -somethi ng for which only the h l icopter maint nance crew should ha e be n blamed . I n . hort, strictly . peaking t he t r m l iberal democracy is a n oxymoron. Yet it . eem. to b indispensable becau. e i t designates a pol itical philoso phy quidistant betw en l i beri sm ( as th I tal ians prefer to call ri ght-wi ng l i bertariani ' m ) and 'oc i ,u democ racy. W herea ' the former denounce social j u stice and the ' ocial democ rat · w i ' h to accomp l i 'h it, the l i beral democrat · accept it in th form of a package o[ r lief mea ' ure '. Moreover, there are l i beral democ rati c parties in the United K ingdom and el 'ewhere. So, we m u ·t put up w i th w hat, strictly speaking, i . a contradiction i n t rm '-which o[ cour 'e i ' far [rom excepti onal i n pol itics, I t i well known that d m ocracy ha. m any fl aw ' . For xample. in principl i t i s low r and mor co. tly than a d i tator hip-though in practice mo t d ictatorshi p ' are i n fflcient becau e th y do not i nvolve th stak holder . . and corrupt becau they ar not transpar nt. For example, M u ssoli n i boa ted that his r g i me got the J ta l i an train to work on t i m ; but h did not count th l i v lost i n m i l it ary adventure , nor the m any talent 10 t because of poli t ical and raci al exc 1 u ion . S ti l l, as Tocquevi l l e ( 1 8 3 5 -40 noted democ racy ha the u n i q ue virtue of moral uperi ority over al ternative political order : i t defend the i ntere t and aspirati ons of the m ajori ty while at the ame time de fending the ba ic right of the m inori ty. B ecau e of the fir t cond ition, democracy fa or the participation of the majority; and because of the second it allows t he member of t h m inority t get n w i th t h i r l ive e en if they have t l i mi t me of thei r a p irati n . In ther word i n
Ideology
169
prin ' iple demo Tacy allow c mo. t people to enjoy l i fe and i t enjoin them to help other. l i e. Liberal democra y can be either . h runk to plutodemocracy as advocat ed by neol i be ral ism or expanded to soc i al democracy ( a, pur. ued by the defender. of the wel fare . tate . At thi. writ i n cY , the former trend prevai ls i n the so-called West, which of cour. e include, al so Israel, ingapore, and Japan , ee Duvenzer 1 974 . The neol i beral i deal i. a coin-operated m ac hine, well-o iled by 'ampaign contribution. and run as 'creti e ly a po i b le by elec ted officers b 'holden to special i nterest. , bureaucrats, lobbyists, and pin doctors. Th ' m ai n tel](mce of thi s machi n ' requ i re. both popular lethargy, rather than participation and great fear of ext 'mal enemies and i n te rnal controls, rather th(U] � 'arlessness i n try i ng out new i dea and in t itution- . 0 m uch 0, that few A merican politici ans dare call themsel v ' L iberal,' let alone Social i t.' One wonders what leffer on, Lincol n, the two Roose elt and even Lyndon John. on-all of th m rather progre . . iv in domestic pol i tics-would have thought. Th U n i ted State. i s the oldest of al 1 l i b ral de mocracies-the only country i n h i . tory that has h l d comparatively free lection. for mor than two c nturies, even in war ti m . B ut actuall y A merican d mocracy . tart d out a. a rather e l i ti st r gime, sinc it I ft out th ast majority of t he population : women, Indians, slave ' , and ven White tenant farmer ' ( a 'h 2005 ) . 0 property, no vote. I n short, the American Revolution had been pol i tical, not 'ocial . It did not alter the economic 'trati fi cation of t he nation. Still, as Tocquevi l le 1 835-40 te ·ti fi ed, two generations later t he U nited State ' had become the most egali tarian of nation " even more '0 than France, the cradle of phi losophical egali tari anism. I n America pol i tical I f-gov rnm nt trigger d a qui t oc ial revolu tion b aU. e it fac i l itat d i ndu trial ization opened i t , door ' to dro es of progressi Europe an " and g a r i e t o a cultural xplo ' ion (uld t o t h o-called American dr am. And the A merican model of gov mm nt particul arly i t · wor 'e feature nam ly pr i dential i 'm was copied by m any ountri among them Mexico and A rg ntina. American democracy became ever more i ncl usive, eventual ly i ncor porating the entire citizenry. B ut while today a l l of i t citizen can vote half of them do not; and, whi le on paper e eryone can run for office on ly tho e who do not frighten the rich and the pious get the contribu tion requi red to mount strong campaign . A nd only a few journal i t ucceed once i n a while i n revealing orne of the dark ource of these fund . . Be ide. t he typical Am rican p l it ical scienti t . P nd m re time exam in i ng v tel' behavi r than the ec nomic (uld u l tu ral factor that
1 70
Political Philosophy
manipulat i t . Only a f w courageou out idcr. havc hed l ight on those factors see, e . g . , H e rm an and Chom. ky 1 988). Let u. now turn briefly to soc iali. m , one of the great i n ention. of the early n i neteenth century, yet sti ] ] a di stant ideal . 0 ial i sm propo�e. a) the . oci al i zation not national izati on ) of all the means of produ rion, exchange and credit: (b ) the adm i n istrati on of the economy by the worker. . and c ) gO ern me n t programs aiming at decrea. i n CJ . oc ial (i n particu lar 'conomjc . l u ions and i nequaliti '. . Social i s m is thus th ' brand of 'gal itariani m longe 't on economjcs ,md . hortest on poli t i ' . . This i . w h y i t m a y 'ombine w i t h either democracy, t o produce social democracy' or w i th authoritariani m , to produce statism c u m dictator sh i p-the so-cal l 'd ' r 'al sociali m' that characterized the Soviet bloc until it rumbled in 1 989. So ' ial deTI10 ra 'y ha ' t ri u m phed in Sc,mdinavia ,md a n um ber of other countri . , e en wh r non-Soc iali. t partie. are cun-ently in pow r, such as Germany, France. Holland B Igium, and Italy. It has . ucceeded i n constructing the most prosperou. , egal itarian democratic. peaceful healthy, and well-educated . ocieties in hi. tory (Nw1 2000; Berman 2006 . All thi. wa. accomplished d . pite th dark prophecie. of conservati i deolog i st. . Still, . ocial democracy i . not th same a . . ocial i . m. I sub m i t that genu i ne 'ociali ' m i ' cooperati v i st-M i l l ian rather than Marx ian. U nder cooperati v i 'm, most of the wealth i ' owned ,md democratically managed by the workers, and the function of the · tate is restri cted to managing publ ic good ' ' uch as 'ecuri ty, natural re 'ource ' and i n fra ·tructure. S o far, t here ha ' been no modern 'oc i al i ' ( nation. Social democracy i s only a di luted versi on of ' ocial i ' m, for i t retain ' the private property of most means of production, trad . and credit. It j often call d 0 ial m arket becau it only l i m it th dam ag that th unf tter d market can cau ' to nvi ronment, welfar cultur . and pol i tics. U nder 0 i al democracy there are ,till ry rich people. but no poor. no oppression or i l l i t racy, and corruption i. marg i nal . By contra t tati t 0 ialism though very . ucce ful i n dec rea i ng income i nequal i ties and modernizing the backward countri e i n the de funct Soviet bloc, ended up in a en ational c rash even decade later. Thi collap e came a a re ult of a large n u m ber of i nternal problem combined w i th the rui nou arms race i nduced by the Cold War. There were cultural cau es, such a the muzz1ing cau ed by an 0 i fied ideology ; econom i c cau es such a the technological backwardne s of agricultu re; and poli tical cau e , . u h a r gionali m and the lack of democracy. Let u take a q u i k 10 k at the l atter a prescribed by Leni n 1 992 . c
Ideology
171
'The 'dictatoL phip of the proletariat' , which wa actually thc d icta torshi p of the nomenklatura or pol i tical e l i te, de. troyed what l i ttle civil . ociety there had been earl i er, and i t , tunted pol itical development by drastical1y c u rtail i n g popul ar parti ipation at all levels. I t replaced vol un tary al 1 egiance w ith , ubmi . . ion, fear, and the d i l u tion of reo porL i b i lity. Hence, i t al ienated mo. t indi iduals from the govemment� which wa. rightly percei ed as omnipotent and repre . . ive . It d i i ded the people into two new social cia '. w ith confijcting int 're. t ' : u ' th ' people and ' them' the elite ) . It cover 'd up ' 0 - ial and ethnic confl ic t w i t h rhetoric, and i t b 'trayed the noble i deal of a cia . . le soci ety. I n fighting to surv i e and ad ance i n a c l imate of fear, den u n - iation, and nli tru t, peopl ' b ' can1e i ncrea i ngly individualistic and corrupt-hardly the suitable m at , rial for an 'n egabtarian and sol idary society. The ' ew M ml ' sung in the early days became hardly d i stingui. habl ' from th ' frightened cynical, and self-se king . ubj ct of a fasci .! r g ime" (B u nge 1 99 a: 205 . S i ne the fai lure of So iet-. tyle soc i al i . m has onl y succe ded i n d i . crediti n g social i . m , and the . ocial-democratic movement h as shi fted to the right in an effort to captur the mod rate ote, one m ay w 11 a. k wh ther th r i . a feasible alt mative. I sugg . t th r i s, nam ly cooprati ist or market) , ocial i . m . The word 'coop rativism denot . both a n apolit ical worldwid economic movement, a n d a v e r -ion of 'ocial i sm . A worker cooperative is of course a b u ' i ness firm owned and man aged by its members. The profi t · of ' uch a firm ar partly rei nv · ted in i t and partly d i stri buted a ' di i dend ' among i t ' member ' : i t pays neither wage ' nor rent ' . The cooperative principles are : ( 1 voluntary and open memb r 'hip; ) democ ratic member contro l ; 3 m m ber economi c participatiofl' 4 autonomy elf-mmlag m nt and i nd p ndenc ; (5 ) ducation trai n ing and information; 6 o-operation anlong coop ra ti es federation ; and 7) concern for the ommu n i ty ( ee B ibby and S haw. ed . 2005 . Th ooperati movement offic i al l y launched at Rochdale i n L 844 ek to trength n mld multiply the coop rative firm w i th i n the xi t i ng capita l i t or e nli -capi tali t economi e . Its hort-te rm ai m i not to change the cial order, but to exploi t the max i m that there i trength in n umbers; that tho e who work for them elve work be t; and that worker de erve to keep what they produce. Thj i why, al though mo t cooperati e are elf-managed a ociations of worker a few have be come multibi ll ion fi rm -A ociated Pre , S unki t. Ocean Spray, Cai e Populaire Desjardins the Mondragon and the Lega federations, and the two S wiss u penllarket chains ( M igr and Co p among many ther .
1 72
Political Philosophy
Coop rati i .t (or market soci al i m is far nI0r ambitious: it is an ideol oCJY and pol itical mo ement that advocates the peaceful tran. formation of the capital ist and . emi-capita1 i st . ocietie. into . oci al i . t com monwealths. Tn other words, i t propo. e. m arket socialism i nstead of either api tali . m in either i t. crude or welfare ver. ion, ) or , tate , ociali s m . A. far back as in 1 848 John S tuart M i 1 1 regarded cooperativi. m a. the democratic alternat i ve to both capitali . m and revolutionary , oc ialL m , but . 0 far it has had only a very l imit 'd appeal . I n the Ja t hapter W ' shall argu " though, that i n theory it i the most pro m i ing i deology-prov i d d it i ' updated with oci al c ience [md t ·chnology. .,. Ideology and
cience
A l l ad anced social t h i n ker and phi lo ophcrs from the E n lig hten ment to t h e n d o f World War I I , ha e profe. sed sc ien t i . m . Thi s i s the methodological thesi . that what e r can be .tud i d i s best i nvestigat d sc i nti fical l y. Thi s . ituation changed radica] ] y i n rec n t t i mes. Tn fact, over the past hal f century not only on. r ativ s . uch as Frederick H ayek A l fred Schiitz, M icha I Oak , hott and M ichael Polanyi, but al so . e l f- .ty led left i . t. l i ke H erb rt M arcu . e M ichel Foucau lt, Jean B audri l l ard, Pi rr B o urdieu, and J i.irge n H aberma. , have derided the very i dea of a 'oeial s 'iell e, in particu lar the objective , tudy of the quantitati ve featu re ' of soci al l i fe . Adorno, M arc use, and H aberma . rejected 'cience and tech nology in g neral a ' con · tituting nothing but th i deology of l ate eapitali ' m : ) True, in h i s t he 'e ' on Feuerbach the young M arx had proc laimed that i t was t i me for phi lo 'ophers to ' w itch from i n terpreti n g the world to ·tart chang i ng it. B ut the m atur M arx, on of th fou nder of th First I nternational 1 864 'tudied eapital i . m to ha t n i t col l apse : H e thereby re er ed h i youth fu l pragm at i ' m , a n d adopt d tac i t l y t h e . ci n t i , tie m ax i m , ' I n estigat before acting. U nder tandably Con ervativ thi n ker and go rnment m i tn) t oei al sci nce. for i t i xpect d to tudy 'oc i al i . . u . perh ap. w it h a v i w to re o l v i n g them-an nt rprise that eall for 0 ial r form . What i . hard t o under tand i w h y i n d i idual w ho c la i m t o b e progre i ve, and encourage other to engage in politically re levant tudies . uch a the contributors to the col lective o l u m e edited by Schram and ateri n o 2006 , hou l d depri e themse l ve of t h e o n ly tool capable of de l i veri n g obj e c t i ve soc i a l know ledge an d rea l i tic oci a l technology, n am e l y r igorou ocial re earch. For in tance. how c an anyone hope t redu e i nequal i ty w i thou t a q u i ri n g s m e k nowl dge of its s ize and s ur es?
Ideology
1 73
S u rciy, i deology i s conceptuall y i rrcievant to gen u i ne cien ·e . The in estigators who bow to i deoloCJical pre . . u re cea. e to do . cientifi c work, becau. e they replace the . earch for truth with the acceptance of dogma. S t i l l , holding an i deology may mot ivate a researcher to e i ther . tudy i n CJ or overl ooki n g certai n . oci al problem . . Thu. , i ncrea. i n g concentration of economic power i . l ikely to i ntere. t progressives more than conserva ti es. whereas the l atter w i ll prefer to . tudy threat. to econom ic l iberty. FU11her ideology is bound to i n fl u 'nce not only i ndividual attitude ' but a lso publi polici ' . In particular, any go e rnnlen t o m m itted to a c tarian i deology i. bound to hav ' a strong i mpact on scienti fic research , either by r e tricting its problematic a n d t h e diffus ion of its fi ndings o r by attempting t o pass ideology for . ci ence . Suffice i t t o remember the on laught of azi s m on 'Jewish phy ' ics: and of tabnism on 'bourg 'ois science " in particular geneti c ' rel at i i . ti · physic qu[mtul11 chemi 'try, p. ychology. and soc i ology. Se Graham 1 9 I ; H arrington 1 996: om well 2003 . M ore recent case. of i d ological threat. to scienc are the fight of A me rican fundam ntali. t c h u rche. and right- w i ng pol i t ical g roup. agai nst evol utionary biology and st m cell research (. e Scott 2004' Shulman 20(7 ). This was to be xp ct d, for con. i stent r act ionari . ar reactionary in everything. What a ·toni shed many in the 1 970s wa . the allempt of 'elf- ·tyled left i ·t ' to pre 'ent 'cience as one mor i deology t hat had to be ' decon · t rueted" unmasked and of academic fem i n i '1 ' to e hibit logic and 'cience a ' 'phal locentric" tool ' of male domination ( 'ee G ross and Levitt 1 994' G ros ' , Levitt and Lew i s 1 996 A l l the abovementioned group ' have accompl i ' hed is to di 'credit 'ci nee among t h u neducated and d ter many young p opl from · tudy ing it. B ut of our ' none of tho ' ob 'cu ranti t group ' ha ' ucc eded in i n fi l trat i ng th jr ideology j nto ci n . Thu th re j and cannot b uch t h i ng a h ri tian phy ic Pierr Duh m fai led project), Mo. } m chemistry . Fem i n i t geology M arxi t a tronomy or neoliberal archa ology. B ut ther ar a numb r of prof or who teach anti 'cj nc or p eudoscience. Mol i ere gave an apt de cription of the m : ' A learned fool is more fool i h than an ignorant one.' I deological i n fi ltration can di tort. shri n k or even k i l l c ience. Take for exam p le. the famou Camelot Project ( 1 964-6 5 ) . designed and funded by the U . S . Army to tudy the po i bi l ity of ocial upri ing in Lati n America. as wel l a to ugge t the mo t u itable counterin urgency tacti . A l th ugh that pr ject drafted ome of the b t American 0 iolo gj ts (e e n the great James Coleman ) jt wa bjased hence n t entirely
1 74
Political Philosophy
c ientific. l nde d a I rving Loui . Horowi tz 1 965 pointed o u t at the time. the projec t took it for granted that pol i tical . tabi1 i ty i. always good regardles. of the pol itical regime. whence al 1 revolu tion. are to be avoided or fought agai nst. Luck i l y for the Ameri can revolutionarie, of 1 776, no so i al . delHi . ts were then around to help the redcoat. . Ideology cannot change the content of . ience, but the onverse i . faJ . e . Indeed, . cientifi re, earch, particularly i n the fi eld. that deal with people from I11 cdi 'in ' to c onomi .. , i . bound to b ' relevant to the ocu l a r 'ol11ponent ' of ideology. T h e rea ' o n i ' c lear: T h c . eientifie finding that i te m X is either good or bad for pcopl " e m] be i ncorporatcd i nto some i deolog i ' and used by ome group . . Som ' w i l l u ' or foster X , wher 'a other w i l l avoid or fight X . Thc fol lowi ng example m ay b ' more eloquent than a few generaliti 'So 1.
Ra ism has
110
" ient�fi basis.
are d g breed �. B ut , becau ' e rae
There are human rae . , j u t a
f mi
genation. the b unuati
there among
are fuzzy and ha e been getti n g i nc rea i n g l y b l u rred i nce 1 492.
Be ide , a n d more i mportantly, t h e as e n i o n that ome r a e are i ntel I e t u a l l y o r moral ly superi r t o other.' i s gr undless. Rac i s m i : j ust
a n i deological contraption devi ed to j ustify . ee Fredericb on 200_ . Th u .
l a e ry and i m periaJ i m
when President George W. B u : h :tated
that the foundi ng fathers of thc U n i ted S tates Ii ed i n an 'ow ner. h i p i e t .' h e g i o. sed 0 er the faet t h a t what w a s owned
\
ere pe pie
. t len from Africa, and l an d . t l e n from Ame ri an I ndian . Free abortion decreases
w e l l k nown that rel ig i u
riminaiif) . It i
fu ndam ntal i ts and right- w i n gers oppo. e ab rti o n ; it is a l so notori u that mo. t
f th m are men . Their mai n argument i t hat . s i n e human l i fe
beg i n s at c ncepti on ( tru
, and i n e a l l h u man lif i
acred ( d gma .
abortion is m urder-thou oh , of c LLfse, k i l l i n g abortioni sts is not. B u t
the m i n r pre m i e of t h i hence the arg u ment
argument i s a matter of ( re l i g i ous
hou l d not count in a ecu l ar
be l ief.
c i ety. A biologist
'ould ar6ue that a human appendix., a human ton s i l and a human nai l
c l i pping are j ust as human as a human embryo . . et no k now n rc l ig i on w r hip
the m .
C rre tion : There used t
S acred Fore k i n . m r e a l uabl
The b i I g i t c uld at.
than a ny part of i t . And a p
a n embry , or even a fetus, i
be a C o n greg a ti n of the
argue that the w h I e i .
y e h Iogi
end wed with mental capac i lie:. Furtherm reo the
U n i ted State d
t cou l d argue that
n t a p r on , that i , a human be i n g rime rate in the
l i n d aft r ab rti o n was decri m i n a l i zed in 1 97 3 . The
au, e i s pre_' L1 mably the de Tease in the n u mber
f LIm anted chi ldre n ,
w h o are frequentl y n eg l ec ted and m a y c n eque n t l y choo
3.
a career
in c ri m e .
Equality is good for \ 'r olle.
So far
gali tarian i m whether radi 'aJ
or qual i fi ed, cou l d onl. be defended on mora l grou nds. There are n O\
Ideology
1 75
al 0 s ientific argument f r i t : bio-p ychol g ical and ocio-po l itical. Let L I S peek at them . The b i -p chologicaJ argument a(1ai nst despoti social hierarchy i that it tre e the bo as \ e l l a. t he ubordinate, when 'e it i medicall y hazardous for both. I ndeed :ince H an, Selye' pioneering work in the 1 950s i t has been kno n that stress of any kind causes al l manner of medical disea 'e-cardiovascul ar, respi ratory, rheumati , and p y hiatric-and in rease rn rtality from a l l aus s. I n �hort , extreme S i a1 di fferen e hurt every ne, e en the few wh d riv e Horn i benefit. from being at the top. lntere. tingl , th i holds f r de 'p tic h ierar hie ' , n t [Tom the natural hierarchies deri ed from ac epted d i fference: i n abi l ity or experien Sapol ky 2 05).
The ocio-political argument agai n t teep oci oeconom ic and poljtical gradient i that they generate re entrnent, hatred. and feet dragging at the per onal level , a well a v iolence ( from both above and below) at the ocial level . Th i in t u rn gen erate or i nten i fie oci al repre ion, unle people are 0 r u l t i fi e d and i ntim i dated by the dorn inant world v iew that the very i dea of revol t do not even occ u r to them-which i s why t h re was no cIa. truggle in the early c i v i l i zation Tri gger 200 ) . But re i g nation leads u l t i m ately to tagnation. Progre n ces i tat part i c i pation and con.tructiv nonconfornuty. l n hort , cience how that u nj u t ified i neq u a l i t y or de potic h i e rar 'hy i bad for both i ndividual and soci ety. In other word egal itariani m h'L both a . c ientific and a moral ba. i s . c c
8 . Ideology i n
den tific Garb
I deology ha. often been m arketed a. . cience. Economies wac the earl ie, t example of , uch travesty. Th u. a , tandard e onomies textbook warn, u. that "'the mercan t i l i sts were the hampion of the over. ea. trader' the physiocrat ' upported the l andlord inte rest · Adam S mi th and Ricardo put the i r faith i n the capitali st who m ake profits in ord 'r to r 'i nve t them and expand production. M ar turned th 'ir arg u ment. round to d '�'nd the workers . Now M ar hall l the odi fier of neocla i cal e 'onomies J 'ame forward as the 'hamp ion of the r 'ntier" (Robin on and Eatw ' 1 1 1 974: 39 . M i l ton Friedman s 1 962 . h ri l l ad ocacy of th unregulated mar ket. a. wen a. of monetarism i . a more recent example of i deology d i . guised as science. Indeed, Friedm an gave a disto rted picture of th actual m arket, which is plagued by i mp rfection, . uch as diseq u i l ibria. monopolie. , and ol igopolie. -not to mention corporat corruption and th preference given by h igh go ern m nt official s to friendly compani . ( 'ee Gal braith 1 987 .
1 76
Political Philosophy
Mor 0 er Hendry and Erice e on 1 98 ) demolished the econom tric analysi. whereby F riedman and Anna J. Schwartz had clai med to prove the benefit, of tight monetary pol icies. That such policies are not , oc ia] ] y and morally neutral , should b e obvious: H i gh i nterest rate. favor tho. e who have money to lend, and by the . ame token they harm tho, e who need to borrow money to buy a house or prop u p a sma]] business. The i deological ontami nation of e onomies i . particularly seri ou . when i t affect such powerful moY 'r. and shak 'rs as the World Bank (WB . A n i nternational panel of 2 i ndep 'ndent i nve tigator B anerjee et al . 2006) found that i n matter of poli -y this organi zation had preferred , advocacy re ear -h' to s ientifi - reseal' h on c rucial qu '. tions 'u - h a ' whether g rowth and market l i berali zation aid the poor. I n other word. , th ' W B touted publication that ' upport d i t s polici " while i gnorin g t h o 'e that did not. Worse, t h e panel found that . o rn e of th ' higher pro fi le paper. u sed by the B an k to j u . tify and pro. lytiz its pol icies were methodologicall y fl aw d . I n . um, th pol ic ies adopt d by t he W B have b en designed and e aluated in an i deolog ical m an ner. Let us now mov from conomics to pol i tology. I n 1 987, th U . S . N a tional Academ y of Science. refused to admit Samue l P. H u n ti ngton, the Eaton profes. or of govern ment at H ar ard, and pr sid nt of the A merican Pol itical Science A " ociat ion . hi ' humiliating deci 'ion wa . taken on the strength of Serge Lang' , well-documented accu 'ation that the candidate had repeatedly attempted to pa . . off his pol i t ical opi nions for 'cience. Lang ( 1 98 1 , a Yal profe ' 'or of mathematics and memb r of the Acad emy analyzed H untington ' . writings, in particular h i s Politi 'al Order in Changing So 'ieties, widely u 'ed as a te tbook in American univer ' itie ' . He and i l Kobl i tz 1 988), anoth r m athematician show d much o f i t t o b i ther pret ntiou non en e o r obviou Iy fal . A n exampl o f th former i th follow i ng equation ' H u nt i ngton 1 968a: 5 5 ) : 4
Pol i tical participation ------- =
Pol itical i n 'lab i l i ty
Pol i tical i n t itutional i zation Lang and Koblitz c riticized three a pect of H untington theory. F irst, its variable are mere phra e , not wel l-de fi ned magni t ude , hence they do not qualify for algebraic manipu lation. Second, the tati stical cor rel ation H u n ti ngton claimed to have found among such ' ariables ' are ju. t a. i magi nary as the "variabl " themselve . E xrunple : "The ov rall c rrelat ion between fru tration and i n tab ility was .50." Thi rd, some of
Ideology
177
H u n t ington ' ' conclusion " uch a that South A frica u nder the Apa11heid regi me wa. a "'. ati. fi ed society, are glari n CJ l y faL e . adly, . ome famou . . oc i al . ientists ral l ied around H untin gton, stating that he had been a victim of left-wing McCarthyism . H untin g ton 1 968b did not que, tion the leg i ti m acy of the American war in Vietnam did not object to the carpet-bombing and defol i ation of i t. country . ide, and confi dently prophe, ied the ultimate defeat of the Viet ong . But in v i ew of the l i m it d uccess of the gOY 'mment ' ' paci fica tion ' program he uggest 'd a tenlporary trategy : L ,t the Viet Cong rule in the v i ll ag '. whi h it was doing anyway hoping that the exodus of the rural population to citie , and the forced relocation of peasants, w i l l turn the tide. H untington did not depior ' th ' ripping off of th ' . 0 i al n 'tworks cau cd by t h i art i fi i al u rbanization. On th ' contrary it ug g " t d to h i m a bri l li ant generali zation: The response to war ' of national l iberation anywh r would be brought about not . 0 much by warfar as by "forced-draft u rban i zat ion and mod mization which rapidly bring. th country i n question out of the pha. e i n which a rural r volutionary mo ement can hop to gen rate suffic ient . tr ngth to com to pow r' op. c i t . : 65 2 ) . Nor did Prof s. or Hunti ngton f I any moral q ualms in advi. ing the B raz i l i an m i l i tary dictatorship. After al 1 sci nc i . morany neutral , right? At that lime, the RAND Corporation, the think tank of the U. . A i r Force, e mployed a n u m ber of 'ocial 'cienti ' t s t o d e -ign tactic ' to bomb t he Vietname 'e people ' back to the S tone ge," as a famous general had put it. One of the main con ' ultants was Thomas che l l i ng, w ho u 'ed game t heory to de ' ign the fi r 't ( and failed) bom bi ng campaign agai n t N orth Vi tnam. and who ha be n blamed for pushi ng t h U . S . gOY m m nt to start that war Kaplan J 9 8 3 Kuklick 2006 . Wherea t h g neral w a pilloried a t t h t i me b y th antiwar acti v i t " t h onomi t wa. awarded th Nobe l Prize fou r decade later-pre u mabl y pro oking Dr. S trang lov ' nvy. Leaving moral on ideration a ' i d . nei th r of the abo -mentioned theorie can be u ed to de ign effective policie for anythi ng b eau e they i nvo] ve no ub tantive hypothe e concemi ng human behavior: They are e mpty formal hel1s. H ence they could easi ly be u ed without botheri ng to fi nd out anythi ng about ftesh-and-blood people-a ca e of politology w ithout empirical re earch . ore on the d i crepancy between war games and real war in Freedman 1 98 3 , and Kaplan 1 98 3 . ) Three year b f re the end f the Vi t nam War 1 used d c i ion the ry to " xplain" the � reo eeable A merican defeat i n Vietnam a a re. u I t of
1 78
Political Philosophy
incorrect c t imatcc of thc ' util itic " cn my casualtics and th 'prob abi l itie, ' of . ucce . . of the mean . (1 should have added that those util itie. and probabi l itie. are , ubje t i ve, hence non. cientifi c . T concl uded that the. e m i . take, ' m u . t have had a . i n CJle . ource, namely the substitution of ideology for . ience, and the corre. pondi n CJ replacement of rea, oning by wi. h ful thi nki ng, and of practicality by cru sadi ng ( Bu nge 1 973 : 3 3 8 ) . Anyone m a c teri n CJ a modicum of al CJebra c a n e a . i l y i nvent math emat ical models of a political y. tem, or of a pol itical process, without both 'ring to perform any r 'ality c hecks. Witness the game-theoretic model that parti u larly ince B ueno de M e qu ita's 1 98 1 pione 'ri ng book, stil l d 'corate the pages of pol i t ical ' ience journal ' . To show how ea 'y thi kind of a 'ad 'mic exer ' ise is I once bu ilt, tongue in check a math 'matical model of secr 'cy that had on ' testable theor ' m : No e Tct ' remain aft 'r a long cnough t ime. It was pubJ i hed i n the JOU/1lCll of /r reprodu ibl? Results ( B unge 1 979b . And of course th ol iberal pol iticians. economists, and journalist. praL e both the unregulated market and globalization in th nam of . ci enc . Th Y a. sure us that free trade and globalization have reduced pov rty and i nequality among individual s and among nations. But they ignore that social . cienti. t. ar still debating the very meaning of the term globaliza tion' see Guillen 200 I ) . They al '0 ignore that freedom of any kind can onl y pro . per among equal '. And they overlook th ·tati ·tical evidence 'howing the increase in income inequality over the pa 'l quarter of a century ( 'ee Rodrik 1 997; Ocampo and Taylor 1 998' Galbraith and Berner 200 1 ; WCSDG (04) . B e 'ides, the 'aid apologi ·ts mi . . the fol l ow i ng point · . .
1.
111e d re ula/ion of apilal markets, i ll part icular f i n t marionaJ money tran fers has 'au sed severe e 'anomie ri e ' in a number of developing countrie , Mex ico and I ndone. ia among other , I ndeed, th udden i n flo and outflows of huge funds are bound to destabi li ze unregulated economie: and :dTe t urrencie,· . India and China too recei e d huge f re ign i nvestments, but regulated them, and a ' a conseq uence they did not u fTer the t eq u i l a effe l .' The imporr liberalization policies have ru i ned the farmer� in many countri . For exampl , th corn pr duced by the M x ican 'ampesino ann t c mpete, i n either q ual ity or pric e w i th that of the A merican agribu ' i ne . giant l av i 'hIy �ub idized by th e A meri an taxpayer. 11,e uls in s o ial expenditures, that ften ac ompan)' global i z at ion are ripping the so-called safety net, and generally 1oweri n (1 the standard ' of c i v i l i zed l i fe. A Soro 1 99 put i t. gJobal capital i m i endanger i ng the open democratic and progres i ve society where r it exi L or ma emerge. "
,
3.
,
Ideology
4.
5.
6.
1 79
171e exp rt of l11alll�raClure to third-world c untrie , al ng with the "flexibilizati n" of the labor market-that is, the greater freedom of manager t fi re worker -i. k i l l i ng good-paying job , i nt i m idati ng the 'IIv orker and weakening the labor unions hen e the i r bargain i ng power see, e.g., A nderson and N ieLen _002 . The hron i ' proM III ofthe Third World arc still there: rushing external debt, continuous fal l in the pri e. f export good. with the sole excep ti n of i i , and i ncreased . ub. erviencc of the nati nal p l itieal las. t the intere. t of the powerful both i nside and ut of the un try. The hug alld fast grmt'lll of til export-oriented Chine and Indian i ndu trie and the equall y sen aliona] di ' i n tegrati n f the ec nomie f th ex-S v iet bloc. cau ed rapid i n rea i n ec nomi i n quali t ie i n ne-th ird of the world p pulation. Su h i nequalities are ausing seri ou. pol i tical and cultural di locati ons.
In hort. ome of what pa e for pol i ti cal cience i a tua] ]y i deol ogy, a confu ion faci l itated by methodological laxity. We hall ret u rn to thi u bjcct i n Chapter 7 Se ·tion 9. c
9. Scientific Ideology ?
I t ha repeatedl y been a. erted that the advan 'ement of cience would eventually sweep all i deologic. away. Thi belief betray ignorance of two fac t . One i that very p rson need. some ideology or other to fi nd her place in the wodd, part i ular1y i n . oc iety. The other fact i . that e ery pol itical regi me need, an ideology to de. iCJn i t. pol icie. a. well a. to either mobi l i ze or i m mobi l i ze the citizenry. W h at may legitimately be de. i red i s the replacement of per er. e or groundles. i deoloCJie. w i th an i deol Ogy both h u manistic and eonsi. ten t with the sciences and technologies, partieulady the . oc i al ones. The theoretical q ue. tion i s whether such an i deology i. po ' ' ible. I w i l l argue in the fol lowi ng that it is. To form an i dea of what a scienti fic and h u numi stic ideology m ight b ' let II look back at the general defi nition of a ociopolitical i deology propo 'cd in Se ·tion 3 !l = < . S, G B. I, P, A M>.
In the case of a h uman i . t i c and . c ientifi c ideology, C = a g roup of p rson. of good w i ] ] who associat voluntarily-not a band of c rook. i nte nt on profiti ng from pow r; S = th . oci ty that ho. ts C-one w i th a modicum of scientific and technological comm u n i t i " not a backward 'oc iely ;
1 80
Political Philosophy
G = a cicntific and h u mani tic outlook uch a E i n lei n ' -not a n anti. c ienti fi c a n d antihumanistic one s uch a . Heidegger'. · B = a fund of soci al (e.g., . ociological and technoloCJical e.g. legal ) know ledge-not a collec tion of obsolete i dea. ; I = a , et of . oc l al i . . ue. of all . i zes, . t art i n g w ith the ba. ic one. , su h as . ec u ri ty, env i ronmental protection, resource management, em ployment, publ i health and education, and i n ternational rel ation. -not phony ,md d iversionary i ue ' . ll h a ' gay nUlfriage, a ' 'i · ted ui i d " and abortion' A = a set of aim- the attainment of w hi c h i s l ikely to i mprove the stan dard of l iving of the popu lation of S, as well as the . llstainabi l i ty of S' P = a system of poiicie and plan to attain th ' A . des igned in th ' light of both hum an i ,tic principl '. and the best s ' ienti fic and t 'chnol ogy a ai l abl at the tim . and with acti e participation of the i n terest d citizen. -not of a rul ing cliqu ; M = ducation, rational debate democratic partic ipation, and i n terna tional cooperation-not trick. to manipu l at publ ic opinion and exc lude some sector. from public l i fe. ,
1 0. Concludi ng Remark
Pol i tical ideologies are powerfu l motivator ' even i f they only 'erve to di 'gui 'e material intere 'l '. The ' keptical c itizen does not lake pol iti cal progra m ' l iterally, becau 'e they are bound to conceal a . much a ' they reveal . For example, contemporary neol i beral (or neocon 'ervalive) rhetoric d i 'gui 'e ' economic p rivilege a . concern for freedom even when it i nvolves the 10 of freedom of . mall producer and weak nation . in politics a in moral" deed ' matt r more than words. Th re i. no pol itic w i thout ideology. One probl m of political technol ogy t h n, i to combin a u i table id ology-a .i u · t and w l 1-ground d on -with an adequat pol iti aJ strat gy. A nother problem i ' what to do about the multipl icity of ideologi : tol rate th m all, om , or j ust one? S ma rt pol i tician know that ideologka] tolerance pays. I t i Ie divi sive and cheaper than i deological p u ri ty. Thi i becau e mo t activi tie i n daily l i fe are i deological ly neutral. The S pani h and Portugue e empire were the only i ntolerant one : al l the other were i deologically plurali tic over most of their exi tence . B ut S pai n and Portugal hardly benefited from their many colonie , partly becau e by ticking to Catholic fundamentali . m they d i sc u raged d i versity enterpris and i nnovation. A third probl m i th degree of toleration we are w i ll i ng to t lerate. The tr ubi with total tolerance is that s me ide logi e the tota litarian
Ideology
18 1
one ar 0 i ntolerant that they viol ate human rights and m ake peaceful coex i . tence po . . i ble only under terror. I n . u m , both zero tolerance and m ax i m al tolerance are i ncompatible with democracy. o. if we wi h to ad ance democracy we mu. t ban radical i n tolerance. Moreover, we must repl ace patron i zi n cY tolerance w i th ba. ic rights (paine 1 98 7 : 6 1 ). True, advocati n cY thi . pol icy ric k. . l iding down the , l ippery . lope. H owe er there i . a si m ple rule for avoiding thi . risk:
Protect all del iance that doe not violate human right . And now a cau t ion : One of the weaknesses of all traditional i deolo gies, wh ,ther r 'ligious or secu lar, is i nlpl ism. I ndeed, ev 'ry one of thenl c 'nt 'rs on a single i ssue ,Uld propo- e ' a . i mple reci pe for 01 v ing a l l soci a l problem . Simpli city mak' th 'nl both attractiv ' and ri ' ky, for reali ty i always more complex than any theory B unge 1 963 . A noth 'r feature of tradi ti onal ideologic ' i . that th ' y C ,Ul b ' adopted and adapted by fanatic. that i s, i ntol rant extremists-people who di ide h umankind i nto fri nd. and foes. Ordinarily extre m i . t. are m arginal i zed, and thus r nder d m arginal, because th y make too many demand� and reject all compromi. es and al l iances. B ut oeca. ionall y they tri umph because th y attain great m i l i tary pow r or get hold of gr at wealth. and then caus grief all round. I deology xplain ' 'ome of pol itic ' but never aU of i t and this for two reason '. The fi r ·t i ' that fi xed i deologies tend to date: reality outpaces t hem. he 'econd rea 'on t hat i deologies are ambiguou . i ndicator ' of real motive ' is that 'ome of them serve to m ask material i ntere ,t . rather than i ndicate them. For example the Cold War 'tarted in 1 947 u nder cover of defending freedom again ,t Com muni ' m . But at that t im and for 'everal mor y ar th so-call d freedom bloc i nc l uded th Briti h , Fren h , Por tugue e, and Dutch empires. And al l tho 'e colonial power. fought th i nd pendenc war w ith w apon u ppl ied by the U n i ted S tat eith r d i rectly or through NATO . I n t h i . case intere t i n natural re ource and g apo l i t ical posi tion x pl ai n more than love of fr edam . At thi s writing o n l y three major ideologie. ar pol itically i n fl uential in the so-cal led We t : con ervati m or neolibera l i m ), l i berali sm , and od al democracy. On ly the latte r ha succeeded in in p i ri ng progre i ve ocial reforms that have effecti ely rai ed the tandard of l iving and decrea ed the grote que i ncome inequalities that characterize mo t nation . Though l i m i ted to We tern Europe, ocial democracy i s "the mo t uece ful ideology and movement of the twentieth century. I t principle and policie. u ndergirded t h e 111 t pro perous a n d h annoni u period i n E uropean h istory b y r conci ling thing that had hitherto
1 82
Political Philosophy
ccmcd i nconlpatiblc: a well-fu nctioning capitali t y t m democ racy, and . ocl al stabi l i ty' ( Benllan 2006: 0 1 ) . G ranting that thi. i s no mean feat, the q ue. t ion i. whether an even better regi me i. both concei vable and v i able. Thi . q uestion w i l l be tackled in the l ast chapter. Given the weak or negati ve pol i tical perform ance of the extant i deolo gie. and movement. a cyn ic m i ght concl u de that ideology is for su ker. . B u t the truth i . that1 for better or for wor. e. ideologies can fi re . odal imag ination ,Uld i nject 'nthu ia m for pobtica! causes. They achiev ' noth i ng by themselv 's yet w ithout them nothi ng i s accompb hed i n th ' pol i t i al r ·alm . Th ' que t ion then is not to r '� eet all id ologies, but to invent one l i j(, ' ly to advance l 'gitimate i ntere t (or va!u '. ) . Th ' ' C ar ' th i ntere ,ts that C,Ul be pur 'u 'd w ithout pre enting ,myone from n1ceting th 'ir basic n 'cd and a.piration . Fin al J y let u remember that fortunately some 'oeia! bond , ' ueh a ' those of kin. hip. friend. hip, n i ghhorhood, and common intere. t. of sev ral kind. , can and usual 1 y do overcome ideological divi . ion . . Thi . i . w h y people w i th d i fferent i deologie. and party all g i anc . m a y j o i n the same non-pol i tical a. . ociation . . In other word. for the va. t majority of p opl , ideology i. i mportant but not 0 erwhel m i ngly . o. And for most poli t ic i ans pow r tru mps ideology. We are fi naJ ly ready to enter the pol itica l fray. ....
•
5 Contention and
egotiation
Ther ha alway been confl ic t both w i thin and among oci al group and i nce the dawn of civilization om oci al contli ts ha b en pol itical. That is. th re have been cla h . over altemati e policie and plan to r olv oci al probl m , as w I I a over public office . . Tme, the Anarchi 't. and u topian Soc iali t , a well a M arx and h i fol lower ' dreamed up apolitical ocieti . They imagin d a ociety w ith n i ther oci al confl ic� nor poli tical partie . M arx and Engel placed politics i n the piri tual ' uper tructure ' re ting upon the econom i c ' i n fra tructure, ' and imag ined a ociety w ith a ' w i thering away ' tate and an equal ly evane cent party. In both ca e the rea on for underrat i ng pol itic wa the a umption that aU poli tical confl ict ari e from oppo ed c1as intere ts, which could not po i bly occur in a c1a sLe · ociety. The Soviet Marxi t added a n uance. They distingui hed antagoni tic fr m non-antagonistic "e ntradictions " and clai med that the fonner would disappear under onununism. But they failed to clarify the alleged differen e. Their ontology was nearly as fuzzy a Hegel's "logic ' D r they shared the dialeeti al m uddle B unge 1 9 l a . B y ontra t the di t inction between contained ontent ion, uch a a debate r an rderly march and transgre sil e contention uch as a w i ld at trike or an in u rrection cAdam, Tarrow, and Ti1 1 y 200 ] : 7 , i c1ear and u efu l . The i l l u i o n o f a ociety w ithout conft i betray a poor under tandi ng of both human natu re and 0 i ety. In fa t, any ocial problem i l i kely to be under tood and tackled differently by i nd i vidual w i th different background and different i ntere t -and uch d i fference are unavoid able and often de i rable a wel l . ot even highly d i ciplined political parti c arc ,L monolithic a. Len i n thought h i own W'L . In fact the comnl u n i t partie have pro cd to be t h mOe t fractious of all becau e party d iscipline requir a u n i formity that can only be achieved through the expulsion or e l i mi nation of dL i dent . In hort, pol itical cont ntion i nonnal w herea pol it ical con ent i not. W herever there L power c
c
1 83
1 84
Political Philosophy
there i truggle for power how vcr m u ffled becaus power i a ear "'e re, ource. B ut of cour, e such . trugCJle come. in different i n ten, itie. , from the search for consensu. a. among the I nuit, a1 1 the way up to armed confrontation as among Afghan warlord . . Po1 i tics used to be equated w ith the , truggle for power. and i t wa. therefore regarded as pul l i n g people apart. Thi. de. c ri ption i. correct but i ncomplete , becau. e it emphasizes the contentiou. side of poli tic. at the co t of governance . M an aging any soci al y tem-household, busin '. . con 'rn school, the 'ntire nation or th ' i n t 'rnational com m u nity-generate pow 'r confl icts' b u t i t a l '0 r 'qui res ral l y i ng around th ' organi zation and pul l ing together, w hence it i nvolves 'oordi nation and negotiat ion as wel l a . trife. Pol i tical contention j u t l i ke governance, has two faces: u bstantiv ' and procedu ral or about goals and means. For i nstance polls are l11ean- , and . 0 ar petitions, citiz n initiati . public debate. street demonstrations, and propaganda. By contra. t, social program. and ideologie. ar matt rs of substance, for they conc rn important . ocial 1. su� . We shall d ote more spac to . ubstance than to procedure, for th l att r rai. e. a . ingl theoretical problem namely whether or not to resort to radical mean. such a. massive expropriation (or el. privatization state of . i ge or in. u rrection. Poli tic ' i ' th art of both con fl ict re 'olution ,md the adm i ni 'tration of the common '. In other word " poli t ics involve ' both · truggl ,md cooperation as two 'ide ' of the ' ame coin. Even d ictators are forced to make conces sions and forge aJl iance ' ; and even loyal party worker ' may get i nvolved in squabble ' over principles or personal ambition ' . Therefore, 'tre ' ' ing one side of poli t ics at the expen 'e of the other i s nli 'sing the whole coi n . Poli tic i i n h rent i n ocial y t m ' of a l l k i n d and . iz . . Thi . i . becau ocial y t m d o n o t function automatical ly, b u t have to b con · tructed and maintained ; mo t r 'ourc are care . n i th r two i n dividual nor n¥o 0 ial group have x actly the arne i n t r ts; and all per. on and all oc ial group. har 'om i nter t - ' uch a ' protection from natural d i a 'ter. and avoidanc of protra ted confrontation-that requ i re planning. c oordi nation and authority. Del i berati ng on power i c u rrently out of fashion in the political sci ence community. Yet power i the heart of both political struggle and governance. I t i the upreme goal of contention, and the mean for getting thing done from go ernment. Therefore, the central problem of poli t i cal philo ophy concern i ng poHtical contention are the fol lowing. W hat is p w r . Sh uld p wer be cone ntrated or di persed? I f c ncentrated should i t res ide w i t h one pers n aut era y ) or w i t h a D w l igarchy '.
ontention and
egotiation
185
And if d i p rsed hould it v ted i n the n lightened ( merito -racy ) o r be . hared by al l (democracy) ? Though central t o a n pol i t i a l theori es and philosophie. , the concept of power i s al so one of the mo. t contro er. ial in an of . oci al science. I n deed there i . n o con. e n . u s o n the defi nition, mea. u re, o r indicator of power. Con. equent l y near1y an theorie. about power are h ardly tee table. And, not ha ing been put to the test, they can hardly be said to be either tru e or false. In this regard pol it ical theory r ' 'emble th ology even though it deals only w ith concr 'te thing ' , uch a c itizens [md governm 'nt d 'part ments. I n the fol low ing I w i l l attempt to restrict the vagueness of the concept of power. 1 . I nfl uence and Power
Th . truggl for power can b numbing or i ntox icating. We hav all heard of pol i t ic i an. p rp trating stupid or cri m i n al acts for the . ake of pow r; of prof ssor. seeki ng adm i ni s trativ positions to compen. at for thei r academ ic weaknes. ; of teenag rs beating up homel . s peopl not only for th thri 1 1 but a1. 0 to boost th ir . el f-est e m ; and of toddlers tyrannizing their par nts to as. rt th ir i nd i i d ual i ty. These ar differ nt k i nds of "power trip . ." Pow r is addictive, and the feel i n g of pow rle . . ne . . i s deva · lating. The p ro ' pect o f e xerci ' i ng power o f some kind attract · not only t he greedy and the weak but al ' 0 a l l tho ' who b l ieve that they can mak a d i fference, whether by 'av i ng 'ouls bui ld i ng a new bu ' i ne 's, or rebu i ld i ng society. Thus, the apostle Pau l r i ' ked martyrdom when t raveling around the Mediterranean to tran -[orm an ob 'cure Jewi 'h sect i nto a powerfu l ecu m n ical church. Henry Ford bel i ed t hat he was r volutionizing the i ndu tri al pro ess and e mpow ring h i e mploye ' to lead a b tt r l i fe . Thoma ' 1 . Wat. on, the fou nder of IBM adm i tted in h i ' autobiography that w hat drove h i m wa . not w alth in it If but for the power i t g ave h im-not lea , t the abi l i t y o f forci ng al1 the I B M mploy e around t h world t o d i p lay o n their d k a p l aqu r adi ng Think! And co untle ocia] acti i t have ri ked l i be rty, property and even l ife when participati ng in pol i ti c to i mprove the lot of their contemporaries through reform or rebe l l ion. Power i not mentioned in polite corporate com pany, ave for the proverbial buyer power, which i s ju t freedom to ab tai n from buyi ng-a negative freedom. Yet. there are power relations i n ide every bu ine s fi rm a well a am ng fi nl1 and the rest particul arly c nsumer . uppli er , and tate agenci . Power j h ighly centralized i n pri ate fi rm s ' a nd
1 86
Political Philosophy
thc bigger a firm the more clout i t can exert u pon the c mall firmc and government department. w i th which it deals. Be. i de. , there is . truggle for power among the three . ector. of the m arket-manufa ture, commerce, and fi nance. Hence to overlook power as . tandard economic theory does, bespeak. ignorance of the real economy, the i mpa t of macroeconomic factors, the way . the . tate con. traint. bu. ine. . and the i mpact of bu. i ness on pol i tic. -or hypocri . y. All pol it i i (U). , how 'vcr principl 'd, . eek power and arc moved by interests, their own and other . Thu , whereas ome repre ent corpora tion , other ' favor rel igiou congr 'gations; others e 'k power for it own sake ; ,md a few have the publ ic i nter ' t or even . o i al welfar ' at heart. I n other word , there arc d i ffe rent kinds o f power: poli tical 'conomic and cultu ral . W hat they all share is the abi lity to do and m ake do. W' d i stingui h two main kind ' of pow 'r: horizontal as i n peer pres ur ' and mutual aid and ertical, ru in a command chain and in th prie. t-parish ioner r lation. W d fi ne horizontal pow r or influence a. the ability to do and to alter peopl s behavior without bending or harmi ng them. By contrast, rtical power or compulsion i. the abil ity to alter people . behavior again. t their own will and int rests, either from abo e top-down power) or from below (bottom-up pow r . Friends, cowork r. and teacher. wield horizontal power. B O " e ', whether civilian or nli l itary econonlic or political, wield vertical power from above ; dependent ' wield it from below. Bottom-up power is th re ' i · tance that ' ubordinates oppose to their ma 'ters, i ndividually as i n foot dragging and simulating (Scott 1 985: x vi , or collective as in ·triking. The labor u ni on a n ineteent h-century 'ocial invention is th mo 't 'ophi ·ticated and effective "weapon of the weak." H ow ver, it i n ft u nc ha ' waned in th United State , wher currently only about J O� of the economical ly active population is unionized-with negativ effect on wage" job 'e urity health and th . If- teem of work er . The figur for A rgentina (uld B razil are 36 � and 29o/t respectively. Ev n extr mely a. y m me trical pow r relation ' uch a tho. e betw n rna t r and lave con n trati on camp warden and inmate or bo and non-unioni zed worker, are tempered if the i ndividual from below have some bargaining power-e.g., because they have access to local tie , re ource or know ledge unavai lable to the people abo e them ( ee Til ly ] 999). Only i n maxim um - ecurity p ri on and death-cam p i s top-down power total and therefore non-negot iable. E verywhere else everyone ha some negotiating power. S far our d i cu ion of power has be n conducted i n rdi n ary-Ian guage know n t o be i m precise and therefore lni lead ing a . w 1 1 a a s u rce
ontention and
egotiation
187
of barren debate. An exact yet qualitati e notion of power L ugge ted by the concept of a state . pace, w i dely u sed in phy. ic. and engineeri n g . The state , pace of a g i en concrete thi ng, such a . a person or a . ocial . y. tern , i . the . et o f a l l t h e really p o. . i ble . tates i t can b e i n where 're ally possible ( by contra. t w ith logical l y po . . ible' means 'consi. tent w i th the law. and norm . . ati . fled by the thing i n question . To exploit these notion. we need a b i t of notation . Lct a and b dcnote two concrcte things ,md cal l S( a) and S(b thcir corresponding statc paccs. Furthcr caU S(bla) the tate pacc of thing b i n t h e pr ' 'n 'c o f thi ng a . We stipulatc that a influence b or a exerts power o er b, i f S(bla =t S(b), that i ' wh 'n a alt 'rs th ' set of possi b l ' statc of b. I n other words, a i n fl uence b i f a cither ' hr inks or cxp,md ' the sct of po i blc tatcs of b. S in ·c cvcnt can bc formaliz d a ordcred pai r ' of state , such a ' we can at o say that an i n flucncc is whate r either . hrink. or xpands a s t of po . . ible e nts. ow, an influ nce can b ither re. tricti ng dom i nati n g , coerc ive) or broade n i ng ( mpowering emanci pat i ng . In the fi rst ca. e the i n fl u nc . hrink. i n the second i t expand. th . et of pos. ible states of t h patient. I n obvious symbols C er 'ive power: a > b
=
[S(bja)
c
S(b ]
S (b ( b a)
Email 'ipatin pow ) 1': a > b = [S(b I
e
S ( b j a) S b)
c
S(bla)]
1 88
Political Philosophy
The e two spe ' ial concept of power allow u to definc the general concept of power: a exert. power over b i n a gi en respect . i f a either re, t ri t. or expand. the po . . ibil i tie, of b i n the , ame re, pe t . That i . a
�
b = (a �c b
v
a
�t'
b .
The formal pr p rties f � are reflexivity everyone exerts power er themselve and anti. ymm try if two indi idual w ield p wer vel' each other in th ame respect, then they are the ame ). B u t � i n t trans itive' for example the fficer m mands the s ldier and the latter h i h ildr n but the officer doe not comm and the oldier' children. Hence �. unl i ke greater than. i not an ordering relation. Thu , chai n of command are pe i fi c to the y tern i n que tion : they are not automat i ally tran ferable to other y tem . Our defi n i tion of the power rel ation d i ffer from the well known one attributed to Max Weber 1 92 2 : 28 : Ego power would equal the prob obi/it) of alteri ng A l ter' behavior. B ut the Gennan original contain the w hich in the g iven context mean. opportunity or po Gal li c i m 'han i b i l it y of ucce not chance in the scn. c of randomne or probab i l i ty. Thu the ov rquotcd E ng l i h tcxt W,L i m ply a m L tran Larion that ha g iven ris to u ncountcd con 'cptual m i . takcs ev n on the part of Robert DahL 1 95 7 ) one of thc very be t pol itical t heori ts. S i m i l arly many a rel i g iou here. y in B yzan ti u m orig inated i n a m istaken tranc l at ion of a passage of the ChrL t i an Go. pe1 . . Power relation, are causal, not sto chastic. For example, the member, of a defeated Roman legion to be put to death were , elected by lot. , but the R oman . enators were cho�en by weal th fami l y connecti ons, and pol itical infl uence, not randomly. So far we have elucidated only qualitati ve notion. of power. I n Chapter 2 Section 6 we introduced a simple quantitative mea. u re of . ocial power of an individual or org,Ulization, n amely a ' th ' abil i ty to ·tre ngth 'n or weaken th ' bonds that hoLd people together in a . ocial sy tem or network. Model i ng the latter a a graph with N node ' and E 'dges, we defi ned th ' social power of an a 'tor i n the said network a . = C + D 1 # of po i ble bond where C = n umb r of bond. created by t he actor,
1[
D = n um ber of bonds d , troyed by th actor N = n umb r of the sy. tern '. compone nts C + D � E and # of cone ptua]]y po . . ible bond.
=
( 1 12 N(N - 1 ).
ontention and
egotiation
189
The con 'cpt of pol it ical power i only a peci al ca. c of that of so ' ial power: that where the . oci a] . ystem i n que. tion L a pol i ty. The abo e formula sugge. t. that the central ta. k of the pol i tical tactician i . to or ganize h L possible constituency, a n d di. organ ize that of h i s adversaries. I n other words, h i s job L to tranSfOnll an amorphou. ma . . of people into a . y, tem and ice er. a i n the case of h i s opponents. E erything else i s ancillary. 2. Kinds,
ollrc
and R
ollrc
There arc several k ind of power ( 'ee Galbraith 1 983 [md lou enel 1 99 for kind and source of power . The fi r.t d istinction is between per onal and 'oc ial power. Parents wield power over their c h i ldr 'n, e mployers over thei r ' mployee officers 0 er thei r oldiers and so on. Social power by contrast i . exerted by . oc ial . y . tems . uch a. fam i l ies, b u . ine . . firm. , chu rc he. , and go ernments o n person. o r o n other . y. t ms. Thus, a corporation wields power ov r a govern ment as well a. ov r i ts ow n employees . I n . hort, wherea. persona] power i . a per . on-to-p r. on r l ation, . oc ial power is a rel ation from . ystem to either per. on or sy.tem . [ subm i t that we . hould d i . t i ngui sh fou r d i fferent kinds of soc ial power: I. 2
3. 4.
bio-p.� ) 'hologica/: the abi l ity to int i m idate or 0 erpower physical l y, as i n the bul l) -victim and the m i l i tary-ci v i li an rel ations; 'onomi : the abi l i ty to m bi l ize an economic rc ource, a. when hiring r firing, lending or b rrowing, buy i ng 0 onfi cat i ng; cilltural: the abil ity t hange bel ief . a ' when educati n n r brainwa 'h ing' rtai n politi a/: the abil ity fa p l it ical y tem t f ree peopJe t d thing , as i n the p wer of go ern ments to tax and draft .
Power of e ither f these k i nd c a n b exerted by a n um ber of soci al y tem : tate , gang , political partie , gra -root movement , m i l i ti a , corporation , the TWO and the I M F, h u rche , NGO , and other . We haH cal l the e agent sour 'es of power. Note the formal complexi ty of the power re lation: Agent w exert power of kind x on i ndividual or y tem ' to do -:, or Pu xy-: for hort . Thu , the power relation i quater nary. H owe e r, i f k ind and goal are taken for granted. then power can be rcdu 'cd to a b inary rclation . W hat 1 c al l kind of so ' i al power, M ichae l Mann 1 986 1 993 'ails s o u r e of soci al power in hi classical work on the . ubject. There arc
1 90
Political Philosophy
t w o r ason for d raw i ng t h c k i n d - o u rcc d i t i nc t i o n u g g c c t d abov e : one i . l ogical and the other fac tu a1 . The l og i cal re ason i s that, a. w e saw i n the prev i o u . sect i on the power re l at i on i s (at least ) dyadic or b i n ary : A ge n t o r sourc e ) a e x e rt s power P 0 er pat i e n t o r s i n k ) b, or Pab for . hort . B ut this , tatement i. i ncomplete , ince i t doe. not . pec ify the k i n d o f power that L being exerted: i . i t biologi al as in bul 1ying, e onomic a, in employ i n g, cultural as in educating, or pol i t i al a i n taxing? A nother reason for the kind-sourc ' di tinction i that power of any kind m ay ha e d i fferent source . For exampl ' duri ng the M iddle A g ' , th ' main sour ' of poli ti cal pow 'r in Eu[op , w 're th ' landed ari tocra y and the h u r h. By ontra 't, i n a democracy the main u l t imate . OU[C ' of poli tical pow '[ i s u ppo 'd to be the people, wherea i n a plutocra y it i s the big corporations ,md i n a m i l itary dictator hip i t i ' th ' alll1ed force. someti mes in col 1 u . ion w i th a foreign go rnment. The d i . ti nction between d ifferent k i nd. and , ources of power doe. not entai l that they are mutual 1 y i ndependent. Far from it, th y ar i n terdepend n t. For example it i s w 1 1 k now n that the azi party wa. support d from th start by big i ndustriali sts bank r. , and l andowner. , as wel 1 a. the armed forc , ( many of who. e officer. w r ari .tocrat. . More recent example ' are the l arge ov rlap of c le rgy and government i n the I slamic rep u b l i c ' , and the p re fe renc of Ameri can big busi ne ' , for the Republ ican Party. I n ' hort the various 'phere ' of power i nterpenetrat . Consequently the idea that domination can be avoided by keeping the variou ' 'phere ' of power 'eparate, as Wal zer ( 1 983 ) ha . propo 'ed, i ' nai·ve. Like other , I b Ii ve i n th i mportanc of re wurces both physical and human. Th r a on i that pow r may be regarded a th abil i ty of an actor ourc to l1 'e or thr aten to u e, r our of ome kind. For xampl . an army i . a ource of phy ' ical pow r, wherea it r ·ource. are th w apon" money and whatev r n my good ' it may l ay i t , hand on. Kind of1701\'-1'
Sources
Phy ieal Ee n mic ultural Poli t ical
Arm m i l i tia Executive , w choo l , lab. , S tates, partie
=
A gent.\'
•
.
gang rkers hurche_ u nioll"
Re
0/1,., 'es
=
A1eal/s
People, weapons money Land. energy, manpow r reat r , ommunicator Citiz n , corporation.
Tahle 5. 1 . Kinds, source. , and resources of power. Only a few items in each category are mentioned.
ontention and
egotiation
191
The re ource ide of power L e O i mportant that i t uggcst a quanti ta ti e mea�ure of power that an agent m ay exert , namely a. the val ue of the total (material and human reo ources at its dL po. al . Con. equentIy, agent A w i l l be deemed to be potential l y more powerful than agent B i f A . reo ources are greater than B s. M arx regarded economic power as trumpi ng al l other kind. of power. ThL may hold for . table regi me" but it fai l . for regime change. when politic taj(,'S the upper hand-as Lenin, Gramsci , and Mao claimed. Thus i n Mexjco before th ' 1 9 1 0 revolution the big l andow ner a mong thenl the Church and a few foreign companies w ielded the bu l k of econom i c power. B u t t h e r 'volution a n d t h e sub 'quent l and reform poli tical pro c '. . 'S both of them depri ved landow ners, th ' h u rch, and om ' foreign firms of that power and they r '. tnt tured th ' 'ntire society. At other t i m ' . c ultural hang '. , such a. a r 'l igious reformation or a nlassive l i t 'racy campaign tak t he lead . [n . u m , t here ar . everal k ind. of power and th y tak turn. at the top. If power of a gi n kind is t he abi l i ty to mobi l i ze or util i ze r sourc . of that k i nd, and i f the. e resource. can be q uantitated th n the power in q ue . tion can b measured by the relativ siz of the corre. ponding r . ou re t hat the ag nt can util ize: '
[1] For e ample, the economic power of a corporation, its owner or it · C 0, in a given economy of ' i ze E i . the fraction e/E of the econonlic r our i n q u tion . Th cultural pow r that a trend ' tter or a c ultural organization wield i. the n u mb r of h i ' or its fol low r . For x ample th B atIe u ed to wield far more c ultural and economi power than any ymphonic orc h tra in the world not only in numerical term but al 0 judged by the change i n att i tud ' that jt produced . The pec i al ca· e of pol itical power i next. 3. Politica l Power
S ocial power can be pictured a a heaf with three component : eco nomic, cultural and politicaL Political power i the power that person , groups and governments ha e to inft uence or e en determine the political orientation of i ndi idual and, through it other a p ct of their behavior. Indeed, although political power i only one component of the power heaf, in pri nciple it ha th ability t mark the pac of the ec n my and the cultu re and even the bj 1 gical subsy. tem and parts f the natural envjr nment.
1 92
Political Philosophy
C. W right M ilL 1 956 the popul ar . ociologL t and American public i n tel1ec tual proposed one of the earlie, t . tudie. of the A merican power structure. B ut hi. analy. L of what he cal led the power el i te i. some what dated, i n that the U . S . m i l itary are now under ci i l i an control the un ion boo se. have 10. t their clout, and the m ass media are part of the corporate world rather than a �eparate power. t i l l , the ba, ic que. t i on remain. : Who rule. A merica?-the t itle of a recent . tudy of the que. t i on Donl hoff 2006 ). Pol i tical power 'ome i n many gui ses. Two of them arc the m i li tary and th ' pre . Sinc ' the mod 'rn stat ' has the nlonopoly on legitimat ' i olence, th ' m i li tary ar ' a branch of the pol i t ical authority. But of cour ' a society m ay b ' m i li tarized in d i fferent degrees from m i l i ta ry draft to m i l i tary dictator. hip to mere thr 'at of fepre ' ' ion. The U n i ted tates i ' th ' only m od 'rn nation ne er to ha e uffered a m i l i tary d i 'tator h ip. Yet, mO.t A merican . seem to r ere t he m i l i tary j ust a s m uch as t he Pru. sian . u n d r Friedrich W i l h 1 m I, th Serg a n t K i ng . T h y d o not know, o r do not remember, t hat the U n i ted State. fought not only for freedom dur ing World War 0 , but aL 0 against i t-nam ly e ry t i me it engaged i n unprovoked aggre . . ion, from 1 8 1 2 t o th present ( see . g . , B lum 2005 ; John. on 2006, Tirman 20(6) . What hold ' for t h e m i l i tary subsystem of t he stat a l ' 0 holds for i t . specific function, namely war-making. A ' the m i l itary 'trategi ,t Carl von Clau 'ewitz famou ' ly 'aid, 'War is pol i tic ' by other me,m '. ' Thi ' hold ' not only [or ordinary wars but al '0 for d i rty wars " that i s, the c lande ' l i ne m i litary operation ' again st citizens of the same or another country-al ' 0 known a ' stat terrori sm, i n contradi ,tinction to group or gra ' TootS) t rrori. m . The annie of Latin American d ictator hip ' 'pecial ized in tat t rrori m often with the h lp of th U .S . governm n t ' Garz6n -Valde. 2004 . S tat t rrori 'm is ex rted 'to d f nd b n ficiarie of i nequality from chal l nge by ict i nr of i nequality ' (Ti l l y 200 3 : 1 1 ) rat h r than exerted to protect the nation from it e n mie . Fore i . not th only pol i tical p r uad r: another i th pre ; 0 much so, that it ha been cal led ' the fourth estate.' The pre is pobtically pow erful under all pol itical regime becau e, along with chool and organi zed religion , it hapes pub l ic opinion and thu helps or obstruct government at home and abroad. For example, on September 1 2 200 I , the front -page headl i nes of the ew York Time read 'U.S. attacked," and it editorial wa titled "The war agai n t America. ' Thu , the 9/ 1 1 attack-which de erved only a pol ice operation-We exhibited a an a t of war and m reo er as equivalent t the Japane e attack on Pearl H arb r, hence as call i ng for •
ontention and
egotiation
193
the mobil i zation of the ntire nation around the Leader of th Free World. The pol i t ical pundits, analy. t " and olumnist . did n o t exerc Le restraint. Few, i f any d ared poi nt out that a war require, at lea. t two nation. to participate, and that war i. ulti mate terrorism . 0 the very expre . . ion ' war on terror' i . to be considered a contradiction in tenll . . No m atter. The publ ic opi nion about 9/ 1 1 was manufactu red ovemi CJht by , pi n doctor. a n d the media. I t wa. u . e d by t h e Admi nL tration to recover i t. lost pr '. t ige and i m po ' 'war-tinl " linljtation. on tran 'parency, c iv i l l i berties, and e v 'n privacy. For exam ple, i n 2006 th ' Americ,U] Pre ident annulled hundred of laws and admi tt d that hi governm 'nt had been spying on numerous subject '-for their own protection, of course. And the journal ist , who w ished to report on th ' Iraq war wer ' " 'nlbedded" in the armed forces' again for the i r own good. Thi taci t 'ollaborati on between press and government ha had mo m ntou. and long-term pol i tical and econom ic consequ nce. : The stat of emerg ncy. t he Patriot Act, the in asions of A fghan i . tan and I raq th intimidation of th opposition, normou . m i l i tary exp nditures, a pro portionate fi . cal defic it, c u ts in civ i l i an i n estm nt. , generou. contract. awarded to friendly fi nn . w i thout publ ic biddi ngs, and a boost to th fl ag indust ry. Thus it 1 . not true that a. some scholar. ha held public opi n ion is the opi nion o f the u n i n formed who do not read the highbrow pre ' '. The lall r does trickle down to t he ma . . '. It may al '0 i n fl uence pol i ti c ' abroad. For example, a campaign of The Wall Street Journal or t he FillQIl ial Times c,m d · tabi l i ze" a government unfriendJy to for ign i nve 'tor '. W hat hold ' for pol i t ical new ' a lso hold ' for busines ' new ' . ot all of th m are ful l y truthfu l . Thus the w l l -r ' pect d we kly The E on mist ha. often given a clean b i l l of health to th world economy d u ri ng pe riods of h igh un m p loym nt ' ugge t i ng that what i good for t h rich i ' good, period . A nd i n 1 997 a few y ar befor th 'pectacu lar fal l of Enron . F; rl ll l z e m agaz i ne which pec ial ize i n valu ating A m rican corporation , tat d that th i n famous e m pt y corporat hel l ranked umber 1 in i n novation among 43 ] compan i e . Gary Hame] a we l l k now n man agement ex pert who performed t h i e aluation, forgot to ay that the inn ovat i on con i ted in tea l i ng from t he hareholders through c reative accountancy and i n raid i n g the per onne] ' pen ion fund for the bene fi t of the Enron CEO and h i accomplice M intzberg Ahl trand, and Lampel 2005 ). C learly democracy i s not well erved by a pre beholden to . pecial i ntere. t , particularly those f the rul ing party and big corporation . Only •
1 94
Political Philosophy
wcll - i nfornlcd citizcn can form i n t l l ig nt poli tical opinion .md act ac orditwly. This i . why freedom of , peech was one of the fundamental ri ght. laid down by the founding fathers of the U n ited S tate . . And that i . why ord i n ari l y the fi r. t action o f a m i l itary put. ch i. to take hold of the mass media. ecre y, censor. hip_ and m i sinformation are i ndio pensable to the introduction and m ai ntenance of i 1 1 egitimate power si nce rna . . media . hape. public opinion . Yet although public opinion i s i mportant, i t only trengthens o r weak ens exj ,ting attitude , go eflln1 'nts, and pol i t i -al org[m i zations. M [my a government ha ' ruled against pubbc opinion and despite an adver. ' pre ' ' . Publi - opinion and an hone t press become capable of effecting significant -hange only when triggering or st 'ering popu l ar mov 'n1ent . For ' anlple, Pre. ident Johnson desisted fron1 'eking hi ' reel 'etion in 1 968 only after tumultuous (mt i war peeehes and num i fe toe ' led to mas. prate. t. of ariou. k inds. ( I nc identall y, v ry few pol i tical scientist. signed any of t hos man if stoes.) The Pol L h communi. t government fen only when the Solidarity mov ment translated popular d i . content into . trik . and street demon. tration . . By contrast, m ao . i ve oppo. ition of the B riti. h to th Iraq war ha. had no effect whatsoe r b cause i t did not c ry. tal l i z into a gras. root. rna ement. As M arx noted, idea. have practical con 'equence ' only when adopted by people i ntent on tran 'lating them into popu lar organization '. No organization capabl of concerted action no -ign i fi cant social change ' . Let II ' fi nal ly quanti tat t h e notion of pol itical power, We 'hall d i s t ingll i 'h two kjnd ' of pol i tical power: i n contention ,md i n governance. W define power in 'ontentiol1 a ' the abil i ty to ither domi nat or at tra t peopl . R l't er ill 0\ ernance i t h abi lity to exerc i e authorit y on i n fl u ntial tat agent , wh ther memb r of th ci il . er i or 'erviee men. Thi ' d i ·tinction i . particularly i mportant i n ountries wher i ther the . tat bureaucracy or the army i ' '0 overbearing that ev n a popul ar pre. ident or pri m m i n i t r m ay enjoy Ie ' . power than th m i n i ter of finance, central banker or top bra .. . In e i ther ca e, I ugge 1 that the mea u re of the pol i tical power (or capital of a poHtical leader, officer, or a ociat ion i the rati o of the number n of people that the actor can mobilize to the total n umber N of member of the reference group ( such a the e lectorate :
P = nlN, w here
[ 2]
ontention and
egotiation
195
N = the number of poli t ical l y active citizen i n the ca e of power i n contention, and N = the number of pol i y maker. and deci sion m aker. i n the pay of the . tate i n the ca�e of power in gO e rnance ,
The pre iou. formula, a , pec ial ca. e of formula [ I ] i n . ection 2 abo e, i s . i m ple-mi nded becau�e i t doe. not include two i mportant . ource. of political power: governm 'nt u pport voter mobil ization ,md i nt im idat ion, fraud, etc, , and fund contributed by private i nd ividual s and 'orporation , The fol low ing f01111u 1a i ndud '. these factor :
P = 11 + g + em / N
l J
wh r number of peopl that the actor can mobil ize' gov m ment support, mea. u red by the n u mb r of civil servants and oth rs work ing for th group in qu , tion ; . = a erage c ivic con. c iousn , . , mea. u red by p rcentage voter t urn out ; m = campaign cont ri bution ' ; N = N umber o f potential voter ' , Il =
g =
Typically, pol i tical power, i f i t grows at al l , eventual ly peak ' ,md then decl ine ' becau 'e of the i nabi l ity or u n w i l li ngne ' , of the i ncumbent ' to k p their elec tion promi ' . H owev r, onc i n a while a di cr dited lead r or party make a om back b cau e of an un x pected in pt mo of an ad er ary. For i n ' ta n i n J 982 th B ri t i h Pri m M in i , t r M argar t Thatcher wa sa d from imp nding el toral defeat becau ' th A rg ntin di tator hip attempted to recov r the Falkland r 'l and by for . And on S ptemb r I J 200 I , a group of I l am ic extr m i t · re er ed th decline of George W. B u h ' pre i dency by attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon . There i nothing ] i ke war to al vage the reputa tion of a i nk i ng politician. Anyone i n power a ume the ri k of ] o i ng it. Regrettably, although we often know how much i at take ord inari ly we do not know how to quantitate the l i ke l ihood of 10 i ng i t . We only know that there i an i nver e r l ation between ri k and gain , No pain , no gai n . B u t we a1 0 know that risk-tak i ng can be either rea nable or fooli h. Tme s me pol i ti ian and pol itical analyst tal k f the probability f , u h and uch
1 96
Political Philosophy
poli tical dL aster-for example, that yet another nation may acq u i re weapons of ma . . de. truction. B ut i n fact no one k now. how to evaluate su h probab i l i ty. Wor. e, no s uch probabi l i ty exi . t. . because weapon. do not pop u p by chance . Yet, the do t ri ne of pre enti e . t ri ke, a. formulated by Vice Pre. i dent Dick Cheney in 2006 state. that m i l itary aggression i. mandatory "e en if there L only a one-percent hance that the suspect ha. got a W M D. Thi i ' l i j(, ' c laim i ng w ith Pascal that W ' had b 'tter b 'l ie e i n O o d e en i f t h e probability of H i s e x i tenc ' were n gligible i nce t h ' corre 'pondi ng expected u t i lity i i n fi nite. B ut resort i ng to ubje tiv ' probabilitie ' i ' i rrati onal and i rrespon ' ible, becau. , there i no obje tiv ' way to evaluat ' them-which i why th 'y are ubjectil e. S 'e B ung ' 2006a. ) It i al '0 u ndemocratic because it puts th ' people at the m ercy of th ' Or 'at Leader i ntuiti e gra p of . uc h "probab i l i tie '. ' It i i m moral as wen because, modern war. harm civil i ans ( "col 1 at ral damag ' ) a. wen a. combatants. Fi na11y, pr empti . trikes are a1 . 0 i 1 1egal becau. e they iolate the l etter of Chapter V I T of the hart r of th U N concerni ng I giti mate . I f-defen. e. I n addi ti on to power int nsity w mu. t con. ider th quality of power: i. it "hard" (or coercive) and ai med at . ubmi . . ion , or "soft" or per. u asi e ) and seeki n g peace? hi ' d i ·tinction i . particularly important i n i nter national relation ' . hu ' , whereas the i mperiali ,t pow r ' ha e typical l y applied coercive power, t h e other ' have typicall y u ' e d persuasive power, that is, negotiation and compromi ·e. B ut of course it is alway ' po 'sible to di 'gui ' aggre 'sion as good w i l l . Thus, President Theodore Roo 'ev It famou ' ly ad vi 'ed to ' 'peak 'oftly w h i le carryi ng a big ·tick.' 4. Political Mo\'ements and Parties
Why are pol i t ical movements and parti organized . Becau 'e tac kl i ng soc i al i . ue · call for pol i t ic al power, and i 'olated ind i v idual ' ar powerl : they ha no ocial capital to back th m up. B ut n arly anyon can acqui re 0 m ight om oc ial capital h nce a lev rag of 'ort by forming or joining an association. I n short joining empower . W hich show the connection between two concept that are ometime conftated: tho e of socia] cap i ta] and c i i l ociety. I ubmit that the connection i thi . The stronger the c i v i l society, the richer the ocial capital of e ery member of i t ; and the richer the socia] capital of individual or organi za tion , the greater their oci a l power. A p l i t i al movement i a group f c i t izen with c m mon i n terest and jd a l , determined t ta kle certain social j ue by f rmi ng or
ontention and
egotiation
197
c haring government at c ome leve l . Every pol itical movement eon i ts of a hard core, the party-which i . a sy. tem proper-su rrounded b y a d i . organi zed mao . of . y m pathi zers and . ponsor. . The party membe rs are expected to embrace the bulk of a pol i tical i deoloCJY, whi h the sympa thizers need . hare only in part, while the . ponsors may or may not. For example, nowaday. the entri. t (or l i beral democratic) parties promote both pol i tical democracy and the market, also known a. capital i . m, and arc financed by party member ' and bu i ne " e . Th ' n10dern pol i ti al part i " and it affi l i at 's uch as publ i h i ng hou 'es, arc managed by paid party member ' . Thes ' people have a v 'sted int 'r '. t i n increasing their own as well as their party s power and son1 ,ti m ' , achie e the e goals at the price of betrayi ng son1C ideologi cal pri ncipl 's or gett i ng rid of internal challcngers. Thi ' i s how party oligarchics cm 'rge as Robcrto M ic hcL showcd a 'cntury ago. There . em. to be only one way to prev nt such degeneracy-to l i m inate all paid party job . . No one . hould b abl to I i e off poli tics v n i f th y decide to l i v for politic . . Howe r let u. go back to principles. E en i f a pol itical mov m nt ha. a major goal i f real i stic i t will tackle multiple i . . ue . . The reason i . that one- i . . u move m nts-such a. pac i fi s m . environmental i s m . f m i n i ' m, free choice or even 'oc ial j u ' li ce-are bound t o have l i m ited ' ucce ' , because every 'odal problem i ' a m mber of a whole tangl or . y 'tem of challenges, '0 that the 'olution of any of them requ i res the ' i m u ltaneou ' sol ution of other '. For i n ·tance, although environmentali sm mad sen sational ·tride ' i n the 1 970 ' and 1 9 0 ' , it dec l i ned unt i l very recently, largely becau 'e i t had fai led to tackle the accompanying probl m . such a the r l entle popul ation growth w i th the con. equ nt i ncrease i n con truction req u i ri ng defor · tation), i rrigation for agricul ture cau ' i ng the drop of aqu i fer I v I s , and overfi hing era h i ng of fi h popul at ion ' )-not to m ntion th compl icity of pol itician ' w ith oilmen logger . 'tri p- m in r and pol l ut r of variou. k i nd . W h n de. c ri bing pol it ic al movement , i deali ts pay xcl u ' i att n t i o n t o the i r i deologi e , wherea m ateri al i st focu on the i ntere t that are suppo ed to advance the partie . For example, i deali t characterize fa ci m by it political phi lo ophy : a mixture of nationali m, "Thi rd Way ' demagoguery, i rrat ionali m, and violence. By contra t. materiali t regard fa c i m a the avior of capitali m and i m pe rial i m when threatened by the Left . Con equently i deal i t can explain to ome extent what mobi l ize. 0 many peopl drawn fr m different oei al classe ; and materiali ts an explain why all the fa cist movements on all ntinents have been
1 98
Political Philosophy
fimmced by the rich i ndue t ri al i L bankers, and landowner and why the weahhy were favored by tho. e gO ernments-for example, by chao ing leftist . banning stri kes. and h ij acking or dL mantJ i n CJ most N GO . . Clearly, fa. i. m can be explai ned only by com bining the two factor. , ideology and m ateri al i n terest . H owe er . uch explanation would not be , atL factory unle . . one add, that every fasci . t mo ement ha. had two i deolog i e. : one for mass onsumption and q ui te a d i fferent one for the party e l i te and t he i r w 'althy ponsor . Thus t h ' m a i n slogan of ltaljan fasci s m wa Believe, obe , fight and a favorite slogan of th ' Nazis wa YOll are nothing our people are e er.' thing. B u t th ' l eader of both movement , a w 'll as thei r i nl itator , tri 'd to appear I j k ' H o meric heroe or N i etz hean s uperme n rather than s u b m i i ' fol low ' [. . And, w h i l e th ' masses were l u red by promh '. of social u n ity order, honesty pro- perity redel11p60n, national grandeur, or 'ven soci al j u 6 " the fasci. t lead rs nriched themsel . and kept the promi. e th y had mad to th i r wealthy . ponsor. -nam I y, to respect th ir property and dome. ticate th l abor u nion . . A nd yet material i ntere. t or rather perceived intere. t . ) a. w 1 1 a. the rna. . e. -lead rs dual i ty, ar m i . . i ng i n Roger Eatwell . or M ic hael M ann ' . defi ni tion. of fa. c ism i n thei r exe mpl ary . tudies of fa. c ism-a clear i n dicati o n of the w e i ght o f the i deaJ i ' t tradi t ion in pol i ti c a l sc ienc . I n deed, atwe l l ' s 1 995 : 1 1 defi ni t i on read ' thu ' : fa ' c i ' m p reache ' the need for 'ocial r b i rt h i n order t o forge a holisti '-na tional radical 11zird Way. ' And M ann ( 2004: 1 3 ) ·tate ' that 'fascism '
is the pursuit of a transcendent and cleanSing nation-statism through paralimitarism. ' I bel i ve that the. e t rse characterization of fa ci. m ar correct a far they go. B ut th y m i what made fa c i . t I ad r ' and their rich ' pon sor t i k , namely the prorn i e of great lout and w aIth for th 111 l ve ' . Th y al 0 m i the con tant ompanion o f a l l fa c i m ' : t h armed force. and th prospect of t rritorial expan ion. According to M ann. Generalfr;i11'10 Franco's mov m nt wa not fa. c i ,t b eau e its parami l it ary bran h , t h e Falange, wa neg ligi ble. B u t why bother with a n amateur m i li ti a o f sefiorit s a n d thug when y o u count w ith most of t h e professional army, piu Ital i an 'volunteer , ' and German guns and war hips to he] ) Malaga, and warp lane to de troy G uernica and bom b B arce]ona, 1 1 3 t i me by the Ital ians and 80 by the Germans'. La t, but not least, neither Eatwe l l nor Mann ' defi n ition mention the fact that a fa e i t regime happens to be a total d ic tat r hip one c ntr B ing all aspect of l i fe, n t only pol i tics. 1 ubmi t that th methodologically correct procedure j this. Start with a a·
ontention and
egotiation
199
provi i onal d fi ni tion eheek w hether it covers the 010 t obviou e 'L e and i f i t doe. not try an alternati ve defi nition. My own alternati e defi n i t i on L this. Fa. i. m L the pol i tical move ment that . eeks the total . u bm L , i o n o f t h e b u l k o f a people t o a . tron CJ . tate in the i n terest. of the wealthiest member. of . oc iety, and attempts to achie e this goal through m i l itary or parami l itary organi zation. the l atter being motivated by promi . e. to . trengthen the fatherland and bui ld a new, orderly, c lem), j ust, ,md c lassl 'ss 'oeial order w ithout tell i ng the ma se. that the leader ' and their ponsors w i l l monopolize all th ' privi leges. u merous joumali. ts and profe ' 'or of pol itical 'ci 'nc ' i n parti 'ular Hannah A rendt 1 976), have point 'd out th ' . imilaritie betw ' 'n fa ci 01 and oviet conlmuni sm or Bolshe i m ) . B oth were not ju t di tatorial but al 0 total itarian i n that they attempted to m le e cry a pect of l i £'. Thi ' i s tru ' but t h ' differ 'nce betwe 'n t h ' two movement and th ' corre 'pond i ng regim s ar just a. ob iou. as th i r . imi laritie . . Fir. t communi. t and fru cist have always fought each other f rociou. ly, to th point that fasci. m may be defined a. v i . ceral anticommuni. m . Second, t he rank-and-fi l communi.ts hav worked for social j ustice. Thi rd in the Soviet empir i ncome inequal i ty a. mea. u red by t h Gini index , was the . mal1�t i n t h world w h i l it I vel of education w as one of the h i gh . t. The 'e di fferenc " and the fact that the Soviet U n ion wa ' the only power to e 'cape the Great Depre ' ' ion and combat coloniali ' m, blinded droves of i nte llectuals and arti ·ts around th world during that period to the atrocitie . of the Stali n i ·t reg i me, and led them to believe that it was a whole new and higher c iv i l ization-as the Fabian ' S ydney and Beatrice Webb put it. They under ·tood what mobi l ized the com m u n i ·t rank and fi le, but failed to under tmld the real natur of the regi m -a total ' tati t d ictator ' h i p-and that what motivated mo ' t of the ar er Com m u n i t , wa. pow r for i t own ak . 1 ugge t the fol lowing d finition of 50v i t communi '01, or Bol h i m : i t i. the pol i tical mov m n t that c laim t o e k the . ocialization o f the mean ' of production and th full . If-realization of i ndividuals, while actuall y per fonning the nationalization ·tatization) of the economy along with a welfare tate. a wel l as the total ubnli ion of the people to the dictat of a ruthle political elite, the rz menklatura, intere ted mainly in i ncreasing their own power. Furthermore thi oligarchy reinforced it elf through reI entl es purging and bloodletting-Stalin's original contribut ion to tatecraft. B ut why shou ld we bother with two defunct mo ement '. There are two rea on. for re-exami n in g them. One i that both drag ns w r knocked ut rather than . l ai n and are u rrently reawakening in Europe. The ther
200
Political Philosophy
reason i that once i n a w h i l even the old t and mor table of democra cies . hows cracks throuCJh which fa. ist fume. escape: M cCarthy i. m: the carpet bombing of the Vietnamese country. i de ' the Tran-Contra . candal ; the u . e of terrori st threat, to j u. ti fy torture, w i re-tapping, and threat. to civil l i berties once dear to all Americans ' and above al l the threat of preemptive war agai n. t any nation that doe, not share "our val ues -or that own. too m uch oil for it, own good. The Left too has i t , probl e m s u c h as either e lectoral i m or th ' u nderrating of ' formal" ( political ) democracy' the onfu sion betwee n conservati s m and fa 'ci. nl ; the bel i 'f that th ' 'tate can ,md hould sol v ' all ocial problem . th ' dogma shar 'd by the Right . that e 'ono m ic dev 'lopm 'nt suffice to sol v ' . 0 ial problems; n 'glcct of env i ronmental issu '. ; skepti i s m about the v iabi l ity of 'ooperativ ' , ,md other . 'If-go emi ng organ izations' the v iew that ientists should r ' 'tri ,t themselv ' , to doi ng . ocially usefu l work ; and uncritical tolerance for p. udo. cience ( s llch as . cientifi c . ocial i sm and ossifi ed philo. ophy . uch as d ialectical mat rial i . m . We fi nd democ racy wedged between th t\vo totalitariani. m . . Re grettably. thi. pol i tical movement i s . 0 i11-defi ned, that e n th banana republ ics, the Irani an Ayatol l ah. , th govern ment. appointed by A m ri can occupier ' , and the A fghan warlord ' cal l t hem 'el e ' democratic just becau 'e once in a while they hold elections of ·orts. And yet the basic idea of d mocracy was c learly · tated two-and-a-half m i l lennia ago by the father of hi 'tory H erodot u ' , B ook I ll : 80): Democracy i s the rule of the people, who ha e t he sam right , and duties; or-two m i l l nnia later-government by the people' . freely e lected representative ' . Thi id a of d m o racy ha be n adopted and practiced b y the two mO. t popular pol it i aJ mov m nt i n th a-called We ' t rn worl d : l i ber alism and ocial d mocra y. It may be defi ned as fol low ' , Lib ral i m i . the pol i t ic al movement that a d ocate pol itical democracy and a m ark t economy i . e capital i . m ) . The fi r t compon n t of thi s couple m ak . it attractive to very many. w h reas the econd fi nd. i fa or d by th propertied. Unsurpri ingly e ery Libe ral party has two wing : lai sez !aire- i t and wel fari st-or conservati e and progressive respectively. The ten ion between the e two w i ng explains w hy l i b ral s form now tactical coalition with conservative , now w i th democratic oci al i st . Recal l Chapter 4.) Social democracy i the political movement that advocate pol itical demo racy a l ng w i t h oci al ref rm w hich, while r p cting property right , pall iate the inequalitie i n herent i n capital i m . Rec all Chapter 4
ontention and
egotiation
20 1
Section 6. ThL compromL e between l i b ral i s n1 and oci a l i s m explains why democratic Social i st. fonn now tacti al al 1 i ances w i th Liberals, now w ith omm uni. t. or the Green . . B oth ca. es exemp1 i fy the wel1known maxi m that those who . tay i n the m i ddle of the road run the r1 . k of becoming road k i ll . The comments regard i n g i nternal tension. i n , 0 ial 1 i beral i. m and in . oci al democracy explai n why they do not la. t 10n CJ i n power. They can rarely ful fi l l all the expectation. they e l ic i t that i s , the i nter ' ,ts th 'y arc exp 'ct d to represent. Th ' '0 ' ia l L iberals arc bound to d i appoint their capitalist sponsor b 'cau 'e th 'y I11 U t keep or i ncrease taxes to pay for rel ief programs. A l so the S oc i al Democ rat arc bound to d i sappoint their working-class and midd le-cla con. tituen ies becau e they C (lilnot keep their promi 'es of I ·ss 'ning 'conomic i nequality while re pecting property right . Thi i s the fat · of all pa11ie u nder democracy. They I11 U t navi gate th stormy strait b tween i d ological norm and pol itical reali ty-which may be j ust a. w 11 ( N un 2000 . W warned at th b ginning that poli tical scientists . hould not l i mit their work to analyzi ng constitution . party plad'o rms, and pol i t ical speeche. at fac alue. Inst ad th y . hould attempt to uncov r deeds beneath word . . and di. cover what motivates fonower. and back fS. A . Machiavelli pointed out half a m i l lennium ago nothing i s more effective i n POlilics than a sly combination of lie ' with ,ill appeal to materi al intere , t ' . Consider t he pro ' pect of keepi ng your indi ' pensable S U V i n l ight of the st rn warning that your country ( hence your U V ) i ' u nder attack by a country that 'hould be given freedom and democracy in e change [or i t s oil. True, no rational person can bel i e that we can keep con ' u ming o i l at it. pre ' n t rate ; and only a moral moron can belie e that anyone ha ' th right to ndanger world p ace and mortgage t he futur by launching further r 'ourc war ' . B u t th w i l y pol i tician, u n l i k the r pon. ibl tatesman e xploits peli ei ed . hort-term int re · t , not real long-t rm i n tere t . He i. out to fool p ople not to 'erve t he m . The pol iti aJ crook ha. an i ntuitiv gra p of what Merton ( J 968 : 475 called the Thoma th eore m -People react to the way they perceive oci a l fact rather than to fact them el e . Thi s i why 0 m any people vote again t their own real i ntere t . I n turn, thi how s that the cIa compo i ti on of the con tituency of a party i s not a rel i able i nd icator of the materi al intere t ad anced by the party. To di cover such i n terest we shou ld turn to the party donor , the b i l l and rule they upport and the lobbyi ts they I i ten t . B id we mu t remember that poli t i i an s and parties have t heir wn i n tere ts i n additi n to thos of th ir c nsti tuents.
202
Political Philosophy
The fol lowing table ketche the main contemporary pol i t ical mo ement . /HQI'l'/IIl'III
AII(lrrhhm Bo/!>hel:
Sor. D III.
uC. Liberal Oil cn·. a I 'i�/ll
Lib 1'1," m iL' .
low. high high high
min.
Equality
Ill. x .
high
mid.
low low
ali(/Grit)' COli lilt.
Ill. x .
Ill [L� .
low. h i gh
lIl id .
mid. low
mcd.
low
10\
min.
min.
min.
=
upper das
mid.
1'1.
.'iCOPf'
max .
i n t ·m. i n tc:rn.
nonl:
w &. m
dict�l t .
\ & 11 1
i ntern.
demo
i n tern .
demo
i n t e rn .
dern,
intern.
dicta!.
10\
h ig h
mcd.
low none
Table 5.2 The classical political movements. m iddle cla s, u
J
Parlirip.
=
w =
COil tillll'lWy
n hod
burc:.111 rot
w&m
& 111
whole
u & m
u & rn
whole
working class,
middling, con en'.
/) nr1iriari
=
m =
con",ervatism
Occasionally an extraparl iamentary movement fl ar . up to tackle a special vent uch a· the thr at of privatizing a ' oc i al erv ice, only to d i appear, after a while. One speak th n of ' treet power. The danger i not 0 m uch that a particular government m ay fal l , but that people may become di i l l u ioned w i th repre entative democracy to the poi n t of shouting, a m an y Argenti nes did i n 1 99 ] , 'j Que ' e ayan toelos.' "Let them all go . '). 5. Pol i ti cal
onlpetition and C ooperation
There i s l i ttle doubt that all ani mals compete v r carce reo ources. No w nder th n that much of pol i tical a t i n j motivated by the ne d or desi re to get hold of reo ources of s me k i nd whether natural l i k: land and oil or human l i ke slave and ter . In ther w rds much of poli t i c is expl ai n able a s con fl i ts er m aterial i n tere. ts. La well 1 95 8 put i t pith i l y i n h i cIa i c � rmula: P l i ti e i s ab ut "wh get w hat w h n how. In partic ular. many i n ternational confl ict are pIau i bly explai ned a acute ca e of cornpeti tion 0 er re ource of ome kind. Thu the Trojan War eern to ha e been fought over the Aegean trade route to Cypru , the land of copper; the Punic War , over the Mediterranean ea lane ; the War of the Pac i fic, over the Peruv i an guano and n itrate depo it ; the Spani h A merican War and the Fir t World War. over co] onie ; the Second World War over global dom i nation ' th B o l i ia Paraguay war over pre u med o i l . And the cutTent War on TetTor i not h i ng but an oil war. True e m p i re bui ld i n g and nation bu i ld i n g have alway i nvol ed ware -war of conque t and eee ioni t civil wars respe ·ti ely Wim mer .md B in 2006) . B u t t h e i n titutional de. cription are compatible c
c
.
ontention and
egotiation
203
w i t h the hypothc L that such confl ict arc bac ieal l y econo m ic : l and re, ource. , manpower, or t rade route. , rather than c u ltural trea. u res. ThL hypothe. i . is confi rmed by the fac t that ci i l war. are rarely fought without the i n terference of foreign power. , some of which are al way. w i l 1 i n CJ to , upply the contendi n g faction. w ith weapon. fund. , or even armed forces. in the hope of winning econom i c privi lege, . The economic approach has a1 . 0 been adopted to explain domestic pol itics and, in particular, voter turnout. Thu the mo ' t w idely d i scus ed e xphUlation of voter turnout i ' Anthony Dow n " ( 1 95 7 ) econom i c theory of d 'mo -racy. According to it, th ' 'rational' voter i. expected to ask h im se l f b ' fore going to the poll i ng ' tation : 'What ' in it for me and what' the chm]ce that my vote w il l i n fl ue nce th ' outcome ? ' B e i ng 'ra tional" sel fi h ) , h ' attempt to figur ' out the exp ct d utili ty of ca. t i ng h i s vot '. Thi s i s the produ t of th ' u t i lity ( for h 'r 'If) by the probabil i ty that hi. vote would m ak a difference. Si nce . he fi nd. that thi s product i s n g l igibl , . he . tay. home. That i. a citizenry of '"rational ' agents would be on of massi lectoral ab.tention-henc an undemocratic one. Thi . re. ult. that th rational ot r i . a bad citiz n, i s know n a. 4th paradox of oting." Vot i ng, n o t t h fact that a n odd th ory of voti ng i s b ing taken seriou. l y, is regarded a . paradox ical-a 'ad i n dicator of the c u rrent ·tate of pol itical 'cienc ,md pol i ticaJ phi lo ·ophy. The d i 'crepancy between the economic theory of democracy ,md pol i tical reality ha . triggered the manufacture of a m y riad of alternati ve model . , a l l of them variant · of Downs' and none of which fare ' m uch better ( see Oey . 2006 . The main rea 'on for the fai lure of t hose efforts o r half a c ntury i l ikely to be that nearly all of tho. mod I 'har th ba 'ic a . . umption . of Down ' theory : the typical voter i a rugged i ndividual i t who doe ' not car abou t h i . £ 1low i t iz n , I t alone th tate of h i . . oci ty and who can figure out the u t i l it ie benefi t , a well a t h probab i l i t i ' of i n fluencing the outcom of h i de i sion . . Stati tic how l arg d i fference ' i n vot r turnout among d i ff r nt countrie . In nati onal election it i among the lowe t ( around 50� ) i n the U n ited State , high ( above 7 5 � ) i n Canada. the U n i ted K ingdom and I ndia, even h igher ( around 85� ) i n the etherland , Germany orway and Denmark and h ighe t i n Sweden 90� ) and A u tral i a ( 95 � . I f citizen did ote w i t h their wallet , as the economic theory o f democracy hold , then oter turnout hould be far h igher in 10caJ election , which are about municipal taxes and s rvi ce than in nat ional electi ns which are ab u t m re remote i ue . B u t reali ty falsifie. thi. expectation. I n
ontention and
egotiation
205
often m i led and somewhat l azy c i ti zen. He nU1Y b waycd by narrow . peci al interest. . and he i . often naive enough to fol low dangerou. clown. or even crafty c ri m inal. ; but bei n g a member of variou . . oci al networks, he i . . eldom driven exclu, i ely by personal con ems. Thi. i s why he m ay fall for mendaciou. rhetoric about national interest and appeals to hi . . elfle . . ness and patrioti. m. And this i. why even A me rican c i tizens, who are among the lea�t knowled geable i n pol itical m atter . . ha e been known to go to the pol l . I n u m voting i not paradoxical ; it just po- 's an op 'n problcm wai ting for a bold th 'orist who know that potential vot 'L arc not oci al i olate. but members of ocial 'ystems or networks. Thi is why they r 'alizc, howe 'r dimly that there are social problems, that i ' i . . LIe that a l l for collecti e action that arc aggregatc of i nd i idual act ion . The ons ' ien tious oter ' a l 0 know that, however i n ignifi ant in them 'cl e , their tiny anony mou. action. can add up to macro-. oci al outcom s . M ost p ople a r not . H i . h free rider. , b u t con. cie ntious. a l b it often i l l - informed i ndividuals who know that they ha e duties in addi t ion to rights. Som of the m rio k their freedom or ev n l i fe to work or fight for a cause other than their own welfare . Who ver ignored thi. fact would not u nderstand th very x i .tence of radical pol itical mo ement let alon t he ability of some of them to sei ze power or en to provok armed conflict. In pol i tics, i nconsistency is 'ometi me ' a ble ' ' ing. or do aU politician ' and politically concerned c i tizen ' r e l i n con fl ict. Contrary to the zealou ' followers of Thoma ' H obbe ' and dam S nlith, mo ' l people feel better about cooperati ng th,m about compe ting. M ar and Mao were ambivalent in thi . mailer. They 'hared H egel' . dogma that contrad iction" (con fl ict i th mother of very thi ng ; but M arx loathed Hobbe "war of veryone again t veryone and he xhorted prol tarian to u n i te ; and M ao promoted th 'people ' com m un " at th am time that h repeated H gel ' the. i that ' contradiction ' confl ict) rule th worl d . M o. t peopl realiz that i n a competition som peopl are bound to )0 e wherea cooperation m ay result not only i n hared victory but al 0 i n a feeling of comrade hip. And good poli tical and bu i ne strategi t hare the w i e advice given more than two m illennia ago by the great e t m i l i tary strategi t of antiqui ty : Try to avoi d armed conflict; yet, i f compelled t o fi ght d o not eek t o d e troy your adver ary ( S u n-tzu ] 994). A moral for politician and busine men i keep clear of H obbes and S nlith carve out y u r own n i che appeal to moral entiments in addi t ion to m aterial int re t ; and remember t hat ven the m st carefu l pol itical 4
206
Political Philosophy
calcul ation i u bjcct to CITor if only bccaus i t i i m po iblc to know ac urately what the adver. a ry i s thi nking. La, tly, a few word, about the ultimate confrontation-war. In prin c i ple, al l aggre . . ion i . c ri m i nal . hence moral ly w rong. B ut ci i l war i . moral ly j ustified i f i t endea or, t o topple a cruel tyranny that ha. pro ed unwil l i ng to make conce. . ions. Indeed, the civi duty to achieve and prote t democracy i n olve. the right to re oIt again. t any go emment that trample ' on the right of the majority. Thi s ha. b ' 'n the ca e of al l national l iberation war ' tarting with the American Revolution. B y con trast, international armed aggressi on i ' n 'vcr morally ju. tifi d because i t infringe. on the right [md duty o f a l l peoples t o sel f-go emment. M i li ta ry aggre ion i parti 'ularly i m nloral when motivat d by th ' w i .h to teal natura l or human resource . I f this i s accepted then i t must al 0 be adm itted that there are 110 jll t � ars-no matt 'r w hat th ' just war theori . t from Augu. tine to M i chael Walzer m ay . ay. J submit that all war. are u nj ust becau . th y ar ma . . m urd r. . And g nocide i. the worst of al l , ev n when ordered by God as wa. th ca. e of t he Jericho massacr of Canaani tes by L rae li tes (10. h . 6: 1 -25 ) . A t b s t t h r can be a just side i n an armed conflict. For exampl i n World War I I, the A l lie. count red t he atte mpt o f th fa. cist A x i . , the war initiator, to dominat the world. t i l l, we ' hould not condone the war c ri m e ' com mi tted by the A l l ies. By contrast, in World War I both sides had been w rong, for that was . 'entially a con fl ict ov r land and tho 'e who worked i t were not con ' ulted. Standard economics i ' '0 i n fl uential in all social st udie ' that it ha . led the va ·t majority of social thinker " i ncluding ' uch strange bedfellow ' a· Hobbe ' , K ant S mith and M arx to bel i v i ng that antagoni m i th pri m rnov r. B ut a. K ropotkin 1 902 ) noted a c ntury ago, coopera tion i no I common and jmportant than confl ict jn both nature and soc jety. Th r a on j that the re. ourc at take mu t x i . t before any confl ict 0 r it can fl ar up, and it often take coop ration to bu ild or exploit a re. ource . The young B raziljan mo m nt of l and I peasant" or M ST i an adm i rable combination of co peration w i th competition : in addj tion to fighting for land reform it i nc1 ude production, dj tribution , con umption and credi t cooperative . A pol itician w ield power or hope to exert it, becau e he ha more frjend , as well a more enemie , than an onlooker-except for tycoon and mob ter . In fact he ha 0 many friends, that he cannot fa or them all w ithout the h lp of ome adver arie . And h h e so m any enem i es that he c annot p ibly w i n w ithout f rging tactical all i ance w ith adver-
ontention and
egotiation
207
c arie . B u t wh n such all i
208
Political Philosophy
the war a an i m perial i t adventur i n tead of joining their go ernment, as they did? A rguably they had no choice, becau. e defen. ive war i. mor al 1 y j u . t. On the other hand the pri nc i pled Germ an M arxi . t. . . uch a. the martyr. R osa Luxembu rg and K arl Liebknecht, had to be pacifi . t a, we]] as S ocial i . t � . becau. e t h e central power. had been t h e aggres. ors. By contra. t, the French Social i st. and their al l ie, i n the 1 936 Popul ar Front were moral l y wrong in joi n i n g the U . K . govemment on the "non inter ention" policy over th ' Spani h civil war. They were wrong becau ' th . 1 'gi t imate and democratic government of the Spanish Repubbc had been attack'd by a coalition that i n luded not only the Spanish Fascist , but a1. o the fasci t govefllnl 'nts of Germany and Ital y. So, t h i c i i l war was al 0 an international confl ict. It wa ' a1. o the fi r t war wher ' civili an ' too were m j li tary target. : rem 'nlber th · ferocious German bombi ng of Guernica Malaga A l meria and above all Barcelona. The R ussian, Korean and Vi tnamese civil war. w r similar. I n all three ca. e. foreign power. lent strong . u pport to one of the . ide . . B ut, cont rary to th Spanish case thi. support wa. not decisi . I ndeed, the Ru . . ians eventual 1 y exp l ied the 1 4 i nvad i ng foreign "exp ditionary corps"; the French and American annie. wer defeated by the North Vi tnamese: the Korean confl ict end d up in a draw ' t he C uban and i caraguan d ictator ' h i p ' i nstalled by the United S tates were defeated by guerril l a movement '� Israel's i nva ' ion ' of Lebanon have only · trength ened the re 'olve of their vict i m " given ri 'e to the H ezbollah party and increa 'ed th i n 'ecurity of I Taelis a ' well as Lebane 'e' and the Turki ' h oppr . ' ion of the Kurd ' a long w i t h the i nsurgency led b y the P K K , threaten and i mpoveri 'h both commun i t ies. I am try i ng to und r tand. not to j u . tify m i l i tary i n ' u rgency against foreign occupant . Fighting th i nvad r i the fi r t duty of patriot. a. long a ' th ir struggl do not involve people u nable or u n w i l li ng to fight. Though movi ng the col l ecti uicide of N u m an ia and M a ' ' ada wer i mmoral for i t i crim inal rath r than heroic to cut the throat of children and women. A guerri lla i ntent on toppling an oppre i ve government po e I m 1lar moral and politkal problem . The mo e ment hould i n olve only volunteer and target only repre ors; and, i f the regi m e i n que tion i democratic. i t opponent hould not ri k i nv iting a m i li tary dictator hip. The Cuban revolution of 1 958 met these condi tion : it only i nvol ed a few volunteer and did not put a democratic government at ri k. (The subsequ nt e e nt were a diffi r n t m atter: Cuba became a pawn i n the ld War. ) Other guerrillas uch as the Mexi an 'cri teros" 1 926-29 '
ontention and
egotiation
209
and the P ruv ian Shining Path ( l 980-pre e nt were i nm10ral for i nvo! i ng terrori . t atta ks upon non-combatant. . Armed in. urgency, ] i ke , u rgery, . hould target only mal ignancie . . To (10 b a k to al l i ance. i n the dome. t i c . cene : They occur more often between ad ersarie. than between the m oderate and the radical w i ngs of the . ame pol itical or rel igiou. orientation . For example, Social Democrat. are more l i kely to forge coalitions w ith S ocial Liberals than w i t h Com m u n i t ; ,md 'xc 'pt in mcdie al S pain, hri tian used to bc morc tolcrant to pagan Mu l ims, and Jcws, than to Christian hcrctics. In both cascs, thc pol iti al and the rcl igiou a rcason i ' that thc hcrctic, unbke the i n fidel, thrcaten s the ullity of party or church, hcncc i t ery e x i st 'n · C . Anoth 'r r 'a on for th ' v irulent host i l ity among brcthr 'n is that thc h 'tcrodox ,md the orthodox compcte 0 cr roughly thc ame turf. Thi s i . w h y after t h October 1 9 1 7 Revolution, Bolsh viks, Men. h e ik. , Social Revol utionari s and A narchi st. murdered one another w i th as m uch zeal a. th y k i l1ed W h it . . Shortly tll reafier, the German Sociali. ts joi ned th Conser ati ve. in hunti ng down th Spartaci . ts. The German Left re mained bitterly divided up to the N azi takeo r trading rid iculous i n. ults . . uch a. "Soc ial fa. cist ! ' and "Sovi et toady !' A simi l ar i ntern c i ne war among leftists flared up a f w year ' later in Cataloni a while the Fasci 'ts kept advanci ng. The rot 'kyit . and Anarchist , tried to m ake a 'ocial r olution while everyone el 'e fought the approaching Fa 'cists. I n all of the above case " i deological zealotry bred political enmity and ' heer ·tupidity. A wrong pol i ti ca l philosophy can lead to either stale lerrori ' m o r political ' uicide . To concl ude pol i tical a l l i ance ar morall y 1 gitimat only w hen forged on th trength of hared poli tical and moral principle . . Thi is why i t i . alway. morall y wrong, ven when pol itically x pedient, to forge tactical all i ance ' xclu . ively on the . tr ngth of th M achiave l li an princ iple ''The nemy of my en my i . my fri nd.' An x am ple of uch alliance. ar the ' r t yet w I I -known agreement w h reby A m rican and I talian mobster collected votes for a pol i tical party, or g unned down labor organizers, i n exchange for i m punity. Solitude i alway preferable to bad company. 6.
conomic Power
Economic power i the abi bty that private bu ine es owne or manag er have to i n ft u e n e people' s attitud , alue. tast , habits and t . I t i , in particular th abil ity to m al<: peopl do physi all y or mentall y
2 10
Political Philosophy
hanllfu l work for thenl buy things, and er ic they don t r all y ne d, buy legal or pol itical coun, el fund organi zation, advocati ng i deologie. that favor pri v i leCJe, and lobby parl i amentarian, to adopt legisl ation that prote t the i n tere. t, of big bu. ine . . and block progre . . ive leg i sl ation . Standard economic theory 0 erlook. power even ulouCJh it lurks behind su h central trait. of the market a . . upply and demand. Indeed, . tandard theory defi ne. the price of a CJood or . ervice a. the point at which demand eq ual supply. Thi s defi n ition looks pol itically aseptic but as a nlatter of fa ,t that poi nt resul ts from a balance in the negotiating powers of sel ler and buyers . 0 nluch so, that the balanc ' in que t ion s h i ft w he n sel lers form monopolies or 'orn 'r markets i n t i m e of scar ' ity. L i ke w i . e workers can get wag ' i ncreas 's by threatening to 'trike provi ded thei r u nions . u pport them. Th 'y had no negotiat i ng power at the t i nl ' of Adam S mith, when labor u n ions were banned by law-as he h i m ' I f d plored i n h i . great book : they on l y gai n d i t decades l ater w hen they organi zed . uch union . . A. Chief Justice B e rIey McLachl i n wrote i n a d c i . ion o f t h e Canadian Supreme Court in 2007, u nion. and the ir pow r to bargain col 1ecti ely nabl work r. to enhanc their "dignity, l i b rty and autonomy." A nother i m portant pric mechan i . m i gnored by standard economic. i . coloniab ·m. Colon i al power not only 'upported the economic power of th foreign comp,mi e . and the "comprador' c la 's or dom ·tic ruler ' in cahoot ' with the form r) but it al 'o 'hifted the balance of dome ·tic power. I ndeed, by encourag i ng the production of ca ' h crop ' i t gave male famler ', who 'old 'uch crop ' an advan tage over their wi e " who before colonization had been i n charge of the hOll 'ehold economy Moore Lappe and Col l i n 1 9 8 . in . um, economic pow r doe ' not pring from production and trad alon . it i ' often aided by pol itical pow r from I gi lation to armed aggre ion. Mo t poI i toIogi 't. cultivat the fict ion that u nder democracy politic. i . i mperv iou to economic pow r. By contra t, M arx and h i fol lower. h ld that al1 pol i tical power d rive ' from economic power. R al i ty I i . between the two fiction : the We tern democrades are di torted by eco nomic power, to the extent that they de erve bei ng cal led plutodemo rQ ie Duverger ] 974: 5 ). Thu , although there i s freedom to vote and be voted for e lection are getting ever more exp nsive, and most peop]e repre entati e are expected to favor the max i m izati on of profit rather than that of we1 1 -bei ng. L i kewi e, "t u nder tand the course of world pol i t ics it is nece . . ary t focu attention lip n the m aterial and I ng-tenn elements rather than
ontention and
egotiation
21 1
thc vagaric of pcr onality or thc wcck-by-wcck h i ft of d iplomacy and poli tic. ' ( Kennedy 1 98 8 : 20 . For example, we . hould not let the ". h u ttle d iplomacy of the succe. si e U .S . Secretarie. of State di ert our attenti on from the u l t i mate . ource. of al1 pol i tic. i n the M iddle Ea. t-m i ghty oi l and , carce l and and water. Nothing e1 . e cou l d command . 0 m uch power, nor trigger . 0 m uch hypocri . y, nor put in evidence so m uch crue l ty cor ruption, and i neptitude . M oney can buy pow 'r and the concomi tant freedom for it not only empowers the moneyed to acqui r ' good or . ervice , including advice and fl attery. It al '0 t ri gger a fe -ling of sel f-suffi ciency or ev -n sup 'riority. Thi i n turn , hape oci al action i n a negative fashion . I nd cd, recent experi ment. Voh M ead and Good - 2006) ugge 't that TIl0n 'y detache. i ndividual . from their 'ommu n itie , as i t r -duces d i intere ' t - d offer of h ' lp a. well a their requests for u npaid help. I n . hort far from bei ng . ocia11y de. i rable, xc s. i v mon y i . social l y d i . . olv nt. and ther for a disincentiv to democratic participation . No wonder that the neocon . r ativ s ar . 0 keen on fr edom and . 0 suo pic ious of democracy. Th y ha th means to buy freedom, and they fee l threatened by t hose who yearn for fre dom and b lie e that i t can attai ned i t by pol it ical rather than economic mean . . Their heav n i s colonial Hong Kong, th ir hell i. 'oc ial-de mocrati c Swed n. Economi c Liberals ( neol iberal ') c laim that all the participants i n a free market are equal, whence the market guarantee ' i ndividual liberti . ( Fried man 1 962). B ut this is a fabrication, becau ' owners and manager ' are r la lively free to hire and fire wherea ' wage earners are ·tuck with their 'kill " or lack of them, and have lillie bargaining power wherever labor u nion ' are weak. B ide th unfettered market tend to oligopoly or ev n monopoly through merger and di loyal compe tition a. in dumping and hO 'tile take ov r ' . The mor conc ntrated the capital or the conomic power), th weak r the i ndividu al ' s l ib rty to contract work i ng condition ' . Economic Liberals a l 0 lai m that u nder fr m ark t the e mployermploye rel ation i ' ymmetri cal : Tho e who do not l ike their job, ar free to quit and take a differen t one. B ut this a umption i unreali stic in time of high unemployment, becau e there are few ope n i ng and many people w i l li ng to fil l vacancie . In hort, the free market doe not protect individual but, on the contrary, may threaten them. Only trong labor union can hop to curb economic power to protect the individual worker. Thi i s why the o-cal led wel fare tate i tronge t where mo t f the work f ree i. u n i n ized and lefti. t parties are powed'ul enough to f rm g vemment.
2 12
Political Philosophy
Under modelll capitali m economic power i concentrated i n corpora tion, . H owever, in each of the , 0 iany mo. t ad an ed nations, . uch a. the Netherl ands, Bel g i u m and the Nordic ountries, there are Ie . . than a handful of big corporation. . uch as Phi l l i ps. K L M , Shel l , and E1. evier in the N etherl and. ), and most enterpri . es have Ie . . than 50 employee . . This part l y explain. the relatively low i ncome-i nequal i ty i n tho. e coun tries-whi h, i ncidental l y are al so econom ical ly s ucce. sfu1 . Only firms w i thout salaried employees, that i. , fami l y concerns ar ' not capitali. t enterprise . Th 'refor " the society of e l f-employed capital ists or i nd 'pendent traders dre amed u p by [mar ·hi.t ' uch a ' Proudhon to Chomsky is not capita li st prop ' f. Th ' same appbes to the ' people' , capital i sm' or " takeholder 'apital i m" once advo ated by the B ri t i h Con 'crvati ves and to the ' thr 'C b i l lion A ian capitali t ' announced i n a re ent pop-economics b .. tseller. Thc w hole poi n t of cap itali . nl i s to maintain or i ncr ase i ncome i nequali ty. Thi. in q uality can become lu dicrous, as with the case of a former CEO of E xxon-Mobil who earn d $ 1 00 per m i n u te, wheth r awake or a. l eep. No real i. tic pol itical theorist or analy . t can afford to ignore t he political clout of the tran. national corporations and the trio made up by th World Trade Organization, the I n ternational Monetary Fund and th World Bank. A l l of the 'e i nternati onal organi zation ' are dedicated to promoting free trade which they tout a . the panacea for univer 'al peace, pro 'perity, and good governance . I n particular, they ' upport the so-cal led merican model of the economy clai m i ng that i t can be appl i ed regardless of h is tory, natural and h u man re 'ources, and I vel of development. Tho 'e organization ' al ' 0 claim to be neutral both poli t i cal ly and morally. Actually th y are far from neutral . They are omm i tted to neo lib ral i . m . the right-wi ng i deology hampioned by Ludwig on Mi e" Fred ri k on H ayek M ilton Friedman and of cour. e all th con ervativ parti around the world. The k rn I of thi jd ology i th follow i ng credo: The fre m ark t i I f-corre ting becau e price ' i gnal i n forma tion, . 0 that all governm nt i nter ntion is d tri m ntal to th cono m y ; li beral democracy i desirable except where dictator hip i needed t o defend the free m arket ; bu i ne h o u l d not b e c o n trained b y moral s; and oda) j u tice i s a m i rage. The neoliberal or neocon ervati e) i deologue pretend to ignore the market tab il ization mechanisms put in place in the 1 930 to avoid the repetition of the hyperi n fl at ion of the 1 920 and the G reat Depre i on 1 929- 1 939)-but which failed to pre ent the . tagfiation f the 1 970s se eral u rg of unemploy ment and the variou tock m ark t era he
ontention and
egotiation
213
i nce t h b i rt h of thL m arket. The nco-liberals dist ru t oci al engineer ing. They reject an . oci al planning, even or particularly that of pubJic works and public health and education. They t u rn a blind eye on a1 1 the friendly Thi rd-World di tatorship. from S audi Arabia to El alvador. And they unabashedl y i gnore the needy. Above a11 they extol the a1 1eged v i rtue , of economic globali zation. I n particular, the WTO proclaim. , i n i ts main web page, the ten benefit. of the trade s y tem that it promote and regu late · : It help keep the peace; i t allow. d isputes to be h[mdl d con , tructi ely' it makes l i fe ea ier for everyone b 'cau e it i s ba 'ed on ru les rather than power; i t c uts the '0 t of living; i t g ives c ustomer more choice ; i t raises i ncome. ; it stimulate. e 'onom i c growth' it makes the ystem economical l y more efficient· i t shield gov 'fll ment ' from lobby i ng ; ,md i t encourages good goverrul1ent. The search for evid 'nce i left to the reader. [n thi , piece of propaganda there i. not a word abou t fai rne. s nor about cou n t rexamples . ueh as the unresolv d trade d i spute , bet\veen th U n i ted S tat . on th one hand, and Canada and th European U nion on the other; the generous , ubsidi s to agribu. ine. s firm. in th United S tate. and th European U nion; the . t ady declin in the income. of Third-World farmers; th growing income inequality nearly erywh re o the r treat in labor legi ' lation; the tax cut ' for the rich and the concomitant growth of the national debt of the United tat ' and its mo , t faithful imitators; the recurrenc of corporate and governmental corruption ; and the growi ng American pol i t i cal hegemony that th pol icy i n question advance ' . I n a n y event, th r i s a s u b 'tantial body of empirical evidence again ·t globabLation a . i t ha . been practiced '0 far e.g., U 2004, S t iglitL and Charl ton 2005 . La 4 but not 1 a 't, th r i . t h u ncertain clout o f t h U . S . dol l ar al m ighty i nce the end of World War 11 until t h mergenc of the euro. Oil and mo. t other jnternationally traded commod itie ' ar t i l l d priced in U . S . dollar . A a con ' quenc all th central bank hold hug doll ar r rve . If OPEC uddenly decjded to switch to the euro. m an y of tho r rve would b conv rted i nto euro the dollar would be devalued overnight, and A me rican would be drowning in their own currency. Thi i no heer specu lation: Iraq i n 2000, and Iran i n 2006 threatened to do ju t that-to charge the oil they e U abroad in euro . It ha therefore been sugge ted that the real cau e of the attac k on Iraq and the aber rattl i ng again t I ran in 2007 i the wi h to defend the dol1ar hegemony and prevent the hyperi n fl ation that would be cau ed by e xce l iqu i d i ty. The U ni ted Stat would be m peUed t resort t war becau e the A meri an con m y has been greatly weakened as a result of the mao sive c
2 14
Political Philosophy
out ourc i ng of man u facturing job. and the h uge national and trade debts . Whate er the worth of thi s hypothesis, one thi ng is lear. I t i s na'l e to study i n ternational rel ations without taking into accou n t the re. erves in the mai n currencie, and their alues. Fol 1ow the de al ued currency and you win reach the war cemetery. 7. Cultural Power
Undoubtedl y, cultu re ha alway ' been a powerful 'ocial force, e e n o r part icu l arly ) where monopol i zed b y t h e haman or t h prie. t. Doubt ' start when one ask. what c u ltur ' i . I adopt the narrow ociological con cept of cultur ' a th ' ubsystem of oci ·ty compo- ed by produc 'rs and con- u mer of ultural produ 'ts from prayer ' ,md poems to theorem ,md pol i t i al peeches ( B unge 1 998a . Beside . . uch "l iving' culture th r i. t he '"frozen' culture or cultu ral h ritage, mo. t of which is hardly ev r used, but som of which-such a. the Parthenon. Don Quixol ", and B eethoven ' . . y m phonies-we can sti l 1 enj oy. Some onservati e . cal l ' pol itical capital ' the cultural heritage, particularly t he . et of outdated bel i fs. In thi. work ' political capital ' stand� for the r source. that a pol itical u n i t can mobil ize. B ecause education i. l argel y nculturation, veryon 's political v i ew . a n d action ' a r shaped n o t o n l y by t h e i r percei ved i nlere ·t ' b u t a l '0 b y the cu ltural fragment · t hey ha e a ' · i mi l ated. For in 'tance, wh rea ' 'ci entitle educati on i n d i n . people t o pol itical li beral i ' m , rel igious educa tion predi spo 'e . people to lean to con ·ervatism . The c lo 'e alliance of pol i t ical con 'ervati 'm w it h organi zed rel ig ion, that we are w itne ' ' ing nowadays, i ' no coinci dence . U ncounted tynml ' -jnce the beginning of civil ization hav c l ai med to mle in th n am of on or rnor d i t ie . or at lea t in def n of t h tat rel igion. Church are obedience choo l " n o t revol utionary cell . Ari totle 1 94 1 : 1 260), no friend of democra y, xplai ned why religion i . pol i t ically u 'efu l : He ad i sed th tyrant that ' h . hould appear to b parti u l arly arn , t i n the rvice of the God ' ; for i f m n thi nk that a ru ler i religious and has a reverence for the God , they are Ie afraid of uffering i nj u tice at hi hand , and they are Ie di po ed to con pire against h i m . becau e they be lie e h i m to have the ery God fighting on hi i de." Thi i s why, from M ose and H omer's heroes to Joan of Arc and George W. B u h , orne warrior and politician have clai m ed to hear heavenly poli tical adv ice . For the same reason orne of the freerna on wh led the I ndepe ndence War i n Latin Am rica pr i ded ver Catholic masse � r the troops . •
ontention and
egotiation
215
Religion arc lL efu l to the pol i ti c al c. tabli . hment not only becau e they are al 1 ba. ically con. ervative, but aL 0 for a p. ychological rea. on. ThL i . that the p. ycholOfzical root. of i rrational pol i tics are the . ame a. tho. e of rel igion : powerle . . ness, fear, hope, gul 1 ibil i ty, and respect for authority. The. e roots feed any pol i tical mo ement who. e publ ic program is rhetori cal yet high-soundin g . B ut they w i ther when pol i tic. is looked at from a rational iewpoi nt namely a. the attempt to i mplement plan. d ' ' ign 'd in the l ight of both moral principles and thc bc ' t a ailablc knowlcdge of soci cty. At fi rst ight contcmporary pol itical philo- ophcI ' ne d not conccrn thcl11selvc with rcligion bccau , thc Enlightcnmcnt con i gn 'd it to thc du 'tbin of history morc than two ccntlllics ago. How vcr, thi . attitudc would b ' u nrcali st i i n vicw that rel igion i. again at th ' for front of politics in the U ni ted S tates and in the I ' lanl ic nations. According to a 2006 P 'w opinion pol1 , a ful 1 4 2 0/( o f American. id ntify themselve. fi r. t a s Chri. t i an. and . econd a. A merican . . If it i. any con. olation, the counterpart in the L lamic world i . roughly twice th A merican fi gu re. Furthermor , cont mporary pol i tical xtremism. both We. t and Ea. 1 . proclaim. to b faith-ba. e d rather than driv n by special . ecular int reo t Witn . s E ang l ical neo-conservati . m i n t h e S , l . lamic national i . m and the J ihads i n the I ' lamic world, and the H i nduist B J P. ( See eu ' ner 2003 . ) Remember al '0 that the only succe ' -[u l popular upris i ng i n Pol i ' h h i ·tory Solidarity, wa . manipulated b y t h e Vatican. Of cour 'e, a modern Machiave l li would clai m that ' uch ideological flags 'er e only to mobil i ze the i nnocent and d i sgui 'e material intere ·ts: tho 'e of corpordtions (in particular oil companies), landowners, tenant farm rs redneck , or what have you. But th fact i . that today more than two centurie after the triurnph of ' ulari ' m in th We t and a c ntury later I 'ewhere, n i ther th practitioner nor the theori ·t of politic can afford to ignore the r ivaI of r Ligion in what i uppo. ed to be the Age of Scienc and Te hnology. After all, the Thi rty Year war of rel igion 1 6 1 8- 1 648 rav aged We t rn Europe at the am time that the S i ntiflc R volution wa ' in progre . Marx wa only partially right when he tated that religion i s the opiu m of the people: Religion can al 0 be a powerful pol itical mobil izer. The rel igion are the oldest and mo t popular of i deologies as well a the mo t detai led one . I ndeed, they rule not only the wor hip of the upematural but al so matter of ocial order and i ndivi d ual conduct . An orth dox Chri . tian, Moslem H i ndu o r J w k n w not only how to ped'onn r l igi u rit but also what and when to wa h eat or drin k ' .
2 16
Political Philosophy
how to deal w it h ex and pr pare for the aft rli fe; and 1 a t but not lea t, which beliefs and groups to support or fi ght. Thus, when taken literal ly, the way fundamental L ts do. al1 reJ i CJion. are totalitarian i n the l iteral sense of the word: They prescribe w hat to think, feel , and do in all wal k . of per, onal and . ocial l i fe. Tn fact, fundamental i. t rel i CJion i. even more total i tarian than either Fa. cism or Com munL m, neither of which wa. concerned w ith diet, hygiene, or sex . Ba i cally, all rel igion ' ar ' ocially [md pol i ti call y conservati ve. For e ample, up until th ' n ineteenth century no organ ized rebgion except for such Christian dissident as th ' Levellers and the Qua}(, 'r. , objected to slavery or 'rfdom war political per 'cution, or the death penalty e en while proclaiming th ' fre dom of r 'ligiou con i ousn ' . . For in 'tanc " th ' B ible rul 's th ' way infid 'Is must be dealt with namely stoned to death ; daughters may be sol d ; and l av ' m u t be treated-i n particular b aten up and k i l 1ed. M atth w ( 25 : 29 famou. l y . tat d what should be named the Gosp 1 of Soc ial Inj u . tice: '"For to e eryone who ha. , more wi11 b gi en, and he w i l l hav abundance; but from h i m who doe . not have ev n what h ha. w i l l be tak n away." And Pau l , t he organi zer of Chri stianity, admoni shed servants to obey their mao t r. "with fear and trembli ng' Ephe. i ans 6: 5 ) . There are two rea 'on ' for the pol i t ical conservati ' m o f religion ' . One i . that a r l ig ious canon i . a body of 'criptures regarded as perfect-though perhaps i n need of ' interpr tation"-hence fi xed and val i d for all t i me ' and under all 'oe ial order ' . The other reason i s that rel i gi on ' attempt to shi ft our gaze from pain fu l l i f t o b l i ' 'fu l afterli fe. Thi s i ' why r l igion ' can be used as tool ' of social control : Becau 'e they tend to defend the statu quo and div rt attention from se u l ar matter to the p r on . relation w ith on or more u nattainable and i n scrutable yet all g d l y omnipotent deitie . The man-deity r l ation i one of utt r d pend nc . The faithful i a supplicant. H e k neel " begs rep nts aton . promi e and m akes offer ing . : he hope rather than demand complain, or work w ith other for j u tke. In other word , rel igion demean both the per on and the pol i ty. I n particu lar, it either i gnores civic rights and dutie al together, or i t exhort the faithfu l t o obey the law o f the land and fonow the a d i ce of a faith -ba ed pol itical party. Thi , the general credu lity and concomitant political meekness of the true be lie er i why al l the con er ati ve political movemen t and partie have fo tered rel igion . A M a h i avell i tated in h i fi rst Discorso 1 940: 1 50 " l i l t i . . . the duty of prince and head f stat f republ i to
218
Political Philosophy
or upply . ocial e rv ice . in particular, the British parli amentarianc who designed the New Poor Law ( 1 832), and the Chri . tian Coalition that propo, ed the Contract w i th the American Fam i l y ( 1 995 in oked the Prote. tant pri n iple "Everyone for him. elf and God for al1 , and clai med that poor rel ief only breed. l azine . . and i negi ti macy (. ee H i l ton 1 99 1 ; H ick, 2006 . The , elf-styled . oldier. of hri. t (or of Moham med ) fight for what they caU ' fami ly val ues. ' In particular, the mo t i n fl uential A m e rican rel igiou lead 'r of the day head the so-ca l l 'd Pro- L i f ' movement, which seek s to ban fam i l y plan n i ng abortion, gay marri age and a si ' ted . u ic ide. Howev 'r, t hey hav ' no probl ' m when i t come to m i l i tary aggre i o n the g u n i ndu. try gender dL crim ination , tortur ' or th ' death penalty. A t the same t i m e the e fai t h fu l c l a i m that there c (U] b ' no morality without rel igion, ,md that poli t i c ' hou ld be the ecu l ar arm of r l i gion. B ut actual1 y t hey betray the l i beral i n terpretati on of the Go. pel . ( or of th Koran as commanding tolerance compassion, ju. t ice . ol idarity. and inclu. i venes . . Thu . in. lead of helpi ng moral i ze poli t ics, t hey contribute to what former U . S . President Carter ( 2005 ) cal 1 . America's moral crisi . . I n particul ar, th powerful A merican Rel i giou. R ight att mpts to sub vert the t wo-centuries-old trad i tion of American pol i t ic " which i s c learly secular and in particular, m andate ' the 'eparation of state ,md church. So far they hav succeeded i n havi ng reJ igiou ' organization ' rec iv 'tate subsidie " placing obstac les to the teaching of evolutionary biology, and ban n i ng same- ' x marriage and a . - isted suicide in mo · t ' tates. They have also ' ucceeded in h i ding the powerfu l corporate i n te rests that fund thei r morali tic rhetori c. Let me now qual i fy t h above a ertion that r l igion i s naturally on servati and anti-egal itarian. Th re ar at lea t h¥O impo rtant exception. to thi . g nerali zation : the . venteenth century Eng l i h Puritan (uld th h¥enti th-century A frican-Am rican Baptist · . I ndeed both groups tran lat d i nto politics L uther ' pri n i ple that al l men ar equall y quali fi ed to interpret the scripture and participate in the go emance of the chu rch: They generaHzed this pri nciple to political egali tarian i sm, again t ari s tocratic rule in the first ca e. and again t White raci m in the econd. The adoption of I lamic fundamentalism by the Arab nationalist in the early 1 950 look s i m ilar a thi movement fought B ri t i h and French i m perialism. B ut they combined this progre i e endeavor w i th the reactionary atte mpt to i n tall a theocracy headed by clerics who re j cted e erything m dern ex ept f r guns ar t Ie i s i n s ts, and cattle
ontention and
egotiation
219
prod. for torturc . So thi case too confirms the gcneralization that, as a rule, strict rel igiou. ob. er ance is i ncompat ible w i th democra y and enlightenmen t . H owe er i t doe, not fol 1 ow that secu larL m g uarantees democ racy and cultural progre" . We have , een plenty of secular di ta tors, . uch as tal i n , oppre. sing their opponent� j u . t a. cruel1y a. their rel i giou. counterpart, . Actu al 1 y, the d i fference between faith-driven and i n tere. t-driven pobtics i ' more apparent than real for in both 'asc 'p 'cial m atcrial i ntcr ' ts arc actual ly mor ' pow 'rfu l than lofty principlcs. I ndeed there ha ' always been a R 'l i giou Right, w h i l ' th ' Reli g ious Lcft ha bcen marginal ,md condemncd by the ecde i astic authoritic . A ft 'r al l , the two r ' olution that br 'd modcrn d 'mocracy-the Am 'rican onc of 1 776 and the Frcnch one of 1 789-were ecular movemcnt strongly i n fl u 'n cd by fr 'cma onry. Thi s suggest that the Rcl igiou ' R ight favor. th i nterest. of th u nenlightened rich e en i f the bulk of its con. titu ncy is far from affl uent. L uckily, ther i . an alternati v to both raw ( or cynical) and c loaked or hypocritical pol i tic. , namely the bared (or pri nc ipled one in. pired by human i . t ic pri nc i ple. and driven by I giti mat i n tere. ts. Th fol low ing d iagram x hibit. the m ai n d i fferences between the three types of pol i ti c ' i n que ·tion. R a w Politi
Cloaked Polifi
s
M arketing t ri k.
Spe ial mat rial Lnterests
s
Bared Politi 's
i
i
M arketing t ri k.
S c iote hnology
i
i
e tarian mora l i ty
J lumani
t moral ity
i Spe ial material i n tere. t a) Fig. 6. 1 a) Raw
(b
I .;egitimal intere. t c
lachia\'eUian or cynicaJ) · ( b ) cloaked (hypocriticaJ . and c) bared (principled) politic".
Let mc fi nally warn agai n st th ' popular i dea that icnce i s pow 'r. Franci. Bacon, and two eenturi s later Augu. te omte too . aw science a. a . ouree of power, because both men conftat d science w i th technology.
220
Political Philosophy
I n our time M ichel Foucaul t and Jurgen H aberma repeated thi the is, and the po. t-Mertonian . ociologists of science write about "technosci ence . ' Th i . i. a n elementary onfu. ion for ba, ic scienti. t, attempt t o under. tand the world not t o control i t-the goal o f technolog i st. . For in, tance, n uclear engi neer. can , ell thei r . ervi es to the m i l itary and the n uc lear i ndue try, but n uclear phy. ici. ts are utterly powerle . . -a. I know from per, onal experi ence . B a. ic chem i. try biology and social . ience ar ' ' i nlilar. Th ' 'transl ations" from ba ' ic s ' ience to appl ied science to te hnology to the economy or the tate r q u i re brains trained ,md moti ated in way ' other than thos ' that produce ba. ic sci 'nee. Moreoy 'r, uch ' tran lation " ar ' r 'm arkabl y i n 'ffi ient i n that only a tiny fraction of th , fi nd ing of basic re earch ev 'r g ,t to be u sed in i ndustry or poli t ic . Th ' 'transla tion' chain looks rough l y thu : Basic s :i 'JIlC 'J
� AppLied scien e � TechnoLo Indus!r or ov c>rnmenl
�
where only about one-hundredth of a source i. us d a. an i nput to the sink. The n t result i s that only b twe n one i n a hundred thousand, and one in a m i l l ion, 'cient i fic fi nding ' are u 'ed in the exerci 'e of real economic or pol i tical ) power. For example there are only a few hundred chemical l y di fferent pre 'cription drugs, wherea ' chemist · have ' ynthesized oyer ten m il l ion chemical ' . U n ' u rpri ' i ng ly, a n um ber o f postmodern writer ' , who would be u nable to tell an electric diagram [rom a th rmodynamic graph have 'pre ad the alarm i ng rumor that · ienti fic re earch i ba ' ical l y the earch for power. A number of I f- tyled po t-M rtonian . ociologi t , of sci n ha been saying thi 0 er th pa t three decad . .g. Foucault L 969; B loor J 976; Latour and Woolgar 1 979). The 'o-called F m i n i t pi temologi ts hay fol low d ' u i t : They claim that scientific theorie are .i u · t torie . er i ng h gemonic goal : The goal of c i ntific re ' ar h would not be truth but power, i n particul ar that of men over women e.g. H arding 1 986; Tuana and Tong, ed . 1 995 ; H araway 1 998). Like the rest of the po t modern crowd, these w ri te r feel no need to exhibit any u pporti ng evidence. Far from it they ignore the myriad sci entifi c tudies dri ven only by c u ri o i ty. such a tho e about tar di nosaur , and ancient civilizations. Wor e, they glos over the wel l-known fact that c ientifi the des are not accepted unle they pass rigor u t ts, and that tell i ng . cientific trut h contrary to th rul ing i deology
ontentlon and
egotlatlon
22 1
c an b d angerou w here a teac h i ng feln i n i t phi l o ophy i deem d to be ' po l i ti ca l l y correct." , 0 m uch s that no " e m i n i . t theori . t h as ever bee n . ubjected to anyth i ng c l . to G a l i leo 's trial or t the S copes M o n key Tri al in 1 925. The. e w ri ters i g nore the facts t h at ba.o;; i c sci e n t i st are pow erl s s ; that w hat m ake. t h e m tick a r c u ri sity and peer recog n i ti o n ; a n d that they ri. k . trac i . tTl a n d unemployment i f caug h t � rg i ng data� pre. ent i ng specul ation a o l i d fi nd i n g . p l ag i ari z i n g . r r fu i ng t share their know ledge ( Mert n 1 97 . The p t modern also i g nore that ne cann t get ahead i n ba i c cienc w i thout a modicum of tru t, becau e everyon bu i ld up n hi predecess r . for exampl bioI g i t u e chem1c al reac t ion formu l a . ch m i t trust table of phy leal c n tant , an d physici t tru t m athematical the re ms. Thi i s w h y f rgery i th u l t i m at crim in basic c ie nce : D ecau e a re arch pr �ect w i l l be v i tiat d if it bui lds upon fake fi nd i n o . . otice, howe er, that we are w ri t ing about t ru st, not b l i nd faith : Tru t i n ol ve. the ri ght to doubt and the duty to reject shou ld dou bt turn out to be j usti fi ed. ometh i ng i m i l ar g e. on in seri ou. soc i al cience. Thu the pol i tol o i st w i l l trust the . tat i sti g athered by demog raphers and ec nom i . t s thou o h n t nece ari l y al l the i r t h ories. L i kew i . e. few w i l l q u e t i o n the e mpi rical fi ndings f poli t 1 gi t , but everyone hould "xami n " car " ful l y th "ir theories, and thi for tw rca ons. One i s that m ost of them arc couched i n ord i n ary l anguage w h ich i k now n t be i m prec ise and fu l l of metaphor and ther heuri t i c and rhetori c d "vi ces. A nother reason for b " i ng n guard i that c i a1 cienti t l iv " cry cl e to cial i de 1 gy. I ndeed, the tran l at10n ff m ocial t he ry to poUtical practice is a far sh rter proce s than that from . say m o lecu l ar biology to agricul tur . ThL is w hy. wh rea. n r putable n at ural scientL t e corted Plat to S yracuse m an y a pro� ssor of c i al . c i n c ha d ubled as p I i t ic al c nsultant r even pol i ti c al ru ler: Recal l the c a. es f Pr � . . ors Wo de w W i l on Leo t rauss Talc tt Par. 11. , He nry K i s i n g r amuel Hunti ngton J an K i rkpatrick, Thomas , chel l i ng and o nd leezza R i c . I n sum , w he n faced w i th a p l i ti e al th ry or a p (j 'y pre eri p t i n i t 1 . pruden t t o ob rve t h e w arn i n g : 'he,., hez Ie p lt V it.' rather th an th ' l a. . ical . he,., h , Ia fc mme.f B ut on sh u ld n t e agg rat ueh suspicion, for th "a ert i n that . 'icnce emb dies p w r rel atl n shjps i s i ther obv ious o r w ron o • b e 'au e v ryth i ng i n s e iety i i n fl u ne t by P wer r lations. B ut th i doc not m ake sci e n ' less s 'ientifi e" C aste l ls
007 : 1 57 ). The truth m ay or may not m a ke u fre : o n l y pol i ti c al power m ay i nc arcerate us.
...
222
Political PWlo ophy
8. Re ime C hange
Thus far we ha e d(;al t w i th con t ntious pol itics as usual . We shaH n ow g l i mpse at drastic p l i t ical chang ': r 'gime change. L ·t us begi n by recal l ing th · diff! rcnc(;s b tween poli tical and social re l ut ions and betwee n qui t and v iolent n.: olutions. (For d tail t;d studj 'S Si;C S kocpol 1 979; G Uff 1 980 ; McAdam Tarrow and Til ly 200 1 ; Ti l l y 2003, 2006; Picke l 2006.) M i l i tary coups and i n surg 'ncics agai nst for 'ign occupants are pure l y pol i t i c al proc e : t h y need n o t i nvol v a r e tru turi ng of ociety. The A merican R vol ution i a c l a i al exam ple of the form r w herea the fre nch R volution wa a ocial revol ution. Thi d i ft r nc e caped n e i th r K i n g Loui X V I nor t h e B r i t i h ons rvat i ve E d m u n d B urke . Th y both upp rt d the form r w h i le ppo i ng the l at ter. N or d i d i t cape th Am rican gov rnment t h at upp rt d fulgen io B at i sta's coup and u b eque n t dictator hlp ov r a qmuter of a century but oppo d e a tro ' revo l u t i o n . The l atter wa. i n i t i a l l y a pure l y po l i tical mo em nt but, tha n k. t Am ri can and 0 iet meddl i ng i t . oon t urned j ust as t tal as the R us. i an Revol uti n . Quiet re oluti on. a r f cour. e t h s e that d not i nvol e bloodshed. They are of two k i n d. : those brought about by p I i t ical m ement that re. ort only t peacefu l . treet dem n. tration. ci i l d i s bed i e nce, and leg i l at i n; and th se re u l t i n g fr m I V·l s c i al tran formation . uch a i ndu tti al i zat io n and cuiruizati n . The " e l vet ' rev l u t i n i n Eastern Eur pe between 1 989 and 1 99 1 w ere f the fi r t k i n d . They ucce ded becau the comm u n i t r g i m e w ere n longer abl to deli er th prom i ed g od : People aw o n TV that their cap ital i t n ighbor nj yed a better and fr er L i fe than their w n . Thus, if n ic al l y, the Ea t Europe an revol ted agai n. t fOnll al l y e o al i t ari an re o i m e b cause in pra t ice they i nvol ved i nequal i t y-between the rna. ses and the l1omPll klatura- n t p f scarci ty. A nd the re olu tion trallquil/p in Q ue b c b tween the m i d- 1 950s and the m id- 1 9 60s led from authori t ari an i . III t o de mocracy as a re. u l t f urban i zation educat i o n , secul ari z at i o n , and ther gradual soc ial chanoe . . B y contra. t the Pari s stude nt Ore l ution' of 1 968, w i th its andali 111 and chi ldi h l ogan II uf, tout de suite o n ly h arde ned con ervati 111 and \ eakcned thc Lcft. We ju t learnt an elcm "ntary tru th, that peacc fu l rc luti n m ay bri ng radical change , w hercas vandaUsm and blo d hed m ay ha e n la t i ng tructural eonsequ " nec . 0, w he n p l an n i ng or e aluati ng a rcg i m " chang " we m ust anal y ze i t i n t a mc an s-c nd couple. I n pri nciplc thcr " are � ttl' possible p ai r. f t h i k i n d :
ontention and
egotiation
223
Moderat mean -Moderate end
Moderate m ea n -Radi af end
Radi 'at m )ans-Mod rate end
Radical l'1'z eans-Radi al end
Pre, u m ably, mOe t citizen. in any society are moderate. and are more fri ghtened by radical means than by the threat or promi. e of radical ends. Only a m i nority L w i n ing to reo ort to radical mean. repre . . ion or upri. ing) to . ecure the . tatu. quo or at most a slight aheration of i t . In sum, mO. t citizen s preferences would seem to be th ' . ': M M > M R > R M > R R. I t i s up to pobtical strategi , t to t ry and d i cover whi 'h m 'ans-end combination i more l i ke ly to succeed at a g iven t i nle . B u t they w i l l fai l t o p i ' k the w i n n i ng trategy i f they only cons u lt pubbc opinion : i t i s at least 'quaily i nlporHmt to assess the government 's capacity to 'nforce i t. pobtical d 'ci.ions ( se . Til ly 2007 . For exampl ' M i khail Gorbache 's team which had attempted to ffect a chang of th MR type from abov . wa. ea. i l y toppled i n 1 99 1 because i t had become i m pot nt and l acked new con. trllctive ideas . W h at is l i k I y to spark off a social revolt? I n a lett r writt n i n I 5 . Tocque ille 1 98 5 : 296 remarked that ' f i lt i. almo. t n ver when a stat of thi n gs i. the most detestable that i t i . sma. hed, but wh n, b ginn ing to i mprove, it permit · men to breathe, to reflect, to com m u n icate their thought ' with each other, and to gauge by what they already ha e the e xtent of their right ' and their grievances . The w ight, although le 's heavy, 'eem ' then all the more unbearable." An empiri cal study of data from 1 5 2 countrie ' in th period 1 1 6- 1 992 would seem to con fi rm and generali :te Tocquev i lle' . hypoth ' i s: The relation between d mocracy and dome tic v iolence would b an i nverted U-. haped c u rve. That i hard dictator hip ' and on i ' tent democraci would x peri nee few r c i i l war ' than . oft d ictator h i p ' . b eau the l atter al low for a mea u r o f oppo ' ition Hegre et al . 200 J . How ver, ther ar i mportant xception . . . llch a the Spani h Civil War 1 936-39) and the m i l i tary coups ngin er d by American . py ag nci ' around the world over the pa t century. I n the e ca es m i l i tary power wa u ed to protect threatened economic pri ileges mainly those of the landed ari tocracy and A merican corporation . In any event , a study of 1 27 civil war d u ring the 1 945 -99 period Fearon and Laitin 2003 ) ugge t a far more complex picture : I n u rgency i no Ie frequent i n democ rade than i n alternative pol i tical reg i me ; nor doe ethnic, l i n gui stic and rel igi u d i versity favor i n u rgency ; n t even sharp i n rea e i n i ncome i nequal i ty u ffices.
224
Political PWlo ophy
Tru B rzez i n ki (2 4 : 1 29, fn 1 7 ) a notoriou e x p rt i n n atio nal security, w h en d i scussi ng the re l at i n between the ,ini i nde (the . t an dard tTl a s u r f i ncom i n equal i t y and . ocietal i n . tabi l i ty, . t ated that 0.4 repre. ents "a danger us Ie e l " and 0.59 the u rban -rural i nequal i ty i n h i n a by 200 ' a threat t o , i e tal stabi l i t y." B ut B razi l , h i n a the U n i ted S tates, B ri tai n and other n at i o n s ha e surpassed th at l eve l and yet n s iat rev l u tion i . i n . ight in the m . ....
S t ark econ m i c i nequal i ties m ay spark i s J ated r i t but they are i n u ffi cient to m b i l i z J arge m asse f pe p I w i l l i ng to ri k the ir l ive in chaU ng i ng the s c ial rder by v ioJent mean s . A lthough there are many reI vant fact r , 0 far i n lust ry the deci i e ne h a e bee n state w aknes a reg i m e that m i xe dem ocratic w i th authorit ari an feature , a l arg rural popu l ation. forei g n g vernment or dia p ra w i l l i ng to help the re be J s, and ab ve aU r voJut i n ary rgani zati n . N o revoJutl n can succeed w i t h u t org a n ization. In R � anda i n I 94, t h e H utu were able t m assacre nearly one m i l l i n Tutsi in about 1 0 day. becau e they had bee n i n power for 0 er two decades and were w e l l rg anized i n the H utu Po� er mo ement. The abo e fi nd i n g s con fu te the popul ar v i ew on the m ai n source of civ i l war: Eth nicity, ul tural pl ural i sm , n at i onal i sm , econom ic grievances, and rapid moderni zation . How ever, I Ub1l1 i t that the t udy i n que ti n underrates the i m p rt ance f econom i c grievances. Th " C m ne " ci i l war, the l arge t- calc soc i a l re J u t i n in hj story, w as to a l arge exten t a fight bet , e "n pea ants and their l and lord and moneyl "nder . the Viet n ames " i nsUl'gent fought at the ame t ime � r "ign occupier successively France, Japan , and the U n i ted tate ) and i ndigenous l andow ner � t he C I m b i an gu rri I Jas hay been fighting landow n rs and th i r parami l i t ary squad. a w e l J as th n at i o n al army for half a cent ury ; the R w andan ge noc ide and the vari lL upri s i ngs and c i il w ars i n I nd i a Pale t i n . H ai t i the Ph i J i p p i ne s I ndone i a . A ng la and e l s w he re w r l arge J y ov r scarce land and w ater or over oil r d i am nds. B ut non f those mov m nt were spo n t an u . . They w er al J c nducted by w e l l -organi zed w e l l trai ned, and w J J -arm t gr ups. Hence the u n real i sm o f al l t h pureJ y ec nom ic In de J o f c i v i l s t ri fe , parti 'ul arJy thos that , Uk B o i x '. (2003 ), i n o l v t h tw ghost. f neoc1 a leal m icr c n mic . nam Jy ubjcct i e u t Hi ty and , ubj ctive probabi J i ty. W h o 'an know a priori other pe pIe's uti l i ty functi n , and w hat sen s docs it make t stimat the pr babi l i ty of an in urg ncy gi e n that i t i a ny t h i n o but a random v n t? Hence the foU ow i ng poL i cy recommendation : to avoi d i n urg ncy for n ational i ndepe nd nc , the occupying p wer should w ithdraw u ncon-
ontention and
egotiation
225
d itionally from the 0 'cupied territory ju t l ike B ri tain did w ith India. And to a oid c i i l war, ruler. should l i sten to the downtrodden, de. ign and i mplement plan. of i n tegral development (biological , economi , pol itical and cultural ) l i ke l y to per. uade them that they can benefi t more from working to i mprove their way of l i fe than from perform i n CJ act. of violence. Even the former Shah of Iran under. tood thi. but he . pent far more time on armament and i n ternal repre . . ion than on . ocial refon11 ' on top of which h ' was s 'en as th ' regional repr ' 'entativ ' of "the Great Satan." Genoc ide d . 'er es special mention i f onl y because it i s one of the few cau e that j u ,tify m i litary i nt 'rvention of the United N at ion . . Regret tably so far g 'nocide wa seldom prey 'nted even after the creation of the U N . For exampl ' in 1 994, when H utu tarted k i l l i ng Tutsi i n R wanda, the U . S . S tat · D 'partment r ' fu 'ed to use that word, w h i le adm i tt ing that 'acts of genoc ide" were happ ning with increasi ng i nt n. ity and fre quency. A. a con. equenc the U N force. were ordered not to u. e force to . top the mao . acre. Ironically fi e years l ater th same U . S . gov rnm nt pushed ATO to bomb Serbia, in violation of th N Chart r, k i l l i ng an . ti mated 1 0,000 c i v i l ian. and de. troying hospi tals, factories, bridges. TV . tation. and oth r ei i l ian in. tal lations. I t alleg d that th S rbi an government wa ' g u i lty of genocide agai n ·t the Ko 'ovar ' . ventually i t became c lear that the genoci de had been i nvented to give ATO a pretex t to 'et foot i n the region : It turned out that the Serbi,m '-certainly no 'aint '-had only di splaced a few thou ',md A l banians from Ko ·ovo. ccording to the Canadian amba ' 'ador to Yugo ' lavia at th t i m ( B i ssell 2007 ' [t]he real ethnic c leansing came after Serbian [orce ' w i thdrew and mor than 200,000 Serb , Roma. Jew ' and other non - Al banians were for ed to fl : Moreov r mo. t of the ATO bomb fel l on S rbi an c i i l ian popul ation and i n tal lation · . Ther are no good war . So much for attempt to change the ocial ord r through v iol n t mean . L t u . n o w r turn t o blood l ' S r e olution . T h ' p o n o moral probl m as long a they i nt nd to redre eriou ' ' oc i al i nj u .tice . Th problem ari e when weighing the con equence . L i fe i n the majority of the e x-Com m u n i t nation , particu larly Ru i a is now omewhat freer but al so far har her than ever. The vast m ajori ty of people are now m uch poorer. icker, Ie employed and above all more hopele than before. In Ie than a decade. male life expectancy and tudent enrol lment dropped precipi tou ly, while i ncome i nequal i ty doubled and crime ro e sharply World Bank 1 997 . True now the ex-S v iet c i ti zen an vote-but ballots do not nouri. h. The nly go d re ult f thi blood Ie rev l ut i n fr m '
ontentlon and
egotlatlon
225
dHional l y fr 111 the ccupi d territ ry j u t Uk B ri ta i n did w it h I n d i a. A n d t avoid ci i l w ar ru lers should l i ste n t the dow n trodde n , design and impl m e n t p l an s o f i ntegral development biological economic po l i tical, and c u l tural ) l i ke l y to per. u ade th m that they can bene fi t more from worki ng t o i mpr ve their w ay o f l i fe than from perform i n g act s f v i lence. ven the form r h ah of I ran under. t o d t h i s, b u t h e spent far more t i m e on arm am e n t a n d i nternal r pre . . ion t h a n n . oc i al reform on t p of w hi c h he was een a the reg ional r pre entat i e of r at S atan . ' n oc i de de e rv pec i al mention i f on l y because it i ne of the few cau that ju ti fy m i l itary i ntervention f the U n i ted Nations. Regr ttabl y, s far gen oc ide wa se ldom pre e nted ven after the cre ation of th U N . For example, in 1 994, when H utu tarted ki l l i ng Tut i in R wa nda, the U . . S tate D epartment re fu ed to u that w ord , w h i l e admitting that , acts of oe noc ide were happe n i ng � ith i ncreasi ng i nte nsity and fre quency. As a con eque nce the N forces were ordered not to u se � rce to stop the m a acre. Iron ical l y, fi ve years l ater the same . . government pu hed ATO t bom b erbia, i n v i l ation of the N harter. k i l l i n o an e t i m ated 1 0,000 civ i l ian. and destroy i n o ho pi tals, factories, bri dges T tati ns, and other civi l i an i n stal latjons. It al l eged that the S erbian go ernment w as guilty f genoc ide ag ai n t the Kos a1' . vent uaU y i t becam e c le ar that t h e genocide h ad been i nvented t g ive ATO a pretex t t et f ot i n t h regi n : It turned ut t hat the erb i an -certai n J y no a i n t -had n l y di placed a few t hou and A l banian fr m Ko Accord i n g t the Canadian am bassador t Yugosl av i a at the t i m e ( B i ett 2 07 , ' [ t J he real et h n i c clean i ng came after erbian forces w i t hdrew '>
and more t h an 20 00 erbs R ma, Je\ s and th r n n - A l ban i an s w e re � reed to flee . M reov r, mo t f the AT bom bs fel l on S erbian c i Wan p pul ations and in tal l ations. There are no g od w ars. o m uc h for atte mpts to chang the s cial order thr ugh viol n t mean . Let u s n w return t bloodJ . s r e o l utions. T h . e pose n o m ral problems as long as t h y i nte nd t r dress eri u. s c i al i nj ustices. Th pr blem ari s when w i gh i n o the con quences. L i fe in the maj rity o f th exm m u n i st nation , particularly R u i a, i s n w . omew hat fr r but al so far h ar. her than ver. T he ast m aj ri ly of pe p I e are now m uch p or r. icker, l ss empl yed, and ab aU m or hopc le . . than be fore. In I e than a d cade, m al e L i � expectancy and stude nt e n roJ I m nt dropped pr cipil u l y, w h i l e i ncome i nequal i t y doubled, and crim r s sharply ( World B an k 1 9 7). Tnt now t h x -S ov iet citiz n c an vote-but bal lots do not nouri h. Th only good result of thi b loodl e re olution from
226
Political Philosophy
above i a pol i tical democracy of sort -albei t one eriou l y dL torted by corruption and the power exerted by a few ol igarchs, recon. tructed apparal 'hiki, and national L t demagogues. Regretfu l l y, pol i tical . cience i n tho, e countrie. i. , ti l l too you n g to help, and a new pol i tical phi l osophy (or phi lo. ophy of hi tory ) h as yet to replace the moth-eaten M arxi t dogma . . I n particul ar, no known East European. have come up with a v i . ion combi ning egal itarianL m w i th democracy, a program that m ight attract peopl ' di i I l u 'ion 'd with both authoritarian com numism and the n w o l igarc hic apitali m . ( More on thi s in c hapt 'r 9 . ) In sum, iolent regi m ' chang 's, whether r 'volutionary or ountcf-rcvo lutionary, do not orne hcaply, and they seldonl satisfy thc e x p 'ctation s of the main a 'tors 'C G U ff 1 9 0 ) . i n particu lar t h c economjc ' shoc k therapics' practiced i n the ex-Soviet rcpublics aft 'r t hc d i s olution of th Soviet U nion h av been d i . a. trOLl . . Re o l ution and count r revolution are always b rought about by e l i t . and they wr ak hav oc i n p rsonal l ive, . Should w th n always pref r reform to re olution . G iven th choice, certainly . ince iolenc i . morall y objectionabl a n d hard to control . B ut such choic i s extremely rare. Ordinari ly the i ncumbents refus to compromi 'e becau 'e t hey would lose everytrong if they gave i n. Thi . explain ' the occ urrence of independence war ' throughout t he colonie ' on fou r continents 0 er two centu rie ' , a ' well as th m any i n 'urrection . against u npopul ar government ' around the Thi rd World. Why should Bati · ta, Casti l lo A rma ', Du ali er, Marco ' M obut u, Pinochet, t he Shah, Somoza, Truj illo Van Thieu, uharto Mu 'harraf, and thei r i lk hav made any once ion to their oppon nt · a long a . th Y could go on oppre ing and ft ecjng th i r people und r A m rican protection� I t would b e n more n ai to b l i eve that they would have I i t ned to any pol i t ical philo. ophers ad ising th m mod ration. The pre iou. con i deration ' ar not l i mited to the Am rican 'pher of i n ft u nce. S i mi l ar · jtuation occurred in u h far-fl ung and d i '. i m i l ar countrie a Mexi co, rona, and R u ia. Two year before i uing h i call for revol ution, Franci co Madero tried to persuade the Mex ican dictator Porfirio D iaz to democrati ze the country that he had oppre ed for three decade . A year later Sun Vat Sen became yet another rel uctant revolu tionary. I n 1 9 1 7 Keren ky, the fi r t R u i an pre i dent, fai led to m ake eparate peace w i th Germany. By al10wing the carnage at the front and h unger behi nd th l i ne to go n hi govern ment prac tical ly invi ted the t iny B l she ik Party at the head f p pul ar dis ntent. In all three case
226
Political PWlo ophy
abo\' i s a pol i tical democracy of ort -al beit, one s rl u ly di torted by c rruption and the p wer exerted by a few ol igarchs, rec n. tructed apparal h iki, and n ational i . t demagogues. Regr t fu l l y pol i tical . c i e nce in tho. e c u n tries i . . t i l l too young to help and a n w pol i tical ph i l osophy or phi l sophy of hi. tory ) h as yet to rep l ace the m th -eaten M ar i. t d g m a. . T n particul ar, no k now n E ast uropeans have c me up w i th a i . i n c m bi n i ng egal i tari a n i . m w i th democracy, a pr gram that m ight attract pe pIe di i L lu i o ned w i th b th authoritari an c m m u n i sm and the n w l i g archic capit al i m . ( M or n til i i n chapter 9 . ) I n sum , v i lent regime change , w hether revolu tionary o r c u n t r-r vo lutionary do not come cheapl y, and th y e l d m atlsfy the e x pectat i o n of t h e m ai n actor ( ee urr 1 980 . I n part i cu l ar. the conom i c " hock therapie ' practiced in the x- vi t repu b l i c s after the d i s o l u t i o n of t h e 0 i e t n i n h ave bee n disa t rou . . R e l ut i o n and counter revol u t ion are a l � ays br ught ab u t by e l i te. and t h e y w reak hav in per o n al l i ve s . houl d we the n alway prefer re� rm to re l ut i o n ? G iven the choice, certain l y, s i n e v iole nce i mora l l y objec tionable and h ard to control . B ut such ch ice i e xt remely rare. Ord i nari l y the i ncumbents re fuse to c m pr m i e becau e t hey would 10 e '>verytrn ng i f they gave i n . Thi explai n t he ccurrenc '> of i ndepe nd '> nce w ars throughout the colonic n four con t i ne n ts er two ce nturies, a well a t he m any i nsu rrecti n agai n t u npopu l ar g vern tnent arou n d the Third W rid. W h y sh uld B ati ta, a ti l Lo A nna Du al ier M arco , butu, Pi nochet, t he h ah, om za Truj iHo, Van Thieu, uhart , Mu harraf, and their i lk have m ad '> any cone i o n to thei r opponents as long as they c u l d go on ppress i ng and fleecing the i r peoples und r A merican protecti n . It w u ld be en m ore n al e t bel ieve that they wou ld h av I i te ned to any pol i t ic al phi losoph rs ad ising th m m oderati n . The previ us c n i derations a r n t l i m ited t o th A me ri c an . phere of i n fl ue nce. , i m i l ar situations occurred i n uch far-fl ung and d i s i m i l ar coun trie. as M e x i c , e rn n a, and R ussia. Tw year. b fore i s. u i ng hj call for re v l ution, Francisc M ader hied to persuade the M x ican d ictator Porfi ri D faz to democrati z the c u n try th at h had oppre cd f r thr decad s . A y ar l at r u n Yat en be 'aIn yet an th r re l uctant re olu ti onary. In 1 9 1 7 Ker n sky the fi rst R u i an p r i d nt, fai l d t m a� s parate peace w i th G nnany. B y aJ low i ng th carnag at the front and hung r b h i nd th l i ne to go on, hi govern m n t practical l y in i ted th tiny Bol h vik Party at the h ad of popul ar d i cont nt. In al l three ca
ontention and
egotiation
227
the rul r combi ned i ntran igence w i th i neptn and the revolutionaries . eized their opportunity. In other ca. es the re ol utionaries mLs their opportunity. An exem plary ca. e i . that of the Gennan 0 ial Democratic Party. which in 1 9 1 8 un. eated the Kai. er , go emment, but left the economic power and the j udiciary i ntact, and let the Freikorps-mi l itia. of officer. -hun t down M arxist. . Eager to , ave democratic formal i ties and earn the goodwi l l of their 'nemie , the Social Democrats betrayed their own i deal s ; even 0, e ighteen months l ar 'r they lost to the timjd parti '. that did not oppose the N az i takeo cr. By contra t Lenin and hi ' tiny party 'eized the unique opportunity afforded by the i n u mbent , who had refus d to m ake peace and fai led to r 'lie e th ' hunger of the urban worker . I n both ca. es the Germ an and the Ru ian th ' iolence that fol low 'd wa TIlad ' po ' ' ible by the unwi l l i ngn '. . of th ' tame Socialists i n power to effect real regime changes ( see La. ki 1 935 : 290-9 1 ). c
9. The
c
keptical C itizen
During two m i l l nnia th . k ptical phi lo. ophers hav warned agai nst r l igious dog ma and i nt I l ectual fraud. B ut non of th m , not even Sextu. Empiricus in A ntiquity, Franci . co S anch s in th RenaL . anc . Robert B oyle during the Scienti fic Revol ution, or David Hume in the Enlightenm nt, warned again ·t politica l m i rage ' and crim " which are far more deleteriou ' than any othe r ' . I n our t i me B e rt rand Ru " e l l , a part-time ' keptic, denounced the F irst World War and alerted u . again ' l both fa ' c i s m ,md So i e t communism. The following i s ,m attem pt t o ·tart fi l li ng thi ' gap. I w i l l argue that, becau 'e in matter ' pol i ti cal we ar a l l ycIop . t h i ngle ey had bett r b k ptical. To fore tall the i mpression that I will advocate radical or de t ru ti pol itical k ptici m . that i , anarchi m , l et me b gin by di ,tinguish ing it from mod rat or methodological ' k ptici m. Thi i the on t ru t i kepti i m a d ocated b y Gal i l 0 and Descart . and that i ' being practiced in scienc and technology, nam ly th on that r omm nd. doubti ng on ly before and after believ i ng ( Bunge 2000a). For i n tance, cienti t be lieve i n atomic phy i c and evolut ionary biology while know i ng that both are i mperfect and perfectible and thi i why they keep working on them. Doubt shake and critici m breaks, but neither m ake . and only maki ng count i n the end. I submit that, contrary to political fanatic , go d democ rat are moder ate keptics because they ar on guard again t po sible iolat i n of the rule f th dem cratic game: fraud corruption curtail ing basic l i bertie.
ontentlon and
egotlatlon
227
the ruler ombi ned i nt ranslg nc w ith In ptne and th r vol u tion ari se ized the i r pportun i ty. In other ca. es the re l ut i o n aries mi. s the i r opportu n i ty. A n exem p l ary ca. e i. that of th G rm an ocial Oem ratic Party, w h ich in 1 9 1 8 un. eated the Kaiser', g vern ment but left the econ m i c power and the j udici ary i ntact and let the Frpikorp '-m i l itia. of offi cers-hunt dow n M arxists. ager t , a e democratic form al i ties and arn the goodw i l l f their e ne m ie , the c i al D e m crat betray d their ow n i deal ; ven 0, eight en month l ater they 10 t to th t i m i d parties that did not ppo the N az i t akeover. lJ y c ntra t, Le n i n and h i tiny party eized the u niqu pport u n i ty af� rd d by the i ncumbent , w ho h ad re fu d to m ake peac and fai led to re l iev the h u ng r of the urban w rker . I n both case , th erm an and th Ru ian the v i lence that fol lowed wa m ade p ibl by the u nw i ll i ng ness of the t am e oclali t in p w er t e ffect real r g im changes see L a. ki 1 93 5 : 29 9 1 ) -
.
9. The Skeptical Citizen
D uring two m i l le n n i a the keptical phi losophers h ave w ar ned ag ai n t re l i o ious d g m a and i ntel l ectual fraud. B ut none of the m , not even ex tu. Empi ricu in A nt iquity, ranc i sc anche in the R e n ai ssance R b "rt B oyle duri ng the ' ci e nt i fi c R "volution, or David H um e in the n Ughte n ment, w arned ag ai n t pol itical m i rages and cli m es, w h i ch arc far m re delet " ri ou than any others. I n our time B e rt rand Ru e l l , a part -time keptic denou nced the First Worl d War and alerted u ag ai n t both fa c i m and 0 iet com m u n i m . The fol low i ng i s an attempt to t art Ii L L i ng thj gap . I w i l l arg u " that, because i n m atter pol i ti c al we arc a l l ycl opes t h e s i n g le y h ad better b e s keptical. To � restal l the impr ssion that I w i l l advocate radical r de t ruc t i v p I i t i c a l keptic i sm that i s anarc h i m let m begi n by dL t i ng u i shing i t from m od rate or methodolog i c al . kepti c i s m . Thi is the c n t ruc t i v sk pticism advocat d b y al ile a n d Descartes a n d that L being practiced in sci enc and t chn I gy name ly t h one that recommends doubti ng o n l y be for and after b l ie i ng ( B unge 2000a) . r i n t ance, . 'ie nti ts b lie in at m j ' phy. ics and o l uti n ary b i Logy w h i L know i ng that b th arc i m p rfect and p rfect i bl , and thi i why they ke p working on the m . Doubt shak s an t cri t ic i sm breaks, but n i th r m ake . . and n J y m ak i ng count. in th end. dem o rats arc mod rI subm it that1 c n trary to poLi ticaJ fan at ic , g ate keptics b c aus they ar on g u ard ag ai nst po i bJ vlolat i on of t h rul e of t h dem ocratic g am e : fraud corruption curtai l i ng basic l i b rties
228
Political PWlo ophy
m i l i tari 111 , and a o n . B y a ntra t the radkal k ptks I ok at all pol i t i w i th a j aundiced eye a n d therefore m argi nalize them. e l ves from p l i tics and thu. e n d up becom i ng its v i ct i m . . Dog matist. fare si m i l arly. They place themsel e. at the mercy of other. i n stead of act i ng for the common go d and agai n. t tho. e wh engage in an t i . cial act i i tie. , from m i . lead i ng the citizenry t m i l k i ng the publ i c tr asury to w ar-m nger i n g . Let u, g l i m p. at ten ki nds f l andm i ne that threate n anyone w ho dares w al ki ng n pol i tical t rrain : aivety, c n fu ion, err r, exaggerati 11 , unde r-e t i m at i n, pr phecy, deceit, pr 11115 ory n te, M achiaveU i an i m , a n d crime. 1.
Politico/ nail ety m o s t ru l c>rs
m e y be e l i t i t
r p p u l ar. Th
f rmer i
i m p ro i sat i o n s i n matt rs, s ll c h as seiene
p Ii y, that
req u i re expert k n o w ledge. A n d p p u l r p I it i c a l naivety c n ' i s t
in
b e l i ev i ng w h at"'\''''r p o l i t i c i a n s and th ir spokesmen and academ i c l ack y s d e l are .
OI�flJsion,
2.
r
q u a t i n g d i ffe re n t i t m . . W h e n de l i bera t ,
i ' a m i sdemeanor or e en a m aj o r cri m e . T h i In
wh n freed t
i
eq u ated w i t h fre
defe n se w i t h armed £1
p rodu c t i
L
0
e n te rpri e
g g re ' s i n ; th
e
r free t rade ; t h e ri g h t f t he mean
so i . l i za t i o n
f
w i th t h e i r nati nal i z .. t i o n ; patri t L In w i t h c hau i n i In ; and
inf rm at i n with p r paganda . A t t h i ' w ri t i ng I he p r fi le b l e
o n fu i n
h appen s , for i n -tan
f p l i t i al
n fu i n
i
111
that bet ween I h
· t p p u b r and
1 \\1
t pes
f ter
ro ri sm : from below or g roUt -sp n sored, and from above or peq e t rated b y a go e m m e n t o r g v e rn m e n t - s u p p rted p ram i l i ta r
sq u ad s . T h i
confu s i o n i s p l i ti c a l l y p ro fi ta b l e becau se i t a l l o w s a gO\ e rn m e n t t nd as
i nat p o l i t i c a l act i v i t w ho t k arm to h ra s n
gove rn m e n t or an i nvad i ng arm y, i n - tead
t ry
ppre si e
f attem p t i ng to reso l e the
ou tstan d i ng con fl ic t s t h rou g h n e o o t i a t i ng with them .
Envr i . i
0
j u s t a cOln m n in p l i t i
f. r l e s s fre u e n t in p I i t i c
case t h c re ar ian
a re
111
i n s ien e u t e rr r- rre c t i £1 . i e nce becau se i n th f nner
mat rial i n ter t at stake, and ecause tJH.: arec>r I o l i t i . t han [or t ru t h . B e ' i de , I he p I i t i i a n m a
r e f r r e ' 1I 1 t
com m i t m o ra l
rrors, t hat i s .
campai g n prom i se s t o that
8.
th. n in
c i e n t i t can d
r i m s of
ari o u s s i z s , from b rea k i n
iolating the i n ternat ional J aw w he r a s the worst i
t
lie
r teaL which ma
dam ge the c ie n t i fi c
comm u n i t y b u t hard l y affe t s the c i t i zen s h i p . P o l i t i c I e rr r s m a y be tact i caJ to :J C
r s t r t o i c . T h e latter
orrect becau se t h ey i n o l v e p r i n c i p l e s and goa l s . mm n . t rateg ic e rr r, and
f rge
n al i i nc
w i th the
nemy
f
\
rst
rr r.
h rde r 0
f this kind i. t
n e ' s e n e m y w i th t h e so l e
im
f
mm n a v e r 'ary. Th i s i a seriou 0 error w hen i t i n o l v e
defeating the
betray i ng p r i nc i p l e . A n t hc>r rr r the s - a i l ed
f th
n
r
pportu n i om i
H
te l l i ng l a w .
for a p l i t i a1 part
f t he -ame k i nd i to tak
cc r j ng I
it, it i
s rio u s l y
a l way a d antage
w
to s h i ft to the center of t h e ide l o g ical spectru m , s
ontention and
4.
5.
6.
egotiation
229
a t capture ad e� ary ot s. Th i trategy may i nd ed produ e r uJt i n the :hort run but i t i s suicidal i n the I n g run for as the d istan e between the ption offered the oter dccrea e , the moti ation to make a ehoi e weakens: he tends to abc tai n . The A merican Demo 'ratie Party and the European So 'ial i :t partie. ha e repeatedly been ictim. to tbi error. lothes of different col r ' shou l d be washed ·eparately. Era era/ion and IIllderestimtlfion too are quit ommon i n politi , ' . For example, lefti. t tend to a l l ' fa�ci. t. ' all auth ritarian. and rightist t nd to call " sociali t " the l i beral wh fa or lIn i r al health car . Und restimation i ju t a common a i . oppo ite, exagoeration . A n exampl " i ' M i hael Mann' (2004: 346 characterizati n of Franc r g i me as ' m i-r act iollary and rporati t authori tarian" rather than traight fas ist. And yet that regi me terrorized it ubje L� as much a any other right-\ ing dictator. hip ; and. as Mann him elf adm it . it too fa ored th i ntere! ts of the rich. Th rea on that Fran 'o's regime does not qual ify a ' fasci 't according to M ann is that its paramilitary organ ization, the Falange was small and ineffectual. But as we saw earl ier a dictator has no need for a parami litary orps of amateur thug hen he enjo s the . upp rt f the bulk f the armed f ree. plu th se of f reign p w er . In m y iew thi only h ws that Mann', defi n ition of "fa ci m" i fl awed. And when a ' hoe pin hes, i t mu t be repaired or di arded. Prophec\ i t h spe i alty f th religiou lead r, the ideolog i t wh claim t know the law of hi tory. the ec nomi guru . the fi nancial expert who banks n e l f- fu l fi ll ing pr p he ies, the unscrupulous politi cian, and the nake-oil vendor. Remember ome of thc m st i n fl ucntial yet fai led propheeie,' : that capital i . m i s about t o 'ollap e; that u nder social ism the state w i l l e entual ly w i ther away ; that free trade w i l l bring univeL'al pro p rity ; that democra y guarantee. peace, and so on . Some of t hose prophet , from Mo e and I aiah to J i m J ne" f J nco town . ini. ter fame, and George W. B u h ha e clai med t ha c had ad an ed noti e traight from the A l might . . Oth r. , l i ke M arx, Lenin, M a , and thei r followers, held that they knew what wa bound to hap pen becau e th . ma t red t he laws of hi t ry. And the hampion of free trade as the m agic bullet ba ed them el es n standard eeon m i theory, which has never predi ted a 'curatel y a n i mportant eeon m i event . Admittedly, it j hard t o makc correct predictions a b u t modern . o ' ieties and nation. v i tims of the 'reo ouree curse . M odernization, and the concomitant i ncrease i n . oc ial divers i ty and technological in novation ha. fa ored qui k unfore een 0 ial changes. Suffice i t to rcmember the m mentou . oc ial m utations rc. u l ti ng from thc team engi nc. the rai lway, the telegraph. the ar. the radi , TV the arti ficial ferti l izer, the ntra epti pill, and the c mpllt r. body predicted the Ru ' ' ian Revolution, the as ent f Nazi m the al l i ance again t the fa c i t Ax i , th i m p l ion f the Sovi t mpir , r the attempt t re,' u rre t the Cali phate . Nobody k nows any laws of h i st ry allow i ng ne to make detailed predicti n . So, beware pol i t ical prophet : Thcy are out to e l l u. nake oil. �
228
Political PWlo ophy
m i l i tari 111 , and a o n . B y a ntra t the radkal k ptks I ok at all pol i t i w i th a j aundiced eye a n d therefore m argi nalize them. e l ves from p l i tics and thu. e n d up becom i ng its v i ct i m . . Dog matist. fare si m i l arly. They place themsel e. at the mercy of other. i n stead of act i ng for the common go d and agai n. t tho. e wh engage in an t i . cial act i i tie. , from m i . lead i ng the citizenry t m i l k i ng the publ i c tr asury to w ar-m nger i n g . Let u, g l i m p. at ten ki nds f l andm i ne that threate n anyone w ho dares w al ki ng n pol i tical t rrain : aivety, c n fu ion, err r, exaggerati 11 , unde r-e t i m at i n, pr phecy, deceit, pr 11115 ory n te, M achiaveU i an i m , a n d crime. 1.
Politico/ nail ety m o s t ru l c>rs
m e y be e l i t i t
r p p u l ar. Th
f rmer i
i m p ro i sat i o n s i n matt rs, s ll c h as seiene
p Ii y, that
req u i re expert k n o w ledge. A n d p p u l r p I it i c a l naivety c n ' i s t
in
b e l i ev i ng w h at"'\''''r p o l i t i c i a n s and th ir spokesmen and academ i c l ack y s d e l are .
OI�flJsion,
2.
r
q u a t i n g d i ffe re n t i t m . . W h e n de l i bera t ,
i ' a m i sdemeanor or e en a m aj o r cri m e . T h i In
wh n freed t
i
eq u ated w i t h fre
defe n se w i t h armed £1
p rodu c t i
L
0
e n te rpri e
g g re ' s i n ; th
e
r free t rade ; t h e ri g h t f t he mean
so i . l i za t i o n
f
w i th t h e i r nati nal i z .. t i o n ; patri t L In w i t h c hau i n i In ; and
inf rm at i n with p r paganda . A t t h i ' w ri t i ng I he p r fi le b l e
o n fu i n
h appen s , for i n -tan
f p l i t i al
n fu i n
i
111
that bet ween I h
· t p p u b r and
1 \\1
t pes
f ter
ro ri sm : from below or g roUt -sp n sored, and from above or peq e t rated b y a go e m m e n t o r g v e rn m e n t - s u p p rted p ram i l i ta r
sq u ad s . T h i
confu s i o n i s p l i ti c a l l y p ro fi ta b l e becau se i t a l l o w s a gO\ e rn m e n t t nd as
i nat p o l i t i c a l act i v i t w ho t k arm to h ra s n
gove rn m e n t or an i nvad i ng arm y, i n - tead
t ry
ppre si e
f attem p t i ng to reso l e the
ou tstan d i ng con fl ic t s t h rou g h n e o o t i a t i ng with them .
Envr i . i
0
j u s t a cOln m n in p l i t i
f. r l e s s fre u e n t in p I i t i c
case t h c re ar ian
a re
111
i n s ien e u t e rr r- rre c t i £1 . i e nce becau se i n th f nner
mat rial i n ter t at stake, and ecause tJH.: arec>r I o l i t i . t han [or t ru t h . B e ' i de , I he p I i t i i a n m a
r e f r r e ' 1I 1 t
com m i t m o ra l
rrors, t hat i s .
campai g n prom i se s t o that
8.
th. n in
c i e n t i t can d
r i m s of
ari o u s s i z s , from b rea k i n
iolating the i n ternat ional J aw w he r a s the worst i
t
lie
r teaL which ma
dam ge the c ie n t i fi c
comm u n i t y b u t hard l y affe t s the c i t i zen s h i p . P o l i t i c I e rr r s m a y be tact i caJ to :J C
r s t r t o i c . T h e latter
orrect becau se t h ey i n o l v e p r i n c i p l e s and goa l s . mm n . t rateg ic e rr r, and
f rge
n al i i nc
w i th the
nemy
f
\
rst
rr r.
h rde r 0
f this kind i. t
n e ' s e n e m y w i th t h e so l e
im
f
mm n a v e r 'ary. Th i s i a seriou 0 error w hen i t i n o l v e
defeating the
betray i ng p r i nc i p l e . A n t hc>r rr r the s - a i l ed
f th
n
r
pportu n i om i
H
te l l i ng l a w .
for a p l i t i a1 part
f t he -ame k i nd i to tak
cc r j ng I
it, it i
s rio u s l y
a l way a d antage
w
to s h i ft to the center of t h e ide l o g ical spectru m , s
ontention and
1 0.
egotiation
23 1
prev nt public debate of llnorthod x id a . In c n lu ion, th keptical citi zen will 10 k not nly at the goaL but al 0 at the means ad o 'ated by a pol itical mo ement: H w i l l remember the Id aying t hat the path to hell is paved w i th good i ntention . . Crim s. I n pol iti 's, just l i ke i n any other field 'live are l i kely to mak moral errors. That is. we may perp trate antisocial action s-those that benefit the agent while h armi ng other. . L i ke any ther m istakes, moral errors an be i nv luntary r del i berate. The f rmer happen w hen we fai l to predict imp rtant . et unde i rable con equ nce of our acti n , a when approving the merger of adjoining c i tie ' arguino t hat it w i l l .'ave taxpayer" m o n y , f; rgetting that bigger go ernment \ eaken civi parti i pati n . Del i b rate III ral err rs, t h ugh. are quali tati ely d i fferent: The are crimes. Ordinary p l i ti al conten t i n lends icelf to smaJ l-scalc crime. uch a i n t i m idation, corruption. fraud. and patron age . International relations ·on,·titute of course the mo t propi t iOll field for l arge-scale pol itical crimes. The wor 'e of them is unpro oked m i l i tary aggressi n. becau 'e it is nothing but large-scale murder. And yet mo t poli tician erlo k the moral component of p l itics, and scholar. ntin uc to w ri te ab u t 'j u. t war. whi le actually al l war ar unfair to the drafted and t the i i lian popu lations. in particu lar, it i . typical of arm hair waITior� to ee everyth i ng in terms of m i l itary ict rie and defeat , not h i ng in tenn f j lati n of basic h uman right . , •
For exampl , in the well-kn wn d cumentary Til Fog oj Hizr, R bert S. Mc N amara adrnitted to having mad" ' vera] mi tuk i n waging th nit d tatc. war agaj n st t he Vi t namese nationaljsts during the K nnedy and John 'on pre. iden ie . But h denied at o orical l that all su h errors wcr war n enti n and the rime . Yet , a c rdi ng to the defi n i tion in the Gene a C hart"r, carpet-bombing of c i v i l ian populat ion . . pra in!! ric ' paddies w it h Agent Orange. d i mantl ing \ i l lage , and bombing publi works are war ar . In thc e of c ri m , not j u t m is ta ke . . So ar t h o-called preemptiv t b kepti any war i ' a d me because i t i JlVOI e "coJl ateral damag ," that is, murdering i n no "nts, d stroy ing means of l ivclihood , and WI' e k i ng live .
in ' u m a i brant democracy r quir a moderatel y keptical c i ti z n ry j u t a. a tyranny demands gullibi l ity and ' I f-cen or. h i p-the cheap t and mo t ff ti k i nd of cen or hip. However th r can b no Sk p tical Party. for only po i ti v b l ief can mob i l i ze rna . Thi i why k pti c i ' m hould b balanced by com mitment to worthy cau. e . And uch bal ance i not ea i ly acq u i red or main tained, becau e the partiality i nvol ved i n pol itical acti i m tend to depre debate. So, skeptic have a far harder t i me remai ning rat ion a] and traight than dogmat i st . Which i s why they are so rare.
ontentlon and
egotlatlon
23 1
pre v e n t p u b l i c deb" te o f lin rthodo, i dea . In eonc l u -i n, the ke p t i ea J c i t izen
\
i l l J o o k n t o n l y at tbe goals b u t a l so at th� mcans ad oeatcd
y a p l i ti c I movem n t : He w i l l rem e m be r the
I .
ld say i n g that t h
p th
to h e l l i s p a \ ed w i t h good i nt e n t i n - .
rim :.>.
. In p o l i t i c s , j u st l i ke i n any o t he r fi e l d we are l i ke l y to m ak e
m r I e rr r. . That i . , we ma b n e fi t th
perp t rat
ag ent w h i l e he m i n g
� rrors can be in o l u n tary
ci 1
an t i .
thers. L i k e any
c t i o n s-th s
th t
ther m i stake ' , m ral
r de l i berat . Th� f rm r happen when we.
[ai l t o p redi t imp rta n t y t u nde s i ra b l e
n e uence
[
u r a t i ns,
as when app ro i n g t h e m rgcr of adjo i n i n g c i ti e s arg u i ng that it w i l J 0
sav" taxpa er's m oney, f rge t t i n o t h at b igger
e m m e n t weak e n s
c i v i e p"rt k ipat i o n . D e l i bera te m r a l e rrors, t h u g h . are q u a l i t r i v e l d i ffere n t : Th"'), are sm J J -scaJ
rim s. Ord i nary p l i t ical conten t i o n lends i t se l f to
crim s u c h a i n ti m idati n , c rru p t i o n , fr ud. and patro n
ag e . I n ternat ional re lati o n s con s t i t u te o f 'ou rse t lle m st p rop i t i o u fi I d f r l arg -. cale p l i t i e I c r i m e s . The wor e of them i
u n pr
ked
m i l i tar
agg re s s i n be au e i t i s n t h i n g but I rg -se I e m u rder. And
)' t m
t p l i t i ·i. n
scho l ar c n t i n u l: t ar' u n fa i r I
e r l o k t h e m ra l . Il1 p nenl
writ
abo u t 'j u st war ,
t he drafted and t
i t is t y p i cal of ierorie
0
arm
whil
f p Jiti
ac t u a l !
, an d
a l l war
t h e ci i l ian p p u l a t i n . In par t i u la r,
h a i r \\larriors to see every t h i ng i n tenn s of m i l i tary
and defeat , n t h i n g in term s
f vi l a t i o n
of ba i
h u man
r ig h t s .
For example. i n t h e wel l-know n doc u me ntary
Th Fog (�fWa,. R
Namara admitted to hav i n o made. e eral m i stakes in wao i n o Ih
bert S . Mc
U ni t ed S tat
war agai n st the Vietnamese n a t i o n a l i s t s d u r i n g the Kennedy and Johnson p r s i de n i e - . B u t he d n i ed cat g orical 1 y t h a t any su h e rrors wer c ri m e s . Yet ac
UN
rdi ng l
the de fi n i ti n . in the Ge ne v a
C harter, carpet - b o m b i n g
f
w i t h Agent O range. d i . mantl i n o
i i l icUl p o p u l at io n
v i l l ag e .
.
war
on e n t i n and the
spra i ng rice paddi e s
, and b m b i ng p u l i e w rks are w a r
ri m s . n t j us t m i s takes . So are t he a-ca l led pr e m pt ive wars. I n the eyes o f
t h e s ke p t i c a n y w a r i - a c r i m e because i t i nvol cs " c \ l ateral damage," that i s , m u rde ring i n n c"nts. de� t ro y i ng means of I i
l i hood. and w re k i n o l iv
.
I n sum a i brant dem cracy requires a moderate l y sk ptkal citizen ry just a a tyranny dem ands g ul l i bi l ity and . e l f-cen orship-th cheape t and most e ffect i v k i nd of censorship. H w ever there can be n , kep tical Party. for o n l y positive bel ief can mobil ize m asses. Thi i w hy skepticism should be balanced by com m itment to w rth y cau es. A nd such bal ance i not a. i l y acqu i red or m ai n tai n i, bccau the part i a l i t y i nvol cd i n p l it i cal act i i sm t n d . t dcpr s d batc. " , skcptic. ha a far hard r ti me remai n i n o rali n al and t raight than dog m at i sts. W hich i s why they arc so rare .
232
Political Philosophy
1 0. Concluding Remarks
Con fl ict of i ntere t between i nd i i dual and odal group are the ulti mate ource of an poli ti cal trife in an ocietie . And yet d i fferent oci al phi lo ophi e e aluate con fl ic t differently. In particular, con i tent hol i t abhor an trife becau e they bel ieve that i t inevitably lead to ocial b reakdown ; by contra t, i n di vi dual i t regard confl i t a the marrow of a free ociety, and M arxi t view it a the ource of all oci al change· finally, ystemist hold that confl ict p r . e i neithcr good not bad : that w hat m atter are the cause i nvolved and th procedure u ed to rc. olv it. The outcome of a confl ict depend c rucially upon the m an ner i n which i t i handlcd: by forcc or by d batc .md negoti ation by ru c or rca on fairly or unfairly. Thi i why y tem i st ugge t tudyi ng con fl ict scientific al l y in an cffort to find out th ir root and attempting to rc. olv then1 fai rly .md dcmocratically rather thm1 by either auto 'Catic or bureaucratic decree. Confl ict reo olution by democrati means i s more j u st and ha. more la. ti ng result. than it� authoritarian alternative, but it may a1. 0 lead to skirting the more crucial issue. j u. t becau. e they are the most contentious. For example, during the American Civ i l War. the moderates, eager to stop he blood. hed and "make democracy work,' tried to pu. h the , l avery issu ' a ' idc and thus fai lcd morally, on top of which they werc u nabl ' to infl uence the pro 'c " ( Moor ' 1 993: 1 38- 1 39 . B ipart i sanship is de i r able only when it do '. not elud ' eriou. i ue . L ikew i sc appeasement is dc ' i rable when the goal is peac ' at no on ' s e x pen. '. So much for political cont 'ntion. ivic-nl indcd citizcns w i l l participat ' in it. M oreovcr, they w i l l takc thc 'ide of publi c i nt '[ 'st-a side that i. not ea. i l y i d ntified because political contention i . often fogged by rhetoric. Thi s is why it i . . 0 i mpo rtant to promote ducation in pol i tical sci ence and pol itical phi losophy. Ignorance of both faci l itate. govern ment of th blind by t he one-eyed. Howe r, we mU.t not trespass on the next chapter.
6 Public Governance Let u. now turn from t h truggl for pow r to public go ernance-th protection and control of the popul ation. and the admini tt-ation of public good . Th ·e task. requ ir om cooperation a confli ct · mu t b avoided or olved for the greater good or at lea ,t for viability and the public goods hould b managed to the ben fit of all . The organization in charge of u h ta 'k. i of our 'e the tate or commonwealth-a noble word mu h appreci ated four centuries ago b u t now h idden i n ome official document . Thi po i t i e conception of the tate, a the m anager of the common wealth ound obviou . B u t i t i s at odd w i th M a x Weber ( 1 92 2 : 29) who famou ly tated and rei terated that the peculiarity of the tate i that it hold "the legitimate monopoly on phy ical violence. ' This concept i on of the tate as being mainly coercive goes back to Hobbe , who introduced the idea of the oci al cont ra t , a Faustian bargain w hereby the citizen trad fre d m for prot ction. The same v iew i s central to legal po i tiv i s m the legal philo ophy f the . tatu quo. C arl Schm itt 1 976 t he N az i legal positivist took a Furth r . tep. H e held that t h e p i fi c functi on f the tate i. to m ak war t w hich end i t mu t start by extermi nating it i n ternal enemie . H egel 1 99 1 : 2 79 w ho regard d the state as "the rnarch of God in the world, ' and war a pre erv ing the e thical health of nation " op. cit. : 36 1 ), mjght have approved. The coercive i ew of the tate i extraordinari ly li mi ted, a not even the rno t m i li tari tic and oppre ive tate , frorn S parta to azi Germany, can be hara terized exclu i ely or even rnai nly in police or m i l i tary term . A v i able tate del i er orne ocial ervice i n addition to oercing. and i t protect omc right frecdonls be ide. i mposing dutie . . I ndeed from it beginning some five m i l lennia ago the tate ha had two po itive rolec : Protection of it people from phyc ical i olcncc both e xternal and internal ) and stewardc hip of thc common good in particular the pcople s tClTitory. Most govcrnnl nL ha e used iolent mcan only cxccptional ly ,
233
234
Political Philosophy
to cithcr defc nd or cxpand bordcr. or to upprc rcvolt -which wcre exceedi ngly rare in ancien t ti mes. Govern ing ha. thu. al ways i nvolved more than contai n ing iolence and protectin g privilege : it ha. al. 0 i nvol ed invent i n cY i nstitution. , build ing and maintainincY pub l i c work" from roads, . tate park . and temple. to granaries, cic terns and . ewage. . del iveri ng public . ervice, of variou. k i nds. from . ecurity to rel ief, and controll i ng acti itie. of many . ort. , from m arket tran action to l i t igation hou ' onstru Lion ,md healing, rel igious wor 'hip and 'ducation. Ideally, the nuun rol ' of the state i s 4th ' care of human l i fe and happiness, and not th 'ir de truction ' J 'fferson 1 853-4 8 : 1 65 ) . I n ome countri '. , notably h ina, G 'rnumy, Holl and, India J apan, Kor 'a Tai wan and the fonller Soviet U n ion the state igor ou. ly led economic and cultural d 'velopment. This i why the World B an k k' 'p governance i nd icator : of voi ' ,md accountabil ity pol itical stability. governm nt effectiveness, regu latory quality rule of law, and control of corruption. In 2005 the high st-scoring nation i n go ernment ffecti e n . . in providing public s rvices) wa. Iceland, fol lowed c losely by Finl and and S w i tzerland; th lowe. t wa. Somal i a, followed by Turk meni . tan and North Korea ( Kaufman, Kraag, and M a. t ruzzi 2(06) . Because governing i s 'er i n g the public in addition to 'ecuring the social order, it requires brain a ' well a . brawn. Hence the emergence, along with the state, o f a 'pecial cIa 's of i nd ividuals skilled in supervi ' ing, recording, or planni ng whatever may i nvolve the public interest-the 'tate bureau cracy. Thi ' 'ocial cIa 's was ' mall and weak. in ancient Egypt, Persia, and Greece; large and powerful in th Roman, Byzantine, Chine 'e, I ndian and Ottom an m pire ' and often hug and overbearing i n modern t i me ' . Al l t h e bureau racie in w ll-org anized tat h a b n m ritocra i e . They have m anaged th stat on b hal f of the rul ing cla e , ' uch as th landow n r ' and mon y lenders in anc ient h ina. S t i l l , when competent and hon · t l i k the M andarin , th y ha e been abl to curb om of th exce e. of the ruler , particularly in m at t r . of war, lawfu l ne a n d fi cal re pon i b i l i ty. Occa ion ally they al 0 pressed for progre i e ocial reform : they bui lt the welfare state . Traditional ly, the tate budget ha funded three ta ks-Soci al control defense (and omet i me empi re building a well and public ervice. For instance from about 1 500 to 1 00, Spain and Portugal plu B ri tain and France spent litt le on public en/ices but much on warring, looting. and e mpire building. At t he time of Louis X I V France had 20 m il lion i nhab it ants and wa. m anaged by j ust 20,000 civil en/ants. Only the Dutch pent
Public Governance
235
more i n publ ic works. Their government had to k cp the d i kes i n good repai r in addition to protecting their manufacture. from pani. h-Au, trian m arauders, and the i r tradinCJ fleet from B ritL h cor. air. and privateers. E ery government. however rapa ious, hac to manage the common or i ndi isible good. . uch a. the infra, tructure and the j udiciary, in the i n tere, t of the many, as when i t guard, the borders, maintains publ ic order, en. u re. communication. and water deli ery, contains epidemics, or help. victims of natural disa. ter . A nd a ' sugge ted by do 'ul11ent about the Babyloni an 'mperor Hammurabi (ca. 1 750 B. .E.) ,Uld th ' Indian emperor A hok ca. 250 B .C . E. , some ,Ulcient go e111TIleTIts ha e al '0 protected the d ' tilute ,md the weak in pa11icular w idow ' and children. A government i n the exclusive hort-t 'fin i n t 're t o f bloodsucker , ,md providing no publ ic services at all , w ould not command the loyalty of its . ubjec t ' . S o M ar and Engel ' got i t only half right when claimi ng that the modern .tate i. j ust a . ort of board for the ov ran management of cap i tal i . m. What i . true i . that mo. t governm nt. protect the intere. t. of th propertied cIa. . . . I n particul ar, right-wi ng governm nts try to abid by F riedman . ( 1 96 2 : 2 prec pt: to pr . r e law and ord r, to enforc private contract to fo. ter competiti e m arket .' Howe er corporation. do not tak this protection for granted which is why th y . pend forum . lobbying l aw maker ' and even w riting congressional bills (Wi l son 003 ) . And the founders o f th 'o-called 'cienti fi c 'ociali ' m wer nai e i n proph e 'ying that the state would 'wither away" under commu n i ·m. Lenin too was w rong in bel ieving that governi ng a sociali ·t society, in particular planning the 'tate-controlled economy would be 'ch i l d ' pl ay. ' Society never was, and can nev r become a col lection of totally 'elf-governi ng i ndi idual or fr a 0 iation '. It i a uper y ' tern of ub y t m in need of 'om control . ju ,t l i k any other artificial 'y t m . A l l and only organi ' m . and artifacts need control . Phy ical thing from atom ' to galaxi , ha no cont rol . B y ontrast organisms need controls from rtain g n . to entir organ " to ke p a fairly con. tant milieu interieur amid t a rapidly changing and partly ho t i l envi ronment. M achine need control to maintain the requi ite output/i nput ratio. And od al ystem , which are ort of m achine for ocial l i fe, need control to avoid the wa te, corruption and d i integration re u lting from the un constrained pur uit of i ndividual intere t H owever. thi hold only for primate : e ither bacterial coloni e nor ocial i n ect nor ocial birds u e control , let alone hierarchie . H owe er the popul ar v iew of govenl lnent i at be t skepti al and at w r e negative a being both extorti e and oppre ive . Thus the I talian •
.
236
Political Philosophy
pea ant i reported to complai n about the thi v i ng governnl n t when it rai n. and also when i t doe. not. (Pio e: '0\ erno [adro. Non pio e: go erl10 [adro. Popper 1 962 : I . 1 2 1 ff shared the widespread di. trust of all gO ern men t, particularly amon g rural com munitie. and m inori tie . . H e a L0 d i s m i . . ed a . i n po. e d t h e que. t i on that a n y respon, i b l e c i ti zen asks h i m self when goi ng to the polls, Who . houl d rule? B ut1 i n e he wi. hed to avoid tyranny, Popper embraced demo rati rule as the Ie . . er e il. Yet h ' r 'defined ' democracy"-w h ich for two and a half m i l lennia wa 'oncei ed of as ' ither sel f-government or majority ru le-i n a nega tiv , fashion nam ' ly, a th ' way to avoid tyranny. ( A 'tually all of Popper s ocial philosophy i ll u strate ' h i ' g 'neral skepticism or negativi m: B unge 1 996c. Thi i the v iew according to which w ' cannot know the truth or th ' right, but can and should spot and a oid or eradicate the fal. ' and the w rong . This i of C O Uf. ' sophi ·try, as k nowi ng what is harmfu l involve. know i ng what i. ben ficial j ust a. the detection of error i nvolves the recognition of truth. Beside. for bett r or for wor. , p ople expect thei r gov rn ment. to del iv r som positiv public good. rath r than j ust to abstain from robbing and oppre . . i ng th m. For in. tance, the foundi ng fathers of the United S tat s h ld that i n add i tion to . af guarding i ndependence and keeping the peace the ·tate 'hould help indivi dual ' pur ' ue happines ' . From the i r lime o n , the rang of activiti . of th state has been increas ing to the di smay of both left-wing anarchist , and right-wing anarchist · ( neol i beral ' , neocon 'ervative ' . Our problem i . to find out where the state should be shrunk, and wher expanded so that mo ·t people may enjoy l i fe and hel p other ' live. I n any e ent, pol itical philo ophy i c n trany conc rn d with th probl m. What is a good go ernm n( This q ue ,tion, and the orre pond ing answer . ha ' two ' i de - ub tantiv and proc dural . Wherea th former concern ' the publ ic good th l att r con rn ' l egality. technical comp tence. and hone ty. The e two a p ct are m u tually i nd pendent. A government or rather a member of it) m ay have th be t of i ntention. but i t may be incompetent, a it ha often been the ca e w ith new ly i nde pendent nations. Or it may be procedurally correct but act in the servi ce of an exploitative or oppre i e o l igarchy, as wa the ca e w i th many of the coloni al ruler . who were j u t a crupu lou i n m anaging the rai] way a the gallow re e r ed for nat i ve patriot . We haH be concerned only with ubstantive matter of governance. Statecraft i a concern of p Utical cienti st " oeial te hnologis and m an agement c ientist , not p Utical phi l o phers. •
238
Political Philosophy
Politi af part ' represented by , where C = Party membershi p ' E = Population o f t h e riding, town, county, province, or nati on S = Com munication , cooperation among rank and fi l e member . . obe dience to party leader, h i p cl ienteli. m, booty shari ng ; M = Proselytizi ng. recruiting fund raL ing organ i zi n g , canva. . ing.
The composition C of the 'y ·tem i s the union o f two sub 'ets: tho 'e of party activi .t and of pa. i ve du -pay i ng member ' , The soci al nvi ronment E contain ' fOlLr u b t. : pot ntial recruits ' pon or ' i ndividual or corporate fri nds or mole. i n governm n t office . and t he most significant adv r arie ' , Let u . now charact riz a nonparti a n pol itical y tem ' uch a th judiciary the parl iament or an adrni n i trative branch of a tat , uch a. the m ai l the i n te rnal revenue ervice, the public healthcare ystem. or the armed forces. A ll of the e are pol i tical y tern e en though they do not normally t ruggle for power, becau e they are part of the u preme politjcal authority of a region, namely the tate. Nonpartisan politi al s 'stem rcpre cntcd by w herc C = Collection of pCL on, i n th , y tcm ; E = Population o f the territory . e r e d b y the . ystem : S = Col 1 ection of rel ations of . ubordi nation and col 1 egiali ty among the member. of the . y, tem ' M = Set of . pe i fi c activitie. performed by the . y. tem . uch ill policing, di. tributing mail, dispen. ing health care or education, and col 1ecti ng taxe . .
ote the ontological d ifference ' i n both ca 'e ' : the pol it ical system and i t . component · are concrete thing " in part icular sy · te m '; the envi ronment E i an u n tructur d ol lection of concrete thing ' the tnlctur S i. a et of bond ' or b i nding r l at ion " to be d i tingui hed from non binding rel at ion 'uch a ' tho ' of being younger or leaner; fi nal ly th mechani m M i. a . t of proce e. occurring i n the . yst m-tho. e that su. tain or und rmi ne it. Poli tic i ' t h truggl for, or manag m n t of, pol it ical sy. tem ' on all scales. But the citizenry i not a sy tern : i t i only the un tructured human re ource that provi de pol itical actor and patient . Yet thi amorphou col lection can be d i i ded i nto everal categorie . In particular, e ery c itizen hip, or public can be spl i t accordjng to jt poli tical j nformation or accord i ng to it pol i ti cal part i c ipation . W hen the e two trait and
Public Governance
239
their duals arc 'on idcrcd at the same t i me one obtain the fol lowing contin gency table: Wel l- i n formed and Active I ll - i n formed and Active
W l l- i n formed and Pa ' ' ive
I ll - i n formed and Pa ' ' ive
Ob iously, a vibrant demo racy requires a large member, hip in the N W corner wherea. a d ictator. h i p s favorite corner i s the S E-the don t know and don't c,u-e fol k . Although the den izen of the NE cell do not ontributc to the d 'nlocrati ' pro cs at th ' moment they af' a re, erv ' to be wooed by democrats and feared by antidcmocrat '. The inmatcs of the W and SE cell. arc a threat to d 'mocracy be ausc they are l i kcly to support uncivil silly or i nlmoral poli 'ies. Th 'y are thc best r '[ui t for d 'magogue ,md would-be dictators. It would be intcre ting to have a reputable political pollster infornl about th population of each of the four categories, for information about public i . . u and political participation are two ital signs of democracy. S uch pol1. would . ound the alarm when t he total popul ation of the two lower c lls exceeded the combi ned population of the two upp r cell . . Far from b i ng i nd p ndent, e ry pol ity i nteract . w i th both its nvi ronment and t he other . ub. y. t In S of th soci ety i n qu . tion. An qui alent way of , ayi ng t he same thing i . t hi s . E ery pol itical fact, from voti ng to i mplementi ng a pol icy to taking to the · treet ., ha . an i mpact on t he environment, the biological ' ub 'y 'tem, the economy, th culture, and of cour ' the pol ity it 'elf. For in ·tance the col lap 'e of the oviet bloc l i berali Led t he market and introduced pol itical democracy at the 'arne t i m that i t generated an oligarchy deva ' tated t he culture and i ncreased poverty, which in tum deteriorated health, as a result of which t he l i fe x pectancy of t h Ru i an i . now th low t i n Europe. Th fol1 ow i ng diagram sugge t · that very oci al fact ha fi d iffer nt but clo Iy l inked aspect. : env ironmental N) b iop. ychological B conomic E) cultural ( ) and pol i tical (P The d i agram al '0 ugge t , that a ocial change m ay hav any of th source 0 that-contrary to what n i ronmental i m, hiolog i m conomi 111, c ultural i m , and pol iti c i m c la i m-there i s no i ngle prime mo er. .
.
Fig. 6. 1 . The five aspects of a social fact: em'ironmcntal biop ychological B
(N)
economic ( £) cultural (C , and political (P).
Any of them Clln be ource or ink of a social flux. From Bunge 2003a: 1 70.
240
Political Philosophy
Becau e of the i n terdependence among the fi e ac pect i n que tion, so i al problem. come i n bundles, and con. equently no . oci al issue can be tackled . ucce . . ful l y i n i solation from the other. . For example, sol ing in a la. ting manner the problem of hunger al L for upgrading the agricultural . ector, which may i nvol e alte ri ng the mode of land tenu re and water di. tribution : i nje t i n g agronomy and bui ld i n g pub l i c work s ; organi z i n CJ trad i n g a n d t ran. port ooperative. · and . 0 on . Li kewi se, health i ue are not solved by just i ncrea i ng the number of phy i i m). , nurses, and ho- pitals: it al 0 i nvol v ' , doing something about sanitation and vacci nation, nutrition and 'ducation-which in tum cal l s for an in T 'a 'e i n i ncom '. A nother 'on sequence of the said int 'rdependence i s that no one i ' i m m u ne to poli t i ' e en i f he i s indifferent to i t . Ev 'n the pol itical ly apathetic ,md the d i 'nfran 'hi. ed are pol i ti cal subject. , becau e they ar ' affected by poli tical vents. An. totl saw it cl arly, and stated his famou. formula: '"Man i. a pol i tical ani ma1.' B u t of cour. a pol i tical ani m al can b acti or pa. siv : an acti e c i tizen or th prey of pol i tical predator. , d P ndi ng on whether the poli tical ord r invol v . public participation . . 2.
tate
So far we have been using the intuitive concept · of people and nation , state and government, which are central to political theory. Howev r, they are not alway ' clear to the 'tudent ' of pol i tics, let alone pol i tician ' . A good exam ple i s t h i ' deep t hought of S p iro g new s, i xon ' v ice pre ' idenl and convicted crook: 'The U n ited Stale ', for all i t ' fau lts, i ' sti l l the greate ,t nation i n the country." The confusion between 'tate and nation i ' entrenched in the very nam . U n i ted Stat . which . hould hav be n call d U ni ted Provi nce ) and U n i ted ations which should hav be n call ed U n i ted S tate , i nc i t i an i nter tate organization ) . To avoi d further confu i o n w hall i ntroduc t h e fol l ow i ng conv n t i o n . A people i ' a n t work of a l arg n u m ber of people h ld together by common i nt r ts and a t radition which m ay or may not include a com mon language . For example, the Roma or Gyp ie are a people with nei ther territory nor tate. L ikewi e , the Germans before the fir t unifi cation 1 87 1 ) were a p ople w ith neither a conti nuou territory nor a central state . E en after thi u n i fication , about one-quarter of German l ived under foreign rule. The e people, the Volk deutsche shared only a past, a language, and a g rudge . Others do not even speak the same language. For x anlpl , i n France at the t i m of the 1 789 revolution only 1 1 0ft of the popul ation poke French,
240
Political PWlo ophy
B eau e of th i nt rdepe ndence among the fi ve a pect i n que tion soc i al probl em. com e in bun dles and cons quen t l y n , ocial issue can be tack l ed . ucces. ful l y in is l ati n fr m the others. or exampl s I i ng i n a l a. t i n g m an ner the problem of hunger cal l . for upgradi ng the agri cultural , ector which may i nv I ve alte ri ng the mode of land tenure and water dist ri buti n ; i nject i n g agronom y and bui l ding pub l i c w rk s ; rga n i z i ng trad i ng a n d t ran. p r t c peTati es ; and . 0 on . L i kew i se , heal t h i ue ar n t s J ed by j u t i ncre a i ng the number f p h y iclans, nur and ho pi tal : i t al 0 i nvol ve doi n g s m et h i n g about san i t at i n and vacc i n ati o n , n utri t i n and educat ion-w h i ch i n turn c aU for an i nc rea e i n i nc me. A nother con equence of t he said i nterdependenc i s that no ne i i m m u ne t poli t ic even i f he i s i nd i fferen t t i t . Even th p L i ti c al l y apatheti c and t h d i enfranchi e d a r p J i ti c al u bjects, becau e they are affected by po l i t ical events. A ri totle saw i t clearl y_ and stated hi fam us form u l a : 'Man i . a pol i tical a n i m a l . B ut f c urse a pol i t ic al a n i m al a n b e act i e o r pa si e : an act j e cit i z e n or the prey of pol itical predator. , dependi n o on whether the po l i t ical order i nvol e publ ic parti cipat i n . . 2.
tate
far w " have been u i ng the i n tui t i e concept f pe p le and n ation , t ate and govermn " n t , w h i ch are cen t ral t o p l i t ical theory. H ow ever, they are not al way c lear t the student of pol i ti c let aJ ne p l iticians. A go d e x am p le i t h i deep t hought of pir Ag new 's Nix n' v i ce pre ide n t and c nvicted cr ok: "The U n ited t a te f r aI J i t fau l t i t i U the great " t nation i n the c u n try." Th " con fu i n b "tween tate and n at i n L ntre nched i n the very n ame U n ited , tates w h i ch shoul d have be n cal led U ni ted Prov i nces and U n i ted N ations w hich shoul d have be n caBed U n i ted S tate s i nce it is an i n terstate org an izati n ). To avoid further c n fu i n w e h al l i nt r duce th fol l ow i ng conventions. A people L a n tw rk f a l arge n u m ber of people held t gether by com mon i nterests and a t rad i t j n which m ay or may n t i ndud a com In n l anguao . For x ampie, th Rom a or G y p ies are a peopl w i th nei th r terri tory n r st ate . L i kewi , the rmans be fore the fi rst u n i f i cati n 1 87 1 ) w r a p p l w ith n ith r a cont i nu us terri l ry nor a . n tral state . Even after th i s u n i ficatio n , about ne-quarter o f G nnan l i ved un t r fore i g n rul e . The p p ie, t he Volk deLit he. sh ared o n l y a past , a l an o uag , and a grudge . Oth rs do n 1 en spe ak th same lang uag . For x am p l i n France at th t i m th popul ation pok Fre nch .
of the 1 7
revolution o n l y 1 1
of
Public Governance
24 1
A state i the governing body of a 'ountry regard Ie . . of the particular indivi dua1 . that h o l d public office w h o constitute t h e ov rnmenl of the day. The need to di. t i n CJuL h . tate from adm i n i . t ration i . h ighl i CJhted by the occasional emerCJence of governments i n exile. which, l ike the bi. hops in partibus il'�fidelium, have no one but them. el e, to gO e rn . Fi nally, a nation i s a country, o r territory, i nhab i ted b y one o r more peoples, and governed by a central au thority-the national state . Shorter: Nation = . At first ight Belgium, B ri tain, S w i tzerland anada, and a few oth 'r nations are exception to our d 'finition. B ut they arc not for those arc 'onfederation of nations. By contrast the U n i ted State [md I ndia are fed 'ration of ' tates,' which m ight el 'ew here be called "provinces.' The ontologi cal statu of nations i sti l l unc 'rta i n . onl ' scholar. i dentify nation' w ith ' tate'" other ' hold that nations are properties of . ocial . ystems and; . t i l l others claim that nations ar only " i magi ned communitie. ' (see Pickel 2006 ). Accord i ng to our d fi ni t ion nat ion. ar concr te . y. tems, j ust a. materi al and ther fore ju.t a. real as rock. and anth i l l . though of cours ndowed w i th . upraphy . ical prop rti s . . uch as trad i tion, pol itical r g i me, level of d velopment, GOP, and . 0 on. I f nation. were pur ly i magi nary (And r. on 1 983 . and stat . only , ' pi ritual real i li e " ( B urdeau 1 967 , they coul d not be w recked by c i v i l wars or international confl icts. The nation i · the standard unit of analy 'i . i n modern pol i t ical ·cience. Thi . convention i . reasonable as long as i t i . reabzed that there are few i f any fu l ly independent (or sovereign nations. I ndeed, a lthough on paper there are very few colon ie ' left, mo ·t nati on ' belong to some b loc, are w i th i n t h pher o f inftu n c ' of a great power or a f v e n eli nt t a t . For i n tanc . nowaday ' nothing .tir i n mo t of A frica or i n th M iddl East w ithout A merican permission. Con equ ntly, every nation . hould b tudi d together with it alli l ient , va at and patron . Th tat m rged w ith civilization about five m i l lennia ago a long w ith cIa di i sion Engel ' 1 950; Trigg r 2003 . Con quently nation bui lding and rebuilding coincide with tate formation and reformati on re pectively ( Bend i x 1 969; Pickel 2006). For example, according to Ti lly ( 1 990), the birth of the m dern tate i n We tern Europe resu] ted from two concurrent and i ntertwi ning proce e -the concentration of both mean of coercion and capital, i n particular central control of fi cal resource . W hen a ocial order changes a a re u lt of foreign i nvasion or ocial r volution w hether v iolent r peacefu l ) or c nqu t a n w stat is f fmed. With i t a new nation e merge. ven i f the country and i t name ·
242
Political Philosophy
remain unchanged. For example the 1 7 89 French Revolution re ulted in a new nation w i th a new name, the Repuhlique Frall(:aise, though with the . ame territory and the same people. S uch radical changes in the nature of the . tate m u. t be di . tinguished from the mere changes in government or adm ini. t ration caused by election. or coups. Stil 1 , . ome poli tical re ol utions are more . hatterin g than other. . For in. tance, the Nazi re ol ution kept and e en reinforced the rule of the big i ndu. t rial ist. and landown 'r. , but i t also t ransformed the economy into a tool of th ' m i l i tary, destroy 'd all the part i ' , but one ensla d or e 1 i mi nat 'd all th ' NGOs, and ra aged the c ulture. ontrary to what Hobbe [md other political phi lo opher ' ha ' h ' ld, th ' state did not e m 'rge to en ' u re 'e urity or pr 'vent 'ocia] " haos let alone prot ct l ibe11y. Its roles ha e alway ' be 'n to defend the border ' and the 'oc ia) order, r '. 01 e soci al onflict. , and manage the public good. -the infrastructur , and publ ic organi zation. such as the j udi ciary-a. well as to attain or m ai ntain security and peac . Thus, the ju. t i fi cation for t he . tat i. practical or moral , not rational-particularly when i t i s supported by myths. A nation w ith a stat i. u. ually called a natiol1-stal ? a . omewhat odd expression that juxtapo. e. th anthropolog ical and h i . torical category of a nation to the poli t ical and legal one of a state. In th M iddl Age ' , a European nation w a ' composed o f Court , C hurch, army, ,md a ' mal l body of magi 'trate " tax collector ' and th i r a ' ' i stant ' . Today, nearly every 'tate is compo 'ed of e xecuti e , parl i ament, j udiciary and the c iv i l service organi zed into m i n i 'trie . or departm nt · . Thi ' hold ' not on ly for single nati on ' but al '0 for supra-national bodies 'uch a ' the European U n ion, which ha . a 1 gal y 't m of it own and i. governed by the Euro pean Parli ament and th European Comm i . · jon. Multi-nation ' mu t b di t i ngui h d from b loc , uch a. th A m rjcan bloc and the l ate 50vj t bloc as w 1 1 a. from m ulti- tat . uch a th U n i t d ations which includes two-. tat nation ' uch as Korea. Ther are four possibl nation- · tat combination ' : One nation - ne . tatc c.g., the U n i ted State. One nation-mu ltiple tates e.g., K rea , M u J tipl nali n. - n tate (e. B Igium M u lt i ple nation -multiple tat (e.g. the ufopean U n i 11 ). r.
Let us now try to elucidate the notion of . pcci fi c function role, or m i . . ion of the state. I . ubmit that the role of th . tat i . t o protect the total wealth a . . ets plus servic . of it. . ociety. Thi s wealth is the . u m
Pu bUe Governance
243
of it private (or m arket ) w alth and it publ i c or comm o n ) weaLth : lV = M + P. The M / W rati m ay be cal l d the pri \ a tizalioll i n dex of the soc iety in questi w and its c mplement to u n ity or s = P / W, the '0 iali... a tioll i n dex of a . ciety. Ob iou. l y, W is parti tioned di fferent l y i n differe n t social reg i m s. Thu. , wher a. i n t h e U n i ted tate. a n d i g e r health care i s a private serv i ce, i n a n ada and the ordic coun tri s i t i s public, and in t i l l other n ations i t i m ixed. A nd u n t i l m id-n i n teenth century peopl could be wn d in the U ni ted tate , Turk y and om c Lonie . The main g al of L ft-w i ng parti s i to i ncrea e th oci al iz at i o n i ndex . whereas that f right-w i ng partie i s to i ncre a e it dual, the privatization i ndex . A n t h r n tion that r quire el ucidation i that o f tate p w er. We m ay defi n it a a state' abi l ity to m ai n t ai n L aw and order, a w e l l a to extract and al loc ate resources-that i t o uarantee ecurity, col I ct taxes, and de l i e r publ ic serv i ce . I . ubmit that a p i bl e measure of the power of a tate is the tax reve n ue per capi ta i nvested in the state rather than poc keted by pol i t i c i an. and their acc mpl ices in the pri ate sector . A oovern ment t h at puts your t axes to work' i s l i ke l y to enjoy publ ic sup port. By contra t , ne w ho. e m ai n goal i to be nefit i tsel f r the pri vi Jeoed or to wag '> w ar, rat her than render publ ic ser i ce i l i k '>ly to brecd t ax c a i o n , corru pt i o n , di affec tion, di conte n t, or e e n re beJ J i n . Thc state i b c t appreci ated \ hen i t brcak dow n a s happe ncd i n uJope up n the fal l f t h '> Roma n Empirc and a is currently h appc n i ng i n m uch of A frica and the ear Ea t. Thu , at t h i s w ri t i ng the state ha alm st a nlshed in such nat i n a A fghani stan, A ngola had, Cong Iraq ierra Leon and , omal i a. W he n the state w i ther away, the vacuum it l eav i s pr mptly fi l led w ith m i l i t i as. g u rril l a. , pri ate arm i es. war l ords caud i l los or for i g n i nvaders. I nsecurity and c rruption are then such that pe p i e fee l u n afe in the i r ow n h m " and not even th public uti l i ties and the . treet m arket. function n rm al ly. U nder thes cond i t ion. peopLe t e nd to rem m ber no talgical l y th t i m e when authori tari an or en dict atorial g ernment us d t kc p l aw and r ter. v most peopl securi ty, evcn at th pric of th l oss f fr edom, is prc fcrable to th l oss o f J ive l iho d or IH . T hi s cxplai n th cm rg nce of � udaLi sm i n Europ upon the faU of Rome . H o w v r , con ' rn for curity m ust n t b e con fused w i th ob ' c s s i n w i t h i t. P rson al and publ ic curity d es not requ i re emerg ney m a ur s an d th accompanyi ng curtai l i ng of c i v i l l i b rti . On th contrary i t i nvolv re pon s i b l e publ i c participat i o n as p articipat i ng i n bloc k w atches a n d tow n I1l t i ng . Obse i o n w i th security i s typical of dicta-
244
Political PWlo ophy
tor and would-be dictator a w I I a of i ndividu al 0 i m bu d of the i r w n i m p rtance that l i ke t h e legendary Vice President D i ck heney, dodge drafts in w ar, that they applaud. F rtu n ately cry ing wol f pay s po litical l y o n l y for a w h i l e . W herea. t h e pol i t i cal . c i en t i . t i s i ntere. t e d i n the actual functi n. o f real . tates, t h e p l i tical phi lo. opher foc u. e. on t h e leg i ti m ate auth ri ty f the state. This may be defi ned J . uggest, as th abi l i ty to pro ide pu blic erv i ce . A weak tate h a l ittl u for anyone e xcept � r the t p g vernment offic i al and th ir cro n ie i n the private ector. Ir n ical ly, the arne h I d for th exce i ve l y trong stat , th ne that m ai nt ai n law and ord r at t h expe n e o f c iv i 1 1 i b rti e . We h u l d t h r fore ee k the g lde n mean between the atrophied and th hyp rtroph i d tat -a the ec nomist R au l Pr bi eh nee aid . Thi i deal i attai ned w he n the tate pen d all its r venu n s c i al er iee . O n l y t llU w i l l i t e nj y both moral authori t y ancl p p u l ar support. Let u ne t d i scu. briefl y the contr ver. i al noti n of 0 e re i g n ty, central to n ati n al i sm . A l l m dern n atjons prete nd to be fu l l y s vereign j u t because they h a e their ow n go ernment and . e n d ambassad r. to the -even i f i n fact the i r government is u nder the thu m b of a forei g n pow e r. 0 ereignty emerged w ith t h e fi r. t n ati n state that i s. w i th the earlie t c i v i lizat i n . I n recent time vereignty w a assig ned to a n um ber of art i fi ci al l y de i g ned n at ion , ueh a Yug la i a Czecho l ovakia, Iraq, i geria, and t her heteroge neou territorie c bbled t gether by im perial PO\ ers. B ut so e re i g n t y i partiall y surre ndered vol u ntar i ly or u nder dUIe s, every t i m e a g e rnme n t sign a t reaty. The mem ber f federations, al l i ances r blocs uch as the E O and N AT , h are sovereig nty. This i s because a treaty bi nds th sig n atories in s m re pect and thus re strict their e l f-deter m i n ation w heth r for better in the ca. f equals) or for \ rse ( w h n ne of the contracti ng parti e L a v assal rather than a p artn r . me cholars have argued that th pri nciple of ab l ute SOy r i g n ty, e tabl i shed by th P a ' ( Westphalia 1 648 ) amono Catholic and Prot e tan t , is a maj r r adbloc k t g l bal go rnance. B ut it m ay a1 80 b argu d that, to t he c n trary. repeated v i l ations of n aH nal r i g n ty, parti 'ul arly by th col n i aJ powers, the Vi n n a Congr ss 1 8 1 4- 1 5 ) , th treaty f Versai l le 1 9 1 9 ). the azi -S iet Pact 1 939 ). and th um.:.ounted v i l at i ns of i n ternat i o n al l aw and U reso l u t i n . hav pr ent t th con truction of an eq u i tabl and l asti ng w orld ord r. The peaceful coex i t nc of n ation req u i re " re pect for the pri nci pl of q ual rig h ts and
Public Governance
245
c elf-determination of people. )' Charter of the United N ations A rticle 1 .2 . Ironical 1 y, the nation that nowadays complain, the loudest agai n. t the out l aw ( 'rogue ' nation. namely the U n i ted S tate. ha. al . 0 been the wor. t ' . erial violator of i n ternational l aw S and, 2(05 ) . Thi s i. i ronic becau. e the U n i ted States, alon g w ith the U n i ted K ingdom took the i n it i ative in building the po. twar . y. tern of i n ternational l aw start i n CJ w i th t h e U N . A t thi . writi ng national sov 'reignty sti l l hold de jure but not ful ly de facto, and thi for two main rca on . One i ' that nothing i mportant stir. anywhere particularly i n cl ient state w ithout the permi i on of the Superpower. l magi n ' any dependent nation . igning a non-aggr 's sion pact w i th I ran or a trad ' treaty with Cuba. And ev 'n i f all the l ient state w 're to attain i ndepend 'nce, and all the rogue tates were forced to ob- 'r e i nternational law the latter could only hold under a regime of . t rict m utual obl igations of th partie . . Thi s m ight harm . ome . hort term national intere. ts though to the b nefi t of th long-term interest of everyone, nam I y l ao t ing p ac and m ut ual ly beneficial cooperation. There i . always a trad -off betw n sovere ignty and i nterdepend nc : Fun . ov r i gnty, l ike v i rgi nity i s po . . ibl only in total i . olation. And i solation leads to dec l i ne, as in the ca. e. of North Korea and a nu mber of Pacific i ' l and ·tale ' . Global i zation i ' lhe 'econd reason for the ' hrinking of national 'ov e reignty. In fact , the mom nl the flow of capital ' and good ' i ' l iberabzed in a region, political boundarie ' weaken, ,md al the 'ame tim the power of th tran 'national corpomtion . i ncrea 'es i n proportion to their foreign inve ,t ment ' I write 'transnational' rdlher than multinational ' becau 'e tho 'e com pani ar actual ly national fi rm that t re. pa. i n ternational border . S uch i n rea ed pow r of the tran national corporation ord in aril y i n olve. t h e weakening of l ocal governmen� and NGO . particul arly l abor union and nvi ron m n talist group. to protect l abor l aw and nvi ronmental r gtilation e R i necke 1 998 Moreover, t h tran national orporati on ' wi l l do thei r b t to en ure that the country S 'ocial alue and beha ior are not in conflict w i th the i r long-term i ntere t and objecti ve ' (Panic 2003 : 2 2 . Thi expl ai n the emergence of anti -globalization movement i n the o-cal led developing countrie . They are the contemporary analog of the national indep ndence movements in the coloni al pa t. Typical ly, thi pol i tical backla h of economic globali zation is hardly mentioned by econo m i ts m t f whom paint a sani tized account of gl balization. However i nc mo t government are under the pre U ll f tran nati nal corp ration. .
.
246
Political PWlo ophy
and the IMP the WB th W TO and th U ni ted tate tho e gras root move ments are unlikely to . ueceed. They had better adopt a constructi e strategy : Helping organize worker c peratives capable of produc i n g and sel l i ng at c mpetiti e prices the same products of the branches or contractors f the tran. n ati nal companie . . More i n hapter 9, ection 5. I n sum i n ternati onal c ex i . tence i m p . s l i m it up n national . 0 ere i g n ty. uch l i m it. are leg i t i m ate and desi rabl e a. I ng a. they favor \
national de el pment and i nternati n al c peration n an equitable ba i . By c ntra t e l n i a l i sm , c J ient I i 111 . and radical n atio nal i m-w hether i l ationi t r aggre lve-are u n d irable. ational i 111 , J i ke 111 n y, h uld nly be u ed t r c n tructive purpo es, ne er a a to I t r a group of pOli t ical adventurer u nconc rned ab ut th r al ne ds of the i r c o n tituencie . operati e i nterdepe n d nc i preferabl t e ither de pendence r i olat i ng ind pen de nce . In any ev nt th n at i o n al border have b come more por us, even th ugh the nat i on or n ation-. tate ) i s st i l l t h e u n i t o f the world y stem ( see Picke l 2006 ) . 3. Rule and Management
M a n ag i n o a state i. n t the am e as ru l i n o a n ati n. G reat empires have bee n adm i n i tered by appl y i n o consi te ntly a few rule. , . uch as , D i v ide and ru lc ;' , Lct the n at i ve p ri nces m an age reg ional alTair ;' and , uppre ru thlc ly all i n urgcncie ." Th " adm i n i tration of a modern tate requires m uch Tn re than that, particularl y in th " ca c f p l i ti c al dem ocracie . in pre i dcntial reg i mes l i ke the A m erican parl i ament and the e xecutiv " arc i n p ri nciple strictly eparate, w hereas th "y erlap part i al ly i n parl i amentary reg i m s l ike the B ri t i s h and anadian. B ut i n al l c a e the state bureaucracy or c i v i l . er ice is i n pri nc iple u bordi n ate t the x ecutive, though i n practice it can ov rride it by just w rk i ng t rule or procra t i nat i ng . F i n al l y in p l u t democ racies c rp rate lobby i st w rk h and i n g l o e w it h both p arl i am n tari ans and th executi ve to the p i n t of w ri t i ng bi l l. . A . a standard t x t book on A merican government and bu i nc . . put i t 'ancfj dly, ' lbJusines l obby i ts turn to ex cuti v ag n 'ies Lof government] because th y h l p shap 1 gislation, translat statut ry gen raJ i t i e i n t sp cHI ' ru l s, and app l y adm i n j strativ ru l . t i n cti idual case " h n 2006 : 1 74 ) . in p l u tod m cracies big busi ness g v r n s jointly w ith the Adm i n istrat i n , wherea i n d m oc racie. th . tat pr te ,t the publ i c interest. The m ore advanced democraci uch a the eth el and Au tria, and the ordic countries h ave adopted th version of soc i al democracy
247
Public Governance
omct i mc 'alled ncocorporati m cc Wil on 2003 . In thi regi nl the l abor un ion, employers ' u nion, and NGO. exert ju, t a. a . trong an i n fl uence on govern ment a, the poli tical partie . . An advantage of thi. di. pen, ation is , tabi l ity. B ut . tab i l i ty may lead to . 0 ial . tagnation . Hence neocorporati . m may eventual l y unravel. and be . ucceeded by either a conservati e or a , ocial-democratic regime. For the time bei ng the l atter is the mOe t . ucces, ful of regi me" both econom ical ly and pol i tical l y. An even more equ itable a rrangement the i ntegral d 'nlO ra 'y to be ketched in the la. t chapter, i sti l l on th ' drawi ng board. In all cases the u ppermo t sy. tem has the u pper hand. c
Party
J, State
B i g bu. in . s
B i g bu ine .
J
J,
Part
Partie
J,
Publ ic
late
( a)
b
Publi
tate
i Public ( )
U nion Parties Bu . .
0- p '
Partie�
J
J Partie
S tate
State
Publi
Publi '
i
J S tate
c
d Fig. 6.2.
..!
i (f)
ix regimes ( ideal types): a comm unism; ( b ) fascism ;
c plutodemocracy' d) democracy' e) neocorporatism'
0 integral democracy.
I t w i l l b ' noted that, contrary to recei d opinion I do not regard the state as the u l ti mate eat of power, not 'ven in the ca e of totalitariani sm, which i u. ual ly regarded a radically stati t. The rca on i that, 'ven where all public activitie, are r gulated by the . tate, th latt r work on behalf of non-stat actors . uch a, partie. or big bu. i ne. se. , rather than being fully . If-ser ing. For i n. tance, the Nuremberg trials re aled that the Nazi leadr. had b en sub. idized all along by m ajor German corporation . . [n th modern , tate the armed force. are und r the executiv branch. hence th y should not b counted s parately. B ut i n tim . of soci al d i . in-
248
Political Philosophy
t gration end of the Ronum E mpirc and pr cnt -day car Ea t and part of Africa , m i l i tary power may fan in the hand. of warlord. , party m i litia . . uch a. Tal i ban and Hezbollah ) or foreign in aders. Somethi ng . i mi l ar al. 0 hold, for nation. embroiled i n bloody civil war. , . uch ru Mexico and China after thei r fir. t re olution. in 1 9 1 0 and 1 9 1 1 rel pectively , as we11 a. nowadays i n Colombia, alvador the Phili ppi ne. , and Indone, ia-who�e government. might not . urv i ve w ithout U . S . m i l itary assi. tance. Fin al Jy a government or admini tration i the exccutive ub- ystcm of a stat ' elcct 'd or sel f-appointed to serv ' during a ce11ain pcriod . On ' of the i rtuc of d 'mo -racy is that its stat '. surv i v ' it govcrnmcnt a ' clection. gi c pcople thc ch[ll 'C to 4throw out thc ra cal . " ( thc govcrn m 'nt) once in a whilc w ithout di turb i ng the 'ssential fun ,tions of th ' statc, which arc calTied out by the i v i l service. The Athcni an democra y is pcrhaps thc only ca c i n h i. tory wherc state and gov 'rnment coi ncidcd, si nce both its executive and magistrates were lective and temporary a. wel l as honorary. In addi t ion to th . tate-goy rn m nt disti nction, all modern nation. pay at least lip serv ic to t h separation of t he three power. -Iegisla tive xecutive and j udicial. That is, in pri nci ple the executive branch only adm i n i . ter. and the court . o n l y o b . r e t h e l aws. B ut t he xecutive often u ' urp , the functi on of the parliament, part icularly i n authoritarian regimes; and some court · are 4activi ·t, ' that i s, they aller 'ocial pol icie . or el 'e they 'erve the executive. All government " even t he most democratic, contain 'ome department · who 'e member ' being unelected, ar unaccountable to the citizenry. The judiciary, the central bank the armed forces, and the inte l li gence servic ' are among th m. Th j usti fication for ' uch i nd pend n e and poli t ical unac ountab il i ty i ' that th y pro id neutral technical erv ice ' . B u t uch n utrality i . not alway real . The i nd pendent branche o f the tate work rea onably well i n c oun trie free from corruption, uch a ' S weden and S w i tzerland . B u t wher gOY rnment are j u t tool of the rul ing party or are behold n to powerful pri ate i n terest . unaccountabi l ity may only serve to upport privi lege and concea] corruption. For example, shortly after the Civil War, the U . S . S upreme Court brazenly erved the intere ts of the former lave holders; by contrast. half a century ago under mef J ustice Earl Warren, the ame body protected c iv i l right and progre ive ocial legi lation; and i t i con ervative agai n at thi w riting. So, the i n dependence of the aut n mou. branches f g vernment sh u ld n t be t aken f r granted. I t is c ntingent upon pol i t i al circum t a n . W he th r there are he k <; and c
Public Governance
249
bal ance capable of keeping th m on th traight path without paralyzing them, i s an open problem . W hat hold. for the independence of some of the branche, of the . tate also hold. I'1wtatis mutandis for the parli amentarian. in a democratic country. They need some independence, for i n. tance to face emergencie . . to comprom i se on m i nor poi nt. with col league. from other partie. to prevent gridlock and to propose b i l l . on . ubject that were not di. c u . . ed during the electoral 'ampaign. In nl0st ca '. such i ndependent a 'tion. confom] to the plat foll1] or the i deology of the party, but i n others thcy do not. Occa ionally a parljamentary w i l l quit h i. party and join anoth 'r one, or sit as an i nd 'p 'ndent. There i ' no way to pr ' ent this from hap p 'ning ho11 of urtaili ng thc aid i ndepcndence to thc point of m ak i ng i t i m po. . ible for r 'pre entativcs to do thcir job. On ' can only hop ' that the c i ti ze n w i l l eithcr reward or pun i h th 'ir wayward rcpr '. 'ntati es in th next lection . [ repea4 al l . oc i al . y. tems need gOV mance . The q ue. t ion, then, is not whe ther we need a . tate, but which type of . tate we . hould ad 0 cat . I . ubmit that any answer to thi. q u . lion ha. three components : manag rial technological , inter sts-ba. ed i deological , and mora l . Thi s i . c lear from t h e w a y th modern . tate actual1 y work . I t h as two i ntert w i n i ng mechanj ' m ' th pol itical and the bureaucratic branches. Thus, e ery government department i . headed by a poli t ician, such a ' a cabinet nli n i sler or a pol it ical appoi ntee but i s actual ly run by a body of civil 'ervant ' . I deal ly, the 'tate bureaucracy i . i deological ly neutral, and thu ' w i l l ing to serve ,my cabin l m i ni · ter. B ut in pract i ce all bureaucra c ie ' are pol i t ically con 'ervati ve, because any poli t ical reform caJ l · for addi tional adm j n i ' trati workload or e n for change in certai n habit notabl y t h i n k ing and spending hab i t . A for id ological orientation a curory look at t he go rnment ' exist ing at present how ' that they can be grouped i nto th fol lowi ng typ from left to right: . ocial-democ ratic ( uch a Swed n ' ), l i beral-democratic uch a India s, France S and Canada' on rvative ( uch a ' th Unite ' State ' ) and dictatorial uch a China and I ran's . H owever, this group i ng, even i f correct. do not ay m uch about e ither good go ernance or the welfare of the go erned. For e xample. although aU the Japane e gov ernment have been con ervative, the Japane e oci ety i one of the mo t egalitarian of all the advanced ocieties a regards i ncome di tribution though not a regard tatu and rank . By contrast, the B ri t i h society i nearly a rigid l y strat ified as e er far bel w J apan and Sweden, and only ne step ahead of S pain in human developmen t U NDP 2006) . c
Pu bUe Governance
249
apable of keeping them on the traight path w ithout paral y z i ng b al anc them i s an open problem . W h at hold. for the i n depende nce of s me of the branche. f th . tate als holds m u ta tis m u tandis f r the par l i amentari ans i n a dem crati c c u ntry. They need s me i ndependence f r i n. tance t face emergencie. ; t comprom i se on m i nor poi nt. w i th c l I eague. from other partie. to prevent g ridloc k ; and to prop se bi l L on subject that were n t discu . . ed duri ng the e l ct raj cam paign. In most c a es such i n d p n dent actions c n fofln to the platform or th i deology of the party, but i n ther they d not. cca ionally. a parli am ntary w i l l quit his party and j in an ther n or it a an i ndepe nde nt. There i no w ay t prev nt this from h ap pe n i ng hort of curt ai l i ng the aid i ndepe n d nc to the poi n t f m ak i ng i t i m possible for repre n tati ves to d the ir job. One c an n l y hope that the c i ti ze n w i l l Hher r w ard r pu n i h their way w ard re prese ntativ in the next e lecti n . I repeat, al l soci al . ystems need g o ern ance . The que. lion, then i s not � hether � e need a . tate, but which type of tate we . houl d ad c ate. I . u b m i t that any an swer to t h i . q u e . tion has three c o m p nent : m an ageri al tec h n l og i c al i nterests-ba ed ( i de I gi al ) , and m ral . Thi i s clear fr III the way the modern . tate actual l y work . I t h as two i ntertw i n i ng m echanj m , the po l itical and the bureaucratic branches. Thus e ery go ernment department i headed by a pol i t ici an , such as a cabinet m i n i st "r I' a p l it ical appoi ntee, but i s actual l y ru n by a body of c i v i l ser ants . I deal l y, the tate bureaucracy is i deological ly neutral , and thus \ W ing t erve any cabinet m i nj ster. B ut in pract i ce al l bureaucra cies are p l i ticaJ L y c n ervativ", becau e any p U t ical reform caJ l s for additional adm i n L trat j e w orkload or ev n for c h anges i n c rtai n habits n tab l y t h i n king and spend i ng habits. A s � r ide log ical orientati n, a cur. ry I ok at th go ern m nL x ist lng at pres nt sh w. that they can be gr up d i nt the foi l w i ng types from left to right: s cial-d mocratic ( uch as weden s). lib ral-democratic uch as I ndia s France s and anada ) c nservativ ( uch a. th U ni te. States ), and t ictat ri al uch a C hi na's and I ran s . However, th is or up i ng v n i f c lTect. to s n t . ay m uch about e ith r good 0 ernance I' the w l far f the 00 erned. or ample. aJ th ugh aU th Japanese govrnlll nt hay been c n 'ervati e, the Japanes so 'icty i s one of th mo t galitari an f aU the advanced so i tics as r g ards i n colll distri bution, thou o h not a reg ards statu and ran k . By c ntrast, th B ri ti sh S 'iety is n arl y a r ig i d l y strat ified as ever far below J apan and \\ den and only one tep ahead of pai n in hum an d v lopmen t U N DP 20 6).
250
Political PWlo ophy
I ubmit th p l at i tud that a good governm nt i one t h at help rai e the Ie el f deve lopment f i ts pe pie a. measured by the econ m i c , cul tural, and po l i tical i ndicators. A b a d g ernment i s ne that creates or i ncrea.o;;e . defi ci t whe ther econom ic (fi scal and trade , . oci al i n standard f l i v i ng , publ ic heal th and educat io n ) or p I itical c i tizen partic i pation and i nternati nal c perati n ) . B y the. e objecti e mea. ures the wel fare state . are the be. t and the auth ri tari an and neo- l i beral ones the wor. t. Th
S m uch for th adm i n istrative and ld logical aspect 111 ral aspect f th que l ion w i ll be tackled next .
f g vernance .
4. Legitimac\1 I n the p l i t ic al ill c urse the term Ie itimac ' de i g n ate at lea t three d i ffe re nt concepts: tho e f I gal , poli tical . and m ral alidity. S om th i ng action, n rm , organization) may be said to be l egal ly leo itimate, or legal for . hort. i f i t abides by the l aw f the land; p l itical l y l eg i t i m ate i f i t r e peel . t h e e x L ti ng cial i n part i c u l ar pol itical) rder ; a n d moral l y le o i ti m ate i f i t abides b y t h e rut i n o moral ity. Howe er, somethi n o may be l eg i ti m ate i n one re pect but i l l eg i t i m ate i n thers. Thus, g ay marri aoe L i l l egal i n m t p l aces, and immoral acc rd i ng to al l rel igion ' but i t i s pol i t ic al l y neutral except where bi gots rule. Fr m a trictly lcgal iewpoint g crnment are e i th "r de fa I or de jut'< B ut thi divisi n i p l i tical ly and m ral l y rather i n i g n i fi cant, becau e nothi ng i easier f r a govern mcnt i ucd from a coup c/ 'elal or a rc o l ut i n than t transfonn it elf fr m a de facto int a d jure gov crnmcnt. uch lcg i t i m acy m ay bc acq u i red by altcri ng c ithcr m e J aw r popular percepti n . Thc former has bcc n thc ca c of aLI rcv l u t io n ary .
g
ernmenL , t art i ng w i th the A merican ne i n 1 7 76. A for the pol itical I g it i m acy won or 1 0 t thr ugh a c hange in public percepti n a recent case i that f the fi rst pre i de ncy of George W. B u h. The / I I terr rist attac k g ave i t overnight the de facto leg i t i m acy that many had disput d as a re u l t f t h e court order that topped cou nti ng the v te s i n th 2000 electi n . All of a sudde n m i ll i o n. of A m ricans wer p fsuad t by thc ma s media that th y w r actually u nd r alta ok, h n - in n d of a trong go ernm nt r Quiring m [0 ncy m ea ur . and v n xc ptionaJ Jaw s . uch a the Pat riot Act. Thu M n te quicu '. in i g h t, that � ar is the t 1 f desp f i . m, wa con I nncd nc m fe . I n th past , R d � reOf. W hi t v rcor, and B l ac k TClTor did th t ri c k . w we are toJ t t b i n the grip of I s l am i c Terr f, from w h i -h nly B ig B rother can sav us.
Public Governance
25 1
I n hort political and lcgal 1cgitimacic arc poli t ical con truction . I s t h i s the ca. e o f moral legitimacy too . Let us . e e . The moral legiti macy of govern men ts depend. on the rul i ng moral standards. Before bei n CJ abolished few people h a d any moral qual ms about slavery. I t had been condoned by all the major reli CJiou. Scripture, . It wa. not unti l the French revolutionarie, invented human right , that anyone could i ndict gO ern ments that violated any of them . S uch i ndictlnent had no legal fore ' a long a the p 'rt i nent l aw . were not altered to entrench the hunlan right in question. But they had n10ral force: l nd i idual and org[m i zations could i nvoke the Declaration de droits de l 'hol1lfne et du cito en 1 789 , and nowadays th ' U N U niver sal D 'daration of H u m (U] R i ght , 1 94 , to cen. or poli tical regime. that tolerat ' sla 'ry and gend 'r d i sc ri nl ination, practice torture or the d 'ath pen al ty or p 'rsccute diss idents. S uch moral c 'n or. h i p m ight be b road ned to incl ude any government. who. . oeial pol icie. reduc . ignifi cantly the l i fe expectancy of the POOf, b cau, e th y i n fri nge no less than th right to l i fe . r subm i t that, cont rary t o t he c lai m of rel ativi. m, t here i s an ohj?cti e alld Ulziv?rwl benchmark to a. sess the mOfal leg i ti macy or otherw i se of any political regime namely thi. . A political r? ime is moral/) Ie itirnate if, and onl ' if, it helps its subje ts meet their basi needs and legitimate aspirations-those that CI11 be satisfied without jeopardi .ing the \'\ ell being of others. I n other words, th good laws and t he government ' that uphold them, are those that help u ' l ive rea 'onably well ,md together, if not i n harmony at lea 'l in peace. They allow u . to choo 'e and i m plement our own l i fe plan i n tead of impo. ing a particular l i f .lyle i magi ned by om prophet or leader. Good l aw ' curb ant i 'oc i al behavior and. far from b ing pater nali t, pre uppo per anal r pon. i b i lity and fo t r ·olidarity. There ar moral r a on for oPPo ' in g paternali t leg i l ation: Th pre ' r ation of per onal l i b rty and the n ouragement of per onal r pan i b i l i ty. C rtainl y, th state has the obl i gation to inform th ItJzenry about heal th hazard , but i t has no right to prohibi t the con umption of a lcohol, tobacco, or cu1 tural garbage. B ut then, the tate i not obliged to offer free medical or psychiatric a istance to the victims of choice known to b unwi e, such a taking drugs attempting to c l i mb the Ever e t watching i tcom non top, or readi ng po t modern nonsen e. People hould learn from the i r m i take , but they houJd not be m ade to pay f r the avoidable mi. t akes of ther . Sm k if you wi h but not in the
252
Political PWlo ophy
pre e nce of other . and do n t dem and to be tr at d for l u ng cancer at the taxpayer's cost. C I arl y the three k i nd. f leg i t i m acy d i , t i ngu i , hed abo e-Iegal , po l i tical and m ral-are h i storical categori e. and thus rel at i e to t ri be r n atio n . F r exampl . l avery w as regarded a.o;; t ri ply l eg i t i m ate u n t i l two centuries ago when ab l itioni. t. fought i t succes. fu l l y in the n am e of the moral pri nc iple that al l human bei ngs de , er e been treated equal l y and w i th d i g ni ty. In this ca e , a i n other , m r a l leg i t i m acy t ok p r cedence o er legal and p J it ical legitimacy. L i kewi se, revol uti n ary gov rnment , th ugh ob i u l y u n l aw fu l and pOJ itical l y i l leg i t i mate, h ave ft n been defe nd d n m ral gr u n d : they c l ai m d t h a e put an end t ppre i n d i criln i n at i n exploitati n , coloni al dep nde ncy, etc . Do u c h i m penn anenc f leg al code , p Utical c o n tituti n and m ral code j u t i fy radical r l at i v i m and i t legal part ner n am e l y legal po. i ti i. m ? A re can n i balism , torture capital punishment. olo n i al i sm, and m i l i tary aggre . . i n to b tol erated j ust becau. e they are custom ary at a o iven place and l i m e . N ot at al l . E er . i nce the re nch R evoluti n of 1 7 89 and p art i cu l arl y . i nce the ad pli on of the N ni ersal Dec l aration o f H um an R ight 1 948 e n l ighte ned people have ad pted an abs lute benchmark, n amely the conte m porary human right -to l i fe, l i be rty and ecuri t y of per n-which sh uld be suppl " me n ted w i th the corresp ndi ng dutie . i nc " then we have agreed t ac i t l y n the basic dem ocrati c pri nciple t hat A is bet ter than B if A app l ie t a w i der eirc l " f pe pIe than B. This criterion u ffi ce to i ndict pri i lege and oppres i n and, by the sam e t k "n, to just i fy any act i n L i ke l y t el i m i n ate or at lea t reduc " t hem . Thus m ral considerations may override legal or p l it ic al argume nt. . The pr cedi ng contrad icts th m ost popular of al l c nt m porary I g al phi losophies n amely legal pos i ti v i m . This is an amalgam of K an t i an deon t l og i sm phi l ophical pos i t i i sm and anthrop I g ical rel at i v i sm ( ee K I en I 45 Sch m i tt 1 76 r I 27] H art 1 6 1 ) . I nde d leg al posi tiv i m h Ids t h at a) the l aw is am ral ' and (b) j u t ice L w h at the l aw f th land , t ipul atc -regar tl ss of w h at any m oral e de s m ay prescri b . And, ' i n ee the l aw i s w ri tten and i m posed by th P L i ti 'al powcrs that b , i t foJ J ws that m ight m ak s r i o h t or, as Hegel aid, "World h i tory is th world's c urt ." I subm i t that legal posit i v ism i c n � rm i t r c n 'cr ativ . h ne an b tac] to th I g al re f nn that sh uld acc mpany s ' i al re f rms. B i des d spi t it d d ared m oral n u tral i ty legal po i t i v i I1l i tarkly i m m oral , for i t cons crates w hat ver man trosi t y a gov f lUll n t may n -
Public Governance
253
trench i n th con.ti tu tion. Which i why legal po itivLm was t h official legal phi lo. ophy i n Nazi Germ any and i n the former Soviet U n ion. In 1 934, the day after Emst Roehm and h i . S.A. fel low radical thugs i n the parami l i tary organization S . A . were m u rdered on H i tler s order, the German government pa. . ed a l aw declari ng this action to have been "just.'· Carl chmi tt, a leCJal po. itivi. t and the pre. i dent of the Nazi Juri st. Association, w rote on that occa. ion that the verdict i n q ue. tion "did not fal l undcr ju. t i 'c but was it 'clf h ighe t ju t ice" ( i n B raun 2006: 249). And H m). Kel en the mo. t eminent I 'gal po i tivi st of h i s t i nle though a sel f-. tyJed d ' mo rat com m cnt d that the rctroact ive cdict i n qu '. tion legitimated that nlurd 'r. B raun Joc . cit. ) comments that KeJ 'en behaved l ik' 'an ob c rver i ntcrest 'd i n th ' techniqu ' used to perform u rgery on thc ocial body but not in the Ties of pain of the ictinl ." See furth 'r critici 'm ' in Ful l 'r 1 958 Dyzcnhaus 1 997. Pre. tunabl y a s i m i l ar waH wou l d . parat pol i tics from moral . . Tn part ic ular the lawm ak r. would b abov morals-j u . t w hat N ietzsch x pected from h i . S up rman . Thus, if the law of the l and di. c ri m i nat . agai nst B lacks or J w. , Catholics S oc i al i . L or athei. L th n the pol iti cal and legal philo. ophers hav nothing to say. A s th anc ient Romans . aid Lex dura Lex, sed Lex. I 'ubmit that legal pO ' itivi sm i ' fal 'e and immoral becau 'e from a 'ociolog ical v iewpoint, all ant i ' oc i al action ' ar objecti vely i mmoral . Henc every law t hat prohi bits ant i 'oc ial action ' of 'om kind, ' uch a ' cri m inal act ions, is a moral norm 'ee Wikstrom 2007b) . I n general, ' i nce law ' regulate 'odal conduct, they e it her match or v iolate 'ome moral code. H ence lawmaker ' and criminal j udge . are practicing moral or i mmoral phi lo oph r . Therefore, the t h . j that l aw i ' amoral i. a t icket to l arge- 'cal pol iti al i mmorality. Contrary to the legal po itivi t 'ocial r former. claim that certain l aw ar unj u t and they . ee k to reform t h m . Thi n k of t he many legal r form. in. tigated by th labor mo ement, the ocjali t parties pol itical f mini m and the GO dedicated to humanize the ri m i nal code and the pri son y tern . A l l of the e mo e ment have proclaimed, if tacitly the pri macy of mora l i ty 0 er both pol i tic and the l aw. Take for in tance c ri mi nal law. If one adopts the defi n i tion of ' crime ' a anti ocial beha ior. then i t fol low that unprovoked aggre ion, know i ngly deceiving the public, and lobbying Parl iament on behalf of private i ntere t are act of crime. By the ame token abortion, homosexuaHty and rel igiou s bla phemy are not cri m i nal even t h ugh they are ban ned by many an b olete legal or m ral ode.
Pu bUe Governance
253
tr neh i n the con t i tution. W hi c h i s w h y I g al p i t i vi m wa the offi c i al legal phi lo. ophy i n N azi G rm any and i n the former 0 iet U n io n . I n 1 934 t h e day after Ernst R ehm and hi. S . A . fe l low radical t h ugs in the param i l itary organization . A . were murdered on H i t l r's rder the Germ an go emment pa. . d a law dec l ari ng this action to ha e been "j ust. arl chmitt a legal p siti ist and the pr sident of the azi J uri st. Ass ciation w rote n that ca. ion that the v rdict in q uestion 'di d not fal l u nder j ustice but wa it elf h ighe t ju tic ' in B raun 2006 : 2 9 . A n d Hans Kel n the m st m i nent legal p i t i v i t of h i t i me , th ugh a e l f-sty Led dem crat , com ment d that the retr active edict i n question leg i t i m at d that m u rder. B raun Loc. cit. ) c mments that K L en b h aved l i ke " an b e r e r i ntere ted i n the tech n ique u ed t perform urgery on the ocial b dy but not in the cries f pain of the victim .' ee further critici m i n Fuller 1 958, D yzenhau 1 997. Pre u m ably a sim i l ar w al l wou l d . eparate pol i tics fr m moral . In particu l ar the l aw m akers would be above moral s-j ust w hat N ie tz sche ex pected fr m h i . upenll an. Tim , i f t h e l aw f the l and di c ri m i n ate. agai n t B l acks or Je'V . , ath lies oc i al ist or athei sts then the pol iti c al and legal phil osophers h a e n th i ng to ay. A s the anc ient R mans said Lex, dura lex, sed lex. I u bm i t that legal po i t i i sm i false and i m m oral becaus \ from a sociological v iew p i nt all ant i 0 ' i al act ion arc bject ively i m moral . Hence e cry l aw that pr h i b it ant i social act ion of ome ki nd, uch a cri m i n al act i o n , i a moral nOl1n ( ee Wik trom 2007b . In gen "ral si nce l aw s reg u l ate oci al conduct, they " ither m atch or v iolate me m oraJ code. H " n c e , l aw m aker a n d c ri m i n al j udge arc practici ng m oral r i mm oral phi l opher . There� re the thesi s that l a\ L amoral i s a ticket t l arge-. cale p U tical i m mora l i ty. ntrary to the l eg al positiv i st . c i al reformers c l ai m t h at certai n l aw s are u nj ust and they seek to reform the m . Th i n k f th many l egal reform s i nsti gated by the l abor mo ement the s c i al i st parties pol it i cal fem i n i sm and the G s d dicat d t hum an i z the cri m i n al cod and th p ri s n y st m. A l l f th se m ement have procl aim ct, i f tacitly, th p ri m acy f m oral i ty vcr both p l i tics and the l aw. Tak , for in tance . Ti m inal law. I J one ad p ts th defi n i ti n f ' Ti m " a anti ' i al b hav ior. th n i t 1'01 1 ws that un pro oked aggre si n k now i ng l y tecei ing th public, and I bby i ng Parl iam nt n b hal f f privat i n ter ts ar ac ts of crirn . B y the ame toke n abortion, homos ual ity, and rel ig ious bla phemy are not crim i nal, e en though th y ar ban ned by many an ob olete legal or moral cod .
254
Political Philosophy
The moral tance i n th crinu nal law . ugge t that the mOe t j ust and effi cient way of combating c ri me i s not to toughen the c ri m i nal code or to i ncrea. e the pol ice force : ThL i s the barbaric idea that ju. tice equate. reven ge. I n the long run the most effi ient way to handle rim inaJ i ty i . t o attack the social sources o f crime, . uch a . , tark i ncome inequal i ty, unemploy ment i gnorance, and anomie see e.g . , Maguire, M orCJan , and Reiner, ed . . 1 994 . Adopti n g the same . tance in poli tics alerts the c i ti zen again t th ' d ' l i nquency of certain political program s and act ion , such a ' cutting tax '. at the expense of soci al program ' practic i ng state t 'rrori m, and u.ing pol it i al power to reward donor. to e lectoral che ' t . I n hort, th ' thre ' kinds of legitimacy w ' hav ' examined are not mutu ally i ndependent. On the contrary moral 1 'gi t i nlacy overrides pol i tical legiti m acy, which in turn trump. legal 1 'gi t imacy : Moral > Political > Legal
where >
to be read "prevai l over' or "precede . 5. " ocial Control
The i deally re pon ible per on i a elf-determjned autonornou ) agent, and the i deal well -functionjng oci al organi zation i e l f-go eilled-demo '[atic. Thi s i so for two rea on : moral and p ychological . The mora l rca on i that only free agent can ful l y enjoy l i fe . And the pc ychological reason i that i n trin ic moti ation i . . tronger than external moti ation reward or puni hment . I ndeed , pc ychologi. t have known for decades that external reward and punishments have a h idden '0 t . They weaken i nt ri n ic motivation uch as the joy of learni ng the atisfaction of workman. hip, of . ol ving a problem , or of hel pi ng someone else , ee Lepper and Greene 1 97 8 ' Deci and Ryan 1 985 ) . L i kewL e, fear elicit. obedience but not reo pect and com m itment. B y contra. t, participat i on enhance. dL cipl i ne and loyalty, and even supererogatory acti i ty. B ut , for better or for wor. e, someti me . . particularly when they are expected to accomplL h di. agreeable ta, k. , or to resol e a confl ict, people ne d to be shown the c mTot or the Whip. Onc ' w hen rem inded of thi ' trui m, John Bolton, th ' bul l i sh A merican ambassador to the U , replied : ' I don ' t do carrots.' H ' did not l ast long. There i s nothi ng wrong with other controls if they assi t the per on i n qu '. t ion to do ometh i ng useful he would b ' u nabl ' to do by him e l f, or to do h i ' duty to oci ,ty. Car rot and whip ar ' w rong only when u 'd to exploit peopl '. A. for social sy.tem. of some compl x i ty, th y c annot function . pontaneou. ly: They
Pu bUe Governance
255
need pol icie p l an , and de i i n -i n urn go ernance. Furthennor , th e ecuti n f b th individual and c l I ecti ve ta. ks need. mon ito ri ng r con trol because ev ry c ur. e f action i s . ubject t u n fore. eeable acc i de n t. and error. that need corr cti n g . I n . hort, w n d p i l oti ng a l l the w ay. c i al c ntro l is control of i nd i i dual and gr up beh a ior to m ai n tain the . ocial rder. ocial c o n tr L are of tw ki nd. : ertical r hi erarch i cal , o r exerted b y the . tate, a n d horiz ntal r p pular re. pecti e l y. Tn ther w rd , ocial contr J can be e ith r auth ritari an or democ ratic. Th f rmer i u u aJ J y exerted by the poli c , and i n xtraord i n ary case by th armed force a w 1 1 . B y contra t, h Jizontal control i xerted by al l th member of th c i v i l oCiety w h h a e auth rity f III k i nd. I t can b i n form al , a i n the ca e of pare nts, friend . teacher , and c J league , r i t m ay re t w ith N of al l k i nd , fr III i nc J u i e neighborhood a s c i at i n to excJu ive country club . The most i s i b l e an d best-k now n k i nd of s cial control is po l ic i n o , from t h e vol u ntary n i oht-watch team of burghers i m mortali zed by Rem brandt to the c n picuou A me ri can patrol car to the i nconspicuou. J apanese neigh borhood pol ice tat i o n . Ideal l y, the pol ice should be o n l y t h e arm of t h e j ud i c i ary. B ut i n m any deve l op i ng cou n tries t h e pol ice f rce i . a oang of thuo. i ntent on robbi ng and blackmai l i ng the weak and beat i ng up d i s i dent , e i ther for thei r w n profit or n behalf f a privi l eged gr up. Thi expl ai n s the ex i te nce f private po l ice, death squad , and gated c 1l1 1l1 u n itie . The be t-p J j ced com m u n i t ies are th e that potice them el e m ai ntain pri vate but non-profi t ) crime -fighti ng neigh borhood gr up that co perat '> w i t h the poti ce ee amp n and Laub 1 993 . Judg i ng from the xtr m J y low cri me rate the next b st s l ution is the J apan s one. The J apanese police are w l I -i ntegrated i n to th c m m u n it y for e ery p l i e d tachm nt serv . n J y a re tricted neigh borho d and performs constructiv oci aJ serv ices. such as offeri ng he l p to the dL tre ssed and med i ation i n con fl ict, in addi tion to the standard l aw -and-order erv i e . see B ay l ey I 1 . How v r. th Japan se poJ ic a1 0 d somethi ng that i abhorre nt to anyon who pri zes pri vacy : Pol i ce of I cers v i . i t ery h o u a n d busi n ' s tw ice a y ar. " u 'h a tri 't s ' i al c ntr J make i t , rtai n J y di fficult t hjd , rp e and 'ontraband g ods, but i t i s a lso Jjk J y to i nt i m i dat diss nt rs, favor d n u nci ation, an t generat c rrupt i n . The r 1 ation bet ween p L i ' and n i g h borh 0 t shoul t be civil and c op rati v but n t cozy, b cau e it i s not a rel ation amo ng q u aJ s : The pol ice po phy leal and l egal mean of co rci o n t h at th ord i n ary c i ti ze n l ac ks.
256
Political Philosophy
There ar no c O 'ieties w ithout c odal rule or norms. The role of such norm. are to faci l i tate coexL tence and . afeguard the soci al order. There are two k i nd s of . octal noml: legal and mora1 . Tn secular . ocietie . . orne moral norm . emerge . pontaneously. often from publ i c d i scu, sion. of i . . ue. affe t i n g per. on, or comm u n i ties . ee, e . g . , We. tenn arck 1 9061 908 . Wherever a prie. t l y ca. te rules or participates in the s tate, i t adopt. some of the e x i . t i ng moral norm. and i n trod uce, other. , , uch a rule on cast ' d i vision, diet, or ex that have noth i ng to do with mor al . From the t i me of Hammurabi the legal norm or po.it i c law hav ' been arti 'ulat d i nto 1 'gal c od ' ' . I n m any a. " frOTIl Solon onward. , th 'r ' ha ' been a 'on titution, or 'ystem of general meta-law , that th ' part icular law arc expected to abide. Con. titutions arc of parti u lar int 'r e t to political phi lo ophy be 'au , th 'Y 'ontain th ' r 'gulative pri ncipl ' , of the . y. t m of legal c odes. Th can. t it u ti e/regulativ d istinction i . d u e t o K ant. We mu. t d istingui. h then three level . : tho. e of the norm . that regul at the con. titutive norm. , which in turn attempt to r gulate soc i al conduct. Regulative norm ' ,
.0••
human rights. and no retroa ti
laws
.l-
Con t jnltj e norms. e.g., for Iledicar and again ·t chiJd Jabor Soc ial conduct, e.g .. marriag and commerce Fig. 6.3. Social conduct is regulated by constituth'e norms such as those of the civil code, which in turn arc :ubject to regulative laws, uch a the principle of eparation of church and tate.
Every I gal code ha. tvJO foci : ri ght. and durie . . Typical 1 y, the pre modern legal codes ar long on dutie. and . hort on right. , as w 1 1 a. long on correcti e j u . tice and . hart on soc ial j u. tic . For xam p le, st a l i n g h as alw ay . b e e n a cri me, w herea. exploitation a n d oppres. ion were taken for g ran ted u n ti l recent ly ' and the dutie ' o f i n d i i d u a l s to one another, as w II a . t h obl igati ons o f t he · tate, were not e nt renc hed i n any con · t i t u t i on . J u stice was u 'ually ident i fied w i th re tri bu tive j u · tice, ' o r the ye-fo r-an -eye "Jaw." Thu " the fi rst action o f the S pan i 'h conq uerors when start i ng a new 'eltJement was to e reet the Tree of J u · ti ce," that is, the gal l ow '. I t ' m e re p re 'ence wou ld i n fu 'e a healthy fear a mong t h e nat i ve ' . Thi ' barba rou ' con fl at i on o f j u , tic w i th rev n g e i t i l l c urr n t i n m any contem porary o c i t i e s .
Public Governance
257
L i kc w i e property right have t rad itionally prevai led over the rights to l i fe. l iberty, a. . oci ation work , health, or e en 1 0 e . Thu" unti l the 1 860s the , l a e market wa. a con, picuous feature i n the U n ited S tates, the Ottoman Empire, and a few other countrie . . B y contrast A rgentina abolished , l a ery i n 1 8 1 3 three year, after gaining i ndependence and twenty before B ri tain . Ob iou. l y. there ha e been . ignificant moral and political ad ance. since then : S lavery, the death penalty, torture, and corporal punishment are no longer pra tj ed i n most ' i i I i zed ount ri 's. owadays it take. a Harvard profe . . orshi p to defend torture as an ' interrogation ' method . ) Yet c holars are still debating the mechanisms that brought about those advan '. , though not w i th the igor and rigor they d 'serve. Only one thing i. certain: that although th ' Quaker hri tim] Social i t " md a few other religiou s di. sid 'nts played ,ill i nlport,illt role i n those dev 'lopments, r l igion p ?r se was al ien to them becau. e neither of the . o-called sacred Scriptures cond mn. the . aid practic . . Nor did the economy have any thing to do w i th it xc pt i n th case of B raz i l , wher . lav ry had becom conomical l y unprofi table. The progress in que. tion particul arly in th ca. e. of . uch Enl ighten m nt thinker. a, B ccari a and F ranklin as well a, the B ri tish abolition i . t. seem. to hav b en moral i n , om ca. . and political in other ' . Thus, i t has been 'aid thal t he rem arkabl B ri t ish legal progre ' , in the cour 'e of the n ineteenth century con 'i 'led in repeali ng c ruel law s rather than in i ntroducing humane one ' . Defending torture and capi tal puni ' hment has become a c lear i n dicator of backwardne ' , and moral t u rpi tude. owaday . lhe majority view of ju ' l ice i . that i l con ' i st . of i mpartiality and uni er ' al it)l, and that it ha ' n¥o · ide. : correction not r tribution). and ocial j u tice. What hold. within nation also holds mutatis mutandis among t he m . Since th fou ndation of th U in J 945 w have had a global l egal . yst m on top of the nearly 200 national l gal y t m . Th m r belonging to the U N i nvolve a part ial u rrender of . over ignty i nc very action and ry l aw of a member tat i x pected to m t both the Charte r and the re ol ution of the U N . True some national go ernments in particular tho e of the U n ited State and i t ate l l i tes have been at odd w ith the U N for q u i te ome t i me. Thi only sugge t the desirab i l i ty of trengthening the U - omething that can only hap p n a a con equence of great change i n the dome tic pol i tic of those rogue tates. So, we have the anomalou ituation, where the legal relation between the nati nal and the i n ternati nal level d es not mat h exactly the a tuat rel ation:
258
Political Philosophy
De jure I nternational l aw
De /aCTO International pol i tic.
N ational l aw
Dome, tic pol itics
,1,
l'
Idea]]y, a legal code-whether international, national , provincial or muni i pal-is logically and practical 1 y con. i stent. That i. it contain. no contradi Lion , and it doe. not allow for 'catches ' or pra ,ti 'al i nconsis tenci '. , such as mandating el 'nl 'nlary education e en for chi ldren who hav ' to work or beg to subsi 't, and prohi biting abortion to women who cannot or do not wi. h to rai ' children. That is, the reasonable laws of th ' l and nlU t be rea li . t i ' if they are to be obeyed. Beside , in a good society the l aw. help l ive i nstead of entrenching m isery and oppre ion . ThL i s where the apriori stic/real L tic and the special interest. /univer. ality dil m m as pop up. Let us consid r a coupl of exampl . . Even the be. t l aw. , l i k ffeetiv medici ne. , are bound to ha un int nded con. equ nc s-some bad and other. good. Thi s i . becau. e in a soc i al env i ronm nt "action rami fi es, ' and what b nefit. . ome may h ann oth rs M rton 1 9 6 . For exam ple wh n seatbelts w re made mandatory the death and i nj ury rates for dri er ' plummeted, w h i l they rose for pedestr ian ' and cycli ·ts. Presumably, the cau ' wa ' that as dri ef' felt 'afer, they drove more recklessly ( Adam ' 1 995 . L i kewi 'e, when taxe ' are rai sed to pay for increa ' i ng 'oeial expenditures more peopl try to avoid payi ng them , '0 that the publ i c revenue decrease ' in 'tead of increa · i ng. Ob ' " ion w i th 'afety i n the United States ha ' led to regul ation that have c rippl d th nuclear nergy indu , t ry w hich ha. increa. d th country . depend ncy upon oil which in turn ha led to o i l war -which of our ' . are unsafe for e e ryone conc rned. B y contra t , privat prop rty wor 'hip h a s all b u t l i rn inated any r e triction on t h protection of the env i ronm nt-our mo t cheri h d pub l ic prop rty-thu. I adi ng to global warmi ng. aqu i fer depletion d fore -ration, pol lution, a dramatic decrea e in b iodivef i ty, and the con equent disi nheritance of our progeny. The above are example of the individuali t outlook and the concom i tant di regard for the fact that all ocial vari able c l u ter because we live in oci a l sy tem s of evefal k i nd . from family to company to nation. An effect of the i nterrelation of the social variable i that max i mizing one of them is b und to m i n i m ize thers. Thus, m ax imizing private profit I ad to m i n imizing b t h publ i wealth and equ al ity. To av i d su h un d i rable effe ts all legi. lati n h uld b sy temi rather than ectoral
Public Governance
259
and ad ho . Sy temic legL l at ion w i l l not altogether avoid unintended per er. e con. equences, but it , hould decrea. e the num ber and . e e ri ty of m i . matches between noml . and between these and facts. t i l l , not even the wise. t bundle of laws is l i kely to produ e exa tly the i n tended re, ults, for people are not l ump. of putty. Indeed, e ery i n . titut ional reform i . l i kely to elicit i nformal prac tices intended to skirt the l aw-from feet draCJg i n CJ to 100k i n CJ for loopholes, to cheat i ng, to bombing. In turn i n formal and 'ven ill 'gal practice may eventually force i n stitutional changes, as i n the cases of aborti on and drug legalization . Hence the . llperficiality of the I 'gali stic v iew that all pol itical problems are in. t i tllt ional problem . O nl y fre hman l aw students C,Ul b ' excu ed for believ i ng in ' law '. empire." One of the main functions of the state ha alway been the adm in is tration of j u . tic . Th problem i s of cour. that th term 'jll. t ice can b understood i n diff r nt way . . I n ancient t ime. , r corded i n such docu m nts a. Til ? lLi ld and the B ible, ju. tice wa. only concerned with . ocial ord r, in particular with the defense of person, prop rty, and privil g . I n particular, in ca. s of bodi l y harm. j u. t ice' as was . ynonymou. w i th r tal iation. The E n l ightenment r jected thi . barbarou. conception. Tn part icular, the bril li ant and i n fluential Ce 'are B eccaria ( 1 764 empha ' i Led that the main function · of crim i nal l aw are to prevent crime, pun i 'h c ri m in al ' t hough never putting them to death) , and rehabi l i tate the m . O n e century later t h e 'oc iolog i ·t Gabri I Tarde supported thi s l i beral v iew of cri m i nali ty and crim i nal law arguing, again ·t the famous Ce 'are Lom broso, that c ri nl inal s are m ade, not born . Thi s controver 'y gripped th public i magination to the point that Tol toy made it the c nt r of h i ' nov 1 Re urrecli 11 . A nother u n nlighten d iew of .ill. t ic i . that which identifi it w i th obedience to th l aw of th l and. n if t h i law i s pat ntly i mmoral a wa the ca e w i th the azi I gal Y t m. Thi i w that m ight mak ' right i th nuclell of legal posi t i ism a do trine that we crit i i zed earl ier for di regarding ethic and erving the power that be, howe er moral ly i l legi t im ate. The fact that legal po i t i i m ha al 0 been adopted by l i beral thi nkers in B ri tai n , the U n i ted S tate and el sewhere may be due to their conformity w i th the tatus quo: but it a] 0 cast doubts about their poli tical avvy. M odern j u tice has many face : ocial control, equity or fai rness), and cial j ustice . S cial ntrol is i n the h and f the "law and rd r" for a. well as indi rectly i n tho e of th scho 1 and rgani zed rel igion . Confii ts over inequity are ord inarily s l ved either by the u r r by
2 0
Political Philosophy
int rnlcdiarics such a l awycL . B y con tra t, soc i al ju tic i s a mattcr for legi. lator" . oci al wel fare adm i ni strators, and above al l . ocial act i ist. with the i m agi nation requ i red to . eek it from the bottom up. We shal l deal w ith i t i n t h e lao t chapter. Suffi ce i t now to remember that the . oci al legi. lation that all the people. in affl uent nations enjoy nowaday. i not only the product of the , oci al i st mo ements bom i n the 1 840, : Oddly, it was a1. 0 a pol itical control mechanism to defend api tali . m agai nst sociali 111 G i l bert 1 966) . W· clo. , thi ' section with a diag ram that . uggest. th · philo ophical ( i n particu lar moral ) i deological and political input. to any legal yst 'm. Philosophy & Ldcology
l.("
')l
H
Mora l
it
')l
H
J uri pruden e
')l l.("
i
t torncy '
Legal corp us
t
it
1 ega l code
l.(" ')l
H
Judj j ary
H
�
H arm
�
'" Crime
Politics
l.("
'"
Fig. 6.4. The s),stcm of legal
i
i
ocial order
)'I
Enfor crs
J,
Pun i . hment
)'I
nowl dge, decision and action:
rom law-making to anction from Bunge 1 998: 356).
6. Power beh i n d Power
The typical pol itical denti t focu e on the i i ble actor and m i e what goes on behind the cenes-whi ch i often the mo t i mportant. Thu , i n h i classical tudy of "moderni z i ng" develop i ng) nation , H unti ngton ( 1 968a: 8) held that their go emment are 'at the mercy of . alienated inte llectual , ram bunctious colonel and rioting tudent . H ow e loqu n t ! And how myopi ! H u nt i ngt n o m i tted to mention the local oligarchies th transnational orp rations, the I M P the W B and the U . S . State Departm nt. And yet nearly all the modern pol i t i , whether or not modern and dem cratic are subject to the tyranny of at least two of the t hree fatefu l M : M oney Media and M il itary. It is n se ret that in the U n i ted States and l sewh re 'the con m i c elite dominate political deci ion-making by thei r d i rect participati on i n
Public Governance
26 1
govclllm n t ' Oi c ing 1 9 2 : 1 82 . Thcy al o dominate i ndircctly through their abil i ty to control the agenda1 lobby parliamentarians, make donat ions of arious sort. , and fund thi n k tank -the package that Wol i n 2008 cal l s 'managed democracy . The "developi ng nations are a1. 0 in thral 1 of the T M F and the W B . The. e bodies, ba. ical 1 y unaccountable, pro i de l arge amount. of ca, h to gO e rn me n ts in exchange for complying with the , o-cal 1ed Wa. h ington Consen. us. This is a package of socioeconomic pob c ie ' d ' igned by m ark ,t fundanl 'ntal i 'ts. They consist essentially of four In 'a ' u re : fre ' trad ' , export growth l abor ' ft 'xi b i l izati on ' (through repealing labor l aw and weake ning l abor unions and drastic cutback. on spending in i n fra 'tructure and publi health and edu 'ation . S trict application of these measure ' k i l led dome ti i ndustries d ' c rea. ed producti ity increased poverty [md i n 1 997 led to the ti nan i al crisis that put [m end to the "A. i an m i racle." Only thr 'e Asian nation. avoided thi. d isast r: I nd i a, China, and Vi mam . Al1 thre accel rated th ir public i nvest m nts and . howed the h ighe. t GOP growth rate and i mprovem nt in Ii ing .tandards in th region ( Robi n . on 2007 . Niger. th mo. t obedient c lient of th I M F and t he W B , became t he most m i . er abl nation on Earth (Ziegler 2002 . Th Wa. h ington Consen. u s requ i rement. pro ed . 0 d i sa. trou. , that t hey wer somewhat softened at the beginning of the new m i l lenni u m . E v e n ' 0 , t h e 'o-cal led p o ,t-Wa 'hington C o n ' e n ' u ' · ti ne · econom i c de velopment 'ee e .g., 10mo and Fin 2006 . A weU-known public figure w ith i m peccable A merica First c redentials, comment ' : ' No wond r that 'ome have cal led the I M F and World Bank whol ly-ow ned sub 'idiarie ' of the U . . Trea ' u ry Department " B rzezinski 2004: 1 73 ) . Wor 'e, the I M F ha be n ac u d of pur u i ng , country own r. h i p ' u nd r 0 r of h al ing i ts debtor. ' finance , a a con equence of which it I gitima y i s i n que. t ion B e t 2007 ) . Thu ' th I M F and the W B who ' ori ginal m ission. wer economic, have be n u ed a poli tical tool . A u u al conomjc power onf rred pol itical clout. Sad l y n i ther of tho. e giant ' u ' d thei r aw orne pow r to avert. or even al1 v i at . the tragi world fo d cri is that tarted in 2008. Power without morals i i mmoral . As for the rna media. i t i wel l known that they ha e three main m i ssion : to i nform, to hape public opinion, and to adverti e . I n forma tion can be more or Ie t ruthfu l , depending on the quality of the media. I ronical ly, as the late A u tralian philosopher 10hn Pa more noted, the mo t rel i able new s i s the one upplied by port reporter . for they derib events that are wat hed by t hou. ands or e en m i l l i n of w it ne m any of w h m would start a riot i f a goal went u nreported . B y contrast
2 2
Political Philosophy
pol i tical i n fornlation w hich can . eIdom be gathered i n th treet i s more ea. i l y d i scarded or distorted, at lea. t when the gO ern ment i . . ecretive and regard. i t a. it, own property. Wherea. . port. new. L commerci al property political news is poli tical property even though under democracy it ought to be publ ic property. To better real ize the power of the so-cal led fou rth e. tate . . u ffice it to recal l the role the ma" media are play i n g in the . o-cal led War on Terror. They do morc than al 'rting thc public to real peril . . They at o exaggerat ' th ' magnitud ' of the threat '0 a to j ustify m i l i ta ry aggression ' past, pre 'ent and future a w '11 a the cU11ail i ng of dome tic freedom in th ' namc of national s 'curi ty. For example cveryonc has 'een umpteen t ime ' c l i ps hawing 0 anla bin Lad 'n the lonely fugitive 'nginecr acc u ed of nlasterm i nding and fimmci ng the world J ihad against the We ' t 'rn World from a cay ' omcwhere in Afghanistan Paki stan or nlaybc th ' I gendary Oni ri stan. H ow ver, there i. no sol id evidenc that ver . i nc 9/ 1 1 , any terrorist act have b n planned and financed out of that myst rious cave. Yet both the popular and the l i te pr . s, fed by som of th 1 6 . ecret service. of the U . S . go rn ment are lik I y to conti nue to blame that malignant if pathetic knight rrant , who i n an earl ier l i fe had been a U . S . -trained engi neer i n t he employ of t h e C I . Fortunat I y , poli tical democracy tolerate ' the few journalist · and 'cholar ' who bother to look for the 'ordi d truth u nderneath political propaganda, and dare tell i t .g., aylor 2006) . o w i . t he tum of the thi rd M-the m i l itary. They play n o pol i tical role in th ad vanced democracies, w he re they are under the e ffective control of the civil ian authority. However, the amled forces have alway ' had clo tie. w ith thei r i ndu trial upplier ' '0 cIo ' . i n fa t that m i l i tary contract have ord inari ly b e n t h e most profitable for privat fi rm . and their pro u r r and lobby i st · . h nee t h least advantageoll. for t h taxpay r. . W al l remember the crewdri r. for which th U . S . arm d forc . paid h u ndr d. of doll ar ' a piec . I n th J 990 the pri atization fr nzy reached the poi n t wher t h U . S . Army tarted t o outsource ervi ces t o the private ector-i n fact t o com panies, uch a Ha11 i burton, B echtel, and K ro11 c Io e to the poHtician in power. The e arrangement went nicely i n peacetime, but they turned sour u nder fi re . In fact the I raqi in u rgent tarted attacking the c iv i l ian per onnel ent to reconstruct the country. As a con equence the am1Y and the compani e p nt on ecu rity mo t of the 2 1 bil l ion dol lars al located t re on. t ru t ion. U n . u rpri i ngly . om f tho e fi rm s w it hdrew from Iraq 1 ng b f re thei r task wa accompl i . hed. Perhap their C EO or c
264
Political PWlo ophy
7. Chl i l Society Wh ' ec and w hatev 'r Ii 'S outsi d , th state and th ' mark ,t is cal led th c i i/ o ief, w hi ch we fi rst met on Chapt(;c 2 . The com ponents of thi s part o f s iety arc the i nd i iduals and associations whos acti iti ' arc not fuHy under stat control. Whereas some of th syst m, i ncluded in th ci i t society are for profi t, others are not. T h ' be,t-studicci systems are of course th busin ss concern, . B ut ''len th �, e require th ' assistance of non-pc fit associa tion uch as m anufactur r as oclation ChaIllbers of comm rce lobbyi ng fi rm thin k tank and club a w e l l a M a n i c lodge i n the pa t. The i v i c non-governmental org an i z at i n (N 0 ) are of particular i ntere t to pol i t i al phi l o opher b cau e th y are vol u nt ary e l f-gov erned eldom h ave coercive pow r, and are ofte n of public ervice. Thi n k, e .g . , of m u tual-ai d a i ations cultural and prot i o n al asso i at i n vol u n t er fi re fight r l abor u n io n and pol itical parti e . B au are . e l f-go ern i ng mo. t of these rg anizati ons are mode l. f democrati c go ern ance and c i v i l i zed con fl i ct -re soluti n . B , ides ,0. t h e r have been i ndiv i d ual w h i st l e-blowers . uch as U pton , i nc l ai r wh se popular no el Th p Jungle 1 906) led e entual ly to . tti ng up th ood and D rug Adm i n i stration ; and R alph N ader, wh se cam p ai g n for car , afety led to man dat ry seatbe lt law . . '
The rel ation between the c i v i l oc iety and the tat depen d v ry much on th k i n d of g velllment. U n der total itarian rule. th c i v i l ociety h ardl y e x i st s o r i t V·l r k u nder strict urve i l l ance : t h e N s o f p u b l i c i nt r t are few and t ame, or I e undergrou nd. B y c n trast, the publlc- erv ice N pro per u nder dem c rati c rule . S ome of them , uch as the Red ross, th parent-t acher as oci ati n and Doctor Without Borders, col l aborate w ith . tate organ iz ati n. , wherea others, l i ke the A meri an ivi l L i bertie. U nion, Am nesty I nternational and G reenpeace. are cri tical of . ome g vernmental poli ies and act i ns. I n either ca. e most ol u n tary associ at ions fi l l g ap th at the state does n t fi l l . They are the i ndi i dual 's l a t refuoe from both state and m arket. This appl ie. in parti u l ar t the labor u n i on. , w h ich defend the i nterests of the l ower c l asses. Moreover, w he n i ndepe ndent l abor u n ions eon tri but " t g od govern ane " thr ugh dem andi ng fairne , impartiality, tran parency and aec untabi L i ty Har e u rt and W od 200 � w herea they rei n force authori tari ani sm w he n e ntr H e d b y tate or party (Lee 2007 . The succe of m any volu n t ary a e i ations along w i th the tendency g v "fJl me n taJ h y pertrophy ha recently ugge ted the con eni "ne " of ' associ at j n al dem cracy." an arrangement \ hereby the . tate w u ld
Public Governance
265
hclp NGO a u n1 'c11ain r gulatory functionc . 0 that the ci i l c O ' iety would grow at the expen. e of the , tate . ee H i rst 1 994' Kaldor 2003 ) . The rea. ons for . uch power d e olution are per. ua. lve. Local group. know the l ocal i s. ue, be. t, and they can tap l ocal resource. start i n CJ with ci ie-mi nded vol unteers. While such partial devolution of power lS desi rable i n many ca. es, particularly on local m atter. , it . hould not be exag CJerated becau. e onl y the . tate '[ill dclivcr services on a l arg , scale a n d in a 'ontinuou man n 'r. B csid ' , ooperation betw ' 'n th ' tatc and 'ivil socicty houl d not b ' too c losc, for th ' w hole point of an GO i that it 'ngagcs frcely in a 'tivi t i e that thc tate annot or hould not carry out. The state i ' also n 'cdcd to u p 'rvi 'c th ' c iv i l socicty' for example, to pr 'vcnt pham]acics from scl l ing poL on, and tcmple from doubling as terrorism schools. Robert Putnan] 1 993: 1 85 ) earned i n . tant fan] , for holdi n g that that th k y to making democracy work i . to build . oci al capital-by which he meant what e ryone l se si nce around 1 800 h as been cal l ing 'civil . oci ty, that i s, the part of . oci t y that is not under direct stat contro l . H ow ver, contrary to what t he civil . ocietarians ( o r communitarian. claim t h ci i l . ociety cannot replace t he . tate i n e erything. Think not only of national secu ri ty. for ign rel ation. and human right. -in par ticular worker " rights-but al '0 of wealth red i ·tri bution through 'oeial 'er ice ', social 'ecuri ty, unemployment com pen 'ation, and public health and education . Even more grote 'quely, thin k of com missioning a private firm or it ' lobbyi st to rewrite the b i l l of right ' . Tal k of " oeial cap ital' i ' ' 0 ambiguou . t hat i t attract · both the right and the left: t h former beeau 'e i t hold ' the pro m i 'e o f a nli n i mal ' tate low taxation . and th 1 ft becau. e it i a call to cjtiz n empowerm nt and thu to d mocratic 'oc i al i ' m e Keane L 988 . Con rvati e govern ment ordinari l y com to power on the promi e of cutting t ax and publ ic x penditur along w it h the fi cal d bt, but often end up by i ncrea ing taxe , co t " and debt through i n i ti al l y lowering t ax revenue and p nding mor on ' urity and d f n e, a w II a on 'war ' of arjou k i nd -on drug , terrori m , unfriendly countrie and so on. A trong ci il oci ety i needed not only to uperv i e, upplement or even part ial ly replace the state but al 0 to correct the i nj u tices of the market and to correct government abu es. I t i al 0 needed a an i ntermediate between the individual and the tate, a w hen a nei ghbor hood a oci ation petitions the m u n icipal authori ty to fi l l potholes or to i n tall traffi light at dangerou i nter ections' when a fem i ni st group runpai g n for equal pay for equal w rk; when a scien t i fi so iety I b-
266
Political PWlo ophy
bi for b tter c i nc tea h i ng at elementary hool ' or w he n an N 0 rganizes public prote. ts agai n. t the u n p pu lar pol icie. f the WOo The N G Os d somethi ng that nothi ng else can ach i ev , namely t emp wer and tTl bi l i ze c i ti zen. and thus weake n top-b ttom fI w. and str n g then both bot t m-b ttom and b ttom-up fl ow s: . ee Fi g . 6.5. SUlte
SUlt
-1.
li
I nd i v idual '
Indiv idual '
S tate
-1., /' CON
NGOs
DIS
i I nd iv iduals a
b
H
NGO.
7' I nd i iduals
(c
Fig. 6.5 (a Authoritarian regime: onl�' top-down action . b ) Pas he democracy : citizen participation is limi ted to voting once in a while. c) A ctin partici patory ) democracy:
i tizens participate in both consenting ( ON and dl senting D G Os besides otlng.
8. Dem ocratic Goyernance
P I i tical de mocracy i s p pular govern ment a. pposed to el itist go ernment. A good i nt roduct ion to de mocrat ic g vern ance i . t o I ok at pri m i t ive s cieties thc o n l y conte mp rary example f w hi c h arc t u nd am ng A meri ndian , In u i t and Au traLian aborig i ne . Thcse arc aL 0 th n L y direct democrac ic . Another w ay t undcr tand p Utica1 democracy i s by contra t to utterl y u nde mocratic ocietie u c h a those of parta ( m i J i t ary ari tocracy and . m edic aL P l and ( l and w ner and serf ) ; v i et c m m u ni 111 la e ( party bur aucracy, and citiz n s ; h i ne. e comm u n i m ( party, big busi ne s bureaucracy, and citizens ' fa cism ( big bu i ness party bureaucracy, upper c l ass and commoners) ; and c loni s and sem i -col onies such as th banana repub l ics upper c l ass t re i g n p wer, for i g n i nv stor. , arm ed forc and c m mo ners . W hat i c m m o n to al l of th s reg i me is l ac k of popu l ar part ic ipation i n choosing n t o n l y authoritie but also person al L i fe sty l : they are t t al i tarian reg i m S. A U the p l icie and the m ai n d cision. rai n from ab v -h nee th p p u l ar B raz i li an n am manda .h u 'as ( rain-makers) for th rul rs. What v r eL ct i o n s that d ta� p i a ' i n tho 'c 'oun t ri ar usuaJ I y frau iul nt. How vcr they u ffie f those who on ly car f r appearance . in th eye '>
267
Public Governance
S i nce d i rect democracy j practicable only i n small com munitie one ha. to opt for indirect democracy. In civics c l ass, a democratic gO ern ment, whether local or central , i. depi ted l i ke Fi gure 6.6a. B ut e ery pol i toloCJi . t know. that in reality i t i s more l ike Fi CJ. 6b redrawn from B u n ge 1 98 5 : 1 66 ) . For the . ake of . i mpl icity, the j udicature h as been omitted; it should be placed between the leg i slature and the executi e. o
i
o
B ureau racy Legi . lature
E e uti c
i
o
o L(' o
\
i
Legi 'Iatuf
NG
�
0
pow r el it
Exccutiv
0
B u reau ra y o
Votcr
\
Voter Partie.
nelec ted
pow r brokers a)
b
Fig. 6.6 Thwry (a) and practice b of political democracy. Tbe arro stand ' for in6uence, and the arrow-less lin ' . for reciprocal influence. The apex is compo ed of the
l1\1F� the \'VB, \ TO and a handful of transnational
corporation:. The unelected power brokers of the private sector arc the press, big bu iness and religious organizations.
I n n 'arJy all mod 'rn nation the above power stru 'ture i s found at fou r Ie e i s : local, regional national and supranational ( Hooghe and M ark. 200 1 ). Und 'r totalitarianism, th ' power flux among the e fOlIr t ier point. down. whereas under democ racy i t poi nts both way . . Moreo er. under democracy th re is cooperation a. wel1 as comp tition among the ariou. leve1 . . Typical1y, the lower ti r. demand ever more autonomy. wh r as th h igher ones attempt to l i m i t com munal and r gional pow r. [n Western Europe th . truggle b tween local and c ntral gov rnment. goes back to medi val t imes. E v n in modern democracies th re is an unavoidable tension between the demand for increa 'ed local autonomy and the b m i tation ' i mpo 'ed by the need [or overall coordination and e ffic iency. Thi . ten 'ion i . particularly obvious in governance by com m i ttee, which is slow not only becau ' o[ deliberation, but also becau 'e
2 8
Political Philosophy
it offer long-winded i ndividual the opportunity to I i ten to them e lvc and to delay a tion. Much is ri ght about the regime depicted by Figure 6.6a: R ule of law, exercise of ba. ic rights, rel ief from hard. hip, and freedom to run for publ i office and vote . H owever, in real ity none of the. e benefi t� come pure. For example. the poor l ack the leL ure to enjoy m any ba. ic right. , such a. property right. and education . Besides. the people, who are suppo. cd to b ' the sovereign, i ' actually strongly i n fl uenced or e e n pr ' 'sured by . 'If-interest 'd and uncle ted power sources: public-opinion maker lobbyi t for corporation ,Uld special-intere 'ts GO 'uc h a ' th ational R i fle A ' 'ociation. A noth 'r flaw of the r 'gi me i n question is that c itizen participation is weak : it is a case of what B arber ( 1 9 4 ) called 'thin democracy. Even i n adv,Ulced democ racie wh 'r ' election ' ar ' frc ' and vot 'r turnout i s l arg ' the ast majority of c itizen ' hibemat ' poli t icall y in b tween elec tion. : I ndeed. ry few att nd pol itical meet ing. tow n hall meeting. , or pol itical study groups, on top of which they are i ther uni nformed or m i . i n formed by th big press. Our. ar at most talking democ racies, w here th few civic -m inded pol i t ical strategi. t . . i t a t coffe hou. e s . and . eldom i f e v r s e k the chance o f doing anyt h i ng b tt r than gossip i ng cri t ic i z i ng, and fanta. izing. fourth flaw of m any democraci . i s that t hey are largely dominated by unelected and t herefore unaccountabl power e l i te ' ( Mi l l ' 1 95 9 B ' i des, in pre 'idential d mocracies, by contra · t to the parliamentary one ' , the cab inet m i ni ' ters are not elected offic ial ' accountable to the electorate, but the Pre ' ident " c ron i " m,my w ith clo ' e l i n k ' to b i g busine ' " right-wing G O ' or both. Wor 'e in pre 'idential regime ' the E xecuti ha the pow r to i . . ue decree and eto b i l l ' appro ed by Parl i am nt: th Pr id nt can mock both d mocracy and the divi . ion of pow r . And in popul i t e m i-d m ocracies 'om public ervant. doubl a· party organi zer . in Mexico ther was a t i m w h n th M in i ter of th Interior could ord r . 0 m any ton ic) of peasant to be t ran 'ported i n truck. to a pub l ic . quare to c h r th S enor President . By contra t, i n the ordic countri e . government i transparent and accountable to the public: it re embles the ideal reg i me depicted i n Fig. 6.2a. I n hort, what i w rong w i th mo t of our pol i ti cal democracie i that they are not democratic enough, on top of which they are u ual ly accompanied by huge unj u r i fied biolog ical, econom i c , and cultural inequal itie . I t i ustomary to ppo e dem cracy to authoritarian reg imes. B u t of cour e thi d es n o t enta i l rejecting authority per 'Ie, i t n l y i nvolve •
.
Pu bUe Governance
269
reject i ng arb i tr ary authori t y and abu e of I g i t i m ate authorit y. 0 d go ern ance of anything fr m fam i l y to bu. i ness and city to the w rId sy. tem req u i r . technical authori ty to make compete nt dec i . ion. ; legal authority t i m plement them ; and moral authority to g ai n leg i t i m acy and thus public tru. t. We . hal l return t the prob lem. of dem ocracy in hapter 9 . or now let us concl ude by n t i ng that one of the i rtues f ge n u i ne de mocracy is that, l i ke c ie nce. it i sel f-correct i ng , w hereas in authorit arian r g im s i t takes further m i take and l ie to co er up any m i t ake r l i e . 9. I nternational Relations
W he n l umbus "di covered' A m erica i n 1 49 2 , a l l n ations becam nearly vern ight m e m ber f the w rId system Wal ler tei n 1 9 74 . S oon thereafter the need for a " I a� f the n ation. , r i n ternat ional l aw be c ame appare nt. Howe er. nations are mute: o n l y the i r state. have v ice. Thi i s w hy the c m p nent. of the N are c al led its m e m ber states, and w h y i nternationa/ l a� actual ly deal s w ith i nterstate rel at ion . Th i . sug oests that the proper ontolog ical framework for the practice and study of i n ternational rel at ions is sy tem i sm rathe r than i ndi i dual i. m , w h ich lead. to i olation i s m , nationa l i . m , or u n i l ateral i m ( B u nge 1 7 7 ' J ame. 2 02 : Picke l 200 ) . The m ai n g a l f i nternat ional l aw i to resol ve i nterstate con fl ict . B ut w h i le i t m ay contain them it has rarely preve nted any. The rc a on i that human l i fe dep "nd n m ateri al rc urce , some of \ h ich arc carce. This i w hy al l tho e w ho J ack n atural resource co et the m . Til l i the g i t of the m ateri aUst explanati n f i nternat ional confl ict . Thus, for in tance the Troj an w ar wa not fought er the abducti n of be autifu l Hel n but m . t l i ke l y ver the cont ro l of the A egean trade routes to ypru s the copper i sl an d ; Prussia t arted m an y w ar s bec ause i ts l and w as smal l and poor and i t s ari stocracy ambitious; the F i rst World War w as neither er erbi a sovere ig n ty n r over d mocracy but ab ut t rritori ; J apan i nvaded M anchuri a becau e it w anted its iron - th cond W rId War w a. mor ab ut w rJd d m i n ati on than frc dom and democracy-so m uch so, that the Western iem cracies f ught al ong w ith the S i t U n i o n , and that no colon i al p pJes were consult 1 . Acc rdi ng to c m m u n i st ort hodoxy w ar w u J d be i m possi bl in a soci aJ i t w orld. B ut thi ' oci aLi st p ace th TY" w as con futed by th m i l i tary ' n fT ntati n betw en h in a and the � rm r 0 iet U n ion. and b twe n h i n a and V i tuam . In these ca n ational lnt re t overrod the solidarity of th c ia l l st c am p .
270
Political PWlo ophy
In rec nt year orne di t i ngui h d pol itical clenti t , in parti c u l ar Doy l e ( 1 98 and R u . . ett 1 99 3 ) ha e held th at democracies tend not to make w ar w ith n another. The mechanism would be th i s : D mocratic I aders cannot m bi l i ze th popu l at i n w ithout the con sent f a broad range f i nter , ts e.g . , B ue no de Me. qui ta and Lal m an 1 99 2 ; Hegre et al. ....00 1 ). ThL hypothe. i . cal l ed 'democratic peac t h e ry " ha. a n b ious p l icy i mp l i cati o n : Peace through dem ocracy. ecret c lause : if nece ary, i m po dem cracy. Thi pol icy w a beh i nd th biparti an Advance Democracy Act. and a j u t i fi cat i n for in aili ng A fghani tan and I raq . H w ever, there are m any i mportant c u nter x ampl to thi hy poth i . Let th f H ow i ng u ffi ce . The m ai n c n t nders i n World War I wer fi ve democracle B ri tai n , Prance, Ital y, enn an y, and the A u tro- H u ngarian Empir ) p l u aut crati c Ru i a. Th ce n tral powers were dem n iz ed a auth ri tari an, but domestical ly they were j ust a l i be ral a. their enemie. , and even more adv anced i n . oc i al leg i slation. A ny w ay, al l the six major pow ers. on both sides, were i m perial i . t , hen e w ar-pro ne. urther counter-examples t the hypothesi s in q ue. tjon are the vari ou. US- ponsored coup. agai n t de mocrati al l y elec ted go ern ment. , ongo ( 1 960 ) , B raz i l such a. tho. e f Iran I 53 G uate m al a 1 54 ( 1 9 4 , G reece a n d Fij i ( 1 9 7 ) , C h i le 1 97 3 , a n d C ypru ( 1 974 p l u the i nva i n of t h e D m i n ic an R "pu b l ic i n 1 9 5 right after the e Jecti n f a democratic government. W he n see k i ng l aw , d n ' t forget to chec k for except ion . W h i le i nternati n al con fl ict are often garbed i n lofty rhetoric, actuaJ J y mo t o f the m arc a b ut n atural re urces r t rategic p i t i n . ven i n the Thirty � ars War J 6 1 S-4 S)-th paragon of a r J i g i u w ar-I w l y m ateri aJ i nt rests. particu l arly A u tri a expan iOl1ism. p l ayed a key role. I ndeed Franc und r ardi nal R i chelieu al i i d itse l f w ith the Prot stants agai n st atholic A ustri a. Earlier Fra�oi I h ad joi ned up w i th , ul i m an the M ag n i fi cent agai n. t the Holy Rom an Em peror h arJ V-who e arm y. teem i ng w ith Lutherans, . ackM the H I y See. I n 1 967 hristian B ri ts t allled up w ith godJe, . S "j t to h J p th MosJ 111 ru J rs of o rth ern i geri a butcher Chri sti an l o bos. who happen d t i nhabit the oi l -rich n ly w rshi p. A J m i ghty pr i nce of B iafra. the fa ori te of heU - B P, wh O i l Yet H u n t i ngton ( 1 996 has c l ai med that h ri stian ity ( w h ich on . ) i . w h at tisti ngui shes ' the We t . A nd w hat wa r aUy at tak i n t h o J d War 1 945- 1 9 89 ) '. A l though o ften pres n ted as a titanic fi ght ov r freedom and democracy argu ably i t w as over t h e pri ncipl of private prop rty a w L l a s th control
Public Governance
27 1
of th Thi rd World. Fortunat 1y contrary to w hat e m i nent experts had prophesiecL the Cold War did not end in a nuclear holocau , t : The two main n uc l ear powers exerc i . ed restrai nt� and to it. c redit the U n i ted S tate . did t h i . even before the Sov i e t U n i on , t arted produc i n g h y d rogen bomb . . H owe e r, b o t h powe r, p u r. ued t he i r n u c l e a r weapons program. i n . tead of scrappi ng the m , and conseque n t l y they wa. ted tri l 1 i ons o f dol lar, s i x from the U n ited S tate, alone that . hould ha e b 'en pent on social program . . What bett 'r proof of the pow 'r of dia bobc ideologies? W hen the Soviet 'TIlpire coll ap 'd 'om ' of the ideologu '. that had parti - ipat d i n the Cold War tried to rei nv 'nt the m- e lve a prophet. of n 'w cru ade . One of them, SanlUel H untington 1 996 , prophesied that the next inte rnational confl i -ts would be 'cl ash '. of civil ization ." Regrettabl y he did not both 'r to define the v 'ry oncept of a civili zation. He ju.t l i sted what h took to be th civil i zation. of the day. among th m th African and H i ndu on s, a, i f Africa and the I ndian subcontin nt w r homogeneou. nations. N o doubt, the concept o f a c iv i l i zation m ak . , nse to archaeologist. who , r udy the Sumerian, Aztec or other auth ntic c i v i li zation . . B ut a. th y e olve civil i zations d cay or split. For e x am ple the He] ] nic civil ization ex i . ted a t t h e t i m of t h e Trojan War, but no longer hal f a m i l lennium later. Indeed, at the t i me of Pericles, Greece included ari 'tocratic, m i litary and backward Spa rta along w i th democratic, c iv i l ian and h ighly c i i lized Athen ' . The two nations shared l anguage and rel i gion, but little else. And today ' . world i s of cour 'e far more diverse. E en blocs of nations, ' uch a ' the European, the meri can and the rab one ' , are e tre me ly h t rogeneous. For exampl t he Unit d S tate 1 ad a bloc that con tain nation ' a ' d i r e and w ith such different i n tere t . a I ra I and S audi A rabia, Poland and Guatemala, Japan and M orocco, Tai wan and olombia, Georgia and the Phi l ippine '. And in any ev nt. no ooner did th Cold War nd, than two oil war fl ared u p-the Gulf War i n L 990 and th I raq war in 2003-and v ral other ' loom ah ad: for oil or urani u m , land water, or trategi c po ition. Re ource are the ource of war. So much 0 that the balance of power boi l down to the balance of re ource : "A coalition of countrie can defeat another coali tion if and on ly if the amount of re ource held by the fir t coalition exceed that of the second coalition ' N iou, Orde hook and Ro e 1 989: 5 1 . Luck i ly for u , the leaders of the A x i power overlooked thi truth. H owe er war i s u lt imat ly rui n u even � r the v i tors 0 i t can not g n � rever. H e n e the need to prevent contain or terminate i n tenlati nal
272
Political Philosophy
conftkt through negoti at ion. D iplom acy i i ndeed the art of peacefu l confl ict-re, olution i n the i nternational arena. And . uch negot i ation i . expected t o abide b y the rule, o f i n ternati onal l aw fi r. t propo. e d by Franci sco de Vitoria, at the U niver. i ty of S al amanca who j u. ti fied war only to repeal ag gre . . i on . Tho. e rule, were put into practice in draft ing a number of treaties, among them the Peace of Westphal ia ( 1 648), which concl u ded the Thirty Years War. U n fortunately tho. e rule. , which workcd rcasonably wcll cnough duri ng four c 'nturi c , wcrc violatcd by th ' Trcaty of Vcrsai lles 1 9 1 9 , whi 'h sought rcv 'nge and poiL , and wa thu the seed of th ' econd World War. Gun boat d iplomacy and huttlc diplomacy are not prcci ely d iplo matic becausc thcy 'on i t in cithcr i n t i midating th ' weaker party or i n playing the stick-and-carrot gamc w i th i r . The pcace t r 'aties i m provi ed on battlefi 'ld. do not l ast bccause they j ust patch u p confti ts i n tcad of solv i n g t he m : Th y are sheet of paper rather than bridges. It i. not for nothing that roughly half of th conflicts of th l a. t two decade. have recu rred w i t h i n fi v years of the corresponding peace agreement , Effecti e treaties ar . olid bridges. They i nvol v mutuall y convenient cooperation-the best way to bui ld m ut ual tru st-and are drafted by professional . (diplomat and c i i l servant. not amateurs, And yet in the U n i ted S tate ' the dom inant 'chool in inte rnati onal relation ' i . the ' real i 't" or chau vinist one, I t . central the 'i ' i . summa rized i n th popul ar ' logan 'America F i r 'C : National i n te rests should be overriding, to the point o f allow i ng national governments to break treatie ' , 'abotage the U , vi olal i ntemational l aw, and attack foreign powe r ' , The i n ternationalist " by contrast claim that the inte rnati onal com m u n i ty, rath r than any of it m m ber . hould be preem inent and that national i nt re t ' hould not be abov the int rnational l aw and in parti u l ar the U harter, W h i h of the n¥o chool i righ( in thi. m att r a ' in eryt h i ng poli t ical, con 'jd ration. of n¥o ort are appo. i t : prudential and moral . Clearly, pol i tical "reali m" national i m ) i i m moral becau i t ndor e. the pri nciple that might i right. whence it upports any pol i cy that aim at taking advantage of the weak. H owe er, nationali m i hard to practice in an i nterdependent world, where i t i in the i ntere t of every nation to be on good terms with other nation . which are or m ay become partner of orne kind. I n partic u lar nationali m i i ncompati ble with global i za tion in good faith-the free fl ow of people good e rvice . and capi tals across border. , Hence it j parad x ka l that some f the very . arne p l it ical leaders who tout the benefits f globali zati n actually practice
Public Governance
273
Realpolitik i n pol itical intcillational rcl at ion . . H owe er i t i t i me to tum from war to commerce . I n temational trade i . u, ual ly treated a. pol itica11 y and morally neutral . B ut i t i. neither, because it i. tied up w i th poJ itic" . ince . tates may either promote or , ti fl e international trade ; and becau. e i mperi al nation. can i m po. e their w i ] ] by force, the way the B Titi. h forced I ndia to buy i t. cloth, China to tolerate the BritL h opi um trade, and the U ni ted State. i. blockading uba. lnt 'rnational tradc ha a moral conlponent too, bccau c i t m ay be fair or u nfair to thc wcaker trade partner or to the labor force that produccs the good. or ser icc ' supplicd by one of thcm. Conscqu 'ntly the comm 'rc ial cod '. and the i nternational trade treati e and organiza tion ' such as the G ATT and its 'uccc or thc WTO arc l i kcly to i nvol c c iau. 'S or to tolcrat ' practices favoring the nlore powerfu l partn 'rs at th exp n. e of the re, t. An xampl of . uch u n fair trad practices i . th . ubsidizing of agriculture by the U n it d S tate, and the European U n i on see R iaboi 2006 . Sh r pol i tical clout fa ors tran. national corporations at th exp n. e of local bu, ine, . es ( more in UN 2004 ) . ntil rec nt1y, t h e wealthier nations enj oyed their trade pri v i leg . w ithout conte, t . Th fi r, t serious fissur arose at the famou. Seattl meeting o f the WTO in 1 999. There, a n u m ber of vocal NGO ' of m any · trip . joined the repre 'entative . of 'orne developing nations to voice their grievance '. Tho ' event · , and certain l itigation ' ( ' uch as B raz i l s again ,t the U nited S tate ' for subsidizing thei r colton growers have made 'eriou ' dent · on the c redi b ility of th WTO a ' a neutral umpir . Thi s 'ugge ·ts, not that the TWO ' hould be 'crambled, but that i t 'hould be redesigned from c ratch 0 a to re ' pect t h need ' and I gitimat a· pirations of all participant · . B ut thi will requ i r r formul at i ng David Ricardo' theory of competiti advantag . 0 onvenient for the Briti h Empir at a t i m 1 8 1 7 ) wh n env i ronmental protection and h u man right wher n o t y t i n . ight. I n a j u t world ord r. advantage 'hould be mutual. and environ m ntal conc rn and human right. hould b at property right. . The international trade agreement have been among the tronge t and more la l i ng of al l ever i nee the world y tern emerged i n 1 492. Thi i becau e they i n ol ved equal partners who benefited equally from the agreement . The same cannot be aid of the free-trade agreement championed by the U n i ted States i nce the end of Wor1d War I I . They have changed not only the face of international relations but al 0 that of dom ti p Ii ie by di pia ing or k i l l i ng ntire i ndu trie cutting s cial expenditur , weakening pub l ic health and , afety l aw s, and generally er d i ng t h people p wer t c ho , e t h i r own fate . I ndeed the i n tro-
274
Political Philosophy
duction of the e agre m nL ha. i n olved a new authority that escap the control of the con. tituenci es of all nation" namely the WTO. As K irshner 2005 : 487 ) put. it� '[t] he negotiation of these [free trade] agreements . ever, the citizen-. tate relation, hip almo. t completel y. I t doe. so by mo ing the foreign trade policy-making proce . . from the national leve l , where citizen-, tate rel at ion. hip, are con. tituted, to the realm of global pol i tics, where the operative pol itical relation, hip. are . tate-to stat '.' The prote ters who wrecked the ministeri al confer 'nee of the WTO in S 'attIc i n 1 999 u nder tood thi s , which i why they did not appreciat ' President C l inton ' s tri u nlphal i naugural statement that th ' conD'r 'nc ' wa 'an h istoric opportunity for the United S tates to 'xerc i. ' I 'ader h i p in 'etting t h e trad ' agenda for the next century." W h y care for ' global leader 'hip' w hen you lose job l iberty and cultu re at the local level ? I n a law fu l and enlightened world it would b ' up to the United Na tion. not the U n i ted S tate. or any other country or region, to ex rc i. e global I adership, or rath r stewardship. A l aw fu l worl d would b one ruled by the UN Charter, in particul ar it. Article 2 .4, that reads thu s : "Al l Members . hal l refrai n i n their i nt mational relation. from th threat or u. e of force agai n. t th territori al integrity or pol itical independence of any state, or in any oth r m ann r i nconsi. tent with th Purpo. s of the U ni ted ation ' ." Any govern ment that v iolates thi . art ie l de 'erve . bei ng called a rogue gov rnment. And a world dominated by a single power that consi · tently v iolate ' all the m ajor int rnational convention ' i . a lawle ' s world ( Sands 2005 ) . On can only hope that th cost and ri 'k of l iv i ng at the top of the pyram id w i l l becom '0 unbearable, t hat eventual l y th gri p w i l l be relaxed and th obligation ' i m po 'ed by the U h arter w i l l be m t. M i l itary aggre ion i not only i m moral and i l l gal but a1 0 increa ingly unprofi table becau of th popular re i ,tan i t licit . Even th US w i th i t colossal m i l itary and economi u pe ri ority, ha won only on war i nc th end of World War I I i n J 945 : the Gulf War. A nd th i nva.ion of Afghani tan and I raq after year of deva tation, hav not accompl i hed the declared aim, namely ferreting out the terrori t cel l . Rather on the contrary, they i n tantiate the empi rical generali zation: "The . more c iv i l ian you bomb, the more re istance you elicit. Expert coinci de i n their autop ies of the mo t memorable of the recent armed confl ict . In Vietnam the U n i ted S tate was fighti ng a na tionali st movement that enjoyed the y mpathy of the great majority of the population. A fter that d feat and it d mestic repercu ion. the U . S . g emments wer rel uctant t o r i s k l i ves i n gr u n d combat p r ferring
Public Governance
275
to h i re mercenarie and hower bomb from a high alti tud . The I srael i experience si nce i t joi ned the B ritish and French i n de,troyi ng the uez Canal in 1 95 6 . hould have been equally in. tructive . It won reo oundingly the 1 967 S ix Day. war which i t fought for it, survival . B ut Israel ha. not yet achieved peace, hence national . ecurity, becau. e i t h as not atta ked the roots of al l the confl ict, with i t. neighbor. : the i l l egal occupation of Pale. tin ian land. and i t. acting a. the g uardian of American intere. t. at the . hor ' of th ' l argest und 'rground oil . ea in th ' planet. Thus, I srael 's bri l l jant m i l i tary victory in 1 967 wa pYIThic after all. Thc moral of these 'tories i s that i nternational proble m- arc seldon1 i f ever solved by th ' for 'c of am] alonc . They can only be 01 ed i n a la. ting way b y pol i tical mcan '-n 'goti ation and arbi trati on-and i n t h e spirit o f equi ty 'ntrenched i n thc U halt 'r. B ut quity can hardly comp 'te w ith u pcrior armament and u n l i mi tcd grccd ' ustaincd by t ri bal moral. . l. ther a way out of the c urr nt i mpasse . Ar th r any pol itical . c ienti . t. and pol itician. w i n i ng to ri o k th i r career. propo. i ng original and v i able , trategi e . . Let us finally glimpse at . mall -scale wars, or guerri l las u. ualIy m i. . pel Ied ' gueri l l as' ) . G ue rri l l a warfare ha. b n practiced for centuri s . . omet i me. again. t fore ign occupi r. at other t ime. again. t the fight rs' own government . A . the old chestnut has it, wherea ' t he guerril la fighter ' call themselv . 'freedom fighte r ' , their opponent · call them 'terrori ·ts: Gue rril la movem nl ' are morally j u ·tifi ab l a ' long as lhey have legiti mate goal ' , do not larget c iv i l ians, and no peacefu l mean ' to d po 'e an oppressi e government wer i n sight. These conditi on ' wer met by the A me rican revoluti onari e " the pani a rd ' who fought the apoleoni c occupier ' ; th Phi l i ppine ' a n d Puerto R ican who fought t h e A m rican in asion force ' the Central A merican who fought the A merican-backed d ictator 'hip for m uch of the tw n tieth centu ry ; and the South African ' who fought the Aparthei d r g i m . By contra t, the condition of refrai ning from harmi ng c i i li an wa y 'temat i cally v iolated by the I R A and ETA gunmen which i . why they were e ntually '0 di credi ted that t hey had to negotiate and fina]]y d i band . A t thi s w riti ng, i m i lar group i n the ear East are winning popu lar upport for thei r attac k again t the foreign occupier . Regrettably, their target gather them all together i n the ame bag and c l ai m to be fight i ng the "War on Terror. ' The occupiers refuse to admit that the only morally acceptable and poli tical ly mart mo e wou ld be the i m mediate w ithdrawal from all the tolen l and ' and the fi ghter. i n th , e res i tance mo e ments do not to m ind the h uge losses suffered by the populat i n they attempt c
276
Political Philosophy
to fr e. The c los Cc i ndud not only i nnocent l i vcs m ans of l ivelihood, and com mon goods. but al so the abi l i ty to work for i ndependence with nonviolent pol i tical means, . uch as street demonstration. and the refusal to ooperate w i th the occupier-the very strategy that Gandhi and h i . follower. employed . uccesc ful l y to g e t rid of t h e B ri tish. For the past few years the A me rican and B ri ti sh go emment. have waged what they call the 'War on Terror ai m i n CJ at de. troy ing the I larni t gucrri l l a group in thc 0 cupicd tcrritoric and cl 'cwhcrc. Th ' word war' is bci ng dclibcrat 'ly m i u . ed i n thi ' ca. ' bccausc by dcfi ni tion, war ' arc am] ' d confl i ·ts bctw 'cn arnlic ' o f stat 's ,md tCITorist , group , su 'h a A l Qacda and Hczbol lah arc not armic , lct alonc . tat ' am] ics. Thcy ar ' olat i lc volunt 'cr corps that omctimc a ·t on bchalf of politj al movcmcnt ' ncvcr statc . B u t thc word war ' comc i n handy to fool p oplc i nto bclicv i ng that thc ho- tiJ itics in qu 'stion arc all-im portant . 0 that they requ i re extraordi n ary op ration. . uch a. i nvad i ng countries, and extraordina ry r source. , as well a. ad hoc legi . l ation that ri o k. v iolat i ng dom . tic and international law. When the B ritish and Span i . h gov rnment. confronted the I R A and ETA t rrori . ts reo pect ively, they did not sp ak of armed confl ict, and thi . allow d t h e m to subjec t t h e terrorists to t h e cri m inal c o d i nstead of regardi ng them as POW ', let alone as ' enemy non-combat,mts' exempted from the Geneva on ention '. or did tho 'e government · bomb c itie " such as Dublin and an Seba ,tian, let alone London and Boston which might hav harbored terrori ,t . and the i r sym pathizer ' . Pol i ce and 'earch-and-de 'troy operations a r not armed con fl ict · , i f only becau ' e they are u n ilateral. B u t i n pol i ti c ' m i s leading word ' can be a· effect ive as deed ' b call e all h u m an behav ior originate i n brain ' . Wily pol i t ic i an . a l 'o know that p ople a n b e e a ' i1 y manipulated w h n told that they ar u nder attack. Thi i why the U nited S tat . U n i t d K i ngdom and th i r c lient go rnm nt · keep 'tating that their nation. are at war agai n t t rrori m. Su kers beli ve. and he r or jeer P l i t i al fa 't
----)
Official vcr ion Skeptic he k and chc r, j "r, or neCI
Fig. 6.7. Ohjective social facts , hen filtered through hiased politicians ideologue or journalists elicit different
re.
ponses from keptics and the guUible.
Public Governance
277
1 0. Concl u d i ng Remarks
The effi c ient fun rioning of m achine , organi m . and ocial y tem req u i re control mechan i m . The tate i of cour e the rnai n control rnechani m of c i v i l i zed oci ety. It can be e i ther erv i ceable or para i tic, and corre pond i ngly moral ly legitimate or not, but i n any ca e i t m u t exert authority, and thu re t rict orne freedom . B ut, paradoxi cal ly, the tate authority. l ike any other, only work i f i t ubject have free w i l l , and arc t h u capable of d i obeyi ng authority. To attain cohe ivene j lL tice and c ustainab i lity a sO ' i ty m u st pro tect its natural en i ronment and co x i st peacefu l l y with the rest of the world. It mu t al 0 t rive to hav its pol i ty match it biological, econom i c a n d c u ltural ubc ystem . To p u t i t negatively: To prevent stagnation o r even 'ollapse a sO ' i ty m u t avoid riou. and u. tained m i s nultches b tween it elf and i t env i ronment a well a a mong it m ai n fou r ub . y. terns. Let us take a qui k l ook at three contemporary ca. e. of l arCJe mi. m atche. : I ran. China and the U n i ted S tates. The go emment of the I ran ian I . l a m i c Repub l ic h a. t hree m a i n b ran h e s : the Counc i l o f R e o l u t i on . Pre. idency a n d Parl iament. T h e me mber. o f the l a. t two b ranc h e . are elected democrati cal l y but the candi date. a re . c reened by t h ' u preme power t h ' t heocrati . Cou nc i l . This m i match betw ' 'n de mocratic c lection and theocratic nomination m akes a mockery of d 'mo Tacy. h i na ha ' grown i nto an i ndu 'trial giant und 'r a party that sti l l alL i t 'clf Comn1Unist d '. pite encouraging the enrichnl 'nt of entrepreneur. and banni ng labor u n ions. H e re th ' mismatch occurs between words and d eds . Th i . cogn itiv dis. onance i . causi ng popul ar d i . content. m an i fested i n th i ncreas i ng n u mber of . treet demon. t rations and pub l ic riots-nearly all of them repr ssed. Inv stigation il1 situ Tsai 2007 . hows that the new rich are keepi ng a low profile i nstead of pre . . i ng for democratic r form . . Contrary to neoliberal orthodoxy, capital i . m does not automatical l y beget democracy. Our third and fi nal xample comes from the United State ' , It i . the m i s match between p raise for democracy on the one hand, and th i n c rea ' i ng power o f c orporations a n d fundam e n t a l i , t ch urche ' on t h e other, along w it h t he ' upport o f forei g n d i ctator ' h i p " T h e A merican governments o f recent t i m e ' al ' 0 in ·tan t i ate the confl ic t between l i b rtarian rhetori c and i nc reasi n g state power w i t h the attendant r i s i n g debt -fi cal, ' oc i al c u l t u ral pol j t i c al and mora l . What a
7 Scientific Input to Politics A w arg ued i n hapt r 2 pol i t ic ' i ' all about ' oc i al probl m . A ocial problem i ' a per i st i ng difficulty that affects a whole ector of oci ty and cal l s for new pol ic ies or higg r resourc . or d at r moral ar . Social problem ' merge or ubm rge i n bundles rath r than on at a t i me becau ' they occur in 0 ial sy tern " and t h a r polygonal rath r than lin ar. For example poli tical apathy come together with e ither in ufficient or exce sive tate inter ention, e ither ucce or fai lure of ocial programs d i credit of trad itional partie , insufficient lei ure to take an i n te re t in public problem , poor in truction in civic , and 0 on. For example, the European oci al-democrati c partie have been v icti m s of the i r own uc ce i n bui lding the welfare tate which the young take for granted and therefore do not fe 1 grateful for. A ny campaign to redre poli t ic al apathy w i l l requ i re a whol package to holdf measur , from m b i lizing teacher. and p l i tical activ i i ng publ i c meetings' fr m favoring the f rmation f politic al debat i ng deties t reducing the time and st of e lect ral c am paign . . B ut of our e a w i t h all social acti n any of these measure m ay ba k fi re i n unfore een way . For i n tance. the ampaign i t e l f rnay b e een a j u t the rul ing party effort to i n fl uence the e lectorate. L i kewi e. an anti obe ity c ampa i gn rnay be denounced by the j unk food indu t ry a an i nfringement on the freedom of choice and commerce. Or i t rnay favor the ale of anti-obe ity qua k p i l l . The arne c ampaign may al 0 trigger a counter-carnpaign i n defen e of the right of the obe e and 0 on. A ny politician or ' iv i l e rvant tempted to prohibit a wid pread practice, from con u m i ng alcohol, tobacco and ' recreational" d rugs to gambling shou ld recall the experience of the A meri can Prohibition 1 9 1 9-33 . The crinunal ization of the alcohol market gavc ri e to rival c ri mi n al g ang pccial i z i ng in thc muggl ing and counte rfeiting of alc
c
279
280
Political Philosophy
cohol ic bev rages j u .t a the prohi bi tion of contraception and abortion led to the prol i feration of un. afe back-al 1 ey abort i onists. The moral i. not that a1 1 social programs are doomed, but that i solated program s not ba. ed on . e riou . . ociological , tudies are at be. t i neffectual and at wore t cou nterproductive-particu l arly i f motivated by rel i giou. zealotry rather than concems for public health, as wa. the ca. e of the A me rican temperance movement. Only whole packages of . cie n ti fical 1 y designed programs may uc eed. B ut e 'n y 't ' m i c policie ar ' bound to g 'nerate furth 'r unforeseen social proble m- . Social action how 'vcr well plan n 'd m u st oft 'n resort to revi ew, d 'bate and i mpro i sation . Here i s where both leader h i p and gra. . roots i n itiative are critical. And here, i n emerg 'n ' ie , is where denl0cracy excel s, becau e the c itizen of a democracy doe not wait for his marching order ' before ru. h i ng to offer his help. Sine pol itic. i . abou t . oc ial i . . ues one woul d pre . u me that pol it i cian . and c i i l . r ants sp nd time studying the fi nding. and idea. o f soc i al . c ientists. S adly t h i s i s not . o. I ndeed mo. t m mber. of tho. e occupational group. de ot hardly any attention to the , ocial . c i nce . . For example the average pol itician doe. not sub. cribe to any soc ial sc i ence or . oc ial technology journal . . And h , pends more t i m tal k i ng to member ' of hi . constituency, reading opi nion poll ' and hatching tactical plans, than ·tudyi ng 'ocia] science paper ' and bri f · . As a con 'equenc of this narrow and ' hort- ' ighted pragmatism, or dinari ly pol i t icians and c i v i l 'ervant · mak pol icy recommendations, or impl ment them w ithout really knowing much about th rea l needs and aspirati ons of the people whom they are supposed to rule or 'erve, or about th be t way to me t them ffi i ntly and fai rly. At mo t politi c i an . and ci i l ervant e k the adv ice of conomi , t u ually tho of the trad itional i t per ua. ion. And yet, a Sartori L 994 and a few other. have argued, int l ligent and honest pol i tician ' and bureaucrat ' have much to learn from rigorou 'ocial ' ienc . a ' w 11 a from its philo ophy. In thi . chapter w shal l g l i mp at the actual and pot ntial u . e of . ci nc in poHtic . The attempt to approach the social i n a cien t i fic manner ha met w ith the i ndifference or ho t ility of the 'humani st" or anti- cience camp in ocial theory, led by Friedrich H ayek Peter Wi nch, Alfred SchUtz, Leo S trau , Hannah A rendt Charle Taylor, Pierre B ou rdieu, JUrgen H aberma , and Jon EI ter. Hayek ( 1 989 ) even blamed cientism for the fai lu res of main tream econ mi t and . 0 ial pol i cy m akers. What about thei r fl ight from b t h reality and morali ty in tead?
Scientific Input to Politics
28 1
A nlajor point of the anti-c cience c amp i that, . ince pol i tic. s rve i n terest. and . tire pa . . iorL , wherea. ba. ic science i s i m peL onal, rational , a n d disinterested, . cience ha. nothing t o contribute t o poli tic . . Thi . opin i on i t riply m i . taken . Fir, t, scientific reo earch can be just a. pa . . ionate a, any other human activity. Second, one m ay defend i deas pa. . ionatel y regardless o f t h e field where they grow : Objectivity i . compatible with partiality ( Re. cher 1 997 . Thi rd moral s evol ve along w i th so iety, and in turn th . nlodern world ha ' been changing u nder the i mpact of science and ienc '-ba cd technology. Consequently, Rawl ( 1 97 1 ) notwi th ttmd i ng, our intuitive moral j udgments hould not b ' u 'd a. b 'n h m ark to mea. ure our moral theories, for m an y of the former arc bound to be ju t pr 'j udices [md as uch l acking in scientific basi . Politic ' i . a moral m i nc fi ' ld b 'cau c it i about protecting right , and enforc i ng duties. A clear example i racism, particularly wh 'n us d to .i u . tify racial segregation, . Ia e ry, and colonial i . m . Another is th op position to abortion, euthanas ia and . u icid on th ground that God gi es u. l i fe and th r for only He i s entitled to t ake it away. A third case is that of "honor k i l 1 i ng,' the m u rd r of apostate. and other peopl gui l ty of betraying a cultural tradition i n matter. of rel igious all giance sex . d i t or dr s s . P h i l o 'opher ' hav 'ometh i ng to 'ay i n all the 'e ca 'e '. First, a . we argued in Chapter 3 far from being given once and for all, val ues and moral ' are 'ocial con · tructi ons, and have evol ved along with other social traits see We ·te rm arck 1 906 . Second, far from b i ng capriciou . con · t ructi on · effective moral norm ' are rooted in both human nature and 'ocial practice, wh nee they can ,md mu ,t be j udged both by their frui t , and by their compatibil ity w i th the ci nee of the day ee Boudon J 995 . A ft r al l there i nothing . ubjecti about b having i ther pro. ocially morall y or otherwi ; and be i d . P ople ar ordinaril y moved by ntiment. a wel l a. worldly i nter · t . Scienc may b used not only to criticiz back'Ward moraLiti that block ocial progr . On may al 0 fi nd in ci n th ba. e for moral j udgme n ts and rule . For example. one m ay re ort to ocial p ychology and epidemiology to j u t i fy the i dea that inequity is biologically and od ally unhealthy. Or one m ay u e economics and h i tory to back up the idea that coloni al i m and i mperi aH m, though profitable in the hort run for private i ntere t , in the long run i t i ruinous to the tate because it require huge m i l i tary expenditure . I n sh rt politics may benefit fr m s ientifi i nput . Yet i t must be adnlitt d that social scien e i not q uite up to thi challenge. I ndeed, i t i s
282
Political Philosophy
t i l l mo tly " oft " that i neither conceptual l y nor cnlpi rical l y rigorou enough to under. tand and . teer . oci al proces�e . . Wor. e, from Kant on here ha. been an i n fl uential anti scientifi c current in social . tudie. and their philo. ophy, that claim. that the . oci al may be understood i nt uitively e.g .. through Verstehen) but not rat iona] ] y, let alone be the . u bject of empirical in estigation. Thi. antisc ienti fi c c u rrent L popular in the faculties of humanitie. becau e i t i far Ie demanding than . cienc " engi n " ring medicine, or th ' law. I n fact, the ' human istic' approach to oci al fa t ' only r qui re ' know ing how to read and at nlost, ob. 'r i ng everyday l i fe event w i thout making, let alone te ,ting, ,my conjecture abou t the mcchani. m s resulting i n the ob 'er 'd ph 'nom 'na. Thi s impl ism i also why the antiscientific crowd has n 'vcr disco ered ,my thing that the great social noveli 't , . uc h a Balz ac D i ken- , Tolstoy, H ardy, Zola Gald6s, L wis, or t h e Lat i n A m rican ' magic real i . t s ' did n o t k now. Yet, fortu nat ly mainstream . oc ial , c i nc is com m i tt d to the sc i entifi c method e en i f i t does n o t alway. practice it. For example, e v eryon seriously i nt reo ted in pol i t ical theory i s fami li ar with th work of Robert A . Dahl ev ry . tudent of i nequal ity i . fam il i ar w i th A m artya Sen s writing. , and every scholar in i n t mational pol i tic. k nows of the work of M ichae l B recher. By contra ·t, the many eddie ' that flank the main 'tream, in part ic ular i nterpretivism ( hermeneutic ' , c ri t ical theory, post- 'tructuralism, phenomenology, and fem j n j 'm the academic indus try, not the pol it ical movement can be safely i gnored i f only becau 'e they have not produced any new fi ndings. Thj ' chapter i . devoted to a q u ick examination of 'orne of the 'cientific re ource that the pol i t ical scienti t and th ocial technologi t houl d employ t o a o i d . hallowness and wast ful i mprovj ation. T h fa hion able talk abou t k nowl edge-based . ociet y i m pty wh n accompani d by faith-ba ' d pol i t ic . 1 . Environmenta l Science
I t would eem obvi ou that pol itical deci ion-mak i ng and action w i l l take geography i nto account i n order t o b e effective, for the nature of governance hould be adapted to the kind and di stri bution of the natural and human re ource of the people in q ue tion. For i n stance, a par ely populated country, uch a Canada requires omewhat d i fferent publ ic debberation mechani m and government faci btie from the government of a dens l y popul ated n u h , the Net h rlands.
284
Political PWlo ophy
The e nd good n w 1 that om t h i ng h a a l read y bee n a h i ved to p r e n t t he furt her destruct i o n of the o z o n e l ay e r by t he ft uoro carbo n s u. ed in refr i g erat rs and air coo l e rs. I n deed as soon as the proc s s w as d i scovered in 1 97 4 a n u m be r f govern m e n t . and G O s dec i ded to e l i m i n a te i t. cau. e, a n d ag reed to abide by the M o n tre al Protoco l . True , th i s g a i n w as part l y l o s t in rece n t y e ar. because o f a sudde n i n c re a. e i n the sale. of ai r co l er. in hot cou n tri . . B ut the poi n t is that the oz n lay r c an be protected pro ided the said tre aty i ob rved. N ow t r the bad new . al though i t i n t preci ely nov I : g l bal w arm i ng and i ts sequel s-c l i m ate chang m e l t i ng of g lacier and perm afro t , r l i ng f th ea h urrican among ther . A n u m b r of v l u nt ary a c i at i n s and re spon i ble t ate m n recog n i zed the pro b l m and convened the con ference that pr duced th Ky t Pr toc I f; r the reduc t i n of gree nhouse oa. em issions. Regrett ably, few n at i n have met the m i l d K y t req u i reme nts, and a n u m ber of spe c i al - i n terest l obbie and go ern mental age ncie have been c ampai g n i ng agai n. t i t . M arket fu ndam ental i st. h a e bee n spread i n g the m yt h that the m arket can t ake care of the problem f e n i r nme ntal protectio n . You are free to pol l ute prov i ded you buy "carb n c redi t .' Why n t general ize this idea about e nv i ronmentaJ crime to ord i nary cri me, by i u i ng "blo d credits ' enabl i ng the buyer t com m i t a m any m urder a credi ts he ha bee n able t bu y '? However, thi i dea h as al ready been m arketed : A n y mafia w i l l sign any uch c ntract t r a rca onable fcc. Ti conclude this section, n atur e n e rvation is a m atter f ur i vaI and therefore a moral as w e l l a p l it ic al i ssue . Ti ub rdi nate i t t hort -term '>
private g ai n i stupid as well as cri m i nal. A fi sh i ng fl t can not turn a profit in a . a w hose fi sh p pulation has b n al l but destroy d by o v r-fi . h i n g . T h e thousand f fi . h i ng boats rott j n g n t h e beache f Peru, Lake A ral, and other p l ace ar so many funeral monuments t i mprov ide nce. N o a m u n t f i nd u t r y c a n comp n sate f; r the loss f natuT if o n l y becau e ery art i fact i s u l t i m atel y ass m b l d from n atural m ateri al s. orlu n ate ly, vercom i n o t he re i slanc f p werfu l g ernmenl and corp ralions, lh U s l n tergo rnmental Pan 1 n J i m ate Chang , d of a larg n u m be r f n i ronmen lal s ' i e n t ists, has i ssued com p lh mo 1 auth ri lative and al arm i n o pr dicti o n f aJ J t imes c ncern j ng lh e ffecls of globed w armi ng U N lnlergov rnmenlal Pan 1 of C L i mal Chanoe 2007 ). Thes i ndud a n u m be r o f h i torical fi rsl , such as m a. . exti nction w it hi n o n generat ion and m a h u m an m i grations fl el ng fro m fl ood or for dri n k i ng w ater. ure l y t h i s prediction w i l l not suffic
Scientific Input to Politics
285
to prevent the global climate cata trophe, but it w i l l help the effo11s of reo ponsible pol i tic ian. and N GOs. 2. Biopolitic .?
B ioloCJY i s h ighly relevant to statecraft for the . i mple rea, on that even the mo. t powerfu l pol i tician. are ani maL . Thi . is why all modern . tate. i nclude bioloCJical laboratorie, and experi mental . tation . . The place of biology in tat ' governance i thi ' : biology feed medicine, veterinary, and agronomy, which in tum ta k l ' problems of health and nutri tion that affect everyone . on i der, for 'xanlpl ' malnutrition. One of every three c h ildren in the world i u nderweight and malnourished. To 01 ve this problem w ' need not only to in Tease the amount of food and di tribute i t more fai rl y : i t i s a l ' 0 necessa ry t o enhan ' e the nutri t i onal value of . taple c rops. In particu lar, we ne d wheat and rice with a h igher grain prot in content, as well as with more i ron and zinc. And the. e objective. ar being be attained w ith the help of cell biology and genetic . . Something . i m i l ar holds for psychology. Mental healt h cal l s for a strong . tate support of r . arch in n u rosci nc , psychology, neurology and p. ychiatry. Th moral for stat . m n i . c lear: H e l p dev lop ba. i c and appl ied scince, not only because of th i r i ntri nsic cultural value but also a. mean. to i mprove th Iiv . of people e 'pecially chi ldren . Regrettably thi ' is a Ie ' 'on that development econom i st " mo 't o f whom are economi ·ts, have yet to learn. And lawmaker ' should u nder · tand t hat I i ltle i . gained by pa ' - i ng b i l l ' concerning particular health problem ' ' uch as heart di 'ea ' , obe ' i ty, or a u t i ' m . A ll ba ' ic research 'hould be supported, becau 'e 'cience i . a system, so that none of its component · can grow i nd pendently of th other . For xample, what l ittle i . known about th origin of malignant tumor h a be n found by molec u l ar biolog i ·t bioch mi t genetici ts, c II biologi.t immunologi t epidemiologi.t and m athematical modeler . W hat c an political c ience x pect from biology? According to th founder of oci obiology Wil 'on 1 97 5 and h i fol low r. in particular Ro enberg 1 980), the correct trategy for the social cience i s to reduce them to biology becau e they tudy the behavi or of members of the biop c ie , cal led Homo sapiens. Thi i s of cour e an invitation to ignore a l l the trait that di ti ngui sh us from other ani mal . from i n enting theorie to organizing ocial y tern that may or may not advance our b iological wel l-be i ng, let alone our Darw i ni an fi tnes . I n hort, oci obiology may be defined a th ontum aciou. i g n ran e of the social . See fUlther ritici m of s c iobi ol ogy i n K i t h r 1 9 85 B ung 1 998a. .
286
Political Philosophy
Yet de pite the fact that biology ignores 'ultu re it ha been used to prop up almo. t any pol i tical phi lo. ophy: Egal i ta rian i . m and e l i t i . m , anarc h i . m and statL m. pac i fi sm and bell ico. i ty, and . 0 on. Let u . t ake a qui k l ook at a few such attempt. to construct biopol itic. a recog n i zed academ i c field w ith journals of i t. own , s u h a, Politi s and th Life S 'ien 'e.\'. And let u. start with the mo. t p ri m i ti e k i nd of pol i tical contention the one that our cou. i n . the great apes, practice w i th . k i l l a n d mali ' . Prim atology has nUid ' 'ome i mp011[mt ontribution ' t o pol i ti cal sci ence b y hawing that aU primate. 'ngage i n ". 0 i al m an i pulation to secu re [md maintain i n fl u 'ntial po ' i ti ons" de Waal 1 98 2 ) . In particular, de Waal ' tudy of h imp(U]zee in n 'arly natural conditions has hown that they exhibit ' M achiav ' l 1 ian" k i l l ' when s 'king to forg , alli[mc ' , and r .. olve onfl icts i n peacefu l way . De Waal ' ' first book, Chimpanzee Politics 1 982 , accomplished . e e ral tao k. at once. It d i . cr dited Kon rad Lorentz ' popular v iew of m an as basically aggressiv ; it confu t d A ristotl 's characterization of man a. the pol itical an i mal ' i t . hawed tha� ju. t as all ani mals actively can. truct thei r own physical niche, whether burrow or ne. t . 0 pri mates can. truct i n addition, th i r soci al niche. , such as all iances or bands; and de Waal also show d that pri mates attempt to defuse conflict , through intervening in di sputes, forging all i ances, 'har ing food, and-particu larly among Bonobo '- 'ex . I n his l ater work, de Waal 1 996 al '0 ' howed that moral rule ' 'uch as that of rec iproc i ty, are i n herent i n pri mate sociality, which would be i m po ' ' ible w i t hout pro 'ocial atti tude ' . And he rightly noted that con t mporary cognitive and affective neuro 'cience confirm ' th hypothesi ' that the primate brain i s born w i th th abi l ity to f I oci al e motion " such as mpathy and sympathy which con · titut th b iological an hor of pro. oc ial that i . moral ) b ha ior de Waal 2005 ) . Regr ttably, primatology ha made no d nt o n t h e mo ' t fa h ionabl biop y hological analyse of Hi hn and cooperation , I ndeed though common in all anim al oci tie ' in d i fferent way ' . from food gathering and sharing to n i che con truction, cooperation has got a bad name in the game-theoretic theorie of biological evoluti on and i n economic . In the e di cipline the o-cal led 'raged o/th e m mOflS plays a dom i nant role. The tory i that cheater (or free rider , or defector end up by o erexploiti ng the common re ource for thei r own selfi h benefi t until the re ource i exhau ted to everyone harm ( ee e .g., H ardin 1 968, Axel rod and Hamilton 1 9 1 The Ie . . on here would eem b v i u : P ri ate pr p rty 1 . m andatory, and the stat . hould protect the propertied. '
,
Scientific Input to Politics
287
I n recent t i mes both tandard economic thcory and ganlc theory have 10. t m uch of the i r e arJ ier reputati on becau, e they expl ai n every th i n CJ but anyth i n g . Th i. de l i ne ha. prompted a new l ook at cooperati on . A n u m ber of . rudie . have , hown that, under certain condi tion . coopera tion w i l l pre va i l over defection . Two such . tudies, one on yea . t and the other on . oc i al network s , appeared back to back i n the same i . . ue of Nalur) (MacLean and Gudel .... 006; Ohtsuki et al . 2006 . They . how th at cooperation to manag ' 'ommon r '. ourc '[ill e me rge and p 'r.i 't i n a population regardl 's of k i n recogn i tion ,md rational choice, but provided c ' rtai n spat ial d i stri bution cond itions arc nl 't . In the particular case of a social n 'twork of i ndividual that meet randomly, i t t u rns out that an ac t w i l l be altru i st ic i f the ratio of benefit to A lter) to '0 t to Ego exceed. the n u m ber of ne ighbors per i n d i v idual-a n u m ber that nleasure . . 0 i a l relatedne or ' L eo ity." In other words, th ' co 't m u st be . n1aJ l 'r than th b n fit p r neig hbor for a l tru i s m to occ u r. For example, you throw a party to acquaint your friends w ith a stru ggl ing pai nt r or you donat your old but sti 1 l serv iceable computer to a . chool i n a poor neighborhood. u roeconomic . and x pe ri mental economic . hav caused ven mor damage to . tandard economic. and . 0, indirect l y, to the fashionable eco nomic mod I s of pol i t ical behav i or. I nde d , s i nce th pioneering papers by G U t h et al . ( 1 98 2 ) and Feh r and G�ichter 2000) m any e x periment ' have ' hown that mo ,t people behave fairly rather than ·el fi sh l y. The best known experiment has studied people play i n g the 'ulti matum game ." The e perimenter gather ' two peopl e w ho hav n ver met before g i ve ' one of t hem S 1 0, ,md explai n ' the ru le . : t he per 'on who wa ' g i ven the money the proposer' ) m u st 'hare i t w i th the other the 'responder" the "
w ay he l i kes. Th r pond r can acc pt or r�iect the offer. I f h ace pts i t each player pock ts h i own . hare ; otherw i se th propo. er mu t r t u rn th money to the x p rjmenter, and the play r lea w ithout ha ing gain d anyt h i n g . The re. u lt ar c1 ar-cu t . The maj ority of propo ' rs offer around 4 ; only auti tic adu l t j ncapabl of empath izjng off r th 1 a 't po ible amount, $ 1 . Thu . on l y m ntall y i c k p opl con firm tandard economic theory. 3. Pol i ti cal P ychology
Poli tical psychology, a branch of oc i a l p ychology is a cen tenari an i nfant. It boast a fai rly n umerou com m unity of practitioner and a jour nal of i t own Politi aI P ') ch logy. The e tudie come i n three varietie : booki h a ad mic and speculat i e. B ooki h p l i tical psychol g i st tel l u s about psych logical j n s i g ht that famou tud n t of p l i tics, such as
288
Political PWlo ophy
B urke, Tocquevl lle, L Bon and Pareto hay h ad or di cu ed. am of the ssay. in th i . genre are i n tere. ting, and a few bri l l i ant and i n. ightfu l as w e l l ( . g . H i rsch m an 1 99 1 - E I . t e r 1 991 . B u t bei ng . e c nd-hand studie. , they can h ardly be con. i dered . ci n t i fic. Take, for i n. tanc , the q ue. tion ' D i d H i t le r produc azi sm or coners I y ? E en a . uperficial know ledge f the matter shows that H i tler and hi. movem ent . haped each th r. H p l aced h i mse lf at the head of an x lsti n g m oveme n t , w h ich he reoriented and re rga n i z d . In the ab e nce f w ar veteran , m i li t ary adve n turer . rn a e of un mpl yed, and th Ver ai t le treaty, H itler m i ght h a e rem ai ned a fai l ed arti t. I n p l itics, u n l i ke cuL ture leader do n t generate m ovement . but er e a nuclei and sym bol of e x i t i n g but l nch ate and fractured m vem n t . A n d yet, pol i t ical p ychoL g i t of the meth d L og i cal l nd i v iduaL i m pe r u a l o n h a e attem pted t e x p l a i n p o l i t i c al ucce excLu i ely i n term o f per. o n a l i t y trait. a n d e i ther rati o n a l i t y e . g . , lost a n d idan i u 2004 or emot i o n ( e .g . , Westen 2007 . B oth appr aches are dou b l y fl aw d, f r i nd iv i d u al act i o n happe n s i n . oc ial contex t . , and i t p l ay o n fear a n d hope as m uc h as n calcul at i o n . Th i i w hy m art po l i t i c i a n target not i nd i idua!. but g r up. of i n div i duals � i t h si m i l ar i ntere t . - w h i h i. w hy g roup , rather than i ndiv iduals . . hou ld be the u n j t of p l j t I gical analy i s . m '> f the c L a i c a l i nvesti g at i o n l i n e i n po H tical p ychol og y c ncern tw c Los '>l y l i n ked trait : aut hori tari ani m and i n t i erance . Th '> m uch -c i ted w rk f The d r A dorno and h i c w rker n the authori t ar i an per o n al ity pr duced a i ngie fi n d i n g : a I i t of t rai t -what ll sed t be cal led a re al defi n i tion-al legedly characteri z i ng the au th ri tar i a n pers o n al i ty. Th i s fi nd i ng w a not r bu t becaus the theoretkal perspective u s d by th i n vestigators n am ly p y choanal ysis, ha bee n l arg l y dL credited ( se , e . g . B e i des t h sam p l e w as rew 1 any th i ng but r pres ntat i v . and th re e arch i nvol v d pr jecti e t ests such as i n kb l ot w h ich i nv ite arbitrary i nterpretati n. In any ent, we sti l l do n t k now w hat a n auth ritarian pers n looks l i ke wh n stripped f h i . authority. P l i ti 'aJ i ntolerance an ther cLassi 'al theme of th di ci pl i n e , ha. not far t m uch belt r. An authori t y on the m atter ow ns that ' the key d term i nant of i ntol ran ' l n am l y threat] is i tse l f p rl y u nd rsto d" G i b ' n 2006 : 2 2 ) . Ba t n his tudy of re ' n t R u i an p L i t i 'aJ at ti tudes, G i b n 'ha lle ngcd th r cei cd p i n i n that thr at percept) n. ar ground d ln per onality trait and h ap d by bel iefs about democratic .
Scientific Input to Politics
289
i n c titution and pro"'e s c . In particular, he found that 'threat p rccptions are entire! independent of both . u pport for democratic institution. and proce" e. , and, e en more surpri. i n gly, p. ychologi al i nsecurity' op. c i t . : 4). A . . 0 often happen. i n . oci al psychology, G i b, on'. main po, i ti e fi ndin g con fi ml . an old opinion : Intolerance i. a . tronger motivator of poli tical acti on than tolerance . RadicaL and bigot. ha e more m i l i tant fo1 1ower. than moderates. A lthough pol itical ev 'nt. r '. ult from i nd i idual action they arc col lective fact. and occur in giv 'n social -ontext , 0 that th 'y cannot be chara teri z 'd ' lu i e ly in tenll ' of psychological charact 'rj ,tics uch a 'nlpathy, tru. t loyalty -hanl1 i n 'cu ri ty greed fear aggressiveness, sadism, or th 'ir dual . I t i true that superficial observ 'r arc drawn more by what pol it i ian say ,md the way they look on TV th'ill by their track record '. B ut, by pro 'cding in this fa. hion, those ob erver ignore the big facts b h ind th . creen and they may liv to regret their frivolou. choice . . Political .cientists, u n l ik na'ive citizen. are not expected to be fooled by appearances i n particular thos con eyed by speech and demeanor: Th y ar expected to detect the real int r . ts b hind the . hows choreographed by spi n doctors, m arketing experts. and l ackadai . ical professor. . Inv stigative journali . ts are b t t r a t such i n-depth i nv stigations of th real motive ' of k y political actors than scient i fic i nvestigator ' , becau 'e t hey c,m acce ' ' extram u ral 'ources of i n formation. For example, Craig Robert · ( 2007 ) w ri te ' that Hallibu rton, one of the companies in charge of the recon ·truction of I raq, has already raked in more th,m $ 1 0 bi l lion, and that the valu of Vice Pre ' ident Dick Ch ney " Halli burton · tock op t ion . j u m ped from $24 1 ,498 to more than $ ,000,000. Th ' u spicion that thi s war wa laun h d ' to control I raqi oil" i h ared by 76 � of I raq i . . a cond goal, c i ted by 4 1 � of I raq i itiz ns, i ' to bui ld m i l itary ba ' . ' . and 32� of the population bel i ve that the moti e w a ' to help { ' ra I" Moaddel 2007 . Ord i n ary Iraq i e m to h ay mor pol itical . avvy than their would-be l i b rator . M aybe thi abil ity i mor important for ' ur i al i n a place de a tat d by war than i n a pro perou ' nation. S ome cholars have looked at the rever e cau al arrow from oci a l t ructure t o per onal i ty. An earl y effort of thi kind wa M arx ' di cu ion of al ienation, or el f-e trangement. H e argued that, by contra t to the pre-capi tali t craft man, the worker i n a cap ital i t economy m u t e l l hi labor-power to a non-worker, and 0 become alienated from h i p r duct. I n thi proce s the worker alienate from h i m elf, becau e he is treated , one more m r handi. e and a a con. equence h a l fe l s m arginali zed i n h i own ociety. S ince the ultimate source o f a l ienation ....
Scientific Input to Politics
29 1
ho tility towards i m migrant and even v iolent con flict ( Derriennic 200 l ' de Figueiredo and Elkins 2003 : Spinner-Hale and Thei ss-Mor. e 2003). Doing someth i n CJ about global warm i ng or the i nc rea. ing North- outh gap_ protecting domestic equal i ty or individual right. , . hould be more constructive and rewarding, and therefore more i m portant, than exacer bati ng the exi sting rivalrie, amonCJ ethni group, and nation . . Let u s now gli mp, e at . ome re ent expe ri mental work i n . oc i al psy chology. ome of the mO. t rel i able and i nteresting findings have come from expe ri nl 'ntal 'conom i ,t (G intis ,t al. 2005 For example the ZUrich school has confuted the central dogm a of n oclassi -al econom ic that we all beha e so as to m ax i mi z ' our 'xpccted util i ties. I n fact, only about on ,-th i rd of us confirm this conjectu re, whi -h has dominated economi - th 'ory for two c 'nturies without 'xperimental te ts. The major i ty of experim 'ntal ubject tum out to be '. trong reci procator . ' These have "a propen. i ty to coop rate and . har with oth rs . i mi larly disposed. yen at personal co. t, and a w i l 1 i ngness to pun i . h tho. who violat cooperative and other soci al norms ven wh n punishi ng i . p r. onany costly and cannot be xp ct d to enta i l n t per. onal gai n. in the futur ' Fon g et al. : 2 2 ) . Another impo rtant batch o f empirical reo uk i s du to xp rimental politoiogi st · 'e Green and Gerber (02) . A recent experiment concern ' t he gender gap in 'ocial ju ·tice policie ' Scott et a1. 200 1 ). The 'ubject ' were a ' ked to de -ign social polic ies for an imaginary nation, u ' Lng fou r allocation criteria: equality o f outcome, merit, need and ffic iency. I t t u rns out t hat women a r more ' nsitive t o need than men, and t hat t h y are also less receptive than men to ideological and m i l i tary i 'su ' . Thi ' xplain ' th arl ier result that women t nd to vote more ' 0 i otropicall y" than m n ( W lch and H ibbi ng 1 992 ) . S ome cholar ha conjectured that thi dift r n in pol i tical atti tud . i due to the fact that women are mor v u l n rable than men ; other that, becau ' worn n carry t h burden of c h i ld rearing the fanli l y matt r ' more to them than national i '. ue ; ,ti ll oth r . i n particular Carol Gilligan that women tend to adopt an "ethi c of care and connection: The trouble with the e explanations i that they are i ndividuali stic and ahi tori cal . They gloss over the fact that unt i l a few decade ago women tended to upport the mo t con er ati ve partie , and u ed to c heer the troops heading to the front. I ugge t that the gender gap i n political orientation o b er e d i n the U n i ted S tate i rather recent and ha re u lted not so mu h from h mlonal differences a fr m the re ent p l it i al enfranchi ment of women and p l it ical femi n i s m . � t t .
292
Political Philosophy
thi s alternative conjecture on would have to conduct i m i lar tudie in countries where women are . ti l l . econd-cl a . . citizens, or are i n the process of e manci pation . What can p. ycholoCJy teach would-be d ictators on how to exa t obe dience from their subject. ? I t can teach at lea. t two Ie, son, . One i . that fear i nduces hate, which i n turn feeds violen e. Pol itician. know thi. , which i. why . 0 m any of them practice the poli tics of fear-of robber. and m u rderers t 'rrori ts and foreigners, and so on. In parti 'ular, they know that the pr ' " by reporting i n gri sly detail 'very s i ngle murder, in tills fear of m u rder even while stati tics ' how a decline i n the m u rder rate. Pol it i ian of nearly all stripe exploit thi D'ar by propo ing or introdu ing ever more draconian penal legi ' lation for fear of appearing to be 'soft on crim ' . A second Ie on that p ychology t 'ache ' i that hunum being. , or at any rate Am rican coli g .tudents ar rath r submi ssive an i m a1 . ( M ilgram 1 974 . S o sub m i . . i ve i n fac� that they will obey an order to torture a fellow human. In a way, this reo ult was to be expected gi n the rather authoritarian nature of elementary education. Still M ilgram s finding continu s to baffle social psychologist. . gi n that children acquire rather early a . ense of faim S. and t nd to re olt against arbitrary mle . . Perhap. in most of u . there i . a ten ' ion between obedience to authority in particular parental and 'chola ·tic and the 'en 'e of fairness combined with 'ympathy and empathy. The balance between the two 'eem ' to be rather delicate. At any rate, the problem 'hould be further inve 'tigated before drawing any rule ' for fooli ng and intimidating the rna . 'es-the 'ini ·ter technique ' for which were explai ned by Edward B e rnay , ( 1 928), who u 'ed 'ome idea ' of h i . unel . S igmund Fr ud. A ft r all , Prometheu. wa not the la t rebel . A nother problem worth i nv tigat i ng i that o f fi nding r l iabl proce dure for d i tingui ' h ing pol it ical courage from r kle ne . . . adaptab i l ity from opportun i ' m , di c ipline from rvi l ity, incerity from 'ham Ie prudence from cowardic , n S a rti v ne from aggre i n fi rmn . . from ruthl ne . and 0 on. S i nce none of the ' t raits i . directly o b en/able, they h a e t o b e conjectured. A n d the corresponding hypothe e hould be te ted by placing the ubject i n i tuation where they are forced to how their 'true color .' Let u next gli mp e at another biosocial cience: epidemiology. '
4. Epidemiology
Epide miol gy i s the bios c ial cience that tudi m rbidity I ngevity epidemi , and health are, in their oci al ntext. The mere xi tence of
dentific Input to Poli tics
293
t h i h y brid i nc confute the pop u l ar n atural- ciencel ultur al nc d ichotomy proc l ai med b y ne -Kantian. and herme neutici. ts. Epidem i ology has tw sides. One of them studie. the i nc i dence f sickn sses and i t. rel ation t . cioecon m i c variables . uch as i nc me d i stri bution ; and the other de. ign. practi cal means t preve nt or contain epidemics , such as san i tati n , acci n ation quarant i ne, and pre e nti e medici ne C. ee , e . g . , A nders n and M ay 1 99 1 ; Rot h m an and J reen l and
1 998). W herea the former is a bio c i a! c i e nce, the latter 1 a bios c ial technol gy. R egrettably, comm u nication betw en basic and appl ied epidem iology i far from fl ui d . Thi i partl y due to the fact that, w herea basic epld m i l g i st tend t o be acad m ics, the oth r a r public ervants. A nd, w hi l the t rm r ar cattered am ng u n i v r itie , the appl ied pidemiol g i t are c ncentrated i n a t w government departments uch a th e nter f r O i ease n tro l and Pre ention i n A t l anta. Phil ophers . houl d fi nd epi dem iolooy i ntere. t i n o i f only because it cover. m any leve ls of rgan i zatio n , from the ce l l to the organi m to the c m m u n i ty. M oreo er, epidem iolooy get. close to ecolooy because every pathogen is a comp nent of an ecosyste m , and becau. e we are i nterest d in it em erge nce , spread, and exti nction . B esides, epidemi l o g y also gets c J s e t dem graphy, ociol g y, a n d eco nom ic f r there arc soc i a l d i sea e uch a chr n ic di arrhea, TB , and A I O , and because epide m i c pread the more quickly, th " h igh "r the p pu l ati n den ity and the poorer th " anHary conditi ns. Th e are soc i al d i ea e not only becau e th "y are contag i u , but aJ bec ause they are preventable by publ i c health mean . Epid m i o l g i st t u nd long ag that n the w hole, the po r I iv l . s and \ rse than th rich i n the arne societ y · and that chi ld m rtal ity t en preg n ancy obe. i ty, drug add icti n , and crim e are h ighest am ng th p or. W h at i s c m parati ely new i the fi nd i ng t h at i nc me i neq u al i ty i s ev n \ rse for health than abs l ute p verty. I ndeed there L no direct rel at i n between h alth and GDP wh reas th re i s b t\ ee n morbi d i ty and i nc III i nequal ity. For example, although the i nc III of A frican A meri 'an 1. four t i me that f C . ta R j 'ans, m n i n the form r group ar l i kely t J i ve n i ne year Jess than Costa R i 'an m n . True, p i d mioJog ic al studie. o f sm all a r as, uch as c u n l i " h w n appr c i able corr J ati n betw een i ncome i nequal i ty and pen i d ( e l f-r ported h aI th (e.g., Lee ler and S obader 2000). B ut thi s may be b cau e i ncome i n q u aJ i tie are i n ig n i fic an t i n s m al l ar a i nc soc i al c i a es ten d to be g ographi c al l y gregated ' and p rhaps also becaus
294
Political Philosophy
the poor tend to be Ie educated and more uc ed to w i t h tandi ng ickne without complai n t , a n d thu. Ie, s able to a, , e" correctly their own . tate of health. Only studie. of lon gev i ty (the most obje ti e health indicator) in l arCJe areas. hence , ocially heterogeneous one" can be rel i able. After , tudy ing 1 55 paper, on the health-i ncome connection i n area. or group. of vari ou . sizes, W i l k i n, o n and Pickett 2006) oncl uded that the main determ inant of health i. not . 0 much abo ol ute income a. in 'ome i nequality. In ' hort ocial i nequality is i ken i ng. Low social status i s tressfu l i t rai e ' corticoid level ) be ause i t reduc '. pcople " . and other ocial ani mal control ovcr th 'ir l i v '. . It al 0 lead thcm to doing thing ' out of the ordinary to kccp u p with thc J oneses, that i ' , to maintain or i mprovc tatu and e l icit re p 'ct, frOTIl fl aunting sexual prow c ,md imu l ating v irtu " to tealing and gctting into w innable brawl. . I n sum, epid 'miology has confuted the conomic dogma that e 'ono m ic "d v lopment" mean ing GDP growth ) and the concom i tant i ncrease i n income per capita i . nece, , ary a n d . ufficient t o sol v soc i al problem . . Actual ly econom ic equal i ty i s at I a. t as impo rtant as absolu t i ncome. W , hall return to thi . . ubj c t i n Chapter 9 , Section 9 . Before concl ud i ng thL . ection let us not a weakne . . of t h x i . t i ng epidem iological mod I . : They 0 erlook the fact that h u man. change their behavior pattern ' as an epidem ic progres 'e '. Indeed they take more precaution ' when it i . in ful l swing and t here are no known therapies, but assume mor ri 'k . when the epidemic 'tart ' to recede or when e ffect ive therapi e ' become a ailable ( Ferguson 2007 ). In other word " h u man be havior duri ng an epidem i c depend ' c ri tically u pon the way t hey perceive the corre ' ponding ri sk. The moral for epide mi ology both d criptive and pre 'cripti e i . that i t need ' a n i njecti on o f soc i al . ienc . And t h moral for pol i tical phil o. ophy i that, contrary to th opinion of tech nocrat " ther ar no , technological fixe. ' for soc ial problem '. People hould be exhorted to I arn more abou t them and part i c ipate i n try i ng to '01 th problem. that affect them, i f only b cau e the v ictim k now b t wh r the 'ho pinche . For i n tance, the inci dence of AIDS in U ganda declined dramati cally since 1 990 when m any people were p rsuaded to quit the habit of keeping concurrent sex partner . ore on normative epidemiology i n hapter 8 , Section 6 . 5 . Pol itical Economy
Let u n w g l im pse at the e nnecti n between the economy and p l itic. as well as betwe n thei r re pect i e ci ne . Ev r s ince the b i rth
296
Political Philosophy
pol i t ical dcmocracic . I f anything thc rc CLC i truc. Dcmo "'racy favor overal1 growth, in particular econom ic advancement1 in helping check the poli t ical power of the most COlLer ati ve . ector, of , 0 iety. namely the landowner. , moneylender. and rentier. . In general , "[ d]eep i nstitutional reform i . hardly ever a prerequi. i te for econom ic growth . Good i lL titu tion, sustain growth ; they do not i 'nil ) growth' (Rodri k 2007-08 :60 ) . Q u i n n a n d Wool 1 ey 200 1 ) propo. e d " a novel hypothe. L: econom ic poli 'y in democra y i . ri ' k avoiding relativ ' t o pol i y i n non-demo ra cie ." Democracy would di ' courage 'conomi volatibty because oter ' ar ' risk-av 'r. ' wh 'r 'as the e l i t 's i n non-democraci '. ar ' more l ikel y to s 'ek ri. k regardle of the w i he ' of the ·itizenry. Thi hypothesi ' i s i n tui tively pJau ible, and i t i s upportcd b y some evidence. B u t i t 0 erlooks two huge countercxample ' : The periodic rec 'ssion that have pJagucd al l th ' pol itical democraci ' , for nearly two centuri ' . [md the sensati onal growth of th economi . of Chi na, M alay. i a S i ngapor . South Kor a, and Tai wan, neither of which wa. a shi n i ng democracy. Beside. m ak i ng con. t ructi e contri butions to go e rnment, cono m ic stati . tic. and economic analysi. can help w ed the field by d bun k i ng some of th myths that . ti l l c ircu l ate around the social -science commu n ity. H r are some of the mo. t popular. 1.
3.
onomic growth an rodi ate poverty the "trickle dO' . n" thei . I t ha been known i nce Kuznet ' work i n 1 955 that i nequality rises along \ i th GDP. Thi . i ...vhy, i nce 1 976 the l L O ha favored . redi 'tribution before growth" pol icies. For example land ref rm and i nve. tment in human capi tal i n Tai wan reduced the Gini i ndex from 0.55 i n 1 95 3 l 0. 1 9 i n 1 97 G ri ffi n 1 999: 1 80 ft . Economic del elopment beg ts demo racy. So iet c mmuni m which tran formed an agrarian s i ty into an indu trial power i n I than two decade ' , and con temp rary hina-who 'e e nomy has been gr wing reI ntle sly at the rate f 1 0o/t per y ar for th la t three decade -are ob i us exceptions to that general i zation. What the data do show i ' that "increasinJ levels of e on mic equal i ty b l ' ter the chan e of democracy' Boix 2003 : 1 0) . The mechani III i thi. : W here no one i. mu 'h ri 'her than anyone el:e nobody ha.'i the material power to dom i nate others, and ever one is intere · ted in mai ntai n i ng a reg i me that guarantees their status. B ut capita l i st growth is accompanied b i ncrca. i ng i nequali ty, which opp se. dem cracy. Only
The market is self- ·orrecting. whence if does /lot benefit from stare intervention. The
rdi nary bu i ne" ycl s and th i ncrea. i ng ly frequ nt un xpected hock f all k inds. from bubble burs . t C rp rate ' w i ndle, d i pro e th dogma f mark t homeo ta i . In other w rd although Gerard Debreu earned the Nobel Prize l' r pro i ng mathematically the tandard hyp the i that aJl market are alway i n equ i l i briu m or ncar it, econom ic rea J i ty tubborn l y refu e to con form to i t-\ h ich of 'our:e refute. 0 breu's a . umption, . -
dentific Input to Poli tics
4.
There i
297
a natural unemployment rate below which iI�flarion
tart, .
P i rst J y, no one has fou nd o u t w hat t h at rate i s . M i l ton friedman j u st fi x d i t arbi tmri l . , fi rst at
4*
,
J ater at 6 � .
c ndl ,
w i tzerland e n
joyed for decades b t h t h e lo\>v e 't u ne m p l y m e n t a n d i n fl a t i o n rates, jo i n t J y w i t h the most re l i a b l e c u rrency in the w r i d . 5.
Thne i s a trade-off between e:tficiellc) alld equality: T h e m r e ffi c i e n t e ' n mie are als i n 1 9 75 b
th
ated by e
the I e
e g . l i tari,
nom i
stati I i
Thl
' I ai m It r t
. In eed, t h e latter 'h \
soc i a l m arket cconom i s m ade u p p ro g ram s
11 .
learly s t , ted
w l I -k n \ n econ m i st A rt h u r 0 u n , is u n su bsta n t i t hat t he s - ai l e d
f n a t i o n s w i t h gencro u s wc. l far
such as S wedcn and thc N c t hcrlands
c I'll p e t i t i e t h a n t h e l i be r J market e
n mie
are g lo bal l y m r ( uch
- the U n i ted
States and t h '" U n i t d K i ngdom as mea u red by t h e i r "'xports in perent
f
DP
(4
.2
v
0.0 ;
.
and
f c o u r e the f rm e r ar
egal i ta r i an than t he latter as measu red by the i r d i s p sab l
h u s e h Id i n c m e : 0 . 2 5 7 aga i n . t 0 . 3 30
ff . Fu rt h e rm re, e x c l u d i n g th fore i g n i n e st m e n t s . t t ra 'te N rWl: o i an oil bonanza, thc been th
ame f r t h
1
Iri h "m i r
I w taxes and
b a
tat e '
e r m a n y a n d Frc. nce. t h
I rg
e. k we l fare and the I cs hL
tat i s t i c s show "tr m e n d o u s e ] u a l i z i n g capac i t . I n
effect appears q u i t'" m i nu sc u l e ' i n con trast i ts "'ffe t i n
c an d i n a i a i s
The
u
elfare
E. p i n Q - A n dersen stare is ill cri is.
trie ' with m re
di
red i t t h
tat i st i c s fal s i fy t h i s ' l ai m . I ndeed, the
D mem b r.
r affl u e n t .
u ntrie
tend t
we l far
U ll
h . v e 1 . rger
\ ith m re i neg a l i tarian waue struc t u re '" int nded t
tat e .
loba/i;"ation benefits t'vel)IOIlt'.
earl y a l l ec nom i sts p rai s
, or i n ternat i o n I free tr de, ,, the key t
ec n m i c
e n to democracy. W hat do the n u m bers say ? f i rst, t h a t t h e
m o s t s t r i d e n t frc -traders the U n i ted take ad
cieties i . t h i : "c
and P ntuss n -005 . The crisis claim i s onl
ti n " l i be ra l i zat ion g ro w t h a n d
56).
gc l i tan. n earn i ng s d i · t r i b u t i n
w e l fare state t han Ke n w rt h
1 990:
\v e l fare
me
redi t ri b u t i e
t re n d am ong t h e O E
8.
n 2 005 :
mai n l y t
tate '
su b tan t i a J " 7.
\
m o re
0 p r i d- l . rc per y ear.
ariat ion i n t h e w e l fare
c u n trie - , l i ke
P n tu . .
du
c mge g r w t h rate o f the t wo
80-
We/f(l re induces equalit) . It depc n d s . national
Ie
aJs
i n i coeffi c i e n t for
n ta e o f
ther nati n
tates and the E u r p c a n U n i o n ,
l oweri n
t h i r t rad
barriers w h i l
298
Political Philosophy
Finally, e n i d r a fuJ l y g loba l i z d ecollom , ne that e, ports ev erything it pr duces, and i m port: all that its owners conc' L1 me-that is, one with hardly a dome tic market . 01 nial B razi l . a cry backward :0 ' iety came 'lose to total i ntegration i nto the world m arket Ziegler 2 00 : 7 . Th n coloniali m and sla ery m ade thi, ideal po ssible ; nO'll" the compan ies thriving on s weatshops arc taki ng us close to it. Sweden i s the mod I � e(far: state. ThL' i ndeed u, ed 1 be the ase . B ut in re ent year. the Netherland. has bec me the showca. e f capitalist w I fare : i t ha b th the low t unemployment rate 3 � and th 1 we t inc me i nequality i ndex for h u �ehold Cab ut 3 3 a ' compared w i th 0.45 f r B ritain . Actuall y at thi.' writing the Oini index f r hou 'ehold . i nc me i l ightly h igh r in Sw den than in Den mark, Finland. Ger many, Holland Norway and Switzerland-though of course 1 weI' than i n B ritain and the U n i ted S tate . . the two i neq uality champion among the affluent countrie . . Ecollomi . SCln 'lions work. The l iterature on this problem is ambiguous. W hereas . ome studi . conclude that economic sanctions e.g .. bl ck ade and b eott "vork in most ea e, , others concl ude the opp site. I n fact there arc examples for b tl1 h y p these . . True . tati. tical evidence fa or. the hyp the i in questi II M arinov 2005 ) . But whether or not an extemal timulu ' on a y ·tem eli its a given re�p n 'e depend n the tat f the sy t Ill- 0 mu h so, that a maI l p rturbati n may cause the l Iap f a ystem i n an un table tate. w herea a str ng i mpa t may i ncrea e i t ' cohec' i emess. For i nstan e , the B ri t i sh b l o 'kade again t Napoleonic France backfired becau. e i t ral l ied d me tic up port for N apoleon and gave the bacb ard French i ndustry a ·hance. A contemporar. paral lel can be made w i th the United S tates and Cuba. The U.S. mbargo of uba has onl su eeded in harden i ng the regime, enhi::U lcing it popular ity, and de e loping a comp t i t i e biotechnolog indu. try . By n tra:t the boyc t t f S uth A frican export. towards the end of the partheid regime worked b eau e i t hurt the main upp rt r f the regime nam " Iy the AfTikaan . farmer ' . The ' ntr ver. y over the effectivene of econom ic an ti n i l ikely to remain i nconcJ u i e unles the questi n is i n eSligated together with the i n ternal mechanism that explains the way the system works. In short e 'onomic stati stic ' arc ncce. sary but in ufficlent to under tand pol lticaJ proce. se and design :oc i al policie . . _
9.
_
.
1 0.
,
I n hort, e onomi c can exert a healthy i n fl uence on poli t i c and i t tudy. B ut it can al 0 have a harmful infl uence . A ca e in poin t i the econom i t heory of the law e.g .. Po ner 2007 ) . A cording to it, all legal m atte rs are au fond economic matter . I n particular a court ' deci i o n on a n y point of j urisprudence or any l it igation hould depend exclu . i vely on the re u lt of a co.t-ben fi t <malysi . For example, . ince 1 gal l y murdering c ri m inal s L 'heaper than locki ng them up for l ife, we
Scientific Input to Politics
299
hould u phold capita l puni s h mcnt. Thi u t i l itarian argumcnt propo cd a century ago by the anthropologi . t and cri m inolog i st Ce, are Lombro. 0 and h i s follower. , ignores the moral a. pect of cri m inal j u. tice. B ut thi. i s of course one of the reason. that standard economic theory i. w ron g : S i nce i t recommend, choosi ng alway. t h e COUL e of action l i kely to m ax i m ize our expected u t i l i ties, i t del iberately , i lence. a. non-. cienti fic whoever dare. to a. k whether we , hould eval uate the means u . ed to a -hi 've m ax im i zi ng goals. c
6. Pol itical
ci Dee
Political ' c i 'nce i exp 'ct 'd to d 'al w i th pobtica! fact and pol itical text -whi -h Illay either re cal or d i tort the forIller. B ut i n fa t m any practition ' f . of the d i sc i pl ine spend Ill0st of their tim ' studying the h is tory of We. t rn political thought, and many other. de ote mO.t of their nergie. to concocting u nreal i . tic t heori es, such as economic interpre tations and game-theoretic models. A l l the w h ile, m i 1 1 ions of people in go ern m nt offices, a. well a. in . treets and in battlefields, e ngage in pol i tical act i i t ie. of variou. k ind. from . pying to murd ring dissid nts. that . e ldom grab th attention of pol itical . ci ntist. . Poli tical science c an make a con. t ructive contribution to pol i tical l i f when it tackles i m portant 'ocia) i ' 'ue ' w i th the help of the 'cienti fi c method. Obviou ' ly, U ' of the latter includes the 'earch for data, but ' uch search w i l l be blind and therefore hardly frui t fu l u n l . . guided by pIau - ible hypothe 'es about i nteresting problems and re levant variables and th ir relation '. And here is wher pol i tical philo 'ophy can hel p i n i denti fy ing i mportant 'ocia) problem ' tho 'e i n olv i ng b a ' i c value ' and th con eptual probl m ' the e rai uch a ' how to mea u re pow r, jnq ual ity, d mo racy, and confl ict i n t n ity. Thi j s the only way to a oid b ing id tracked by secondary i '. u ' ' uch a m atter. of procedur . A da . . ical example of up rficial ity d riving from theor tical shal low n '. i. th popular iew that t he trademark of d mo racy i . the occurrenc of periodic and clean lection ' Schu m p ter J 950: 269; Huntington L 99 1 : 6 ) . This v iew conceal fact uch a that i n the U n i ted State . both i n pol l and i n ocial u rvey "[t] he voice o f the wel l educated and the wel l heeled sound more loudly ' ( Verba ] 996 : 4 I n other words i n "thi n" or pure ly procedural democraci e there i freedom to compete for publ i c office along w i t h weak pol itical partic i pation . Wor e, t h e outcome o f the conte t depend l argely on the econom ic powers behi nd it: tho e w ho run � r publi office nm on the u n i er al fuel-m ney. .
300
Political Philosophy
The theory of democracy propo ed by Dah l ( 1 97 1 , 1 9 9 goe far beyond electoral appearance, . and propo. e, that gen u i ne pol i t ic al demo racy L participative. It combine. vol u ntary part i c i pation w i th free conte. tation . This form u l a, which Dahl cal l. poliar '/7 L unique in combi n i ng cooperation for the common good w ith competi tion for per. onal or (Troup advancement. Si nce both fa tor. are bound to occu r i n different i nten. i tie. i n different . ocieties. i t i . desirable to have a qu[mti tati e i nd 'x of pol i tical d 'nlO ra 'y. One uch i ndicator w i l l b ' propo d i n th ' next se ·tion. I n addition to . upplying new po 'itiv ' finding ' politology can explod ' some myth ' . Here ar ' a � 'W e ampl '. . 1.
D cenfrali-ation favors democrac) and effi iellt and hOllest publ; . admilli ·'ralion. Thi pri nciple ound elf-e id nt, but i t ha no r bust empirical upp rt (Treisman 2007 . In fact, for e ery example, such a ' S w itzerland and the n i ted State , there i . a counterexample, uch a t he ru le of local warlord i n We tern Europe after t he fal l of the Roman Empire or in pre. n t-day A fghan i . tan and Somalia. Decentralization works well i n conj unction w i th other condi tions ' uch as part i c i pation and the absence of abje ,t m i sery. Likewi se , the rule of law i good pr i ded the law f the l and i . fai r a n d p e p I c do n o t have to break the law to survi e. I n general. principles of go ernment are n ith r go d nor bad in them e l e . Only the "" hole ystem or package can b e al uated orre tly becau e eve r y prin i pl " r gulat only one omp nent o f a complex y tern . All politics i s local. The reason seems b v i u s : The urban , uburban , metropol i t an and reg i onal authori t i e are the one that dec ide on matter that a fTect e e ryday l i fe su ' h a. hou e zoni ng , s hool taxe,' m u n ic ipal ser i e and s i m i l ar matters . Let u 'hec k . Nonparti san e i v i c i n 0 1 m nt in c o m m u n i t y o rg a n i z a t i o n s , pare n t - teacher a so i at i o n s , b l o k wal hes, and en i ron mental prote t i n i s er tai n l y l ocal . B u t . parad x i c a l l y v oter turnout i n A merican 10 a l e Jeeti n L o n l y 30 r r ughly h a l f f the nati n a l rat e . The m id d I - l a ' : ' i t i zen rather than part i c i pating in I al p l i t i c ' t try and i mprove t h i n g s , opt · t "vote w i th h i ' feet": he mov � t a d i ff r nt neighb rho d , one that i oci a l l y m r hom geneou . In the end l ocal pol i tics or rather la k f popul ar participation i n it, fav r undemoc ratic excJu. ion: i t rei n force d i fference i n cJa. and ra 'e M a 'edo et al 2005 S i nce l oc al i n titutions are fai l i n g to decrease . oc ial segregati n. \ e shoul d seek to redesign them, as well a. to invigorate ci ic education. Vot r tumour has been d lillin in tll Unit d States durin ) rhe [as1 30 years. Thi s i i ndeed the ca. e if the turn ut rate i. defi ned a. the rat i of the number of v t r t the total oting-age popu lati n . Hut the latter ontai n: many pe pIe w ho ar i ne l igible to vote, � u h a n o n - 'itizen , L
2.
,
.
.
1
Scientific Input to Politics
4.
5.
6.
3tH
di enfranchi ed felons, mental i ncompetent and ex patriates. I f nly the olin J-eligible i nd i v idual s are counted, as they sh uld, then i t i fou nd that, al though the t u rnout rate i n the U ni ted S tate i q u i te Jow compared w i th Canada and the E uropean U nion, i t has nOl dec l i ned u n i formly M 'Donald and Popki n 200 1 . Before rushi ng to explain a fact , ascertain \ hether it has occurred . Sui ide terrorism do s not pa) . I ntuiti vely, ' u i ide terrori sm shou ld be c unterpr ductive for i t lcads to m i l i tary retal iati n cau es rcvulsi n, and , acrifi the bra e, t f the freed m fighters. Regrettably, that i n t true, and the rea n i that ' uicide b mbing breed un ertainty. fear, and anxiety. t u h an xtent that it pllt� ord i nary l ive: n hold and end up by causi ng " ither the go ern ment to oncede ft the i nsurgent ' demands] or the population to re olt against the g emment" ( Pape 2003 : 346 ) . Revenge may pay for Dav id, not for Goliath. Truth cannot lead to re 011 iliation. The cynic believes that the de,' ir for re enge is '0 deeply i ngrained. that mere ad.'l1owledgement of sins against thers cannot lead to reconc il ing ictim with v ictimizer. Hence ,. he w i l l bel ieve that the ' truth commis,' ion in South A fri a. Peru and e l ewhere arc ju. t cxcr i . c. in hypoeri y. Tn othcr W I'd , the ynie b lie e t hat mere repentan e cannot break the S i n-Rep nt- t ne Sin ycle. Yet on the trength f 3 727 face-to-face i n terviews w i th membe� of a repre entative sample f South A frican , Jame G i b on 2004 : 202 ) oncluded that "a moderate degr e f r oncil iation x i t i n contemporary South A fri a due i n part to the act i Hies and finding f t he truth and rec ncil iat i on proce . ' The rca on may b that uch publ i ' confe sion show m any people that there ha. been a change i n the " alue profi le' o f s ciety. Whereas repentance in private docs not top , ' i n , publi repentan e help . Ism / 's notional se 'urit) problem is e x ptioflal, and th refor justifie ex 'eptiol1a[ measures, . ueh a c ntinued 0 upation of Pale t i nian ter ritory and oth r act that violate i nternati nal law. In addition to J ew , A mel;can A frikaan Arg n t i ne ' , h i ne 'e I ri h , and other� ha e clai med. at diffi rent time , both superi rity and except i nal vulnerabil ity�surely a n i nad ertent contradi ,tion. I n 1 96 , the founding father of the state of I srael stared learJ y the fami l i ar excepti nalist thesis: "Our sur i al- ccret during t he e thou. and. of year . . . ha. one ource: Our upreme quali ty our i ntellectual and moral ad anlage, whi h . ingle us out e en today as i t did throughout the generations ' David Ben G urion, i n Merom 1 999 : 4 1 ] ). Fa t : The obje t ive i nd icators of the i nten ity f reecnt confl ict dyad. . uch a the rati s of m i l i tary expen ditures betwecn I rael and it pr x i mate cnemie , . h w that "Israel i not excepti nally vulnerab1 nor in 01 ed i n x ptionally d i fficult : trateg i ' relation ' with i neighbor '" Merom op. it.: 43 1 Be ' i des. the war crime c mrn it ted by the I raeli ecurity � rce and the armed gang since 1 948 ha e been no less grie ous than t ho,'e perpetrated by the Pale tin ian in. u rgent . The arne I rae l i pol i t ical ci ntist al 0 note the arnbi aJence of the myth of Jewi h exceptional i rn rooted i n
302
7.
Political Philosophy
the B ible. While it bol ters national I f-c nfid nce. it also nurture a "sie re mentali ty" that h inders rat ional debate and ne(1otiat i n . Pri. 011 reform. the riminal. An on who ha pen t time i n a c nven tiona] jai l knO\ s that pri . on, are schools of 'ri me. That i: w here hard ened c ri m i naL tea h thei r trade to small-time offenders. An empiri 'al 'rudy found that rec idi ism is more frequent among ex-pri. on i n mates than among ffender who were put n probation Peter i lia, Turner and Peter. n 1 9 8 ). The Ie. on hould be bvi u. here . The curren t criminal y t m i s i nefficient, a n d c o n .qu ntly it hOli ld b ubject t radi a] ref rm f the k i nd ' pr p ed by th John Howard and the J lI ti e Fel l ow ' h i p . ietie · .
I n u rn pol itical science h a made progre t o t h e extent that i t ha pai d more attenti on to cial real ity than to elegant but unrealistic model . N umber are i mportant i n politkal science onl y i f they are not invented. And dence (or what passes for it w i l l make no u eful contribution to politics if used by mora l ly blind i ndividual s in the pur uit of i m moral g al su h a conque t and plunder. Thus the adv i e of the " cienti. tic ' war the rist Wal t Ro, t w R bert M c Namara and Thoma Sche l l i ng wa, no better than the avowedl y ant i sc ientifi c one of H n ry K issinger ee Kuklick 2006). Fran i R abelais w rote half a m i l le n n i u m ag "science w i th ut n ci nce is the rui n f the u l ." 7. Forma l Interl ude: Measuri ng Democracy and Political Capital
In thi ecti on we haH attempt to q uant itate or quantify ) two i m portant but ornewhat vague notion : tho e of degree of dernocracy, and poJi t i al capita1 . The theory of democracy propo ed by Dahl (1 97 1 . 1 989 goe beyond con t itutional and pro edural appearan e . It propo e that gen ui ne pol i t ical d mo Tacy L part ic ipative: it combine olunta ry participation w ith free conte tation. Dah l ' fonTIula poliarchy L u n ique i n combining cooperati on for t h conm10n good w i th comp tition for personal or group advancement. S ince both factors ar bound to occur i n d i ffi rent inten Hie i n diffi r n t ocieties a well a i n the ame . oc iety at different t imes, i t is d e i rable t o have a quantitativ i ndex o f pol itical democracy. I ha e propo. ed e1 . ewhere (B unge 1 985, 1 998a) to mea. u re the ex tent to which c i ti zen, participate freel y and effecti ely i n i nfl uencing both pol icy P) and CJovernance (G). e eral combination, of P and G are po . . ible. Here are but four extreme example, : a parti ipativ democra y: all citizen, parti ipate about equal l y in both P and G· (b ) repr).\' ntativ ) democracy : al l adults parti i pate equally i n P but delegate
Scientific Input to Politics
303
G to spccial bodie . c populist dictatorship: an elite monopo l i zes P bu t nearly everybody parti ci pate. equal l y i n choosi n g G' ( d ) authoritarian reg i me : a smal 1 g roup monopol i ze. both P and G. Let l L q uantitate these concept . Let u, a . . ign the same weight to the two a, peel. , pol icy and gover nance di. tingui. hed abo e, and call P and G re. pe tively the number of itizens partic ipating in . haping the m . Then the fonowing measure of political democrac an be i ntroduced: D = P + G - N) I N
where N i . the total number o f adult ' i n the gi en ociety. T h i i ndex varie b ·tween - J (autocrac y ) and + J ( fu l l y participati . democracy) . Here are som typical val ue. and the i r l i mit. a. N i nc rea. , : A ulOcra : ("Ob Y m ' ) P + G = I , D = ( 1 - IN � - I 1
Totalitarianism ( Obey u ' N D -::::; - NIN = - 1 '
,
P, G «
F pllli fjt dictator hip "F Bow me" ) P < < N G = N D -::::; PIN > 0 b u t « 1 .
Rep resell tati d 1110 TCl ' EJect u P = N, G < N, D = GIN > 0 but « 1 . .
•
Parti 'ipati d mocra I ( Let'. govern P = G = N, D = NIN = I . '
ote that both r 'presentative democracy freedom w ithout parti - ipa tion and pop u l i 't d ictator h ip ( parti -ipation w ithout freedom ) get low mark, . Thi i ' bccau e in pol i tical matter right w i thout duti '. ' hou ld not ran k h igher than duti ' w ithout rights : B oth deficit , erode I 'gitinulte power, the power one earns for serv ing fai rl y and honestly. The net result is that partic i pati d mocracy is th b st pol i tical r gi me. H owever a good . oci ty need. more than pol i tical d moe racy. The latter ought to be a mean, to enhanc everyone'. q ual i ty of lif in very r , pect-physical and mental, conomic and c ultural. That i s, par tici pati ve de mocracy , hould b a component of i n tegral democracy-a . ubject to be dealt with in th la. t chapter.
304
Political Philosophy
1 submi t that th above formula fi rst publi hed more than two de 'ade ago, , ol ve. the objection rai sed by Ti1 1 y 2007 : 1 0 to Dahl . defi n ition of democ racy, namely that it "pro i des us w i th a static yeo -no check1 ist"-j u. t l ike it. alternative. , i n particular Ti ny'. own a. well a. the standard ( but conservati e Freedom Hou, e Checkli. t for Po1itical R ight. and i i l L ibertie . . My form ula al low. one to find out whether a g i en nation i. undergoi ng a democratization procesc or it. conver. e. Let u . now r ' isit th ' notion of so 'ial i n particul ar poli t i 'al ) capital that we first i ntroduced i n Chapter 2 Section 2 . Thi notion was m ad ' fa h ionabl ' by Rob 'rt Putnam ' i n fl uential work on c i v i l . 0 iety ( 1 993 . Regrettabl y thi s sociologi t confl at 'd two very different notion : tho. ' of oci al 'apital proper, and c i i l oci ,ty. Wh 'reas the former i. rather new e.g., Coleman 1 990), the l atter ha b 'en around for at lea t two centuri '. . The ci i l 'ociety i s the part of ociety that i s not fully controlled by the stat , wh reas the . oc ial capital of a p r. on or group i s th . et of individual. and . ocial . ystems that may be of assi. tanc to th form r. For example, an i ndividual 's social capital i ncrease. u pon marriage and decrease. u pon bei ng bank rupted. I t also increases or decreases as h i s or h r community becom s more or Ie . . cohesive. For example, ord i nari l y a i l lager m a y count on the . ol idarity of his neighbors w h e n m isfortune stri ke '. Thu ., when the m ag i strate i n Lope de Vega s play Fuenteo ejuna asks the a ' 'embled v i l lagers w ho puni ' hed the unj u ,t repre 'entat i ve of the C rown , they aU respond as one: j FUenteOl ejunitQ, eiior . ' We de fine the 'ocial ( i n particu lar political) cap ital of a social unit, whether individual or group as the 'et of human resource ' ( both i ndi v idual and i nsti t u ti onal) of t hat unit. I n other words, i t i . the col l ection of u n it · that may a ist or ' upport that person or group. in tandard 'et theoretic symbols
C(x) = {
,
E
111
S I A. x }
where E tand for the member. hip r l ation S designate. th t of componen t of the ociety to which x belong and A the relation of may potentia] a j stance . That i , A x' i to be read ( i nterpreted) a a i t ,." S i nce the potenti al upporter in que tion m ay be indi idual , such a acquaintance , or y tem , uch a charitie , every social unit has two ocial i n particular pol itical capital : m icro and m ac ro or at the i ndividual and collective level re pecti ely. N te that t he defin i ng relat i n, A , i a ery special social b nd that of p ssible hel p . Thi s ex l udes from the s c i al apital f a u n i t x aU those •
1
dentific Input to Poli tics
i nd i vidual or 0 i al
Y t m that ar
305
i ther i nd i fferent or ho t i le to
x.
B ut anyone's soc i al ( i n particu l ar p I i ti cal ) . tandi ng depend on both . up porters and antag n i . t. . H e nce w e a . . ume that (x) eq ual s the uni n ( r I g ical um f x'. a. . ets, A (x , and x ' s l i ab i l i ties, L(x : C(x)
=
A (x)
u
Lx,
w h r L(x) i ge nerated by the reJ ation 11 ge nerated b y the rel at i o n A o f a s i tance :
L(x)
=
{
E
[2 ]
f ho t iJ i ty, j u t a A (x) i s
S I II x } .
[3J
c ial Th fonn u J a [2 J ge neral i ze [ 1 ] . N w, i nce II x) i a neg ativ r pol i t ical capital , the c rrespo nding quan t i tative concept m u. t be that of I1Pt political capita l : K(x)
=
IA (x ) 1 - IL(x ) 1
=
a( x - /I-( x ) ,
w here I I de ignates the card i nal ity (n um erosity ) of the set S . For example the net pol i tical cap i t al f a candidate t pol itical office i n a dem cratic nati n , as mea ured by the l ate t pi nion p 11 equal the n u m ber of farable decided vote m i nu the number of u n favorabJe decided votes. Thus i n the U n i ted tate , w hef" the tw m ajor pre i denti aJ candi date g "t roug h l y the same n u m ber f otes each of them h a nearly zero net poli ti cal capital . B ut, by v i rtue f th " m ajority rule, uch pre-e J ectoral i m p tence may get tran sformed i nto om n i potenc f t h w i n ner. N ow that we h av a n al yzed the notion of s c ial c ap i t al i n to the q Uall t i t at ive concepts f p U t ical asset and poJ i tical l i abi l ity we may ask how they c h ange i n the cour e f t i me . For the ake of si m p l ic it y we start by preten d i ng that a. alld A are m oth fu ncti ns of t i m e . We aL assum that to a fir. t appro x i m ation both assets and J iabi l i t i s grow the fa t r th l arg r th y ar i n i tiaJ Ly. That is, w p . it ci / cil = a
[5 J
, ciA /(}I = bA,
wh re I den tes t i m , and a and b are p sitlv real n um b I . These a sump ti n s entaiJ that b th a sets and Liabi l i ti s i ncrea. e xp n ntiaJ J y in tim : a.
t) =
0.0
xfJ at A t ,
=
A exp
bt
[6]
306
Political PWlo ophy
Equation [5] formaliz the B i bl ical prom i e 'to ev ryone w ho h a the more w i l l b e g i e n " (Matthew 2 5 . 29 . A nd equation [ 6 ] fonn ali zes the piece f f lk po litical w i sdom accord i n g to wh ich every i ncrease i n the power of one p l i tical group sti m ul ates the g r w th of it opponentes -at I a, t u nder dem cracy. It is up t the p I i tical scientL t to fi nd wh ther there L any truth i n the p r cedi ng form alization s. Howe er, reg ardles. o f the ir t ru th-value i t m a y b e hop d that t h y h e l p c l ar i fy t w o i m portant i dea , a n d thus rai e the level of the debate . 8. Histor
The n ai ve new watcher is n bett r prepared t u nder tand the pol i t ical new than he i t gra p cientific noveltie . The rea on i that he l ac k t h e requ i red bac k o round know ledge. I m ag i ne learning from the new ca t t h at there w a, a re o l u t i o n i n N . The ne� scast m ay i n form w ho deposed w h m , but i t L u n l i ke l y to s ay w hy. Yet i f the T V w at her h as bee n fo l l ow i n g the new , a b u t N 0 e r the p ast few year. , he is l i ke l y to k n ow that N i s a c l i e nt , tate. H e may aL 0 k now that the deposed 0 vern m e n t , a m i l i tary d i ctat rsh i p , h ad bee n stro n g l y , up port d b y the cou n t ry t h at h o t s the head o ffi ce o f U n i t d B an an a, th " most p w e rfu l c m pa n y i n . Th i i n f rmati n m ay Lead h i m to g ue i n g t h at the re l u t i o n aries h a " bee n hou t i ng n at i o n a l i t and le fti t I g an s , a a c n sequence f w h i ch the a i d pow e r w i l l brand them a dangerous terr ri ts. The u n w ary new \ atcher, by c ntrast , i l i ke l y to b " l i eve the ffi c i al "r i o n , and to appl aud h i s g v e rn m e n t res I ve t o s e n d the ari ne t N , t keep o n d e fe nd i n g freedom and democracy aro u n d th worl d . Te l l m e how m uch h i tory and pol itical sc i ence you k n w. and I I I te l l y u w h at i f anyt h i ng y u h a e u ndersto d about CUfT nt eve n t . To u nd rstand curr n t eve nts w e m u t trac t h e m bac k t their ante ced n t : We m ust sh i ft focus from t i ny event to big proce. . , as urged by the great h i stori an B raud I I 6 and the h i st rical in t i tutional i sts McA tam et al . 200 1 ; Pier ' n and S kockpol 200 2 ) . In particul ar. w mu. t k 'p i n m i n d that the v nt of the day, w h i ch the pre i n form . about, is I l k I y to have not o n l y a pr x i m ate cau but al so a number f di. taJ cau s that arc n t b i ng r ported in the day ' s n w s 'ast. Thus, superfi c i al hi t rj ans u d t t J1 us that on the v o f World War 1 n n r al l y want d th war. w h i ch st art d almo t by ac 'id nt, n am J y th assa i n ation of th v i i Archduke Ferd i n and by a s rbian n ationaJ i t. B ut of COUf e we k now that t h i ev nt o n ly triggered th r at War, w h ic h
Scientific loput to Politics
307
had been prepared for decades by all the great power . in particular the na al powers had been strengtheni ng their fleet. . i nce the 1 870 . . The central powers did not l aunch the m i l i tary ag gre . . i on to avenge the m urder of the redoubtable heir of the H ab. burg crown, but to try and grab as m uch land as possible, not only in Europe but also in Africa and Asia. Likew i. e, the NazL did not , tart World War I T to . teal just hal f of Poland but to conquer as much of Eurasia and Africa a. they were a llow d. I n short, the new 'ca t t i me horizon i far too 10 , to enable the naY e news watcher to u nder tand what i ' bei ng report d on. G ood pobtical r 'port i ng, just l ike good h i toriography, i proce. sual rath 'r event-focu. 'd. * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
Root cau c
Trigger
u rrcnt e cnt
Fig. 7. 1 . The untold antecedents of the salient event of the day. For e 'ample. the newsca t tell-' us that a terrori t threw a bomb in a market, but not that this action, thou h m urd erous and irrational is hut an episode in a decades-long fi ht a ainst foreign occupation.
I n hort, knowledge of the pa t i indi pen able to under tand the pre ent. For example. to u nder tand the Pale tine q ue tion it rnu t be rernem bered that i t ha been fe teri ng ince 1 929, and ha i nvol ed all the great power ee Lauren 1 999, 2002, 2007 ) . Thi i why i mprovi ed political theori t are bound to mi under tand politic . For example, H an n ah Arendt 1 976 a d isciple of the exi stentiali ts Heidegger and J a per. c tated confidently that N az i nl 'owe nothing to the We tern tradition.' B ut of cour e all scholar know that the azi ideology wa. but an amal gam and radicalizati on of the ebtL t authoritarian conser ative nation ali t, m i l i tari st or obscu rantist idea. of H e rder M il ller, Fichte H gel N ietz c he Gobineau , C hamberlain Sp ngler, and m an y oth rs-not leac t the Counter- E nl ightenment Catholic id ologue de B onald and de M ai stre . ee, e.g. Kol nai 1 93 8 , Popper 1 95 5 , B erl in 1 997). Besi de. , how i s i t po . . ible for a pol itical mo ement. or anyth i n CJ else for that matter, howe er origi nal, to emerge out of nothing? M odern science, whether natural , or bioso ial , pre. uppo, e. the powerful pri nciple "'Nothi tlcY from nothi ng ever yet wa. bom ' ( L ucretiu. B k . I : 1 5 1 ) . Can knowledge of hi. tory help de. i gn the future? H ardl y, because the '0 ' ia l world ha. hang d and the mean that we can now usc are quite d i ffi'r 'nt from tho ' available to our ance tor ' 'ven i f son1 ' of the problems they ta leI 'd arc sti ll w ith us. For the same reason a. king qu 's-
308
Political Philosophy
tion. of the form ' How would c O .md 0 have tackled t h i q uestion ? ' i purely academic. For example. neither Locke nor Kan t might even have under. tood the question. whether col lective bargaining, affinnati e a tion, proportional repre. entation. hosti le fi nn takeover, or out. ourcing, are fair. ThL is why the v i ew of Leo S trauss and h i s disciple. -that to u nderstand poli tic. and etwage in it we m u . t . eek the advice of the ancient. -i. absurd . The rear- iew m i rror . erves to protect u s from the past, not to t 'l l the futur ' . A nother reason for rejecting their 'Back t o th ' ancient ! ' logan i ' that none of th ' ancient objected to war, slavery, exism or racism; none after Peri les cared for democracy ' and non ' of them had any i d 'a of social j II tice. U n li j(,' heddar and cognac, science doc ' not i mprov ' w i th ag '. I n ' hort h istoriography help II u nder tand the present, but not to design the futur . A nd i t puts pol itical theory to th teo t but i t cannot engend r i t . � t, i f suitably d i . torted, h istoriography can b u . d t o p rpetllate obsol te enmitie. , whit wash t h e shamefu l past of a c u rrent poli tical rna ement and e en . u pply i t with a clean and glorious, alb it imaginary, past. This i s how the Quebec separati . t tried to w i pe clean thei r pro-fa. c i . t record during World War n and shortly thereaft r (Del i -Ie 1 998 ) . or i this l i ke ly to be the l ast e ample o f the d i ·tortion ' of hi 'toriography brought about by national i ·t fanatic i 'm: The flag must appear to be c lean if it i . to 'erv a ' th sole ral ly i ng point of a people. ( M ore i n B unge 1 99 a. .
.
.
9. Pol i tical P eudo cience
Thoma Sch l I ing, an x pert in game theory and reci pient of the 2005 N ob I Prize in economic. work d duri ng half a century for the R A N D corporation th thi n k tan k o f th U S . A i r Force . The paper he w rot for R A N D i n 1 95 8 wa titled 'The rec i procal fear of ' u rpri attack. ' Th central i dea i an intere t i ng hypoth ' i : I n a h¥o-per on con fl ict ach individual a t5 partly from f ar of what th other fear. -a proce ' that may e caLate t i l 1 the fear of one of the partie become 0 i nten e. that i t strike . Fi ne but how would one t e t thi hypothesi ? Schel ling did not say. and the ocial psychoLogi ts eem to have i gnored it. Three year later, Schel ling and Halperin 1 96 1 advocated bri nkman ship. or the Game of Chicken, a the be t nuclear strategy for i t leave something to chance or rather acci dent ), and thu a po ibi l i ty of 'win ning.' I n other w rds "stable mutual deterren e ' and the ace m pany ing M A D mutual , u red de. truction would be preferable t n u lear .
Scientific Input to Politics
309
dL anllamcnt-w hich wa xactly w hat th A merican gov rnment of the day wanted to hear. For an analy, i s . ee Freedman 1 98 3 . The good l i fe would be , pent fore er on the bri n k of the precipice. Good for whom . The abo e-named game theori . t� d i d not say. or did anyone ask them to . ub. tan ti ate thei r policy i n any way. And yet. more than hal f a centu ry l ater n uclear d i sarmament is . ti l l a desideratum for al l sane and decent people . A generation late r anoth 'r war ganl 's 'xpert, Robert Pap ' 1 996), offered h i ' own uc ' . reci pe for onllict of any kind: The benefit. B of the de i red obje ,tive time the probab il i ty pCB of ach ievi ng those b 'nefit · I11 U t be greater thm] th ' '0 t. C, both m i litary and poli t ical, t i me th ' probab i li ty p ( e of i ncurring those cost . But of 'ourse uch "probab i l i t i 'S are . ubjcctive: they are degr ' , . of bel ief or percei ved l ik ' l i hood , whi h are unrelated to obje tiv ' ' hance . And i nce those ·probab i l itie. ' cannot be objecti e ly measured-unlike say, body counts and numb r of home. d . troyed-th theorist a. . ign. them arbi trari l y. H nce war games are j u . t exerc i . e. in ps udosciene ( se Rapoport 1 968. B ung 2006c . W h at rol did such war game. p rform in th conduct of warfar , When Rob rt S . McNamara took the job of U .S . Secretary of 0 fen . . he boa 'ted of p roceedi ng " cienti fically," u ' ing game theory, deci ' i on t heory, and cost-benefi t analy ' is to de 'ign pot icie ' ,md plans. B ut obv i ou 'ly McNamara did not adopt Schel ling" 1 960 favorite thesi ' that war is a bargain i ng proce ' , in which each ' i de att mpt ' to m i n i m i :te 10 ' 'es in ' tead of attempt i ng to ann ih i late the adver 'ary. ( H i ' favori te analogy was driving in hea y traffic, where one want ' to pa ' , other car ' w it hout coll iding w i th them. ) In fact, the Se retary did not negotiate with "th nemy," who 1 0 t about 2 m i ll ion p opi . that i , 40 t i m ' a ' m any a th Am riean i nvader . Th pol itici an could not rel y on th amateur trategi.t who "failed to com up with a i ngl pIau ible an. wer to t h most ba ' i c o f q u e tion ' . . . Tom Sche l l i ng. w he n faced w i t h a real- l i fe l i m i ted war wa. tumped had no i dea wh re to b gin' Kaplan 1 98 3 : 335 ) . I n addition t o looking at fancy R A D model , McNam ara kept track of ome of the relevant figures. For in tance, the war jou rnali t Da i d Halber tam 1 97 2 : 256 ) reported that i n 1 963. U [ w]en [civi li an ad i er ] aid the [ U. S .-backed South Vietname e] Diem government wa 10 i ng popularity with the pea ants beca u e of the B uddhi t cri i , Mc amara a ked, well, what percen tage wa dropping off. what percentage did the government h ave and what p rcentage wa i t I i ng? He a ked for fac mething he could run thr ugh t he data bank not j u t t h i p etry t h y '
310
Political Philosophy
were pouting." M i ntzberg 1 989: 64 ) rephra e thu the qu tion: 'can val ue, i nad ertent l y creep into the analy. i . when the number of dead bodie. or the acres of defo1 iated j ungle are mea. u rable while the worth of a si ngle human l i fe i. not. ' Secretary M cNamara wa. making , everal mi. take. at once : H e wa. underratincY . oft' data a. wel1 ill morals, while overrating or mi sapplying general fOITllal i. ms, . uch a, cYame theory and deci. ion theory, that invol ve p 'cudo-quanti t ic ' su °h as u bjecti e util ities and ubj ccti v ' probabiliti '. . Pitirinl orokin 1 956) might have diagnosed Sch 'Uing '. , Pape' , and McNam ara O s trategic calcul ations a. a ut , ca. e s of quantophrenia-a di 'a 'c to whi h orokin h i m s 'if wa ' not i mm une. H owev 'r th ' social studi '. are not the only on ' , where pseudo i ence fl ou ri he : There ar ' pocket ' of pseudo °ience i n a U fi 'id. , even i n physi ° . Hcnce th ' need to define thi s cone 'pt. 1 , ubmit that a p. eudosc ienc i . a doctrine or practic that, though proffered a. g n u i ne . cience, i. actual 1 y bogu . b cause i t is i mprec i . e , untestabl , or at ari ance w ith t h e bul k of . cience ( Bu n ge 1 9 3, M ah n r 2007 . Dowsing, homeopathy, ". elfi . h g n ' g netic. m m tic. , parapsychology, p. ychoanalysis, creation science (or i ntel l igent design), specu l ati e evolutionary psychology and game-theore tic strategy are p 'eudo ·cienlifi c . I have argued el 'ewhere B unge 1 996a, 1 996b, 1 998a, 1 999 t hat al so neocLa ' ' ical nlicroeconomics, the rnodel for th many rational-choice theo ries that decorat the pages of 'oc ial- 'cience journal ' i ' p ·eudoscientific. Thi ' i ' becau 'e (a it r vol yes around the ill-defined p 'ycholog ical notion ' of 'ubjective utility or p lea 'ure) and ' ubjecti e probability or perceived lik l ihood): and (b) its author. have not bothered to te t th i r ba ic assllrnp tion, that people alway ' act . 0 a. to maxi m i ze th if xp ted util i t i . , The am critici m apply to the game-theor tic model of pol i tical confl ict such as S h 1 l i ng Strate . of Confli t 1 960 . and B u no d M qllita The �Var Trap ( 1 9 8 1 , The. e mod 1 a u rn that chanc reign. llpr m in war, '0 that the concept of probabil i ty can be appli d to i t ' that both policies and outcome can be a i gned utilitie : and that politician and the m i litary can de ign "rational" strategi e ( such a that of nuclear bri n kman hip) on the ba i of uch utte rly i nvented utilitie and "probabil ities ' perceived l i ke l ihood ) . S i nce uch quanti ti e are subjective p r onal , those model are Unlestable. The game-theoretic approach to pol i ti cs i thu an exerc i e in political c ience fiction-Ie realistic and i n tru t i ve than good pol it ical fiction. I t i s onl y g od for get ti ng promoti n or N obel Priz i n e nomi . . c
•
,
dentific Input to Poli tics
311
o far the o n l y ienti fi c appl i catio n of g a m theory ha b e n John M ay nard m i th ' s t the study of biolog ical voluti n. I n deed, here the probabi l i tie. and uti l i t i , are bjecti e: The form r are m utation pr b abi l i ties and the latter are gai ns i n D arw i n i an fi tne. . r pr geny . i ze. ( ee further critici. m. f m i . appl ication. f game the ry i n B unge 1 989b 1 99 1 a, 1 996a, 1 998a. M any rational-choice pol iti cal m de l s focus on voter be havi r and \
rel y n fol k ( r pop ) p ych I gy, w hence they belong in pecu l at i v p l i ti c al p y c h I gy. Th Y pay l ittle o r n attention to i n titutional con stra i nt , and pre uppo e that p ople are n t only e l f- i nt r ted but a l so ' rati o n al ' that i ut i l ity m ax i ln i z r ). Becau e rati n al -choice p U ti cal theori t borr w these a umpt i o n from n oclassical m icroec n m i c , V-l i th n concern for either mathemat ical preci i o n or m p i rlcal ev i de nce, they fare just a m 1 e rably in accou n t i ng for r a l ity. i\ w e aw e arHer in hapter 5 , e tion 4 tho e po t ul ate l ead to the v ter' 'parael x . R ational man, contrary t o the con cientiou. citizen, d s not bother to vote because he a ume. that a si ngle vote would not make a di fference : and, any w ay w h at i s i n i t f r h i m ? W i th a candor rare a m n g ration al-choice t heori sts, George B re n n an ( 1 99 7 : 1 09- 1 1 0 ) adm i t that their m dels fai l t account for the be hav i r of real voter . He recog n i ze that thos " m de l s rn ak " no r om for c ivi c-lni ndedness or � r the elcctj n ( r cree n i n g proce ( uch a the p ri m ary e l ec t i n s in the U n i t ed tate . Be i de s , t he y ar " p aroc h i a l f r t hey f c u n t h e ll1erican t wo -party ystem . I w o u l d a d d that tho e the r i " s al i g nor " the soci al c nt " x t , i n p art i c u l ar We be r ' s p r erbi al "stee l cage ' and M i l 1 s "pow e r e l i t e ." B u t be cause tho e t h ret i cal m odels i nv o l e fi g u r s and te nd t b e p r e s n ted i n th deduct i v form at they p r uad m any pe p i e that they are sc i ntific while actually they are p eud . ci nti fi c . Worse b cau. of thei r dismal fai l ure tho e m del s g i v cientism a bad n ame, and e nc urag post m der n i st anti -scientism. 1 0. Concl u d ing Rema rks Though v ry di ffe rent, pol i t i c an t sci n ' are l i n k d: S 'ience is or ought t be a t I for 'ial p Ucy-rn ak i ng and e aJ uation . Thj 1 . w hy t h rn o tern state upport . ' i n t i li ' re search � r b th it. i n n-in ic alue and i t. us ruJ n s t both i ndu. t ry and g ernrnent. S tate 'raft, i n parti cul ar, f the bioso 'ial s i n ' s uch ha. be n ben fiting fr 111 usi ng fi nding as d m ography and pid m iology. B y th sam token it ha been great l y h armed b y pseudo c ie nce.
312
Political Philosophy
It might b thought that a c ience-ba. ed gov rnmcnt would be c l i t i t, becau. e it would i nvoke technical itie. i nacce. sible to the rna. se . . Pericle. faced and , olved thi s problem twenty- fi ve cent u rie. ago. Put i n today '. language, he said: An the pol itical i s, ues and option, can be dLcu . . ed in plain l anguage, even i f the deta i 1 . of statecraft m a y not. Tn short, the . cientizati on of pol i ti s i. i n the publ ic interest. B ut the sci ences in question m u. t be genu ine, unlike the p. e udo. cience. , . uch a applied game th 'ory u ed by thc R AN D consu ltant. and other ' who m i sled the U . S . govern m 'nt i nto Victnam [md othcr quag m i res. W rit ing on th ' ontri bution ' of the 'e and orh 'r 'blind ora 'Ies" to A mcrican for 'ign pol icy-making during th ' second half of th ' tw 'nticth ccntury, B ruc ' K u l i c k (2006: 2 ) 'oncl udc : 'Th ' defen. ' i ntel lectual ' did not know ery m uch. They frequcntly del i er d obtuse judgment ' w hen rc quired to b ' matter-of-fact, or m 'r 'Iy offer 'd up elf-j u tifying tal k for politicians." Tn other word. , pol itician . ar not well ser ed by arrogant int l l ectual. who m istake p. eudo. cie nce for . ci nc . To conc l ude, pol itic. and science are not . u i table bedf 1 10w. , for they have ery differ nt goal. and proc dure . . B ut they can b good partne r. provi ded politician . learn to l i sten to sc ienti. t , and a. long a. the l atter are authentic .cientist. and do not . ell their . oul . to the power. that be.
8 Technological Input to Politics Governance may b regarded a the craft of re 01 i ng or k irting social i ue at th exp nse of unwittingly generating new one . Regrettably the va. t m ajority of the pol i tician . and civil ser ant. w ho ar exp cted to tackle ocial probl me are anulteur with at be t a d grcc in l aw or in com merce-craft men rather than practitioners of . cience-ba. ed . oci al en gineeri ng . I t i. al. 0 unfortunate that the expre. sion ' . oei al engineeri ng' i . often used in a pejorative . en. e, a, . ynonymou. with apoli tiei. m and paternalism, hence inimical to individual initiative, responsibility and popular participa tion . B ut thL critici. m, inherent in the right-win g attack on . ocial welfare, is unfair, for all 1 'gi. Jation is social 'ngineering i nce it seeks to 'rect, repai r, or demoli sh ol11 e social constmction ( 'cc Kelsen 1 94 1 -2' Pound 1 954' B u nge 1 998a). The only real i. sue is wheth 'r a g iven pi c ' of '0 'ial engine 'ri ng i fair and r 'ali. t i " that i s , affordabl ' a n d l ikely t o work. 1 agree with Popper 1 962 : 22-24 that the stat ' would greatly benefit from a good do e of soci al engin " ring or soci al te hnology beyond the traditional legal and accounting practices. B ut, u nl i ke Popp r, I do not belie e in piec c>meal . oeial ngineeri ng b eau. e, as H i r. chman 1 990 noted it i. i m possibl to do "one thi n g at a tim .' Th rea. on is that . oci ty i . a super-syst m of system s, s o that w h e n any of the m changes. other. too are l ikel y to be aff eted ( B ung 1 979a 1 99 a . on. equently. to alter anythi ng in on of them with efficiency and w ithout harm i ng any others we m ust aim for 'y ·temic or tructural) chang ' for in 'tance, not only in the economy but al '0 in th polity ,md th cultu re. For example, i t i ' i mpo . - ible to social i ze the economy wi thout at the 'ame soc i a l i z i ng t he politic ' and the c u ltur . A social technology i . a science-based di 'cipline capable of tackli ng 'ocial problems i n a rat ional and efficient fa ' hion. I t . ai m , in other words i to alt r h u m an beha i or . o a. to i th r l i m inate the problem ' 313
314
Political Philosophy
or m itigatc thc uffcring. th y cau c. H owcver for bcttcr or for worsc technoloCJY cannot sol ve al l the wor1d . problems. and thi e for t h e s i m ple reason that people are not m achine . . not even m a h i ne-l i ke . They have des i re. , and the i magination req u i red to meet or avoid them, . omet i me. at the expen. e of other people s i ntere. t�. H ence we need moral and legal norms, a. wel l a� free debate. and civ i l i zed contest. 0 er them . in addi tion to technological recipe . . Ther ' ar ' a numb 'r of so ' ia l technologics from ducation . cien " social work ,md mark ,ting to law, m an agement ' c i 'nce normative m ac roeconomjcs, m ibtary 'trategy, and diploma y . cc e.g. B u nge 1 99 a A l l of them have been i nventcd to ta 'kle 0 ial problems of various k i nd ' and i z '. , from di tribution of rcsource to onft ict resolution. They hel p m 'et one of the condi t ions of good governancc effi ci 'n 'y. So, good gov ' mance i nc lude trong tcchnological expc rti 'e. B u t one o f t h e charact ri o t ics o f th comp tent xpert i . awar n s . o f the l i m i tations and i mpl ications of h i . c raf4 du to the i nherent compl x i ty of the task as wen as to the spec ial i nterests that w i n now . u pport now oppo. e any gi en pol icy propo. al . Th . oci a1 technologi st mu. t know, in particular that the toughest soci al i ssues. such as tho. e of poverty and m i l i tary aggre . . ion are moral i ssu . . He should al. 0 k now that mora] i . ' ue ' cannot be resol ved by merely jai l i ng debnquent ·, ' hooti ng or giving out bank. note ' . M oral i . 'ue . can only be resol ved by attending in a fair-m i nded way to the con fl icting intere ,t . at play, ,md encouraging the act ive partic ipation of all t he 'takeholder · . .
-
1 . Public Social Science
Social 'cienti ts com in three major k ind '. Some are prim arily i n ter e ted in und r tanding . oc i ty other in hangi ng it and t i l l oth r ' i n applying ' oc i al knowl d g t o managi ng b u i ne fi rm o r government d partment . The fi r t group conduct · ba. ic r . arch whil the econd and third practice 'ocia1 t chnology or social ngineering). How v r dif fer nt the e i ntere t · ar m u tuall y omplementary rath r than xclu ive. I ndeed to be effect i ve, a ocial technology m u t be ba ed on good basic science. In particu lar, the mrun motivatjon of ome ba jc social scienti t i to be able to address social i ue . Thus Robert Putnam ( 2003 ) tated that ' attend i ng to the concerns of our fel low citizen i not ju t an op tional add-on for the profession of poli tical cience, but an obligation a . fundamental a our pur u i t of sci entific tru th . And M ichae l B urawoy 2005 : 25 added the p ychologi al omponent: "public s c iology i what keep sociological pa ion alive ."
Techno)ogical lnput to Politics
315
1 subnut that in advanced ocietiec public policie are de igned by . ocial technologie . . , uch a. normative macroeconomi , and the l aw' the, e are i n t u rn expected (often wrongly to be ba, ed on appl ied sciences, . uch a. med ical sociology ; and the. e are fed by ba, ic , cience. . uch a. po, itive economics and sociology. The rel ation, between the three fi elds, and between the, e and the . tate, may be . u m m arized as fol l ows: Bll i
0
ial Sciell
'
PubIi
.
0
ial Sci'l1 e
..L. investigate '
J.. i nvestigate '
Social [act.
Publi
I
uc
So 'ial Te JlIlOlo�)
1 designs
�
Public en ic
..L. i mplement.
Pol i i ', & prooram
Public social science is also called polic) studies. P l icy students i nvestigate public pol itie " uch , macroec n mic and health pol ic i . And oci al technologi t , in particular Iegi l ator and their con ultant , de i gn oci al pol icie , wherea the public er ants who i m plement uch policie are ocial technici an . Thu a central banker and a public health m i n i ter are ocial craft rnen. S ince the i mplernentation of any publ i c pol i cy i l i kely t o affect orne e tor o f t h e publi c, t h e policy c i ence i nvol ve i deology a we] ) a c ience ( Die ing ] 982 . It belong in 0 ial technology. I t j tru that a. Soroc 2006 enlpha i z d, we arc all fall ible whence m any of our pol i c ies, plan. actions and i n c t itution are bound to be i m pe rfect. Howev r, I submi t that modem have two mean. to correct i n ad quacie. neither of which existed in earlier t i mes. One i the c i e ntific m thod which-a. Popper 1 962 propo cd-can and c hould be applied to policie ju t as to scientific hypothe e . For example when the fi r. t R eagan adm inL tration found that the monetari. t pol i cy recom mended by the neoliberal econom ist M i lton Friedman led to an economic rece. sion it dropped it. ad i. or and chan CJed cour, e. By ontrast, at thi. writing the American govern ment ha. cho, en to ignore the unan i mou. fi ndinCJ of i t. 1 6 spy agencie. that it. cont i n uou, occupation of I raq ha. i ncrea, ed the vul nerabil ity of the United States to terrori. t attack, in, tead of d 'crea ing it as proph . .iz d by the anllchair walTiors i n the W hite House. R eality be damned ! The other m 'ans to hrink th ' marg i n of e rror i n soci a l pol icy design i s to u e any piece of the panoply of scienc '-ba 'd social technologie. of arious trengths from normati ve 'pidemiology to management i e nce and i nfonl1ation gathering through e lectronic u r e i l l [ll ·e. It is up to . tate. men and ci it ser ants to eith r util iz or i gnore th sci ntific
316
Political Philosophy
method and the . ociotechnologie and i t is u p to th 'ItIzen to exami ne the relative merit. of the pol icie. pur. ued by their gO ernment. 2. Pol icy
E very . ocial sy. tern-whether bu. ine . . governmental department or voluntary a" 0 iation-is guided by a pol icy, , trategy, or "philo. ophy.' A policy is a . et of alue. or (foal. together w ith a . et of proposaL to ach ievc thcm. In short, a policy i a mcans-cnd pair. And a ocial or publ ic ) policy i. of coursc a . trat 'gy for tackl ing or . ki lting a social problem or i ssu ' from th ' 'tate. For i n t(U]ce a publi -health pol i 'y may consi t i n proposing to provide frce m 'dical care to all ' or alternatively, to I ,t thc mar](, ,t handle hcalth for profit, 0 that health be tr 'ated a a pri v i l 'ge rath 'r than a right. The pr vail ing opin ion is that pol itic. determines policy. By cont rast, rational-choice theori. ts. such a. Glazer and Roth nberg (2005 , beli ve that economic eonsid rat ions are uppermo. t in designing pol ici s. J sug gest t hat both views ar simpl i stic: that special interest. shap politics and conv r. ly; and that pol itics i nduce policy which in turn . teers pol itic . . B . id� two further factors are i nvol ed i n policy de. ign : the c i i l . ervice, and the pol icy exp rts i t consults. I . ubmit that the fi e above- mention d factors are cau 'aUy related roughly as shown. S pecial intere ·ts
1i
Pol itic '
J, i Ci il
'\.\,
rvice
Policy
J, Experts
Fig. 8.1. The determinants of policy-making.
N w, poli ies an b either faith-ba d (uld i m pr i sed r evid nce ba ed and carefu l l y de. i gned . A democrati and h ne. t government w i l l u e scien e and tec h n 1 gy t o d e i gn i ts policies wherea a n u ndemo cratic or i n ompeten t n w i l l tend t twi. t . den e (uld tech n 1 gy to u i t preconcei ed poli cy. Re pon jble policie are not i rnprovi ed. They
Technological Input to Poli tics
317
are d e i g ned a n d anal yzed b y e x p rt and d i scu ed by the tak holder or thei r repre se n tati e . . Regrettabl y, i t i. not uncom mon for p ublic policie. to be recom mended or c ri t icized on the . trength of m r statistical corre l ations or even n none. This i s how many w e l fare pr grams adopted i n the U n i ted tates duri ng the l i beral 1 9 60. were hac ked d wn by the conservative r acti n between the 1 9 80. and the presen t . It wa. c lai med that those pr grams h u rt the p or i n tead f help i n g them , by w ak n i ng th i nce n t i e to 10 k t r gainfu l e mployment and e ncouragi ng d ivorce , i rre pon i b l parenth od, ch 01 truancy, a n d even drug addicti n . for xample. A F D ( A id t Pam il i e w i t h D e p ndent h i ldre n ) , a r L ativ l y m a l l program , w a b l am d t r th i nc rea e i n th n u m ber of children I i i ng w ith lngl m ther bet ween 1 970 and 1 990, w h i le actual l y both the valu f w I far be nefit and th fraction f c h ildre n ti i ng i n AfD househ Id feJ l dur i n o tho. e two d cades (piven 2004 ) . When pr mi i n o i n 1 99 2 t 'end w e l fare a. we know it, Pre. ident l i nton knew that 'ba. h i n g pol i tj cal ly � e l fare rec ipie nts w h i le elebrati ng fam i ly values struc k a powerle chord w i th the e lectorate (piven 2004 : 95 . I n any process i n ol v i ng a po l icy we m u. t di t i ngui h aoents of three k i n d -de sig ners or tech noloo ist . analy t . or ri t ics b t h de t r u ti e and constructive) and m arketer ( or per uade r . The p Hcy desig ners and analy t arc hoped to mu ter the re le ant fact and values w he reas the p ticy m arketer arc ex pected to have the rhetori eaJ k i l l required t .. e l l" policie t the i ntere ted part ies-manag "rs, pu blic ervant , p l i t i cians, or voter ( F r a det aiJ es anaJ ysi of rhet ric ee A ngen t 200 . Yet mo t w riter on poHey tress n " of the three a peet at the ex pense of the other two. The c n fl at i n b tw een de ig n and anal y L is u nder tandable b cause rdi n ari l y b th tasks ar performed by the sam i ndiv id uals. B y contrast th the is that " [tlhe pol ley anal y st is a producer f p Hey argument more sim i l ar to a l aw yer . . . than to an ngi neer r a sc ie ntist " ( M aj ne 1 98 : 2 1 i fal e and h az ard u � r it uggests that i n pol icy m atters, rh toric or even p h i try is more i m port an t than ub stane . It ugg sts that. una oidably, sal smanship tru m ps k n w -how. This i not to be li ttle the i mp rlance of argumentati n in pol icy matter . I n fact her . as i n any oth r field w h re faeL int rt w i n w i t h val u s, and real int re t w i th p ree ived i n te re t , we m u t e n . truct arg um n ts of two kin t : I g i cal and prax i I g i 'aJ . W herea t he form r arc anal y zed and r g i m e n ted by m athemat i cal logic, th l atter ar in charge f acti n theory, becau e th y bear on fact , i n particul ar actions, not propo itions. I h av argued e l w here B unge 1 9 9a: 30 1 ' 1 9 a: 6 1 -362 ) that when
318
Political Philosophy
facL mc. h i n with val uc ence pattern, :
La) statement Value judgment orm
La w statement
VaLu.e jud ment Norm
wc U . c thc follow i ng two praxi olog ical i nfcr
Modus olens I f A (i . th ca 'e, or i ' done) t hen B re ' ults . B i s good (or right ) and, on balance, better (or more right) than A i ' good (or righ t ) [ that i ' , A ought to be (the case or done ] . Modus noLell I f A i ' th ca. e, or i ' done) then B re ult ) . B i bad ( o r wrong ). A i ' bad or w rong) I that i " A ought t o be avoided or r frained from ] ,
where A a n d B n a m facts, wherea ' ' : : ' stands for t h e relation of nomla rive or practical) entailment-a rel at ion that is partially defi ned implicitly by th above praxiolog ical i n ference pattern '. Thi ' approach to argumentation i n moral legal and poli tical maller ' has the fol lowing disting u i 'hing features. F i r , t, i t make ' it c lear that the foc i of di 'cour ' in t hese field ' are fact ' and value '. Second, it place ' i n the foreground t h e 'cientific ground ' for adopting or rejecting norms, poli c i or cour e ' o f a tion . Thi rd. i t a l idate ' practical i nfer n ; the ' ar not covered by formal logic . which conc rn c ntrally the con equ nc relation b h¥een propo i tion . Fourth our approach .trength n ' th bond between the normat i di ciplin uch a ' eth ic , th pol icy . i ence and the l aw on t h one hand . and val u theory on t h oth r. I n addition to polici . we need pol icies about pol i c i . or m tapoli i e . A metapolicy m ay con i t i n either letting the powerful de ign publ ic pol i c ie (oligarchy ) . or i n letting repre entatives of the pol i ty decide upon policie de igned by soci otechnologi t (enlightened democracy . A lternatively, a public policy m ay con i t in u rrendering poli cy -mak ing to the big player behi n d the cene , uch a the triad composed of the I M E the W E , and the WTO-which, a far a the Third World i c n e rned are s me f th mo t powerful l east demo ratic and most c ns rvati ve of all the p wer that b . Pub l ic pol ic ie are anything but neutral th y ar bound to affect the int r t of many people. Thus t he great Keyne 1 973 l 1 936 J ) adnl itted that h i own m acroeconomic policie. were d i gned "to ave capitali m fr m itse l f" And M il t n Friedman'. Laisse faire i s m and monetari 111 -
-
320
Political Philosophy
. low. B u t most poli ticianc arc afraid to be een a oft on crin1 and few have the courage to prom i se to do . omethi ng abou t crime prevention. That pol icymak i n CJ h as a . trong moral component . hould be evident, for pol icie, are designed and i mplemented becau. e they are expected to affect the well-being of . orne or al l . For example. an environmental-pro tection policy is bound to benefi t everyone except the handfu l of people who own the offendin g i ndu. try. H owe er, the moral a. pect of publi poli 'y maki ng poses tougher pfobl 'ms than the t 'ch n i 'al one becau " although ethi .. i s a technology there i s no univer. ally accepted moral philo 'ophy, for the obv iou reason that every modern society i ' spli t i nto a numb 'r of ocial group with confl icting int 'f '. ts and trad i tion . The fol lowi ng example hould give a flavof of the k i nd of problem ' rai sed by poli y de ' ign. 4
1.
£m iron1l'l nlal protection. M arket ';\10[, h ipper d not care ab ut the natural en i r n ment be au�e they are pI; mari l y c ncerned w i th ' hnrt term profit . Th y feign that th natural re ource are i nexhau tible. because they are not i n terested i n the future generations. B y contrast, the rest of u s want the environment prote ted, but do nor always af,rree on how bc t to proceed. For the ti me being, the be. t \ e can do i to increase radical ly the tax on carbon and oil 'on:umption, decreac e fish i ng and deforestat ion, i n ent al ternative energy source ' and adopt and enact l e g i s la t i n ban n i ng the unneces, ary de. tru ti n o f e y , tem. f r private profi t . Poplliation control. hange. i n popu lation depend on three mecha ni m. : birth, death , and migrati n. Hen e, any effi ient populati n poli y w i l l i n I ve tam pe r i ng w i th the corre. p ndinn rate . I t w i l l i nvolve encouraging or dis ouragi ng ferti Jj ty, health care, and migration ( i n ward or outward ) . A nd, o f 'our e , the adoption o f any su h policy w i l l t ri gger moral and pol i tlcaJ debates. Thu . typical l y. con ervative oppo e family pJanni ng. un i ver a1 and free heaJ th care, and border open to people .
ons rvati es oppose the free universal health care that Canadians, and e en Arg e ntines and Mexican. take for granted: the t rmer favor the large and profi table health fi rm . . The ame ideol gi. t laim that pri vate enterpri e in the fi ld of health L th more ffi ient, but the e idence i negati . Th largely pri vate A merican y t e m i the mo t in ffi ient i n the entir developed w rId . Thus, i n 2004 th health pending per apita w a $5,267 i n t h e U n i t d S tates and 2 ,736 in Fran 'e, where the l i fe expectancy i ' 2 . 1 year higher. W r e et, the privat hare of heaJth pending w a. 55 i n the U ni ted States and o n l y 2 4 � i n France. A compari on between the A merican health care .. tem and that o f other affl uent o ll ntrie . uch a. the nited K i ngdom and Canada , ex h i b i ts ' i m i lar di ' parities: in all Publi ' health .
the We tern European s
Techno)ogical lnput to Politics
5.
6.
32 1
ca e the c n urn r i b fter rved by public health i nsurance than by the health management organization ; see K rugman and Wel l 2006) . B e ide , there arc o f cour e the economic and m raj factor . which the market fu ndamentali . t arefully overlook. People i n poor health cannot work effi 'iently, and health are . hould be a human right. But i t w i l l not d o much g o d un less coupled with fair employ ment pol icies, u h a a m i n i mum salary pol icy. In hort , public healt h care i s part f the e nomic e u ri ty package I n ternational Labour Office 2004 . Minimum } a e. At fi r t ight, m j n i m u m wage I gi lation hurt t h u n mpl - yed :md the p - r w h are employed i n unorgani zed Jabor m arkets where t h pol i y cann t b enf r ed (Gri ffi n 1 99 : 1 70). On the oth r hand a raise i n m i n i mum wag benefit t h onomy a a whole becau e i t i n rea, es the p urchasing power f the many, thu increa ing demand a wel l Card and Kmeger 1 995 . Th i ambi alence hO\ s once again that sectoral poli ies do not work. Soc ial progTan1 come in bundles in order to be effective. For c ample, a rai se in mini mum wage will benefi t e eryone pro idcd it comes accompanied by job reation pr grams along \"i t h unions . trong enough to defend the new wage structure . Death penalt . The ancient knew o n 1 . of tw puni hm nL for . e er crime� : · tfa i ' m and death. Only govern men . that w rk u nder the i n ft uen e of archai bel ief and C l l t ms, partic ularly t h e entrenched in r ligi u text . t i l l re rt t capital puni hment . Yet, eminent cho1arc; , such a s Cec;are Beccaria 1 764 h a\ e argued that the death penalty i both morally \ rong and practicall y ineffect.ive. I t i mora J ly w rong be 'ause it differs from ord i nary murder only in that i t i s legal poli ti cal l y legiti mate) . That capital punishmcnt is also practical ly ineffectual or worse has been sh n by the pertinent stati · t ics see e.g. Bedau, ed. 1 998 . The underlying me h an i m seems to be this. The would-be murderer i. l ikely to k i l l n t only hi. target but al 0 by tander. , f r fear that th y may . rv a witn . es. So, capital puni hment, far from being an effe ti e deterrent t crim , tend ' t aggra ate i t . But i t i � an ff cti e t 01 of pol i tical contr I, for it i n t i m idate th i nnocent and i t devi ates p u b l i attenti n from ma:s murder to retml murder. Political assassination . Tynm n i ide ha: been defended i nee antiq u i ty as a la t re ort. In t he nineteenth century some anarchi t group pract i ed pol i tical a a'isination, whi ' h a lway: resulted in further op pression. But of course i t ha ' been practiced on a massive scale by all the totalitarian reg i me" and b) parti. an i n ountries und r foreign cupation. N waday. rogue . tate and p l it ical group� that fi ght Western dom inati n pm t ice pol itical a. sa. si nation. The re ult i the wel l-known spiral f terror: attack, r tal iation, and further ana ks. Y t , .' m e ch l ar h a e defended thi ' P l iey al leging that i t m u · t w rk. for otherwi it w uid not be pract i ed. Which i l i ke saying that ex r c i ; m and .;a ri Ckes to the god ; must be e tfective i n 'e they ha e been practiced for m i l lennia. The argument not only defie. tatistic . . it i al o .i u t a. i m moraJ a a a i nation i tse l f. M oreover. in 1110 t ca, e '
322
Political Philosophy
7.
the a a in hit not on ly their target but also i nnocent bystander , Furthermore, grassr ols lerrori ' m i s a go d ex use � r i ntensify i ng t he oppre ion that it i ntend to fight. , 0 t hat i t the end i t i se lf-defeat i ng. War. Thi i the u lt imate Time becau se it i nvol es the murder of many in nocent people , who arc sacri ficed for the sake of the i n tere · ts of a fe\ f r territory, natural re 'our es. slaves, markets trade route" or hat ha e y u . Yet many pol i t logi t: phil sopher� and theologian have w ritten about "j u t war ," whi h usually happen to be th waged b the go ernment ' th e i ndividual ' � upp rt . I laim that there can be n ju ' t wa ', beeau e war i ' nothing but ma� ' murder. and a ' lIch th " w 'e of crime Alberdi 1 870 At b st, in a war there an be one j u t ide. that f the aggres ed party ; at worst, both side ' can be lInjust ( B u nge 1 9 9a ) . B u t e en an i n itially ju t party is l ike ly to eom mit at.rocitlc or if i ·torious to i n fl i t 'ruel punishment on the anqu ished-, lIeh a. the treaty of Vcr 'aille ' 1 9 1 9 . .
What can be learned from the precedi ng ca. e. ? Fi rst, becau. e they al 1 invol e moral problems, the corresponding pol i ti al i . . ue, are like l y to be approached differently by people w i th di fferent moral. and ideologies. Fortunately. thouCJh we now ha e a u n iver. al moral benchmark : the U N Univ 'rsal Declaration of H u man Right. . Second, al l serioll social i ue ' ar ' 'ystemic, by definition of ' seriou '0 ' i ill isslle.' H 'n . a poli 'y de signed to tackle them i bound to fai l u nless it i part of a custom-mad ' package . A s the Int 'r- A me ri an Development B ,Ulk ( 2006 : 7 put i t with oblique reference to th ' disa trous Washington Con 'nsu ' : ' B 'ware of uni ersal policy rec i pes that ar ' supposed to work i nd 'p 'ndently of th ' ti m and place in which they are adopted.' Thi rd there are no . uccess ful pol i c ies i n a pol i tical acuum. Regardle . . of its sci nti fic m rit. , a pol icy w i l l not be succe . . fully i mplemented u nles. grafted onto a popular poli tical mo me nt. 3. Program
U n l i k other animal s w ar sometim capable of a ting in rational way. rather than on implll e. W hat d i t i nglli h ' rational action from action. of oth r type '- ' uch a i m pu 1 . ive compll l i , co rcive and routin -i planning. Ac ording to Weber 1 976: 35-36) plan n i ng i . characteri t i c o f the ' rational' ( capitali t econom i e . Actual ly, there i hardly a walk of human l i fe, whether pri ate or public, that doe not require p lanni ng. Witnes hou ehold, corporate and government budget ing. logi tics on any cale. defense p Lanning, and resource m anagement. Be ide , there are nationwide p Lan , uch as the fir t two Soviet Five-Year
Techno)ogical lnput to Politics
323
Plan that tranc fonll d a backward nation i nto the modem power that defeated the azi m i l i tary-industrial complex . And yet the philo. ophical l iterature on the subject is scant (. ee, howe er B u nge 1 967, Seni 1 994, S honwandt 2 002 ) . Worse. t h e mo. t i n fl uential author o n the , ubjec t, Friedrich H ayek, . upported a retum to Laisse -.fair) and thi . at a t i me-duri n g World War I T-when al l the (freat power. were en gaged i n l arge-. cale planned operations, such as the 1 942 Be eridge R 'port the M an hattan Proj 'ct of the . arne year and the battl . of Stalingrad the next. The report in qu 's tion planned the expansion of the Briti ' h w 'Ifare tate' the M an hattan Project came up w ith a n 'w energy ource; and the said battl ' m arked the b 'gi n n ing of the 'nd of World War n . The M a rshal l Plan repaired son1 ' of the ravag ' of thi ' war, j u st as the ew Deal program had al Ie i at d the po e rty of the G reat Depre ion and re tor 'd th . morale of th A merican people. And y t H ay k ( 1 976 procl ai med ex cathedra that aLI plan. ar to tal itarian end avor. and produc the oppo. ite of w hat they intend. as i f o n l y unplanned action were free from u n i n tended c o n . equence . . What i s t ru i s that planner. should m ak room for u n intended con. equences . . uch a. the black m arket that oft n resu l t. from rationing. or the i ncreas i n teenager pregnancy that accompanie . women' ' l i beration unle ' ' com b ined w ith 'ex education. Jacob Talmon ( 1 970: I , another famou ' armchair pol i t ic ian, agreed w ith H ayek, and added that what distingui ' he ' l i beralism from total i tariani ' m i s that th former 'as ' u mes poli t i c ' t o b e a matter of trial and e rror, and regard ' pol itical sy ·tems a ' pragmatic contrivance ' of human ing n uity and · pontaneity.' Peopl w i th xpe rience i n bu i ness go ern m nt or GO , ar l i k l y to d i ' agr . Th Y k now that organization do not m rge pontan ou l y ' that running any ocial ' y tem from a fam i l y o r a con enience · tore t o a corporation o r a government departm n t r q u i res plans i n particular budget · · and that who ver tak mlllat l particularl y i f the ' req u i r th cooperation o f other p ople m U . t plan before acting if they wish to ucceed. Tho e who do not p lan their activi t i e are i rre ponsi ble-for i n tance, they 0 er pend a n d have unwanted ch ildren-and place them el e at the mercy of planner . They are con denmed to perform i ng routine ta ks planned by their bo e . Drifting not planning i the road to erfdom . The neol i beral overlook the fact that al l large- cale bu i ness and government project -from publ ic works t m i l i ta ry canlpaign to s cial program -must be planned i f nly becau se they i nvolv allotting s ar e
324
Political Philosophy
h uman and nlaterial resources. I nulgi ne the construction of a hydroc1ec tri plant or the organization of a national heal th , ervice, without any detai led plan . . Nor do the neoli beral ideolog ue. entertai n the pOSe i b i l i t y that i n add i tion to authoritarian or top-down planning, there coul d b e "plan ning a . a cooperati e endeavor based o n comprom i. e, ' a . Otto Neurath 1 98 1 put i t . M i h a l Polanyi 1 997), a s e ere ritic of central planni ng. propo. e d com b i n i ng 'ov 'raIl plan n ing" with m utual adju tment ' at the ba c . H ' al 0 d 'nounccd Sovict ccntral planning a a fiction. I n reality th ' Sovict economy wa 'a loose collection of 'ntcrpri ·cs, i nitiat 'd ccntrally, whi h th ' managcrs on thc spot arc lcft to adj u st to each other by comp ,titivcly s Tanlbljng for m at 'rial. [md men through a y t 'm of more or lcss rcgu hued, a n d morc or lcs legal , m arket ' o p . cit. : 200 . Hcr ' we hall be 'oncerned only with soci a l program , that i. , plan ' designed or endor. d by govern ment. , corporation. pol itical partie. , or GOs. Soc ial programs, en if authoritarian and anti. oci a] can be eith r reacti or pr ventive. A reactive plan addre. ses emergencies, such as a predicted h urricane on the ba. i. of a poor k nowl dge base-hence in a sectoral rath r than . ystemic fa. h ion. Typicall y such plan. produce poor or ven negative r . ults. B y contra. t, a pr ventive plan addresse. long-term i . ' ue ' ' uch as low producli i ty, c hronic unemployment, and a large fi 'cal debt� ,md i t does '0 on a broad knowledge base-hence in a sy ·temic rather than 'ectoral way-and often with po ' itive resul t ' . The know ledge base i n question i ' 'upplied b y one o r more 'ocial lech nologies, ' uch a ' macroeconomic ' , re 'ource econom i c ' , or normative epidemiology. H owe r though n ary to tackI any l arg - cal . ocial i . ue technology i in 'uffici nt for it do . nothi ng to mobil iz people the oci al component of any l arg -scal proj t. ow p opl can b mob i lized only if they are rea onably healthy and wel l - i n formed and if they b om invol d in th proj ct. I magine a mob of i n al ids ' torm i ng a fortr " or rebui lding a tow n reduc d to rubbl . To put it i n negati v term : P opl remain i ndi fferent. hence non-cooperative. if they are in poor health, un educated, have Httle lei u re time, or have no ay whatever i n the propo ed endeavor. To ucceed, any large-scale ocia] project cal l for technology, health. education, and partici pation-not ju t in the execution but al 0 in the very design and u pdati ng of a plan. Take for in tance the problem of low economic productj ity which 1 ad t low m peti t ivene. . and thu u l t im ately to a negative balance of i nternati nal payments. To i mprove the pr dueti ity f a ect r, and
326
Political Philosophy
4. E nvironment and Popu lation
E ologi t , cUrnatologi t , and dernographe r ha e been warning u that we are heading toward an i rrever ible en i ronmental di a ter: global warming, melti ng of gla ier , de iccation, de ert i fication, ero ion, oi l impo e ri hment and 10 , de truction of fore t and fi h bank , po l l ution, deplet ion of m i neral ore . and more . I n particular. global wanning w i l l continuing t o ha e huge i rreve ible effect o n nature and dajly life, u n ie all the tates i n the planet adopt and enforce a whole package of drastic mea u re. a i med at reduci ng carbon dioxide and methane emi ion be low thei r rate of removal by l and and the ocean . U I ntergovernmental Panel of C l im ate Ch.mge 2007 . MOe t economist have i gnored thL waill i ng, ome holdi ng i n. tead that "cl i nulte 'hange c cience is i nconclu i ve " or even that our plan t ' re. our 'e arc ' practically i n fi n i te." The neoli beraL hide the fact that "[g]lobal ization hac defi n i tely meant the global i zati on of nonsu. tai nable industri al agriculture such a, h i gher use of pesticide. and more expen si e seed. , which means debt, u npayable debt. i n the context of national poverty" ( S h i a 2003 : 1 47 . Ri ght-wi ng parties around the world have fol l owed s u i t, and many moderate ones keep . i lent for fear of 10. ing votes. Be, i de. , a power ful Evangel ical coali t ion i n the United State holds that our planet i ' in God hand , . 0 W ' should not try to i nter�'r ' w ith H i ' mysteriou ' desi gn . Thu , the fate of our planet ha. been l i t 'rally i n th . hands of reck l ' 's corporation , ob 'qu ious cconom i ts, hort ight d pol iti i m). , and rel igiou ' fm)atic ' . A l l thi s tarted t o hange when th . Briti ' h 'conomist a n d c i v i l 'rvant S i r N ichola. S tern ( 2 007 ) publi shed h i . report on t h e economic effect. of global c l i m ate chang . . This doc u ment wa. so alarm ing particularly for coming from an establi shment economi st, that it drew th att ntion of the B ritL h Pri me M i nister and even the W h i t Hou. e. The St rn R v i w warned that, unle . . d rastic m a. ur . ar taken i mmed i at ly l arge swath. of our plan t w i l l . oon become uni nhabitable and the global GOP w i l l drop b y a t l e a · t 2 0 % -a 10 . . of about seven tril li on dollar ' . Thi . report i . tri ply excepti onal . It defi e ' mainstream economic ' , adopt · an ethical rather th,m an econom i c approach, and put · a price tag on pol i ticaJ i nac tion rather than action . Conservative pol i t icians and academic ' have advocated letti ng the mark l take care of the env ironment. For e ample, in 2005 the U n i ted States S nate adopted a re oluti on cal l ing for a program of ' m ark t-ba ed
Techno)ogical lnput to Politics
327
l i m i t and inccnti c. on eml SlOn. of greenhou. c gas c . ' B u t w hat ha been destroy i n g nature for two centurie. i. none other than unregulated i ndu, tryo abetted by market fundamentalists, who. e motto i. "Buy now, let them our off pri n g ) pay l ater.' At most, they consent to a . mall and gradual l y CJrowi ng penalty on carbon emi . . ion (e.g. Nordhaus 2007 ) . They worry more about i ts i mpac t on today '. m arket than on the future of our specie, ( ordhau, and Tay lor 2007 ) . One o f the mO. t pectacular be t-do °ument 'd and publ icized re ult of laisse .-faire pob °ie i s the loggi ng of large wath ' of th ' A m azon forest for agricultur ' and nm °hing. Be au e the . oi l l ay 'r i s v 'ry thi n , w hen defore ' ted i t i swept by tropi ° a l rains and consequentl y the new l y acq u i red l a n d for pasture [md agriculture t u rns i nto desert (A. n c r et al . 2004 . The profits arc huge but short la ,ting and the loss to human k i nd i s perm anent. Another well-documented t ragedy i . th deci m ation of th fauna of A frica s Lake Victoria. Until recently thi . enormous l ak was a marv I of abundanc and biodi er, i ty. The i ntroduction of a feroc iou, predator. th N i l perc h caused the exti nction of t he va. t majority of , peci s in th l ak , and therefore nded up by dec i mat i ng th predator i tself. Th motive for the introduction of th N i l p rch had been economic. Perch fi l let ' fetch l arge prices in the European m arkets. e ither t he 'hort-time beneficiarie ' and eventual victim ') of t h i s ecocide t he Lake Victoria fi ' hermen and the fi 'h factori '-nor the bureaucrats of the European U n ion who became i nvol ed in it, had even the most rudimentary knowl edge of re 'ource management. They only knew the fir ,t commandment of 'tandard econom i c ' : M ax i mi ze thy expected uti l i ti e . ! Thu ' th low k i l ling of Lak Victoria, far from i l l u trati ng th tragedy of the ommon -a Hard i n 1 968 m ight c laim-i l l u trate th tragdy of the unregulated mark t. That particular t ragedy might have been avoided if the l ake had b en managed from the tart by a fi ' herm n ' coope rative in accordance w ith the two ba ic rule ' of pra t ical ecology : Never i nt roduc i nva ' ive . peci e " and ke p harve. t i ng rat . w 1 1 below reproduction rate . True. uncounted economi t and game theori st have "proved' that the collecti e management of com mon-pool re ource 'Qnnot work because there w i l l alway be 'free rider ' who w i l l appropri ate more than their fai r share : uch i h u man nature see, e.g., 01 on 1 965 ) . Tho e theori t c laim to know, without any empirical re earch, that man i elfi h by nature-just , the aerodynamic exp r knew that air raft ould not fl y. They did n t heed the anthropologi t and h i s torian who studied
3 28
Political PWlo ophy
cietie that e xploi ted n atural resourc
i n a u st ai n ab l
fa h i o n ' n r
did they care for th m any example. of succe . . ful cooperati e m anage ment aroun d the world ov r centuri e . . More on c operati e. i n h apter 9 , ecti n 5 . ) The adv ice o f t h . e bo k i sh type. h as alway . bee n to pri ati z the n at ural re sources, because the u n ow ned g ods w i l l be u n av i dabl y p i l fered by ev ryone. B ut t h i s fate befal l s only t he unm anaged and the mi m an aged c m m o n res urce : the key i not ow ner h i p but manage ment. For in tance, w he n the Briti h , eager to coi l ct taxe , took aw ay the com m u n i t y right and re pon i b i l i tle of com m n property r ource i n I nd i a and shi ft d t h i r m an agement from t h c m m u n i ty t o the state . tr m 1 990 ), K adeoki ( 2004 and oth r ha e tudied i n depth ple n ty f cas s of ucce fu l management of common-po 1 res urce of al l k i nd in a variety of c ietie . de e lop d and u nderdevel oped . This uccess m ay be ex p l ai ned by the om b i n at i n of mechanism s of four k i nd. : eco nom i c en i ronme ntal , legal , and moral . The conom ic advantaoe of exploi ti ng om mon-pool re ources i s that of al l econom ies of scale- i n th i s case the po I i n o of n atural and human r e ources. The net resul t i s he i o hte ned pr d u ti i ty. he environ mental adv antage i s that the c m mon p o I h a a higher carry i n o capac i ty than the pri ately w ned one: i t s pr duct are e nj yed by the c mmunity rather than by a i ng le fam i l y. The leg aJ advantage i s that ju t l i ke pri vate property bu t u n J i ke pu blic ( r open acce ) pr perty, t he acce s to the comrn n i l i m i ted to the members f the com m u nHy, \ h pr teet the comrn n agai n t p achers and arso n i st . The moraJ factor i s t ill . Wh "n pr pert y rig h ts are h ared, so are re pon i bi li tle . Thus i t i s i m p l y not tru that w m u st ch o. e between the so-c al led free mar k t and the state : G iv e n a m odicum of c i v i l l i berties \ e can i nvent, con truct and m an age associ at j ns c apable of expl i t i ng n ature i n a . u tai n able fa h ion as w e l 1 as d i stri but i ng the earn i ng s i n a fair m an ner. In the la. t chapt r w e shal l take a cl se 1 0 k at c perat j es ' n w we mu t get on w i th en i ronmental c ncern . . Let us now turn to t h g lobal em rg ncy o f th day : l obal w arm i n g . It h a . aJ ready Ii . e n th 1 v I of t h e oce ans and . tarted t melt g l acier. ev ry w here and the permafrost i n th A rctic reg i n . . r lea i n o al ann j ng amount f methane. A pal l iat i v yet reas n abl y He ' t i e hort- tenn gl bal-wannj ng legi lat i o n is 'one ivable, that wou l d al low busi ness t pass m st of the costs on to consum rs such a. i n c n t i v s f r adopti ng know n e nergy- a i ng device and dey lop i ng new t chnologi et a1. 2 006 ) .
Doniger
Technological Input to Poli tics
329
How ver no m a ur to protect ec y tern s r duce greenhou g a em i . . ions d e e l o p alternati e energy . urce. replenish water table.\;} a d p t "green chem i stry;' o r other purely phy. ical a n d chem ical procedures w i l l b e effective u n le. s c n. umption patterns ar radical ly altered both qual ita tively and quantitatively. Tn the pro. perous nations w sh uld consume les. of everything and nothi ng of . m thi ng. ; and in the po r coun tries m re necessitie. , particularly staple food and medi ci n s, are needed. We w i U h ave to r al i ze that m an , n t h ark, i the upr me preda tor and that t con t i n ue bu i ne a u u al i l iteral l y k i l l i ng n ature and therefor j pardlz i ng future generation . for exam ple . the producti n f one k i l ogram of beef req u i re roughly 1 00,000 l iter of w at r-a c n u m ption that i i erev r i bl y depleti ng th u n derground aqu i f r . B y c n tra t. t h e production of 1 k g f bread requ ire 4,000 l i t r f w ater. M re ver, this con u mption would be reduced i f genetici t ucceeded i n modi fy i ng the gene i nvol ed i n co n tr l I i ng the leaf pore thr ugh w h ich w ater evap rates. These data alone j usti fy c ampai g n i ng for both more scientific re e arch and a gree ner diet M oore-Lappe 1 9 7 1 ' Ja ob on et al . 2006 . The high rate at w h ich top oi l is be ing 10 t forever o n l y s tresses the urgency of radical aoriculture re form . e eral 'c n ervation' strateg ies have b en prop ed. The qu teo around "con ervat ion" ai m to draw aU " n t i o n to the fact t hat we m ay protect but n t cons "rve : We can neither repcal th " sec nd l aw of ther m od y n arni c n or stop bio logical cv I ut io n . The Tn st rational am ng such policie would ecm t be the so-cal 1 ed silv r bull l one w h i ch c n i ts i n protecti ng t h " area hea i ly i nh abi tcd by mcmber f e ndangered speci e . B u t the appl icati n f th i trat "gy i faccd by two hurdle one sci e n t i fi c and the th r econom i c . The � rmer con si st i n th d i fficulty of i dentify i ng the areas in questi n . The . econd problem L that ecol g ical ec nom i c for w h ich s e Daly and Farley 2003 ) is n t yet in a po i t i on to . t i m ate th costs and ben fi ts of any parti c u l ar prot ction measure . Av rti ng t h e fi n al e n v i r n mental cri s i s r q u i re s ere a n d u rg n t n c n umpti n that n l y I cal and i ntern ational g v rn i ng restnctl n b die can p l an and e 'ut . That e n v i ron lll n taJ pr t 'tion leg i . l at i n 'an b e re clive, wa sh w n cl early by t he acid rai n cri sis that merged i n t h 1 980s. ' c i e n ti st s i n th U n i t t K i ngd III and " wede n provcd that th sour 'e f acid rai n w as th em i i n of u J fur di x ide, acc rdi ng t th reactio n : uJ fur ti xid + Water � " ul fu ric acid. De pite fierce r sistan ' of c rp ratio n s an t pol itician , I g i slatio n redu ' i ng s u l fur e m i i n was pa d and e n act d . As a consequ nee aci d rai n d c L i n d s i g n i fi cantl y and t r ams and l ak s tarted t o recover i n tho e coun tries.
330
Political Philosophy
The moral of this succe tory i clear. En i ronmental protec tion i effective when ba. ed on science . Regrettably, moc t busi ne . . men and politicians, aided and abetted by envi ronmental1y blind econom ists, re fuse to leam that lesson . B esides, , eriou. environmental i s m ha� to fend off two further enemie. : deep ecology, and the Gaia cultL t. . The fOITller holds that� . i nce h umankind i. only one of about one m i l 1 i on . pecie. , its . urv i val . hould not be of overriding i n tere. t . This lai m overlook. th ' fact that humans ar ' the only ani mal ' consciou. of thei r place i n th ' u n i crsc, anxiou to kc 'p that pia 'c and capable of having the forcsight requ i red to a h i ' e thi ' goal. In oth 'r words w ' have our own fate and that of all othcr ' pecic in our h,md . A for the Gaia cult, i t corc i s the holi tic i dea that the bio- phere i . a living y. tem, hence a 'If- regulating one i n no n 'cd of steward hip. Th ' basic a sumption i s j u 't a pice ' of ew Agc my. tici m (Gardn 'r 1 989 . Nor i . the biospher funy , I f-r gulating. For exampl , the secondary fore. t that grows after a tropical forest is cut down ha. a far lower bio mass and biod i versity than the pri mary forest. Unr gul ated l arge-scale logging h as i rreversibly eli mi nated many specie. and m uch . oil co er. Fish bank. are para1 1 1. The envi ronmental c ri . i. i s , 0 sev re, that ev n Jame. Lov lock, on of the parent. of Gaia, now recommend. u, i ng radical i f unte 'ted means to protect the atmo ' phere. t i l l, the myth of the l i v ing and sel f-regulating bio 'phere sel l ' better than 'cient i fic ecol ogy, all the more since the laller i ' ·til l underde eloped and ridd n with controv r 'y Looijen 2000) . The moral i ' that natural re 'ource ' m ust b 'cient i fical ly managed. And this does not mean max i m izing short-tern1 e x pected utili tie " but u i ng the r our a needed w i thout d troy i ng them forev r. Keat. notwith tanding a thi ng of beauty i not a joy for ever particularly i f i t h a tak n thre billion year t o vol and ha be n u nder attack sinc the I ndu trial Revolution. N atur m u t be protected from gr edy preda tor in 'uit. . Stil l though nece . . ary_ top-down action j in u ffic ient j f only becau law can be bent. Popular participation too i needed and in fact it occur occa i onal ly. For example forest management require not on ly trict regulation of the fore try i ndu t ry but al 0 active involvement of the local communitie . In many ca e , particu larly in I ndia and B raziL the local have been i n trumental i n managing fore ts and, in particular, in protecting them from both logger and firewood poachers ( Matta et a1. 2 005 ' Shiva 2005 .
Technological Input to Poli tics
33 1
Th amp alg n w aged by the legen d ary Chico M nde and h i s fri n d s a e t h e A m azon forest from i nd i sc ri m i nate logging did n o t pr sper because Mendes was as. as. i n ated by thugs h i red by land w ners who are de, tr y i ng that ast tr a. ure. B ut M e ndes sh wed that fore, t. can be e ploi t d i n a sustai nable fa. hi n. The Ie . . on i. cI ar : the G ree n , w i l l not save nat ure u n le" they � rge a l l i ances w i th m ajor pol i t i cal p arties. ortunately m re and more pol i ticians are real i z i ng that they had better support the reen cau e, if n ly becau it i catchi ng the i m agl nati n f p pie v ter ! arou n d the w orld. In urn, thre m ai n e n i ronm e n tal pot icie h ay far been advocated : B lack , r e n , and Yerdigri -the l att r bei ng my n am t r a c m b in ation f nv ironm ntal pr tection w i th gray m atter. The B lack fav r ec n om i c gr wth reg ardle f e n i f n m en tal degradati o n ; t h e ree n a d v cat n ature pr tection r g ardle f cial co t ; and the Yerdigcl urg rational resource m an agement tooether w i th . i al deve lopment-i . e e osocial ..
de elopment. uch de elopme n t w i l l requ i re huge tech noloo ical and demograph i c i nputs. h e tech nol g ical chal lenge i s t dra. t ical l y reduce t h e total m ate rial req uireme n t ( T M R ) . Th i . i the am ount o f natural resources required to oenerate ne u n i t of econ m i c act i i ty. I n the de eloped c u n tries t h i . rat i i s curre ntl y about 3 a k i log ram f n at ura l re ource p e r U '$ 1 00 of D P i ncome A dri an see et al. 1 99 7 : 1 4 . Obviou I y, such a wa t "fu l rate of consumption f n atural re urces i unsu tai n able. To reduce i t w e need a m uch greener " n g i neeri ng a n d t h i w i ll n t emerge u n les st ate and corp rations sub tanti a l l y i ncrea e the i r in estm ents i n R & D w h ich ar " currently i n ufti ci ent particularly n the R side sec ' z uromj e t aI . 200 1 ) . t i l l not ev n a ¥ rdigris Rev lution yet t be p l an ned w i l l save the p l a n t u n less accompan i ed b y rad ical demographic p J jc ie to w hich w n w turn. U n t i l fairl y rece ntly t here w r no d m ographic pol ic ies. Th right of every adu l t t u n l i m i ted reproducti o n w a taken for a basic h u m an right. M reo er. a l l the org an i zed r l ig i o n . w ere n ataJ i sts. for they w i shed to .
in 'rease the ir congreo ati n . . o were the m i J i tari st an t imp riali t g rnm n t s : th y needed e r m r can n n f d ter. A nd the con m j st o f aI L c h o I s fa ored � rt i Ji ty laisse ,-faire a, a means t ccon m i c grow th. The m re buy rs the m ITi r. ne f th gr up . . not ev n the se l f app i n t t prot ct rs of th i ndi v idual, were c ncerned w ith the qual ity o f J i � f P p i bur t n ed w i th more ch i t tren t h a n they 'ou l t rai e and educat .
332
Political PWlo ophy
Thi att i tu de changed i n t he Ini d-tw n t ieth c ntury, wh n 0111 people started t demand i m pro ement in their quali ty f l i fe , and . ome soc i al sc ienti. ts w arned that de mographic grow th sh u l d n t outpace ec nom ic g r w th , s that dem graph i c p l i cie. shou ld be adj usted to m acroeco nomic real i ties. M oreov r, in a l l of the i ndu. triali zed cou n trie. i t i. now understood that ferti l ity decrea. s aut m at ical ly a. the standard of l iv i ng ri ses, because pe pIe become I ss depe nde n t on their offspri ng i n old age, a w Ll as Le b di nt t reJ ig i u commandment i ntroduced w h e n the w dd' populat i n w a Ie than one-tenth it pre n t value. Hence the tacit d m graphic p licy in al l advanced n ations i nc m id tw e n t i th c n Ulf y : Let the economy, j i n t J y w ith educatio n and s c i al erv ice , i n particu l ar th reproducti e healthcar c l i n ics, t ake care of the ferti l i ty rat . I ntere t i n g L y, the n demographic lai ,-jaire i ail rdable a L n g a w ealth i h ar d to s me e x tent and the state del iver adequate soc i al ser i ce . I n other � rd. , freedom i n one area can only be had at the price of dis ipli ne i n ther areas. H o� ever, i ncli r ct fert i l i t y contr I i i mpractical i n poor cou n tries and i nsufficient in the affl ue n t ones u n l e i m m igrat i o n i s l i m i ted. w, wherea the pol itical R ight opposes i m m igrat ion. the Left favors it. It wou l d s em that each f the. e pos i tion. i s L ceral rather than rati n al . The righti t one i i nspired by rac i m , whereas the leftist argue n hu m a n itarian pri nciple . I ugge t ad pring a m idway po i t ion a long a the huge N rth- uth gap rem a i n , and n effective gl bal governanc i i n p lace . Let me explai n . I t i s true that the freedom t go place , i n part icular t m igrate , i a human right, and that the unemp loyed and the pol i ti cal l y persecuted '>
shoul d be grant d th i s right. B ut it i also true that in every country n L y so m an y job. are avai l able t o u n sk i J Ied would-be i m mi grant and that bei ng u nempLoyed i n a forei g n and u n frie n d l y e nv ironment L no better than lac k i ng a job i n o ne ow n , w her s me o l i dari ty m ay b e xpected i n a i I L age. Therefi r , i m m ig rati n quota h uld be geared to avai l able j bs and s c i al servi ces. A t the sam thn th appl icanl for i m mj gration tatus shou l d b c learly told thal they ar peel t t i nteorale ( nol nece sari ly as imj late ), le arn lhe l ang uage, and re peel lhe l aw o f lhe land. In particular, they shou l d be w arned lhal ' rlai n tracfj li n al c uslom , u 'h honor kil l i ng and w i dow burn i ng are i l legal i n the n w 'ountry be 'au se th y vi l at human rights. To fa ' i l itale lhi 1 arn i n o pro ' s, the n w l y arri d i m m igran t shoul d be encourag d to atten d free language and h istory cour e . They shoul d a l 0 b ncouraged to e k citizen h i p .
Techno)ogical lnput to Politics
333
W hat to do i n th Thi rd World where the popul ation cont i nues to grow, and overpopulat i on perpetuate. poverty and . ometi me. gener ate. war over l and water. or other natural resources? What people ha e been doin CJ there from time i mmemori al i. to , tar e, kill infant CJ i rL . or neglect them if they , urv ive ' fi g h t over land or w ater, or e m i g rate . Could any govern m e n t do anyt h i ng to change t h i . m i . erable . tate of affa i rs . Two q u it e d i fferent de mograp h i pol i ie. h a e bee n t r i e d i n h ina a n d I n d i a t h ' nlo t popu lou n at i on i n the worl d . M a l t h u . and Condorcet sugg 'st d t h e e alt ' mati ' pol i ' ie a t t h e e n d of thc eightcenth century. M althu a 'Iergyman and economist propo 'cd compuL ory moral r ' straint"-- cxual abst 'ntion rather than arti fi ial birth control. By contra 't, the pol itical scienti · t and mathcmatician ondorcct for 'saw 'orrectly that scicntifi ad anccs would I 'ad to an incrcas ' in land producti ity, and uni er. al education would per. uade people to practice fam i ly plan n i ng . I n short, whereas the egali tarian marqui. favored a l iberal and enlight ned demographic pol icy, the conservati e par. on favor d I gal reo t rictions and religiou. indoctrination. How ha the. e alternative popul at ion pol icie. far d . The Chi n s ha . ucceed d spectacularly i n using coercion to r duce th birth rat from 7.55 birth ' per woman i n 1 962 to 1 .7 i n 2004 while the Indian rate decl i ned from 4.7 1 to 2.87 in the 'am period. B ut the price paid by the C h i ne 'e people i . not negl i g ible: A high male-bia 'ed . x ratio ( 1 . 1 7 ) , a generation of pampered ' l ittle emperors; neglect of unwanted girl ' and one more authoritarian restriction from above. By contra ·t, the Indian demographic succe " though more mode ·t, ha. al 0 been cultural and poli tical . Accord i ng to S n L 994 thi r duction i n b i rth rate re u l t d i n the I ndian tate ' of Kerala and Tam i l Nadu from b tter ducation and h alth care o f both worn n and men and equality of xe . I ran . succ . . i n fam i l y planning j even mor n ' ational : jt , fertil ity rate plummet d from 5 . 6 birth per woman in L 9 85 to 2.0 births i n 2000. L ik the ind i an governmen� of K rala and Tami l adu, the I rani an authoritie adopted Condorcet' e n l ightened l i beral demographic poli cy. They reHed heavi l y on information, educa tion, and a a t network of health care i nclu i ve of reproducti e health upported not only by the U n i ted Nation but al o, urpri ingly, by the I lamic clergy ( Roudi-Fahim i 2002 . And now a word of caution . Any p lan may fai l becau e of i m portant fl aws or u nfore een c i rcum tances bey nd the plan ner control. Perhaps the mo t ommon cau e of fail u re i the l ac k f a y st m i c v jew, f r i f
334
Political PWlo ophy
a i ng le c m ponent of a y stem i targ ted, th n the overlo k d mp nents may m ake trouble. Th i s is often a cau. of fai l ur i n engi neering, both phy. i cal and soc i al . I t w i l l be i n structi e to take a quick 10 k at two se n sati nal ca. e. : th uez anal crL i s i n 1 956, and th M i l l e n n i u m B ridge i n 2000. Three m nths after the Egypti an governm nt nati nalized the S uez anal B ri tai n ranee and I . rael . i m u l taneou. Iy launched h a y m i l i tary attack on it. f c ur e. th y d tr Y d the i n tall ation but thi ad e nture backfired. It b o t d y mpathy for Pre ident N a r i n the Third W rid, thr w hi government i nto the arm of th 0 iet U Ili n , d i credited al l thr e aggre or and tru ncated the poli tical career f the D Jiti h Prime M i n i ter. M oreov r the S uez fi a co i l i ke l y to h ave hastened the m as ive deco l o n izati n process that tarted in A frica fOUI year l at r. The S uez c ri i als ugge t that the p l itlcians w h triggered i t h ad fai l ed to adopt a system i c iew. They foroot that Egypt h appen to bel ng t the A rab world, w h i h u n t i l the re olution headed by olonel N a. ser had bee n frao me nted and up for grabs by the i mperi al p wer. . They thus overlooked the poss i b i l ity o f u ntow ard con . eque nce . . O b iou. I y, they had n ot read the w ar n i ngs of I b n KhaldGn and Robert M ert n about the u n antic ipated consequences f purposi e soc i al action. Thi i s due to its CC Uffe n ce in a oci a L network rather than in a acu u m . A p "rturbati n i n any part of the net i l i kely t pr pagate through ut i t . econd e x am ple : L r d orman F ter, o n e o f t h e mo t ori g i n al en g i neer of aU t i me de i g ned the beauti fu l M i l le n ni u m B ri dge er th " Thames. econd after the cerem n i aL ri b bo n w a cut, n the fi r t day of the year 2000, a crowd tepped on to the bri dge, w h ich tarted t \ i ng h rizonta l l y as people w al ked on it. The fright ned p d . trians returned t . hore a they c u ld, and the bridge had to be clos d for ev ral years w h i t bei ng repaired at great cost and d am age to i t s ori g i nal beaut y. I t t ok t h e engi neers a w h i le u nt i l they d i cov r d t h e m ech a n i Ill : W h e n t h e ground \ ay . horiz ntal l y to the right pe ple tand i ng on i t b nd l e ft w ard t avoi d fal l i ng and i n s doi ng th y i nvoluntar i l y xert a rightwar t pressur t hat i ncreas s the am p li tude of th 0 c i J lation. Lord Fo ter and hi 'ol l aborator had (org tten to i n 'Iud th i pre . . ure i n th equation of moti n. Thi equation is s . i mpl that any ci i I -e n g i neeri ng st uden t can handle i t, y t i t w a n t publi shed u ntiJ 2005 (Strog atz et al. 2005) . I n th r word . th bridg de sig ners ha t forg tt n its us rs-an error typic al of th 'e ·toral approac h. In hort p L an n i ng is i nd i pe nsable but it m ust be u ndertake n i n a sy t m i c per p c ti ve ' it mu t i nvol v al l the t akeholder ; and i t must b
Techno)ogical lnput to Politics
337
vectors-to . ay nothing of theoretical elTor . uch as playing w i th B ayes i an ( subjective probabil itie, . Con. equently, costly error, of two kinds are bound to occur from time to time: unde rrating the danger of an epidemic and overrati ng it. U n derrat i n g i nv i te. catastrophe, and overrating lead. to wa. te-e .g., to produ ing m i 1 1 ions of un nece . . ary accine . . H owever, a gO ernment may be unw i 1 1 i ng or unable to take the . ani tary measure. requi red t o preven t a n epidemic . For example, m o . t Thi rd World governments do noth i ng to bui ld ewers and water pipe i n the wor ' t si ' kness foci : th ' overcrowded shantytow n ' that surround nlO t of th 'ir big c ities. I n sonle cas ' , such as that of Nairobi, 'ocial activi t ha e denounced that this i na ,tion i s del i berate: Th ' go ernment want to d issuad ' landie s pea. [mts against m igrati ng to the great urban centers. Thi i ' one mor ' i n stance of the ne d to attack all the id " of a . o i al problem at the anle t i m '-e .g . to pro ide job- and education along w i th . ani tation. R grettably, most epidemiological pol icies i n the past hav been . ec toral rather than . yst mic, and con. equently their i mplementation ha. m t w ith l i m ited . uccess. An i mportant exception i. Fore. ight th plan of the B riti. h governm nt to tackle the ob sity epid mic www. foresight. go . uk ) . Th official docum nts, un eil d i n 2007 , warn that the obesi ty epid mic has been at lea ,t 0 years in the making; and lhat, i f the pre 'enl t rend cont in ue ' , by 2050 60� of adul t men , and 50% of women could have a body mas ' i ndex over 30 kg/m 2 , i . e . , be obe 'e. Th c ulprit · are wel l known: 'edentari sm and w rong diet ' . What i s new i ' the finding t hat, ' i nce the whole envi ronment i ' 'obesogenic," neit her a magic pi l l nor one policy w i J I fi x the probl e m : " a bold whole y. tem appro a h i ' critical-from production and promoti on of healthy diet to redesigning th bu i l t en i ronment to promot walk i ng, together w ith w ider cultural changes to h i ft 0 ietal valu around food and activity. M oreov r, ta k l ing obe ity w i l l need y nergy w ith oth r oci al pro gram " i n particu lar 'm a ure to reduce traffic congestion i nc rea cycl ing or de ign usta inable com muni tie , ' as well a ' increa ing so c ial inc1u ion and narrowing health inequalitie i nce obe ity ' i mpact i s greate t on the poore t. ' I n short, deal ing w i th the worldwi de obe i ty epidemic w i l l require both social re tructuring and trong state i n terention-two goals that w i ll be strongly re i ted by the u ual su pect . S l im m ing i a poli t ical i ue that cal l for a y tem i c approach . L e t u now gli mp e a t cri m i nology, t h e branch of applied ociology and s cial tech nol gy c ncern d w i th the description e xplanation a nd prevention of crime. Nowadays nearly all politicians w i h to appear tough
338
Political Philosophy
on crime yen w hcn the c ri me ratc i at an all-tinlc low. H e n 'c th y arc eager to propo. e or support harsher cri minal l aw. without botheri ng to inquire whether the existing c ri m inal . y. tem work. rea. on ably wel l . They should have known that legL l ation by it, elf, w i thout . oci al program . designed to decrea. e po erty i ncrease educat ion and help rei n. ert i on in , o iety. i. bound to produce meager re. uIt� or e en counterproducti ve one . . They behave l ike the i ncompetent plumber who, called to reo tore th ' flow of water in a hou. e 'hange the wa hers in the faucet in tead of in 'pecting the connection with th ' main or locating leaks. Tho e pol itici[m are rarely i nter '. ted i n c rime prevention: They fo u ' on punishnlent rather than crim e prevention and rehabi l i tation through welfar ' legi sl at ion reedu 'ation vict i m comp 'n ation, [md r 'i ntegration in the communi ty. For i n ' tan ' , the l i nton adm in i strati on introduced on ' of the mo t i n famous pieces of cri minal l aw in r cent h istory : th ' "Th r e strike. and you are in for l i fe ' law. And when they do attempt to do . omething about crime pre ention, th pol itician. i n q uestion typicall y re. ort t o e i t h r rec i v d w i . d o m o r reckle . . i mprovi . ation rath r than t o any of t h e recent fi ndi n gs of . ocial . c ienc and . ocial technology. In particul ar, th tough-on-cri me pol itic ians uncri tically adopt t he narrow legali stic defin ition of crime a. l awbreaki ng, wh reas th essence of crime is harm to other ' . The root of thei r m i stak i ' t he individuali st moral phi lo 'ophy that focu 'es on i 'olated i ndividuals and seeks to blame and puni 'h without concern for the 'oc ial en i ronment, the ictim and the crim inaL Regrettably, focus on blame i . characteri ·tic of main 'tream moral philo 'ophy (e.g., B randt 1 979) . The idea that moral and legal norm ' should h lp l i ve i s alien to them . A Wik. trom 2007a tate , ' [ c ] rime i ommonly identi fi ed a ' a seriou. probl m that w have to do . omet h i ng about. N w m a u r ' ar propo d and implemented all the t i m , oft n m. hed and poorly coordi nated w i t h other mea ' u r and many t i me ' w it h a weak knowledge-ba ' and no prior demon trabl ff c t · , H ow ver, crim i s rarely identifi d a. a eriou problem that we hav to know more about i n order to be able to know what to do. There i Ie demand for and limited re ource allocated to e ri ous re earch and development, and there are no y Lematie and large- scale re earch program with the aim to forward our knowledge about cri m e cau at jon . I n other word , doing, rather than know i ng ap pears to be the mantra guiding the crime prevention activitie of most politjcian and prac ti t ioner . The thought that doj ng w ithout knowing may . ometime make the ituation even w r e seem to rarely enter the equation ,"
Techno)ogical lnput to Politics
339
Philo. aphy ha not hclped 0 creon1 thi. narrow pragm at i st approach to crime preven tion and correction . R ather on the contrary, the two main oci al phi lo. ophie. , namely i ndividual i . m and hol i . m have o n l y com pounded the problem. Indeed. wherea. the individual i t c ri minologi. t wi l l recommend exclusively correction t h e hol i st i s l ikely to propose excl uively soci al reform s w i th d i sregard for personal problem, and habit, . I ubm i t that, while each of the two extreme , ocial phi lo, ophies ha. a grain of truth, both mi the 'ntral truth, namely that e ery i ndivi dual b ·long. at onee to e eral social sy. tems . u h a fanli l y, network of friends and acquaintan . , timl, c lub, gang, c hool rel igiou congregation , pol itical party, or what hav ' you . Every per on ha . ome . o i al capital . I n oth 'r word [ill i ndividual '. action 'annot be u nder tood w i thout consid 'ring the sy. tems of which he i s part j u t a. th '. e cannot b ' under stood exc 'pt as being compo ed by i ndividual. who maintain, reinforce or weaken th bonds that keep them and other. in their system . . That i. indiidual and . oci ty-or agency and . tructure-ar actual l y only two face. of the . ame soc i al coin . I n particular, the law-breaker i s both victim izer (of oth r. ) and victim (of hi. circum. tances) . Hence crime management . hould i n 01 social reform. and rehabilitation programs as wel l a. soci al control. both formal and informal. In . hort th r are n ither . tray i ndividuals nor 'oc ial 'ystems towering abov individuals, Con 'equently, to understand and reduce crime we mu ,t l ook at the individual in h i ' 'odal env i ronment. We must adopt a sy ·temic take on del inquency B u nge 2006a , Part of thi . approach i s to embed c ri m i nology i n i t ' w ide ethical- 'ocio log ical context. The very first problem the moral philo 'opher encounter ' when thi n k i ng of crim inology i ' the pre aiJjng con fu ' ion ' over the very concept. of cri me and cri m i nal l aw : What are an act of crime and a good c ri m inal cod ? Ord in aril y a cri me i defin d a an act that break ' 'om l aw. This the legal concept of a crime do not ven tell u that act of crime are bad . Mar a r. it i nv ite cri m inological r l at i i m , for w hat is c ri mi n al in one ' oci ty may be acceptable in anoth r. W i kstro m (2007b : 63 hold ' that 'crime fundamentall y is an act of breaking a moral rule, ' Consequently, cri m inal code are au fond moral code . Does thi entail that all c ri me i s relative ? ot if we adopt the equation ·
· ·
M ral
=
Pro 'odal. lmm ral
=
A ntisocial, and A moral
=
A 'odal
For example 1 i n g j moral raping i mmoral and masturbat i ng a moral . Thi m ay b a l1ed the soci 1 g ical concept of morality. I t i s
340
Political Philosophy
objective and c ro - 'ultural h nce i m mu ne to u bjecti i st-conc tructi i. t-relativist critic i . m . . For example, . ince u npro oked aggre . . ion and sl avery are objectively antisoc i al, they are also i m moral and rim i nal e erywhere and at al 1 times. They were . 0 even before they were recog nized a. such, j u . t a. plant� preceded botany. S ince c ri me. are deliberatel y comm i tted. c ri m i nology m u , t study their prox i m ate au. es; but . i nee the kind. and rates of c ri m inal act. differ w idcly across ocieties, crim inology mu ' t also study thcir d i stal or 'tructural 'ause . Thi uggest adopti ng the fol lowi ng 'If- e plana tory diagram. Deterr nee )'I
Di p o i ti n &
J. Offence
Per ei ed options & choic
So ial " i tuati n
s Oth r
i Temptati n ' & provo at i on. Fig. S. l . Proximate causal factors of u nlawful acts. lodified from \vik 'trom and
ampson 2003: 1 22.
So m u h for indivjdual act ' of c ri m and th i r immed i ate cau ' ' . Th n x t d i agram ket h ' the r l ation between the h¥o I vel ' con rn d : th m i ro 0 ial ag n y and th rna ro 0 i al on ' ( ' tructure . !vIacro-1 vel
Marg j naJ i ty
C d m i na1 i ty
o tem il e ariabl 'J
!vii ro-Ievel
A nomi
Sol idarity
Hvpothefical
J.
-1
11
l riables
Figure 2. Distal causal factors of unlawful acts ( Bu nge 2006a: 23 . The minus si g n attached to the upward arrow suggests that sol idarity, whether in the form o f com m u n ity support or welfare measu res discou rages cri m i nality.
It i s w 'l l known that not all c ri mi nal codes are cqui al 'nt. I ndecd, tradi tional code typical ly crirn inalize om ' acts that are now rcgarded a nl0rally indiff 'rent or e en good such as i mpiety ,md pol itical d i 'nt; by contra t other have 'ondon 'd what w e now rcgard as acts of crim " such as exploitation and gender di. crim i nation. Such legal relativity sugg . ts the fol l owing u niver. al conventions free from the bondages of tribe and time:
Techno)ogical lnput to Politics
a b c d) (e )
f)
34 1
An act i i mmoral i f and only i f it i antj 0 iaI . There are two kinds of anti 0 i al i mmoral ) act: h arming crimes), and merely i ncon eniencing, offendi ng, or annoyi ng mi demeanor . A l l and only h armfu l antisocial acts, i .e. crimes, should be . ubject to legal ,'anction from fine to ommunity work to pri:on. M i sdemeanors ' hould be subject only to soc i al sanction from rebuke to ex lu ion. A cri mi nal law i j u, t i f and only i f i t n l y puni he. crime, w h i le at the atne t i me giving the offend r the opportunity to r deem h i m elf by c mpen. ating the ictjm or her fami ly. A cri m i nal law i. llnj u · t if and n l y if it pllnishe n 11- rim i n al acts. cond ne a ts of cri me. or fai l s to gi e the offi nder the chance f pay ing for his offence and redeem i ng h i m se l f.
H owever. i t would be naj've to expect any c ri m i nal code to be the produ t of tate-of- the-art ocial tech nology. E en the be t crim i nal c ode are political pr duct re ulti ng from cornpromi e between j u ri ts, c ri mi n al ociolog i t l aw-and-ordcr functionaric , and I aw nutkers w ho can i l l afford to bc sc n ,L b i ng 'c oft on crinle." Nor , hould w cxpect c ri mi n al 'odc to suffice to dctcr crimc. Even good l aws can at bc t hclp c oIvc c O 'ial problem . Thcrc i an obviou m d ical ,malog of TinlC pr vention. Effecti vc prcvcntive mcdicinc w hethcr i ndividual or 0 'ial i ba cd on h uman biol Ogy, epidemiology and medical sociology. For example, the propaCJati on of i nfectiou, di. e ases i. pre ented or contained by i m m un ization, quar antine. and gO ern mental control of . anitation, hou, i n g , and education. L i kewLe, effe t i ve rime prevention pol icie, re, t on . ientific research on both the main cau. e, of cri me and the effect of the prevai l i n g c ri me deterrence and punish ment mechanism, . ow research in so i al crinl inology or criminal sociology ) ha, shown that poverty, poor education and egr 'gation in parti 'ular the geographic segregation that ord i narily fol l ows from social 'egr 'gation arc the main cause of smal l-, calc cri m ' from robbery to murder. (Large-scale crimes, such a m j l itary aggression g 'nocide, ccocide, and corporate fraud, ha e of course quite d i ffe rent auses. They arc not commjtted to nlcet legitim ate n eds but to grati fy i l legi ti mate economic or pol itical greed . H e n e any effective . mall-scale cri m prevention program w i ] ) focu , on the eli m ination of it main roots: poverty, poor education. and , egr gation , e Maguir , Morgan and Reiner ed, . 1 994' Van Ness 1 997 : Wik. trom and Sampson eds. 2006 . Th municipal authority and the nei ghborhood organi zations engaged in i n formal 'ocial control, ' llch as block watches and youth mentoring,
342
Political Philosophy
can .md m u t do omcth i ng to u ndercut the root of Time. Regrettably, the . ucce . . of . pec ial programs designed to prevent anti. oci al beha ior and re in. ert ex-conv ict. i n society i. q u i te m ode. t . Indeed, " [t]he be. t designed i ntervention programs reduce serious offender. rec idi ism by only about 1 2 percen t . . . . ThL modest . uc ess of i nterventions that were theory-dri en wel l -de. i gned, and amply funded . end, a clear me . . age that we do not yet under. tand the cau. e. of anti social behavior wel 1 enough to prevent it' ( Moffitt and Ca pi 2006: 1 08 The systemic approach to crime do ' , mor ' than fac i l i tat ' the und 'r st,mding of anti '0 -ial behavior: it al. o 'ugg '. t ' how to effect i ely combat crime. It doe this by r 'mjnding us of the ob ious fact that every crim ' invol c fou r interacti n g actor : off 'nder, vict i m stat ' and com m u n i ty. E u 'e the offender a ' a victim of ociety and the crime ani he " 0 'r look the inj u ry and the iCtinl doe not g ,t omp 'n ation ; m isund 'rsttmd the rol e of the stat , and the icti m may t ry 'to take the l aw in his hand' ; and forget the community and th offender w i l l not . eek rehabil itation and r i ntegration . The Justice Fel low. hip, a crim inal j ustice r form organi zation who. e trademark i s ' reo torativ .iu. tic .' ha. tac i tly adopted a . ystemic v i w on th . ources of cri me and on the crim inal j u . tice . y. tem. This mo e ment " foeu 'es on repairing the harm cau 'ed by crime and reducing the l i k l ihood of fulur harm . It do . thi s by encou rag i ng offender ' to take re ' pon ' i b i lity for their action ' and for the harm they have cau 'ed, by providing redress for victim ' and by promoting rei ntegration of both w ithin the communi ty. Thi ' i . done through a cooperati ve effort by com munitie ' and the govern ment" ( Van Nes ' and H e lderk ' Strong 1 997 : 4 1 . S t i l l . a noted abo , there are no h ard data proving th ffecti ene . . of peci al war on crim ' program . B y contra. t the wel far tate ha. be n eff ctiv in crime reduction S utton 2004 . Finall y, a word on crimes from the bench : th crime com m i U d by the fl int-hearted j udge ' who condem n pol i tical di . ' ident ov rloo k a U nuat i ng c i rc u m · tance or h a v no qual m ' i n appl y i ng l aw that violate human right , or in overlooking actions of brutal poli cemen or ervicemen . Fort unately, i n addition to such zealou upholder of unj ust pol i tical reg i me , once in a whi le "activi t ' j udge and e en whole court dare rai se their head and put human right and progre i e cau e above unjust or ob olete law -a was the ca e with Chief Ju t ice Earl Warren in the U n i ted S tates. True, legal a tivi 111 intr duce a p l itical i ngredient, a the conser a tive do n t eas to warn u . B u t p l i tic is already i n herent in any l aw .
4
344
Political Philosophy
the end of th M jng dyna ty Chi na had a fleet of . ea-going . h i p larger and safer than the . mal l and fragile gal1eons used by Europe an. at the same time. Chine�e seamen , ailed tho, e ve . . els to trade w ith people. along the . hore. of the va. t Indian Ocean . S uddenly the Emperor of the day ban ned foreign trade and ordered the closure of the , hi pyard. where tho. e ve . . e1. were bui lt, pre. u m ably out of concern to protect Chi ne. e trad i tions from foreign i n fl uence. Thus Chi nese na aJ archite ture [md 0 er 'eas trad ' wer ' k i l led by a flick of the pen of a rea t ionary ruler. Second 'a 'e: I n 1 957, right after Sput n i k wa ' launched, Pre i dent E i 'enhow 'r created the Pr 'sident' S i ence Advi 'ory ommittee, which wa in. t rumental i n creating NASA shortly thereaft 'r. Pr ' i d 'nt i xon d i band d th ' com m ittee in 1 97 3 . I n s u m t h e tat ' m ay benefit from technology or u ffocat ' i t , through either i d ological zeal or sheer ignorance. 8. �lathematical Social E ngineering
U n l i ke soc i al . c ience which .tudi s exi. ting soc i al . ystems, . oc i a] t chnology de. ign. or rede. ign. th m. I n eng i neeri ng parlance wherea. soc i al scienti. L analyz . ystem. . ocial technolog i s ts . ynthesiz them . I n e p i . temologicaJ t rm. , th difference bet\ve n t h e t w o approache. amount · to the d i fference between d i rect and i nver 'e problem ' . The form of a direct problem i . thi ': G iven a sy ·tem and the i nput to it fi nd out i t , output . B y contra ·t, the typical i nver 'e problem i ' this: G iven the desired output and th po ' ' ible i nput, fi nd ( i magine) the ' y 'tem ( 'ee Bunge 006a . I nver 'e probl m ' are tougher than direct problems: they req u i re more imag i nati on . For example, i t i ' far harder to re 'olve a poli t ical confl ict than to di ect it. Mor 0 er 0 ial i . 'ue ' ar entangled, i n the sen that th y come in bundle rat h r than on by one . Th prac tical con equenc ' hould b ob ious: Social probl m c an not be sol ed one at a t i m by piecemeal soc i al eng i ne ring. I n tead, they 'hould b tac k led y temical l y, though gradually rath r than u i ng 'shock th rapie " wh ich only compound th problem by cau i ng u n told d i order and mi ery. ow, to say that certai n problem come in bundle tangle , or ystem , i to uggest that any mathematical model attempting to repre ent and help olve them are bound to consi t in ystem of imultaneou equation for the variable repre enti ng the sal ient propertie of the ocial ystem in q ue tion. In other word , becau e the u nknown come in y tem ( are int rdependent ) they mu. t be approa h d i n a sy tenlic fashion.
Technological Input to Poli tics
To get a t I for the y t 1ni c appr a h to oci al
345
n g i neeri ng I t m
c nc ct an elementary model of wa. te m anagement. The . tandard approach of the san itary engineer is c lIec t-and-pr ces . . This procedure i n olve. at best recycl i ng but it doe. not m dify the proce. s leading t exees. ive w aste production. J submi t that this approach is . ectoral and therefore . hal l w rather than sy. temic and radical . I further sugge. t that w a�te is dependent upon two i ndependent ariable. : p pulation and pr duction cum transportation. The l arger the popul ation, the greater the production and the corr ponding con sumpti n, both of w hich i n turn gen rate w ' teo Hence any reali tic m del f wa te managem n t w i l l i nterrelate at lea t three vari able : Popu l at i on ( N), producti n cum tran portati n P , and w a t W). However, \/ole need t w m del : a de criptiv one, te l l i ng us w hat h ap pe n be fore i n ter ention, and a normative m del , that pre cri bes w hat ught t b d ne to s I e th proble m . Let u tart w i t h the � rmer or sc ienti fic model w h ich w i l l be the basis f the normative or tech nolog i c al model . Th i s order i s sugge ted by thi pri nciple i n t h e p h i l ophy of tech nology : E ery rul e for rational act i n is based on one or more sc ienti fic l aw s ( B unge 1 967 ) . A s tated above, a sume that the a m unt W o f w as te o l i d . I iquid. and oaseous) depe nds n the producti n and tran sportat i on l evel P, w h ich in turn depends n the populat i n N. M or " preci el y assum " that t hese ariable ar " i nterrelated by the foi l w i ng y tem f l i near equat ion i rst, the am ount of wa te is pr p rti n al t pr ducti on : [11
W = aP
e nd, the rate f chang dNldr of the populati n is proportional to b th the popul at i n N i t s I f and to the exce b d of the birt h cum i m -
m i grati n Tate b over t h
t
at h ' u m em igrati n rat d : dNldt = (b-d)N
L 2J
Third. th pr duct i o n and tran p T tat i n vol ume is proport i nal to th popUlati o n :
P= N
[ ]
A l l of the precedi ng equations are l i n ar henc pr u m ab l y t rue i f at aU o n l y to a fir t appro x i matio n . The o l u ti o n to th d i ffere n t i al qua t ion [ 2 ] i
Techno)ogical lnput to Politics
347
The i xt h .md la t tage i n ocial plan n i ng consL t i n program eval u ation : i n checki ng whether the propo. e d plan hac i n fact been p u t into practice and, if so whether i t ha. been s ucce . . ful . I f the outcome i. hort of the desideratu m , then the entire proce . . , from model to execu tion m u. t be analyzed c ri tical ly to detect the unavoidable error. that accompany any tran. l ation of . cience i n to technology, and the l atter i n to soci al action. Mor 'ov 'r, to be a curat ' and th 'r 'fore effectiv " program 'valuation must be cient i fi rather than i ntuitive. A the authors i n the tandard work in the field put i t , ' Program evaluat ion i the usc of 0 ial re car h pro ' ' dure ' to 'y t 'mat ical ly inve tigate th ' ef� 'ctivene . of '0 'ial intervention program ," ( Ro 'si Freeman and L ipsy 1 999: 4). Scienti fi ' evaluation-,m o ymoron to intuitionists-i th ' only safeguard against r 'kl 'o s i nlprovi a t ion, political opportun i 111 and the u. e of . tate re ource to win vote -that i s "pork barrel" pol itics. (Se Mosteller 1 98 1 for the poor performance of ocial program. impro ised on the poli t ic al battlefield . ) Short r: Social c ienc is the c ustod i an of pol itical fficiency and hone. ty. ·
•
· ·
9. Technocracy ?
M y plea for a , trong i njection of h igh-level . oci al technology i nto governance should not be m istaken for th advocacy of technocracy, or the rule of expert ' . Let me explain. I deally, a technocrat i ' a ruler w ith technical expert ise [or doing more t han ju ,t ' h u fn i ng paper ' and e-mai l i ng. In practice, a technoc rat is a bureaucrat w ith technical ex pert i 'e concern i ng highly complex 'ocial art i fact · , ' uch as a nation 's entire economy or public education 'y 'tern. I n t he depths of the G reat Depression. which n i ther pol itician nor economi ts had predi cted or pre ented Plato" idea of the phi lo oph r-k i ng wa ' r U ' itat d und r a new g u i e : technocracy. At that t i m many intellectual thought that oci ty m i gh t fare bett r u nder t chnocracy than und r d mo racy becau ' tech nocrat would b pol itically neutral exp rt ' guided by th be t avru labl k nowledge rath r than by parti an i nterest (Berle and M ean 1 93 2 ) . Real ity hould have di abu ed the m . I n deed economic pol i c i e are u ual ly placed in the hand of econocrat beyond public c ru t iny. With few exception - uch a M y rdaJ in S weden, Key nes and hi dj c j p le jn B ritain and the U n i ted S tate . and Prebj sch in the U -the econoc rat ha e de igned or recommended economic po licie fa oring only the rich . Th i houJd n t be surpri i ng becau e t hey were appo i n ted t do just that-and a l 0 be au e th y had studied n l y tandard econ m i the ry acc rd i ng to
348
Political Philosophy
which 'the econonli' i fine ,L long a the GOP and the tock exchange i ndex do not drop, regardle . . of the standard of l i v i n CJ of the many. So, cont rary to the wide, pread bel i ef that technoc racy cannot be said to have fai led becau. e it wa. ne er t ried, i n fact it ha. been tried and shown to succeed when based on sound macroeconomi theory and . er i ng the publi i n terest, and to fai l when i n , pired by faL e macroeconom ic. . uch as monetari. m and favoring . pecial i n tere. ts. But, howcvcr strong thc argumcnt from pra 'ticc m ay sound, actu all y i t i mcthodological l y wcak becau. ' occa i onally the uccess of an cconom jc poli cy may bc due to unfor '. ecn favorabl ' cv 'nt. , ' uch a. th ' di 'ov 'ry of o i l i n the N orth Sca rathcr than to H ayck' s advicc to Prim ' M i n i ter Thatchcr. L i kewi c, fail u re may bc cxcu 'd by arg u i ng that th ' recommcndcd pol i cy wa not 'orrectly i mpl 'mcnted-which was how M ilton Friedman j ustified the d isastrous resul t of thc monctarist poli y impl m nted duri ng the fir. t h al f of Ronald Reagan '. fir. t presidency. Only gen ral theoretical ) arguments can . ttle th q ue. tion in hand. I . ubm it th fol lowing two critici. ms of technoc racy. See further argu ments i n Dahl 1 989 : 69-70. Fi rst, technocracy i. i mmoral for d l iberat Iy di. card i ng th opin ion. and int r . ts of the many. Thi s i . particularly ob ious in the ca. of l arge-scale work . . uch a. th con. t ruction of l arge dams t hat cau 'e rna ' ' ive destructions and dislocation ' , as well a ' hardly predi ctabl en i ronmental changes. Second technocracy cannot work becau 'e technologi · t ' tend to focu . on the arti fact rather than on the whole 'y ·tem of which the art i fact i ' a part. Preci 'ely becau 'e technology i s so powerfu l i t 'hou ld not be left entir ly i n the hand ' of special i st ' , how er e nl i nent. E very l arge-scaJe t chnological project hould be analyz d by oci al 'ci nt1. t and on suIted with peopl l i kely to be aff ted by i t · implem ntation. What hold. for one- hot l arg project · hold w i th all the mor rea on for long-term soci al proj ect in olving the rede ign of e onomic anitary. educat ional, or cultural pol i c i . They al l d m and a y . tem i c v iew of ociety along w i th participativ plan n i ng . Sti ll , the moral bli ndne a n d politi cal i mplausibi lity of technocracy do not da h the project of including technology among the e entia) input to tate go ernance . The modern tate i too complex an art i fact, and ometi me it req ui re too demandi ng per onaJ com m i t ments, to be left i n the ole hand of pol itician and c i v i l ervant . Ju t think of the problem whether or not to authorize new n uc lear power plants reclaim a desert, l au nch a massi ve vaccination or lit ra y ampaign r j u . t ft at new treasu ry bonds to be paid � r by the futur g nerati ns. I n sum the
Techno)ogical lnput to Politics
349
b t way of putting technology i n thc e rv i 'C of the public is to put i t under demo ratic control ( A CJassi 1 995 i n combi nat i on with a systemic view of . ociety. 1 0. Concluding Remark
Anyone watching the news or read i n g new , papers can CJet to know about any n um be r of pol i tical actions that are not only i rrat ional but al . 0 crinlinal. ln the old t i m '. , any European ru ler felt entitled to i nvade w hat ever region of the world held aluable resources or had the potcntial to b 'comc a m arket for it manufactur 'd good : that was callcd ' i v i l iz ing m ission ' a euphc m i m for colonial ism. At this writing th ' fashionablc hugc-scalc crimc i ' to in adc a ountry ac u 'cd of harboring . nuul - '[Uc tcrrori.t ' possc ing th mcan to acqui rc WMD. , or own ing vast natural re. ourc . : This is called ' bringing freedom and democracy.' 1 . ubmit that . uch neocoloni al i . t adventure. are n o t o n l y i mmoral b u t al . 0 i rrati ona1 . i n that they ar mor moti ated by gr ed than by cool calculation-a . . hown by their economic i neffi c iency, the r bel lions th y i n. pir . and th nearly u niver. al condemnation they elicit . T h output o f the . cientifi c and tech nological i nput to pol itical scince and pol icy-making should b an nhance ment of rati onal ity. B u t rationality i . far broader th,m econom ic "rational i t y," or the attempt to m ax i m ize at all co ·ts the expected u t i l i tie . of private fi rms. I n deed we may distingui 'h at least three kind ' of rationality relevant to political t heory ,md pol i t ical action : •
1.
2.
3.
Id ologi al rationalit : A re our poli ies and p r grams l ear and self-con i stent, a. \ e l l a, compati ble with contemporary cience and te 'hnology or are they hazy and out of tau 'h w i th ontemporary re search? For i nstance, shal l we t r. to please r l igiou. fundamental ists i n attac king . eculari m and banning evol utionary biology and stem cel l research, or hall we go on . Social rationality: Arc ur pol icie. l i kely t do m r e good t h a n harm ? F r in tan , haJ l w give one m re tax ut t the ri h, or reinforc .' i al pr gram ' ? P m 'Ii (.[ 1 ralion :lIil I : Can w p u l l it off? That i , are we being real i tic or are \ e indulging i n w i shfu l thi n k i n o . For example, shall we handle terrorists by m i l itary means or , hall we try t b ri n (1 them to the nego tiat i ng tablc, t hc way the B riti h and S pani. h govern ment dealt w i th the I RA and the ETA .
Wc m ay caU rational any pol i t i c ' that i . at once i deologi a l l y, . oc i al ly and practical ly rational . Of cOllr. e rati onal pol itic. are bet ter t han i rrational one . . How er, rational i ty i . i n . u ffic i n t . pol i tics
Technological Input to Poli tics
349
be t w ay of putt i ng te h nology i n th s rv ic of the public i s to put i t u nder de mocratic c n tr I (Aga.o;; s i 1 995 i n com b i n at i n w i th a systemic iew of . oci ty. 1 0. Conclu d ing Remark A n yone watch i ng the new s r r adi ng new. papers can get to k now about any n um be r f pol i tical actions that are not only i rrati onal but also crim i n al . I n the old t imes any European ru ler fel t n ti tled to i nvade w hat ever regl n of the world held val u able re s llrce r h ad the pote n t i al to become a m arket for it m an u factured g d : that wa caU d "c i i l iz i n g m i j n ' a euphe m i m for col n i aJ i m . At thi writing. the fashionabl l arge- cale cri m i to i nvade a c u ntry acc u ed of h arbori ng sm al l - cal terr rist p sse lng the mean to acqui re W M Ds or w n i ng vast natural resources : Th i is cal led bri n g i ng freedom and dem cracy.' I ubm i t that such neoc lon i al i . t adven tu re are not n l y i m moral but al . i rrational i n that they are more moti ated by gr ed than by c 01 al u l ation-a. show n by their eco nom ic i ne fficie n cy, the re bel lions they in pire and the nearly u n iver al condem natio n they e l i c i t . T h e output of t h e . cientifi c a n d tech nolog i cal i nput to pol i ti a l ci e nce and pol i cy -mak i n o sh uld be an e nhancement f rational ity. B ut rat i naUty i far broader than econom ic ' rati n aJ i ty," or the at tempt t m ax i m ize at aJ I co ts the expected ut i li tie of pri ate fi nn . I ndeed, w e m ay d i t i ngui 11 a t lea t three k i nds f rati nal ity relevant t o po litical theory and p J i t ic aJ act ion : I.
Jd"olog i 01 ra tionalit s I f-c n i ste n t , a
.
:
A r� o u r p J i c i e s and p rog ram s c l ear and i th
w e J I a c m pat i b J
o n t tn ] orary
te ' iJ no logy or ' lre they h az y and ou t o f touch w i t h s ar h? F r i n s tan e , sha l l we t r. t . II re e. eh, 2.
I li l ion. ry b i o i gy and stem
r shal l w e go o n .
. orial ralionalit) : I\ r� F r i n sle n e ,
r l i g i u. fu n datn e n t a l i t
p l ea
i n aUL k i n g se u le i sm and ban n i ng e\
c i e nce and
o nt e m p rary re
u r p I i ics l i k c l y t
ha l l we gi e
n e m re tax
more go d than harm ', ut t
the ric h ,
r re i n f r e
socia l program s , Pra ti al rationali
:
n we p u l l it o ff , That i , are \ve b e i n g re I i t j c
or are we i n d u J o i n g i n w i s h fu l t h i n k i n g ? For exam p l e sha l l w e handle terro r i s t s b y m i l i tary means or shal l we t r tiating t a b l , t h
way t h
B ri t i . h an d
to bri n o them to the nego
pan i s h go ernm n t
dea l t w i t h
the I R A a n d t he ETA?
W m ay c a l l ra tio n a l any p t it i c t h at is at nc i deol g i c a l l y, soc i al l y, and pract ical l y rati nal . Of cour e rational p I itic are bet ter than i rrat i o n al ones. Howe er, rat io n a l i t y i s i nsuffi c ie n t : . p I i t ics
350
Political Philosophy
hould al o b moral . That i pol iticians hould h Ip people enjoy l i fe and help them help other. enjoy it. That i. good pol itician. are competent and hone. t technolog ists, w i thout delu . ion, of grandeu r, though w i th a vic ion of a better . oc iety.
9 ision : Integral Democracy The fir t Pr ident Bu 'h once cont mptuou ' l y d i s m i . . ed what h cal led 'the v i ion thi ng ' a a decorative it m unworthy of pol iticians who ' mean bu.in .' And so i t looks to pol i tical alchemi 't. and d i i l l u i oned i ti z n s . But pol i t i w ithout v i i o n i at be ' t u n i n 'piri ng ac countancy, and at wor t puny pol iticking-th c un n i ng, divi iv . and wa. teful truggle for power. A l l t he gr at pol it ical lead r , from P riel ' and A hok to Jefferson, Boli ar, F.D . Roo evelt ehru and M andela have env i sioned ocieties where p ople could enjoy life and help other l ive i nstead of uffe ring unnece ari ly and participating in, or m utely w i tne i ng, c ri me agai nst human i ty. The B uddha too hoped for a peaceful society w i thout caste d i v i ions but he hunned pol i tics. Chri t and hi disc iple were reHgiou reform er but s c i al and p l it i ca l c nservatives. And G andhi favored religiou s tolerance and f ught v i lenc and c loniali slll, but c ndoned the H i ndu ast y . tern. Likewise, Sannient i n Argentina and A tatiirk in Turkey had m dern i zi ng v i ion but to k part in genocide . . E ven Lyndon J h nson upp rted progressive legL l ati n, and proposed a proj ect for the G reat Society," but ank i t i n Vietnam. Sorne i rnagi nation i req u i red to i mprove the exi t i ng oci al order, in particular aving narure. preventing war, alle iating poverty, cleani ng up corporation , encouraging gras root organization , and m aking globaJi za tion work for the poor. Regrettably, mo t political leader ha e lacked the imagination and civic courage required to realize that there mu t be oci al progre . and that it can not be achie ed w i thout an inclu ive economy. a v ibr-cill t denl0cracy, .md a w idely ac 'C ible culture. A b ttcr futurc 'annot b desi gned or even faced without gcnero i ty i magination and couragc bccau e the cmergencc of radicall y ncw thingc rendcr many of thc old pattcrn and rulc ob olete and bccause every oci al reform is bou nd to b r i sted by thos w ho thriv on povcrty v iolcnce, or ignorancc. 35 1
352
Political Philosophy
From Plato on pol i tical phi lo. oph r have offered v i s ion of new ocial order. or have cri ticized either the . tatus q uo or their c ritic . . U n l i ke log i cian. epi . temoloCJi. ts, a n d metaphy. ician. al l of w h o m do theoreti al phi lo. ophy, pol itical phi losopher. are political te hnologi. t in waiting. Tn fact, pol i tical philosophy belong. -alonCJ w i th al ue theory ethic. , and action theory-i n practical philo, ophy. The l at ter, in turn m ay be regarded a. phi lo. ophical technology B unge 1 998b ) . Thi s i dea i . not farfet ' h d for technologL ts kctch, d 'sign, and red '.ign arrifa ts and i n titution ar ' so 'ial art i fact . H owcv 'r g 'nero- ity and i nlag ination arc not enough, as atte ted by th ' long tring of social vision arie w ithout oci al science . Marx [md Eng ' 1 ' adm i red the utopian ociali ts of thc previou gcneration for thei r egali tariani s m but c riticized them for dcsigning a n ideal 'oc iety i n tcad of hel p i ng it to 'mcrge as the i n ' i table r 'sult of the i n n 'r "contradic tion. ' of capital ism. Th i r fear of planning is a reason Len i n and hi. comrade. were ill prepared to rebuild . ociety after ha i ng demol i . h d the zarist state. Th high price paid for i mprovisation led e entual 1 y t o overplanning. I subm i t that th u topian . oci al i st. . hould have been criticized not for en i. ion ing a new . ocial ord r but for planni ng i n minut detail totaJ i tarian societie . where e v ryone w a . allotted a fi xed role wi thout bei n g c o n ' ulted w ith no room left for p e r 'onal l iberty or for unpredictable social i nventions, and w ith no permi . -ion for ·tand i ng out i n anything. W need social v i ' i ons, but democratic and scient i fi c rather than au thoritarian and nearly Lunatic, The line between v i ' i onary and crackpot i . fine but it i . there for the ' keptical ' l udent of pol i t ics to be detected. I agre with Rawl 1 999 : 6 w h n he cal l ed for ' reali tic u topia. ' whi h , au put i t at th start of The SociaL Conlra I, take ' m n a they a· Rou are and l aw ' a th y might b . ' I n this la t chapter I w i l l ket h the broad outl i n of my own vi ion of a good oci ty, w h ich in earlier works Bung 1 989a, 1 998a) wa charac t rized a ' i n t gral democracy i nformed by 0 ial t chnology. J hop thi. vi ion i a realizable eutopia rather than e ither a utopia or a dy topia. Thi i becau e, in tead of drawi ng a benevolen t but totali tarian and rigid life plan a l a B abeuf, Cabet Fourier. or Skinner, I w i l l merely tackle from a moral v iewpoint what I ee a the three major ocial i ue of our ti me: I nternational coop ration (in tead of permanent war), en i ron mental su tainability i n tead of relentle env i ronmental degradation ), and social ju. tice in tead of dome ti and internat ional exploitation ) ,
354
Political Philosophy
The olde t pol i t ical democracy i n the world the U nitcd State ha been holding rather free and pe ri odic election. from birth more than two centurie. ago. S ince the pol i t ical enfranch i . ement of women and black. , these election. ha e been osten. ibly ruled by the "One per, on, one vote' norm. H owe er i n the U .S . money can buy vote. , no lon ger d i rectly a. in the old t i me" but i ndirectly through . umptuou. TV campaigns. For example, j u . t to partici pate in pri m ary elections, a candidate has to rai. e m il l ion of doll ars. Thu , the U n i ted S tate m ay be c haracteriz 'd as a plutodemocracy or 'democracy i ncorporated' Wol in 2008 . Hence th ' s ' rnlons on freedom and d 'n10 ra 'y, whi h Ameri an rul 'r preach to th ' r ' ' t of the world, 'ound hollow. B ' id 'S the ele toral fOlll1uia that i actual ly bei ng practiced in th ' U nited States i s not ' One p 'L on, on ' vote ' but rather "Two p 'L on. , on ' vot , ," for at b ' 't only ev 'ry oth 'r A meric(U] citiz 'n both 'r. to vot '. This, and the fact t hat onl y t wo part ies ar . ignifi cant and both count about equally, re. ult i n that every American president has b en elect d by about on -quart r of h i . fel l ow citizens. Thus, t hree-quarters o f the ful l A merican lectorate have no oice i n go ernment. Worse becau . the A merican r g i m e i s pr . idential rather than parl iam ntary th cabin t mini.t rs or secretarie, r pre, nt nobody, and consequently ar accountable to nobody. They ar the Pre -iden l " appoi ntees ,md 'erve a t h i s plea ' u re ,md w ithout fear of public -anclion . I n ' u m , formally free public con ' u hation i - only a nece ' 'ary condi ti on of ' u b ·tantial democracy_ B u t even 'thin' or ' formal" democ racy is lOO m ueh [or the neo con 'ervati ve '. For example, the well-known pol itical journalist Fareed Zak aria 2004 d plore that democracy ha be n deregu l ated w h i l b u i nes h a be n regulated . H propose ' t o re triet popular partic i pation, and to adopt l ame Madi on ' d I gated democracy: or government by u n lected bodi e , 'uch a . the WTO, w rongly bel i ved to be abov special i nt rest · . The OEeD 200 1 ) e loqu ntly d f nded t he contrary th i that good governance in o] ve popular participation and tran parency. "Strengthen ing relation with citizen i a ound i nve lment in better policy-m ak ing and a core element of good governance . I t allow government to tap new ource of poli cy -rele ant i dea , i n format i on and re ources when making deci ion . Equa l ly important, i t contributes to bui l d i ng public tru t in government. rai ing the quality of democracy and trengthening c iv ic capaci ty. Such efforts help str ngthen r pre. entative democra y in w h i h parliament play a eutral role" in 0 t ry 2003 : 1 36-7 ) .
ision
355
A ll an H utch i n on (2005 ) the d istingu i hed legal c holar and fierce critic of "corpocracy, agree, . He bel ie e, that only the practice of the "in, titutional virt ues of participation equali ty decentrali zation and tran. parency" can sa e the corporation. And he q uote, w i th approval Woodrow Wilson ', rare pearl of w i . dom 'The cure for the i 1 1 s of democracy i, more democracy, not less.' Political democracy, w art� and al l, hill the obviou, meri t that it in olve, pobtical l iberty. B ut liberty i. v i able onl y as long a e e ryone can enjoy it and provi ded it in - ludes uch civil l ibcrtie a freedom of a 'so -iation, in particular th ' lib 'rty to form and join pol i t i al partie l abor unions, farm 'r. ' organizations, [md publi - i nterest NGO . S ince my l ibe11y ends where your tart any i ndividuals or groups that concentrate power of any kin�economi , cultu ral or political-threaten bberty. That i ' the ex e rc i ' of l ibc rty i nvol v ' , equali ty. Thi ' is parti -ularly obviou in the lea t gal itarian region i n the world, nam ly Latin A merica ( Boron 2005 ) . John Raw1. ( 1 97 1 ) c riticized th pur l y pol itical conception of de mocracy, and proposed h i s own. H did not d ispute t he right to pri vat ownershi p of th means of production, but held that the stat . hould tak 0 er the supply of public good, , a. well as a measure of , oc ial redi stributive j u, t ice. R aw l s ' emphasi. on , oci al ju. tice wa, certai nly welcome at a t i me when pol iticians the world over were i ntent on rev iv i ng la issez-fa i re- ism . B ut, since t he 'ocial j ustic he imag i ned dropped from abo e l i ke manna, Rawl ' was politically a 'eptic and therefore n aIve and not q u i te democratic. I n particular, Rawl . did not tel l u ' how to craft t he j u ,t social order, except that it ' hould b a ta ' k for a ·trong ·tat . Thus, Rawl . m i s 'ed no Ie than th marrow of pol itic '-int rest. ' tfuggle. participation and gOY mance. I n short h offered ocial l i be ral i 'm w ithout democrati c action. T h u , R aw l v i . i o n wa ' .i u · t a· apoli tical and u n real i ti a ' that of the utopian oci al i t of the pre iou ' centu ry. H ne it ha no u e for political act i i t . I n particular "I a l ivil right. mov ment practic i ng civil d i obedi ence could h ardl y ha e succ ed d w i th i n the con · trai nt ' of th Rawl i an political" olin 2004: 544 . I n other word , Raw] ' conception of ocial j u tice was apol it i cal-hence ju t a u topian a M ore , Fourier , or K ropotkin 's o Be i des A Them of Justice i ncl uded uch unnece a ry fi ction as the ( tacit) oci al contract, the ori g inal po ition the vei l of ignorance, and rational c hoice. All of the e fi ction have given ri e to a voluminou l iterature that has only succeeded i n 1 sing ight f Raw1 . goal w hich was to t ry and c mbine poli t ic al and con IruC l i berali m with welfari m . I sub m i t
356
Political PWlo ophy
that thi attempt failed becau e h e pou ed tatism and can q ue n t l y made no room for . e l f-go e r n m nt, or democracy i n t h e w rkp l ace, a s prac ticed i n w rkers ' cooperati v s. B y c ntra. t , R bert Dah l ' s po l it i cal philo. ophy i s far more real i . t i c a.o;; wel l a s much clo. er t o t h e democratic ideal t h a n R aw l s s . I n h i . m ag i . teri al study of pol i tical d e m cracy, D a h l 1 989 : 2 2 1 l i st the f I l ow i ng sev n necessary and suffi cient c nditions � r ad anced de mocracy : elected o fficials, fre and fai r election , i nc J u lve uffrage of all citiz ns , right to ru n for ffi ce fre d 111 f expre i o n , alt rnati ve ( non- ffidal i n formati n and a ociational autonomy i ndepen dent pOl i tical parties, i n terest groups, and N O . 1 ubmit that D ah l defi n i t i n i accurate a far a i t g e . B u t i t doe not go far en ugh for tw rea on . fir t i t is l i mited to the contenti us ide of p lities' it g l o e ver th g v rnance a p ct. A nd t h i s 1 i m p rtant becau e a government m i o ht be elected i n ace rdance � ith those se e n cond itjons, yet b empo� e red to g vern u n t i l the next e l e tion w ithout any further citizen part i c i pation. such as public debate. and heari no. , refere nda, or e en opi n i n po l l s. That is, a government m ay rule w i th t t al d isregard for the w i l l f the m ajority- i n hort , u ndemoc rat i ca l l y. A n ther m issi ng item in D ah l s defi n iti n is the agenda, that i s , the set f i ucs that thc c itizc n ry i ex pected t de batc. Wh "ts th " age nda . A. rc aJ J i uc up for grab ? 0, bccau se thc agcnda i s rdi n ariJ y ct by part y or tatc offi ci al . C i ti z en can debatc thc i uc n l y by i nvitat i n and sp radical l y. B y contra t i n a partici pativc dcm cracy thc agcnda h uld bc pcrmanc n t l y opcn 0 that rdi nary citizcns may con tri but " t publ ic govern ancc at any t i me bctwec n clecti ns. I n stcad of bei ng able t d i scu. . n l y p th les. traffic l ights recyc l i ng and the l i ke, the citiz ns sh uld be free t rais at a ny time any i ssue of public p l icy at any I e e l . T h i s proposal h a. been tried ucc . sful l y w herev r p l it kal partie keep I cal (e.g. borough com m ittee , w h i ch meet reg u l arly in l ocale that are kept open e ry eve n i ng to party member and y mpathizer. . The p pi me t on av rage nee a m nth in th pre nec of a party ffic i a 1 . w h trans m i ts th q uestions and d cision t the par l i amen tary repr . en tati of the rid i n g in quc. ti n. I n turn the . ai t r prcse ntati v i n forms rcgu l arly h i s e nstitu nts ab ut the fate of thc i r pr posaL . T ren dcr th proce a. i nc l u ivc as po iblc , all th partic sh uld hay n tati . Contra t this dcmocratic, i n tcrae ace ss t th ri di ng ' repr tiv tran paren t and public-g ods l obbyi ng w ith th on practic d by private l ntere t s group .
358
Political Philosophy
if conceived of w it h L incoln a. th rule of the people by the peoplc, and for the people. Let u , now gli mp. e at the problem of legitimacy, which we fi rst faced on Chapter 6, Section 4. The exi . ting social order, i n particular the state, i . ordinari l y taken for CJranted. E en while gru mb l i ng over thi . o r that particular rule restriction, o r tax mo. t people d o not cha11enge the legitimacy of thei r government. Pol i ti a] conformism is part i c ularly inten. ' anlong th ' poore 't members of . o i ety, for they m ust focu on th ' i 'su '. of dail y . urvi a1. Pol i tical non-conformi s m in parti u lar reb '1liou ne occurs only among people b 'lon g i ng to social strata placed betw ' 'n the pari ah and the affluent. And d iscontent is alway motivated by rcal or percei d ' l u ion whether from wealth tatus, cultu re or governm 'nt. Once i n a w h i le th ' political e. tabli . h ment, or e en the so 'ial order, i. chaJlenged and even changed. But for a chal leng to be morall y and poli t icall y j usti fied, th r gime i n qu . lion mu. t b both i l legiti mat and weak in som respect Beside. , i f t hey wish to b t rusted and fol lowed, the chal lenger. mu. t not b seen a. be ing d ri ven by . pecial i nterests. A nd if th y are, they m u . t wear a decent i deological di. gui. . Finally i . there room for l eaders i n a de mocracy? Anarchist. . ay "no ' wherea ' everyone el 'e think ' t hat all social 'y 't m ' need leaders-i ndi v idual ' who are more able or q ui cker than other ' to tak i ni t iatives and assume responsibili tie ' where other ' 'hirk them recal l Chapter 2 . B ut the d i fference between a democ ratic leader-hi p and an authoritarian one i s that, whereas the former i s re ' ponsive collegial, and fal l i ble au thoritarian leader 'hip is top-down , 'ecretive, and claim ' to be i n fallible. Whi l th authorit arian I ader hout from the top, t h d mo rati on organi z . from th midd le. While I ader 'hip i indi. pen able i n a11 . oc i al group under a l l re gime" chari matic leader ar exp ndable u nder d mo racy. The u r rent A merican pr ferenc for " trong lead r. h i p ' r gardless of hone ty, faim competence. tran par ncy. and accountab i l i ty, is a bid for both dictator hip and i ncompetence, particularl y given that great power at tracts those who, being i ncapable of tandi ng out by them elves must c l i mb up on others to reach the height . 2. Su icidal Instit u tion : Democ rac)' and Cap i ta lism
The financier and phi lanthropi t George Soro (1 998 warned that unregul ated gl bal capitalism is in deep trouble and 111 reover, it en danger the open (demo rati and progre s ive ) s ciety. The economist
ision
359
and c 'onomic ociologi t Joscph Schump tcr 1 950 the . ociologi t Benj am i n B arber 1 984), and the legal and moral phi l o. opher Erne. to Garz6n-Valde, ( 2000) went e en further. In fact. al 1 three argued per. ua . ively that democ racy and capital ism are suici dal and moreover mutua] ] y i ncompati ble i n . t i tu tion . . F u rther rea. on. may be adduced for that the. i s . For example, pol itical democ racy is self-de. tructive to the extent that it al low. crook. to buy public office. through pur hasing TV time , and i t 'nab l '. parliam 'nt. to bow to d 'magogue. or dictators. And the m arket i u i i dal for two reason . One i. that bu i ne m 'n hat ' competition for it can be ru inous, and therefor ' th 'y tend to org,Uli ze oligopolies or monopoJ ie. -which snuff w hatever fT ' 'nt 'rpri e there had been to begi n w ith. The oth '[ reason is that, by i nc reasi ng productivity, tech nology k i l l job , which d 'pre '. consumption, w hich di cOUl'ages i n estment which i n tum k i l l. job. , and . 0 on. True, i t is possible to inc l ude an anti-dictatorship clause i n any con. ti tution. (Bol i i a, famou. for it frequ nt coup. , ha. a law regulating them. But a large electoral majority, or a powert'ul parl i amentary coalition, can i gnor , uch clau. e and mor . L i kew ise, i n recent decades t he anti -trust law, pa . . ed in the U ni ted State. sine I 90 ha e not pre ented colo. 'al merger ' or ev n price- fi x i ng col lusion ' between large corporations. I n ' hort , both democracy and the so-cal led free m arket are fragi le and m utually i ncompati b l bee au 'e 'rational economic man ' 'ee ' no profit i n b ing civic-minded. I ron ically, the neoli beral pol iticians and market fundamental ist , are the wor · t enemies of both l i berty and the free market. I ndeed, they demand at t h arne t i m trong lead r hip both d o m t icany and g loball y and m arket deregulation. B u t ' trong I ad r 'h ip: dangerously 10 e to d ictator 'hip, c al l . for trong i nve t m n t i n ' security ' which i ' bound to b loat th ecu rity force and th r fore th fi 'cal defici t ; it i al 0 l i k Iy to curtail ci il right at hom and threat n 0 rt or co ert i n terv ntion abroad . And remov i n g m arket r g u l ation g i e orporation cart blanche to engage in reckle adventure fleece con umer , and rai d the p nsi on fund of t h e i r employee . L i ke h i ps legiti mate bu ine s and pol itic need not only competent p ilot and di cipl ined c rews they al 0 need safe harbor . Even an authentically democratic regime i only partia]]y democrati c becau e it i li mi ted t o the political aspect of democracy. i s tempted t o feed at the corporat trough and j expected to tolerate i t w r t enemie . Ex e mplary c a es of suicidal g emment c me read i ly to m i nd : the Wei m ar ·
360
Political Philosophy
R publ i c 1 9 1 9- 1 933 th French Thi rd Republic 1 70- 1 940 the late So iet U nion 1 9 1 7- 1 99 1 and the B ush lr. AdminLtration 2000-2008 ) . T h e i n ter-war German Republic committed . uicide w h e n i t tolerated the thuggerie. of the B rown h irt� ; the Thi rd Republic, when it tumed a blind eye on the con. pira ie. of the pro-Gennan fact ion i n its m idst; the So iet U n i on in its l ao t years, when it failed to democratize and went on spending more on armament and forei gn advent u res than on upgrading th ' agri c u lture and the i ndu 'try ; and the Bu h l r. admi n i ' tration when it added m i l i ta ry base to th ' 7 7 i t already had i n 1 30 countri e , and started two protract 'd war -which inflated mon trou ly the fi. cal deficit, which in turn devalued th ' dollar; and when, in the name of free trade, i t favored th ' deindu. triali zati on o f what used t o b e the mo ' t i ndustri al ized nation i n h i. tory sec, e.g. 10hn on 2006 . A for th ' '0- alled free mar](, 't, th ' fi r t point to note i s that far from hav i ng emerg d spontaneou. ly and b i n g fr , it h as alway. enjoyed the protection of . tat . that nurtured and protected it not only w ith legislat ion but al. 0 with i n fra. tructure and naval pow r . e Pol anyi 1 944; B raud I 1 982; M a. sey 2006 ). For xample th United K i ngdom waged war twice on China to prot ct the opi u m trade; Franc destroyed Moroccan olive grove. to protect its own oli oi l i ndustry ; and the U n i t d S tates ha. actively meddled w ith al l the o i l-producing nation ' and their neighbor ' for half a century. I n 'um, th 'o-caUed free m arket i ' the chi ld of the marriage of capitali 'm with go ern ment. Marx wa . the fir 't to point out the i ne fficiencies and irrational ities of the m arket. M any other ' after him have d i 'covered further "e temaliti es" in both production ,md trade. The term ' ex ternality" ' uggest · that the mark t i basically perfect. Only people out i de it would be impe rfect. L t u look briefl y at . ix featu re of capitali st u i ci de-Envi ronm ntal d gradation, huge u rpluse the ri e of th d i aster i ndu try, th wani ng of c rtain property right. . c hron ic u nempl oy ment, and t h wagi ng o f neo olonial a n d r o u r e w ar . I t i . no nov lty that t h unr gulated xploitation of natural re 'ourc . has been k il l i ng nature. Suffice i t to mention strip m i ning defore tation , bottom-t raw ler fi shi ng, and the water over-consumption, soi l ero ion, and demi neral i zation cau ed by large- cale agri bu i ne . Iron icaJIy, tate sociali m ( So i et- tyle Commu n i m ha had exactly the arne effect , w ith the aggravating c i rcum lance that there were neither con traint on pol l uting indu t rie nor env i ronmentalist group to complai n about such ec c ide as the destruction of half of the A ral ea and the heavy p H u t i n in the i nner sea .
360
Political PWlo ophy
Repub l i ( 1 9 1 9- 1 93
, the Prench Third R public 1 70- 1 94 ), th l ate
viet U n i n 1 9 1 7- 1 99 1 and the B ush lr. Adm i n i, trati n 2000-2008). The i n ter-w ar Germ an Republic com m i t ted suicide when it t lerated the thuggeries of the B row n h i rts ; the Thi rd Republ ic, when i t turned a b l i n d eye on the conspiracie, of the pro-G rm an faction i n i ts m idst; the viet U n ion i n its l ast years wh n it fai l ed t dem ocrati ze and w e n t on spe nding more on armament and � rei g n adv ntures than on upgrad i ng the agJicul ture and th i ndu t ry ' and th Bu h Jr. admi n i trati n . w h e n it a d d d m i l i tary base t o t h e 737 i t alr ady h ad i n 1 30 cou n trie , a n d tarted t w o p r tracted w ar -w h ich i n fl ated mon trou l y t h e fi scal deficit, w h ich in tUlll de al ued the dol l ar and when in the n am e of fre trade, it favored the d i ndustti al i zation of w h at used to b th m t i ndu trl al ized n at i n in h ist ry ee, e .g .. Joh n n 2006 . A t r the -cal led free m arket, the fi r t p i nt to n te i that, far fr m hav i ng emerged sp ntane usly and bei n o free, i t h as al � ay, enj yed the prote ti n of , tates that nurtured and pr tected it not nl y � ith legi sl ati n but aL o w i th i n frastructure and naval power (. ee P l anyi 1 944' B raudel I 8 2 ; M a. sey 2(06). For e x ample, the U n i ted K i n o dom waged war tw ice on h i n a to prot ct the opi u m trade ' France destroyed Moroccan ol ive g roves to protect its ow n ol i e il i ndust ry ; and the U n i ted tates has actively m eddled w ith al l the oi l -pr d uei ng n ation and their neighb r for hal f a century. I n sum, the so-called free m arket i the chi ld f th m arri age f cap i t al i m w ith go ernmenL M arx w as the fi r t to poi nt ut the i neffi cieneie and i rrational itie of the m arket. M any others after him hav disc ered furthe r ' extern al i tie " i n both pr d uct ion and trade. The term ' ex tern a lity" sugge t that th '>
'>
'>
m arke t i s basically perfect. n ly peopl e outside i t would b i mperfect . L e t u I k brie fl y a t s i x features f capitali st uicid -Env i ronmental degradation h uge u rplus the rise of the d isaster i ndustry the w an i ng of certai n prop rty rights. chronic u nemployment, and the w ag i n g f neoc I n i al and res urce wars. I t i s n novelty that the u nregu l at d x p loi tat i o n f n atura l re. urce has be n k i l l i ng nature . u m e it to mention strip m i ni n o , d f restat i n , bolt tn -traw ler fi shi ng , and t h water o v r-e nsumpti n s i t r i n , and d m j n ral izat i n caus d b y l arge-scale agri busi nes . . I r nically stat s ciaU m ( S i t- t y le C mrn un j sm has had exactl y the ame e ffects, w ith th ag oravati ng ' i rculll tanc that ther were n ith r 'on t rai nt. n p U ut i n g i ndustri s nor n i ronme ntali st gr ups to ' tnpl ai n ab ut suc h coc id a the de truction of half of the A ral e a and the h avy pol l u ti o n in t h i n n r sea .
362
Political Philosophy
Britai n . Not that . e en of the t n countrie have adopted the ' c odal market" ( capi tal ist wel fare) favored by the democratic Left. When technological unemployment emerged i n the early nineteenth century in the textile i ndu. try . ome workers reacted . m ao h i n g l abor sa ing machi ne. such a, automatic looms. The Luddite mo ement wa. violently repressed, and si nce then no l abor union ha. dared chal1enge the down side of technolocYi cal progress. Around 1 980 however, an interesting i ndu 'tri al nov 'Ity cmerged. S ome 1 ,000 Italian and 1 300 Sp,Uli s h fail ing firms were tran. formed i n to labor-own 'd ,md m anaged coop 'rativcs (Coutrot 2005 . Two decade l ater the workers in a numbcr of A rg 'nLine factori ' , that had becn do ed down by their own 'rs, who judged th ' m u nprofitable, occupi 'd thc prcmi. 'S organi z 'd thcmscl v ' , into coopcraLiv 'S and resu med produ ,ti on-at profit. Thi s i llcgal movc m 'nt cnjoyed uch popul ar . upport that two of thc rclevant parli amcnt ' I gal i zed th expropriation. (R bon and Saavedra 2(06) . These w r not t h e fi rst ca. . i n h istory where cooperati v s b a t capi tal i . m w i thout fi ring a . ingl shot. M any of th mo. t i mportant coopera tive. around the world, particularly in I taly and I ndia, have u ndertak n act i v it ies t hat the pri ate sector regarded as unprofitabl e . The r a. on i. of cour. e t hat psychological and mora] gain. may off. et pecuniary tightne ' ' . I n ' hort, cooperati e property i ' free from on of the curse ' of capitali ' m : u nemploym nt. H ow er, t he wor ·t feature of the capitalist m arket i s i t . sym b iosi ' w ith war. To paraph ra ' a famous 'entence of Charle ' Tilly' , concern ing state ' : War ' make m arket " and m arket ' make war. I n deed t he colonial war ' opened up n w m arkets, and th pur ' u i t of economic growth ha ' induced war u pon u nderd v loped nation ' and among colonial and neo olonial pow r . A ' La 'ki 1 93 5 : 255 ) aid ' [ c ]apitali t peace i. only . . . a breathi ng pac between war ' . ' To real i ze how grim the future i s l i k ly to b i f t h pre ent tr nd i s al lowed to continu , let U ' imagin the fol lowi ng dy topic c nario. After many long and exhau ting wars again t E i I-which we, the Cho 'en won with the help of God-the planet wa cut up into two realm , called US hort for U nited S tockholder ) and SU ( hort for Ser ing U s ) . Given that private enterpri e i good and government e i l the former has replaced the latter. In fact, US i now owned by Hailbottom, the only company left in the world a a re u lt of numerou merger and Ie eraged buyout . Hailbottom ' total monopoly guarantee total globalization. Thi firm ow n both the land and it government. I t al rule. over the enti re S U thr ugh a few hundred local atrap w it h the adv ice f pli an t profess r .
ision
363
I n this wholl y privatized oci cty poli t ical democ racy d ied long ago the icti m of uncounted E mergency Acts fol lowing the arious phase. of the permanent War on Evi1 . In e ery region , . oci ety ha� been divided i n to four water-tight ca, teo : the Vi rtuou. who con. t it u te the rul ing cIa . . and have the exc1 u. i ve use of CJolf courses and S U V . . the Contractor" in charge of secu ri ty, i ndu. t ry, and com merce' the Temp. , h i red once i n a while for . ub. L tence wage. to do men i al job. , . uch a. c1ean i n CJ toi lets, teachi ng mathematics, and advi ' i ng the U . S . gov 'rn ment ; and th ' Ep i Ion. , who ubsi. t on cavenging. W hat l ittle petroleum i. left in the world 'omes froTI1 the vast de e11. where only feral c amel roam ; and all of it i u 'd to power t,Ulk m i l i tary hel i copt 'rs, and S U V . . The Vil1uous live i n luxury th ' Contractor. modestly the Temps poorly and the Epsilons nli 'rably. Th ' only cultural org,Ulizations 1 ' ft arc t 'mples to wor 'hip M am mon th ' official divin ity, and technical college. for training future contractor. -mo.t of th m accountants or maint nance ngineer. -and Temps. No on cultivates th art. , the h umanitie. or the sci nces, except as hobbies and w i th few m ans. E eryon s v ision of the future i. so glum, t hat nobody mak . any plans. Only i diots ke p ha i ng children, albeit unwanted, for th y alon don t understand th well-know n prophecy made back i n 205 7 : ' H u mankind w i l l become extinct i n 2 1 07 .' The End. The point of thi ' 'tory i ' t hat our specie ' has no future unle . . capi tali ' m i ' strict ly bridled or, even beller transformed into a social order replacing excess and waste with moderation and exploitation with co operation, r 'peeting i ntemational law and 'elli ng up an i nternational · tewardsh i p of non - ren wabl natural resource ' . I submi t that, unle " oci ty i . recon truct d along these l i n our pec i . i doomed becau unf tter d capitalism i i nher ntly rapaciou " xpan · ive. and d tructi h nc a . ource of int m al and i nternational conH ict· and. i nce our planet is fi ni te xpan ion i bound to nd up in d pletion which i n turn w i l l lead t o x tinction. I f we real ize that the fr m arket, aka capitali m i uicidal , t h n w m u t eek to either save i t or tran form it rad icall y. Two m ajor attempt have been made to a e capital i m from i tself-one through fa c ism and the other through the welfare tate. Fa ci m temmed the anti -capital i st wave between 1 92 2 and 1 945 in ome ca e by wearing a ocial i t d i gui e, but it on ly la ted one generation. By contra t , it alte rnative. welfare capitali m. has pro pered almo t u n interruptedl y for er a century i n nearly all of the indu triali zed na tion . I ndeed tati . t i cs show that duri ng t h e 1 a t decad , ' while m ark: t
364
Political Philosophy
i ncome i nequali t y ha. gen rall y ris n i n the developed world . tate redL t ri bution has l argel y kept pace [with economic growth]' M ahler and Je. u i t 2006) . Yet Con. er ative. keep c laimi n g that the welfare . tate i. undergoi ng a ret renchment everywhere becau. e i t i s both i nefficient and too expen. ive . B ut i n fact the welfare . tate i . the more popular the more i t spend. . Besides, Con, ervati e, glo . . over the . tatL tics about the bioloCJical , poJitical and cultural co. ts of alternati e regi mes. Sti l l , th ' welfar ' stat ' only mitigate th ' negative cons qu 'nee ' of such unavoidablc t rait of capitali s m a sharp cIa i nequality uncm ploym 'nt, b ' l I i 0 ' ily and the destru c tion of naturc . The we I far ' state i ' th ' 'ocial ounterpart of pall iativ ' med i 'al care. Furth '[ '0 ' ia l rcfon11 ' ar ' u n l i ke ly to ful ly uccccd be au e any mea. u res designed to protect naturc w i l l i nvol v ' 'cv 're restricti on on consumption which w i l l lead to business 'ontra lion, u nemployment, and thc concomi Umt in rca " in soci al expenditures and taxe. req u i red to pay for the m . An alternative soc i al order would have to b i nv nt d to . a e capitalism from itself. I n sum, the unregul at d m arket i s . I f-destructi e. whence i t cal l . for regulation, j u. t a s i nsurance compan ies requ i r a rei nsurance fi rm t o protect them. I ve. from di. asters and m i. takes. Economi. ts i n particular market fundamentalist. , claim that it i . i n ev ryone '. i nt reo t that mark t. pro 'per, becau 'e they are effi cient mechani 'm ' for the allocation of good ' and ' rvices. B ut t hey glo 'S over the gro ' ' mark 1 i nefficiencie " feel no concern for the victi m s of ' uch flaw ' , and do not care for non-market val ue ' ' uch a . peace fairness equa l ity, and ·olidarily. he qu ,tion i . whether there i . a way of avoidi ng at least th 'ocial i nj u ,tice traditionally associated w ith the capital i · t m arket. I n other word " i . th market neces saril y capital i t, or i. m ark t sociali 'm both possibl and de ' i rabl � Mo t 'cholar identify the modern m ark t w i th capitali m . B u t a £ w contemporary th ori ts i n particular Rob rt Dah l 1 985 ) and Davi d M il ler 1 989 . have argued loqu ntly i n favor of m arket oci al i ' m . I n the balance of t h i hapter 1 w i l l propo ' further argument for it, showing orne data ugge 'ting that i t i aIr ady b ing practiced, i f on a mal l to medi um cale and i n a ho ti le env i ronment. I w i l l al 0 argue that economi c democracy hould be expanded to i ncl ude en i ronmental, biological, culturaL and pol itical democracy. 3. Beyond Pol i ti cal Democracy
One year after the French Re ol ution of 1 789. the on ervati e pol iti c i an Edmund B urke could write w i th i mpunity that demo racy i "the mo t shameles. thing in the world.' Today few people i n the ad an d
366
Political Philosophy
roughly equal ac citizen yet gro ly u nequal a economic agent ? I n other word. , why does pol itical democracy wherever and whenever i t pre ai L , coex i . t w i t h econom ic aristocracy? The cha. m between poJitical democracy and econom ic ari stocracy i. hard to j u. tify i n either economic or moral terms. As Dahl 1 989: 1 1 - 1 2 state. , ' [t]he c lo. e a" oc iat ion between democracy and certai n ki nds of equal i ty lead. to a powerfu l moral conclu. ion. If freedom, , elf-devel opnlent, a n d t h e a d ancem ' n t o f . hared i ntere ' t arc good c n d , and i f pcrsons ar ' i ntrin i caUy equal i n their moral worth then opportunitie for attain ing thc 'c goal should b ' d i 'tri buted equall y to all per 'ons. Con sid 'r 'd from thi pcr 'pective, the dcmocratic proc 'ss becomes nothing Ie th[ll a r 'qui rement of di. tributive ju ,tice. The democratic pro ·c ' , is justi fied not onl y by its own cnd-value th 'n, but also a a n 'cc ary m 'ans to di 'tri butiv ' ju ticc.' The root of the problem i s of course an in. titution that ha. b n re garded a. sacred from th dawn of civil ization: th pri ate prop rty of the mean. of production, transportation, trad , and fi nance, from land to ban k . It i. no coincid nce t hat property right. ha e been entrenched in n arly all the I gal code. for . ev ral m i l le nnia. Nor i s it a coincidence that . mal1-scal thi ve. and murder rs are jai led if caught, wher a. large scale thieve ' and m u rder r '- ' w i nd lers and conquerors-are honored when they succeed. I ' Alexander of Macedonia called Th G reat despi te having comnlilled uncounted war crim . or becau 'e he perpetrated them on a very large 'cale with i mpunity'. The founding fathers of the U n i ted States introduced i nto politic ' an i m portant novelty a lien not only to all rel igion ' but al '0 to Con fucian and Kantian ethic ': The right to pur u happ i n . Thi " t h Y declar d , w a the birthright o f a l l A m rican c itiz n ' - x c pt o f our 'e for worn n, slave and tenant farmer . B ut th y refrained from tell i ng p ople what k for happin " wa or how to I i e. Th y onl y e n ourag d them to them ' l ve what ver they deemed to b the good l i f . L i kew i . e modern l i b rals ' uch as Rawl L 97 1 have held that the tat hould be n u tral among competing iew of the good life, al l of which would re ult from subjective evaluation . B u t that wa long ago. The advocates of the welfare tate. in all of i t ver jon , beg to differ. They bel i eve (010 tly tacitly) that there are objec tive criteria of the go d life uch a personal ecurity, ful l occupation, health. education, and c i il l i be rtie . Moreover, they believe that the dem cratic state h , th dUl) t hel p people Iiv , best they can or at lea. t fr e from fear h unger c urable d i ease, u ne mployment and i g n ran e .
368
Political PWlo ophy
l i m it the wor e ocial i n eq ual ities i nher nt i n c l a ical capitali m . It doe so by pro idi ng '. oc ial security' old-age unemploy m ent, and disabi l ity be n fi ts , and fre ba. i c education and medical as. i. tance. Capital i . t w e l fare i. charitable rather than fai r and so l i dary, let al ne social i st. O ne f it. champion. , Espi ng-A nderson 1 990: � 2 ), u n w i tt i n g l y made thi s cl ear w h e n he stated t h a t a good m easure of s c i al j u s t i c i s t h e degree of 'de-c m m d i fi cation" i n the supp l y of g ds and serv i ces r q u i red to meet the ba ic h u m an needs. D ut ur l y th r i 1 1 1 re t c i al ju t ice than ba ic J iv e l i h od d i pen ed fr m above. ( ee ecti n below. ) Desi de , welfare capital i sm i v u l n rable, b th because it i becomi ng i nc rea i ng l y expe n ive (due to the ri ing l i l exp ctancy , and because the right-w i ng partie prefer cutt i ng taxe r m ak i ng w ar t i nve t i n g i n c i i l i z at ion-as O l iv r Wen de l l Holme luight h av aid. H nce there i no g uarantee that the si g n i ficant g a i n i n social w e l fare si nce the end of W rid War n � i l l not be rol l ed back a. a re. u l t of the u n popu l arity of h igh taxati n and the re entment ag ai nst the peopl e w ho ha e be orne chronical l y welfare-depe nde nt and w i th no chance of c ntribut i n o t o the com mon good. (Tn the U n i ted tate t here are fourth- oe neration w e l fare chi ldre n . M oreover, e e n the most ge nerous f w e l fare states i s sti l l e c nom i cal l y u n dem crat ic , for it "xcJ ude sel f-g vern ment from th " workplace. t i J I th " i al -dem ocratic vcr i on of \ e l far " capitalj m is the d se t ci al j u st icc, f r i t i nv l vc ba ic econom ic securi ty a w e U as frc " health care and cducati n . ould this rcg i m e be e panded to i ndud " a go d mea ure f econom ic democracy ? uch transfonnation c u ld o n l y be ach i ev d thr ugh th joint e ffort of u ni n S ociali sts L i ber al s and progr . . iv o n s r at i ve w i h i ng t sa e cap i tal i sm from its I f-as Key ne. \ uld say. At pr . nt n l arge and adva nced n at j n meets these condi t jon s . I n the U ni ted tates the u n i ns are vani . h i ng and near l y pow rle and the tw major pol i t ical partie ar con servative by European r L at i n A me ri c an t andards. I n the U n i ted K i ngdom and Fran ' th u n i o n af t i l l str ng, but th s 'i al-d III 'rat ie partic hav bec m ' ntrist. O n l y ltaJ y h a. at once str ng u n i ns and le ft i st par ti s but the. c af frag lll nt t and get fcwcr v t s than th thcr part i . com bi ned. Wh th r other n ati ns w i J I g oci aLi st, i s to be en-aftcr th ne t deprcs i n . tn hort , cap i tal i m c u m we lfare . tatc is t W capit all sIll- n i thcr qui t fair nor i m m une to di rupti ng econom ic cycle and th refore 0 ca ional L y i n ne d of governmental bai lout , A nd furth r oci al progress by parlla-
ision
369
mentary mean . cem lcss l ikely today than on century ago when the unions and . oci a1 i st parties were far stron ger, as a consequence of which progre" i e . ocial reform. were bei n g ach ieved e ery year-until the Great War da. hed the i 1 1 u. ion of continued progre. s under capital i. m . o w e seem t o b e stuck in the homs o f a dilemma. Wherea. the free m arket i. neither . u. tainable nor , 0 ial l y j u. t the so ial market is j u . t a, ulnerable, and in any ca. e i t doe, not �eem exportable to the Thi rd World. I w i l l sugge 't that there i s a way out of thi . d ilemma. B u t before doing 0 we should be c lear a to the natur ' of the u l t imate goal of all . ince 1 789, namely oci al j ustice . 4. Social Ju tic as Proportional ity
D i fferent pol iti 'al movement u nder tand diff 'rently the expression ' , oc ial j u. rice : con. rvative. a. a dangerous m i rage ' l iberals a. th wel fare state rel ief or safety net -an i mprov m nt on the Roman ponem "1 cir enses ; and social i st. as economic qual i ty. Along w it h B arb r 2003 . Dahl ( 1 985), M i l 1er ( 1 999), and a few oth r. 1 . hal l d fi ne strong (or i n tegral d moc racy a, the pol i tical mechan i . m aiming at advanci ng quality. period. H ence I . han start by re xamining th concept of quality, which we fi rst In t in Chapter 3 Section 2 . A l though a l l humans 'hare most trait " n o two indiv iduals not even , identical" twin ' , ar equal in al l r 'pecl '. s Rou ' 'eau ( 1 755 pointed oul, the i nequali t ie . among humans are of two kind ': natural and 'ocial . Wherea ' t he former are large ly i n heri ted, the soci a l i nequa l ities are mad -ei th r learned or i n 't i t uti onal-and as such they may or may nol be fair. For in 'tance, di 'cri m ination agai n ·t b lack ' originated w i th th Europe an conquest of A frica-wh ic h wa anything but a natural cata troph . And the idea that blac k ' on titut an i nferior rae i s j u , t a myth i n ented to .i u t i fy slav ry. ( See Fredri kson 2002 for the m aterial i n tere t b h i nd raci m . M uch the a m appl ie ' t o t h g neralization o f raci ' m namel y t h i dea that 0 i a l i nequaLitie are ' natural ' i n that t hey derive from d i f ference in genetic endowment or i n free choice of l i festyle and career p l u perhap a bit of luck or of adver i ty ) . If anyone prefers ph i loso phizing on an empty tomach to getting rich running gun or lobbying for the arm i ndu try, that i their free choice 0 that they hould not blame ociety. All odal i nequalitie would re ult from ei ther genetic d i fference or indi idual free c hoice , regardles of oei al trueture and i ni ti a l end wm nl. I negalitariani m i s the g ist of the social phil . ophy i nherent in on. ervatis m fa cism and neoliberalism. I t is a particularly
370
Political Philosophy
iciou out 'orne of methodological i nd i idual ism, accordi ng to which e erythi ng . oci al is an outcome of individual choi e. You deserve what e er you get or fail to get. I negalitariani. m became rather di. credited after World War I T partly be cause it was e. �ential to fru cio m . And partly becau. e the vi torious poweL, starting with the U n i ted Kingdom reinforced welfare legi. lation aiming at alleviating po erty, reducing i nequalities, and fore. tal1ing the political dis content th 'y generate. The r 'suIt i that democratic oci al i TIl ha ' triumphed in all of We. tenl EUfOP " even under hristian -democrati ru le sec Esping A nder en 1 990, Nun 2000 Pontu . . on 2005 Berman 2006 . I n recen t times only a handfu l of acadenlic ' notabl y Nozick ( 1 974 , Hayek 1 976), and Narv 'son ( 1 99 , ha e attacked egali tariani . TIl i n al l its gui e ' i n the n am e of liberty-or rather u nt rammeled fre ' en te rpri '. They have ignored the finding of psychologists and social 'ienti ts that extr me inequal i ty i. p rsonal l y demeani ng, hazardous to health, and soc ially corrosi v . Thos scholar. have also ignored th worry of pol iticians that straight faced i negal itari an i . m c a n o n l y w i n the ote of th rich. Thi s i . why smart pol itician. , . uch a. General Peron have clai med to work for . oci a] ju. t ice which H ayek held to b a m i rage ) ; that, to the . u rpri se of m any, the Con 'ervati ve primer m i n ister John M ajor announced t hat the U n i ted K i ngdom i s a cIa ' ' l ess 'ociety-j ust becau 'e most wealth i ' nowaday ' acq u i red rather than i nherited; and that Pre "ident C l i nton h l d that the U n ited S tat . i ' the republic of the m iddle c la . ' ." And most pol i tical philo 'ophers hav embraced eith r b berali sm or 'oeial democracy thu ' adopting egal i tarian i ' m of 'ome kind. A ny pol i tical d i cu · ' ion of equal ity ' hould tart by 'pec i fy i ng th kinds of equal i ty d med to b po ible or d i rable : b iological , eco nomic, cultural pol i tical, or an of th m . Equality of w hat? Right or opportuniti , re ource or outcom . S hould w e k unqualifi ed or qual ifi ed equal ity, equal i ty of reward for qual work, or proport ionality to need and m ri( And what abou t duties? L t u pur u th d i 'cu ion of the e q ue tion we tarted in hapter 3 , Section 2. There are two main kind of egal i tariani sm-flat ( or radical) and qualifi ed ( or moderate ). Radical egali tarian , uch as Niel en 1 98 5 ), hold that al l hould ha e exactly the arne rights and reward . For i n tance, m iner and m athematician houl d work 40 hour a week at the ame wage . By contra t the upholder of qual i fied equality, uch a Ackerman 1 980 , say t hat we mu t m ake all wance for peci al need , qual i fi ca tion. and eff rts.
VI Ion
371
R ad ical galitari an face three objectio n . One 1 that w e ar 1I0t born equal ; d i fferent people ha e di fferent abi l i ties needs, and de. i re . . We al l ha e kn w n t w i n s w i th d i ffere nt i nc l i nations, work and I i sure patte rn s and . o n . o m e p e pI need more h e l p than thers and . o m e are more capab le than others of offe ri ng h lp. W h y the n prete nd that we are b rn equal ? O n l y the dead are equal . A nother pr blem w i th unqual i fi ed egal i tari anism i s that i t i gnores m erit and re ponsib i l i ty. By contra t, qual i fi d egai i tari an i m ay that \/ole m u t m ake al low ance t r pec i al needs and e ffi rt , quali fication and re pons i b i l itie . For exampl m .i n r need m r nouri hment and l e i ure t i me t h an m athematician , w h i le the l atter need m re privacy and trave l fac i l itie . A wel l , the m i ner h uld be comp n ated t r perl rmi ng h az ard u and i n alubrlou ta ks, w her a th m athem at i c i an fi n d h i s o reatest rew ard i n do i ng hi. job wel l-� he nce he . hou ld be offered a bonus o n l y w h e n teaching d u l l . t udent w ho j u. t w an t pas i ng o rades. A fi n al objecti n to radical or fl at e o al i t ari an i . III i s that i t focuse on r i o hts. I t ei ther g l o e 0 er duli e altooether or i m poses the same dutie. o n everybody. I n a j ust � rid there shou J d be no rights w i th ut dutie . and no duties w i thout ri ohts-the motto of the I n ternational Wor k i n g m e n s A dation ( Fi r t I nternational . B esides w h y m ake the a1l1e demand of everyone, k n ow i n g fu l l \ e l l that n b dy can meet them equaU y weU ? W hy not ex pect m re ff m th '> better e ndo\ cd? W h y not repl ace the outdated Noblesse oblige w ith Tal III oblige . O nce radical egal itarian ism ha been di scarded, the concept of soc ial j u st ice m u t be rev i cd. The classical fOl1l1 u l a i til l : We should arrange for a distributi n of r ure that w i l l . atL fy th basic n d f every ne. B ut w h at ab ut I g i t i m ate d sir , uch as th s of read i ng novel s or v i it i ng m useums ? W h at about od al dutie. , sueh a bei ng go d neighb rs pay i ng tax vot i ng and d i ng some l u nt er work? A n d w h at ab ut reward i ng merit. not only out of fairness but also to ne urage p opl to d the ir best? B ecau al l th r s urce s arc l i m ited, we ar al l engag d i n competi tions f var i u k i n I . A n d meri t f s me . rt w i U p l ay a role i n any . mp titi n by d fi n i l ion o f ' . m petiti n ' . Ev ry n sh uld a Imir . I Lene and r gret medi eri ty in aU I g i l i m ate w al k s f l i C from pl umbing to w ri ti n o , b cause e ce l l nc n rich s us al l . The ol ut i n i s n t i s n t t all r the ru l of the race 0 as to pr vent the de feal o f t h e i ncomp t e n t . T h e solution I i i n n o t having t o ompete for basi resource, : in op fli ng th e to w hoever ne d or wants to access th m in an q u i table w ay-that i , w i thout prey n t i ng oth rs from usi ng th m . I n
ision
373
your duty jf you wL h to prc. crv or cnh ancc your c elf-rcc pect and your . oCl al standi n CJ • W hat kind of . oclal order doe, B lanc , formula smzge, t ? I , ub m i t that i t s uggest. a classl ss et merito rati ' so iet � ilh a state \'\ hose main so 'ioe 'onom i ' role is to help implenzen l so ial jusli 'e. That i s, the equality in q ue, t i on would be q u al i fi ed . Eq ual i ty of re, ource. or opport u n itle. ) together w i th obl igation. com men, u rate w i th per. onal abilities. S o much for a th 'oretical justi fication of so 'ial j u ,tice understood a. the fai r share of b 'nefi t ' and burdens, The practical problem is how to a 'hi 've . o i al j u rice w i thout trampling on other ba ic val ue , u c h a. freedom and democracy. Rawl 1 97 1 and other soci al l i be ra l s h ave c la imed that the tate can and I11U ' t i m pi e nl 'nt oc i a l j u st ice. B u t t h i solution i s deepl y fl awed. F i rst the tate can at best offer the so c al l d , afety n t, w h i ch en. ures a . oft l anding but doe. not pr e n t t h pa i n fu l m ateri al and moral degradation cau, ed by d P ndenc and ma, . i ve forced i d l enes, . Second, . tate welfare i nv i t s w e l fare dependence, w h i ch amounts to c hron ic p o v rty a n d i gnoranc . Th i rd . . uch d pendency h u rt. h u man d ig n i ty. Fourt h , nearly everyone obj ect. to w e l fare depend nc -not only the wealthy but a 1 . 0 the work i ng peopl e , who rightly bel ieve that it i s u n fa i r to be a ' ked to pay t w i ce for the i ne ffi c iency of t h reg i m e . F i ft h , state wel fa re invol yes a h uge wa ' t o f h u man r 'ource ' . I t create ' a 'enl i-permanent l u mpenprole tariat j ust a ' parasi tic and poli t ical ly manipulable as the ancient Roman proleta riat . I t i s oft n forgotten t hat state wel fare i s t he chi ld of capitalism, not oci a l i m . I ndeed. it i . ba icaH y a ocial control m hani ' m de igned to protect capitalism and only a mall tep toward quality. I ndeed an orig inal motivation for the i nc ption of ' oc i al 1 g i . lation in Germany B ri tain Franc , and A u tria in the la t two decade ' of th n i n teenth century wa no other than to ward o ff oc iali m G i l bert 1 966 . In um, welfar capitalism though far up rior to i t pr dec or, ' . avag cap i tal i m ," i only a top-gag. for it lea e i ntact the ouree of oci a l i nju tice : the concentration of wealth i nto a mall m inority and univer al coolmod ifi cation. I ugge t that fu l l-fl edged social j u tice cannot come from above. in particular from a tate com m itted to afeguarding economi c pri i lege . I further ubm it that authentic ocia] justice combine entitlement w i th cial dutie and that it h uld and could b con trueted from b low. H w ver t h i poi n t de erves a new eetion.
374
Political Philosophy
5. Cooperat ion
There are alternati e to pure capitali m, among them rnarket ocial i rn, which I prefer to call 'ooperatil e (or bottom-up) so ·ialism. Thi i the ocioeconomk regi me wherein an bu i ne e , except for farni ly operated concern , are m anaged and owned by their worker . Moreover, they rnay cooperate with one another w i th i n and acro national border . Loui B l anc (1 839), John Stuart M i l l 1 848 . Alec 0 e ( 1 983 ), Robert Dahl 1 985 David M iller 1 9 9) this w riter B unge 1 989a 1 998a and many others ha e advocated thi ocioeconomic order, which M arxi t a well a L iberal rej cted . Lou is B l anc ( 1 847 l 1 839J : 1 99 noted the fol lowi ng i rtue of a c oc i ety of cooperati e. which he cal led ateliers so ia ux o - ial work. hop . E en i f the worker l abored only ev n hours per day aid B l anc at a time w hen the usu al workday la ted at lea t twel ve hours, the benefit for them. el es and for the entire . oc iety would CJreatly i ncrea. e for the fol 1ow i n g rea. ons: 1.
2. 3.
4.
Beeau. e he would work f r h i m elf the worker would a e mpli h w i th zeal , appl icati n and rapidjty what he now d e. :Iowly and w i th repug nance ; iety w uld no longer c ntain that cr wd of panu ite ' that Becau e nowaday I i e ff llniv r al d i ord r; Because t h e mo ement o f produ -tion would n o longer OCC U I' i n the dark and in the m i d of chao . which cau e the conge ti n of the market . and has led wi e ec nomi. t to tating that . in the modern nati n . m i ery i . 'aused by production glut; Because . with t h e di sappearancc of compctition, we \ ou ld no longer have to deplore that i ncal ll lable waste of apital resu lting no\ aday. fr m fact rie that c1 . e from . ue c . . lve bankruptelc: from go d that r main un. old, from unemployed w rker, from ickne . es that the exc s and continu it. of l ab r provoke in th ...\lorking la . , and fr m all the di a ter� b rn directJ y from competiti n . �
_
J o h n S tuart M i l l i u ual ly regarded a a liberal tout c u rt even though in hi youth he prai ed ocial i m, and dec lared h i m eif a oci al i st in hi autobiography. He enthu ed over market oci ali m a the democratic alternati e to revol utionary oci a l i m . M i l l did thi i ndependently of Loui B lanc, though nearl y a decade later and the ame year ] 848, that M arx and Engel s publi hed the far more radical, comprehen i e, bril li ant and i nfluential but h ardly popul ar and con tructive Communist Manifesto. I n fact i n h i s Principles of Political E onom 1 965 : 775 M i l l w r te : "The form f a oci ation . . . which if m an k i nd conti nue to
VI Ion
3 75
i m prove m u t b expected i n th end to predom i n ate i not t h at w hich can ex i . t betw een a capitali. t a . chief, and w rkpeopl e w i thout a oice i n the m anagement but th a. s ciation of the lab urers them. e l ves on term. of qual i ty co l l ecti e l y w n i ng th capital w i th which they carry on their perati ns, and worki ng u nder m an agers elected and remo able by the m . el ve s." i nce th t i me of B l anc and M i l l thousand. f cooperative fi rm s m an y f t h m l abor-m anaged. h ave emerged arou n d t h e w d d . u u aU y i n ho t i l e e c n m i c and polltical enviro n m nt . M r 0 er, t h e r h av been and t i l l ar c operati e i n all the ct r f the econ m y, fr m agriculture manufactur , and pu blic works to tran p rtati n fi n ance and tourism. True, the cooperati ve i ord i n ari ly ign red by c n m ic theori t and m an ag ment expert , and e en by mo t pOl it ical ph i l s ph r . It i s the bum blebee o f tandard e c n m ics: i t fl ie d pite the prediction of the expe rts. R egrettab l y. the pop u l ar w ri t i n g on cooperatives are I ng on ei ther praise or condem nation, but sh rt on data. h ara teri . tjcal ly, the pr -c operati ve authors empha i ze the moral superi ri ty f c perati ve ow ner sh ip and management. Thi. asserti n i defen. ible on purely the retical o rounds. N o m ral ph i l osopher si nce Rou seau and K an t d i sputes that autonomy, or sel f-govern ance, r freed m i moral l y uperi r t ther go ernance, r heteron m y or erfd m . B ut f course the anti -cooperati e w ri ter d o not r e ort to ethicaJ argu m ents. They arg ue from uti ljtrui anj sm , and c laim that the m arket get i t alw ay right 0 that l abor-m anaged fi rms are bo u n d t be J e productive i n no ative, and c m pet i t i ve than the i r capi tali st cou nterpart s. The pro cooperati ve author c u n ter that to the contrary, c operati ves m ust b m r producti e and i n novat i ve than conventio nal fi rm . b c au. e no on can I o k b tter after their wn i nterest than the ow ner or co-ow ners. Howe er the i ssue. of prod uc ti v i ty and i n novation are empirical, n t ethical. Regrettably, the avai l able ide nce i s sti ll i nc nclu i ve (Jon s 2007 , ev n th ugh at t h i w ri t i ng the A m rican car i ndu try once th p ri te of capitali. 111, i J angui h in g from poor o lobal c mpeti ti ene s. This trai t i s att ri butabl t it i nabi l i ty to i n no ate, du in turn to i t p r e r n ' f r di i de nds over rei n stment. L t u. leav th i di spute t th xperts, ami n i ng th var i ty f J f-managed sy stem . and proceed t Th r ar three mai n type. of co p rat i v : com m u n , i n tepen d nt pr uc r c perative, an t worker. C op rativ . The ·om m u n e . . from the Pythagore an , E e nian and early Chri st i an cOl11l11 u n i t i s to th A m erican Icari ans in th Inld-n i n te n th century, to th I srae l i k i bbutz i m
376
Political Philosophy
to the hort-li ed Chinese ' pcople' commune. ' . ct up ovcrnight i n 1 958, to the A me rican hi ppie commune. of the 1 960s, are either brotherhood. , extended fam i 1 ie . . or a. . ociat i ons whether free or forced of fam i l ie . . Their members share e erythi n g they own , and l ive accord i n CJ to thei r ow n rule. a n d isolated, a� far a . po . . i b l e . from . oelety at l arge . M o . t of the com m une. have been poor both economical l y and cultural ly. a. wel l as . hort-l ived. And the k i bbutzi m degenerated i n to bu. i ne" firm. thei r m 'mber m arketed th ' produce of h i red A rab h,md a n d cea e d t o liv ' together. By 1 990 the k i bbutzim had jettison d the egalitari an id 'at and democratic nOll11 of the pion 'er. , to be orne ord inary capitabst firm . Let us now g l i mp. ' at th ' c oop 'ratives of ind 'p 'ndent producer ' . Th ' Tribunal d ' la Agua de la Vega de VaJencia i the olde. t cooperati e of thi s kind· i t is al 0 th ' old '. t Europ 'an court of l aw. Thi organi zation of i rrigator was found 'd in l ' lami ' pain in the year 960 ,md it has been meeti ng since t he n every Thursday noon ( Gi ner-Boira 1 960 . It i. the sel f-go e rning body that 0 ersee. the di. tribution of the wat rs of the ri er Turia along the ast network of i rri gation canals and d i tche. in the fertil e Valenc i a orchard. Th ourt . ee. to i t that th ditch s are kept i n good r pair, and that every farmer get water in proportion to the land h owns. I f a coop rator beha es in a s l fi . h manner .g., by steal ing a neighbor' . water or damaging h i s ditch, th Court fi nes h i m , and he pay ' the fine w i thout complai ning. The authority of the ribunal grounded on its tradition of participation, equity and hone 'ty i ' deemed to b even greater than that of the S pani 'h S upr me Court . ( For ' i mi lar example ' of 'elf-managed com mon-pool re 'ourc ' around the world 'ee E ' man and U phoff 1 984; Ostrom 1 990. ) Let u n xt look at labor-m anag d cooperative ' . Th fir. t mod rn one. w re born in 1 844 in Rochdale, near M anche ter. They multiplied quickly i n B ritai n, but after half a centu ry th y reached a plateau pre ' u mabl y becau they w e r mainly r e tricted to retail ing, c redit, and h o u ing, and becau. e m any of t h ir m anag r ' w re Labor Party appointe ' w i th poor m anag rial . k i l l . The next i mportant cooperative experience wa the Mexi can land reform 1 936-39), which culmi nated the agrari an revolut i on of ] 9 ] 0. The Mex i can tate created ejid , collective prop rtie that re u lted from the divi ion of latifundia and fi cal land. Each ejido wa ow ned and managed by a group of pea ant , and had access to the credi t of a special tate bank ; but it wa a1 0 under the thumb of the National Peas ant Confederati n which was i n turn dominated by the PRJ, the rul ing party. The results were m i xed. W herea ome collecti e farms flourish d
ision
377
and became the nuclei of pro. perolL i llage. others decayed becau e of poor m anaCJement and fractious pol itic" a. wel 1 as incompetent bank pol icie. Re. trepo and Eck. tei n 1 979). In 1 992 the M e xican gO ern ment fol 1 owed the pri ati zation frenzy i mported from the U n i ted S tate. , and divided the col 1ective fanll. i n to . mal1 private properties, mOe t of which were . oon bought by big l and owners. Thus clo. ed the cycle that had . t arted in 1 9 1 0: Latifundia �
011 'cti e farms � M i n i fundia � Lati fundia.
The agrarian ooperativ ' , which had be 'n born from the conj u n ,tion of an agrarian movem 'nt w i th the progre j e govern ment of Lazaro ardenas 1 934- 1 940 were ev 'ntuaUy th ' v i ,ti m of a Conscrvati e gov 'mment, ,md sometimes of the i r own m ismanagement too. The Yu goslav cooperati es, which thrived for a couple of decade. after World War I I , e entuall y fai led for pol i tical motive. too. Howe r coop ratives are ali e and well e1 . where. I n fact th re ar h undred. of thou sand. of economical 1 y . ucce . . ful cooperati e. of all k i nds and . ize. around t h world, . ome of them group d i n the I nt ma tional ooperati es A l 1 ianc . Wherea . . om of t hem are l abor-managed. other ' ar a ' 'ociation . of con entional firm ' for 'pecial purpo 'e ' , ' uch a , th marketing of their product ' . For example, in t he Indian 'tate of Gujarat there are 1 1 ,000 v i llag level cooperatives w i th a total member 'hip of 2 . 1 m i llion m i l k producers. U nbeknown ,t to mo ,t profe ' 'or ' of econom ic ' and management 'ci ence, t he annual turnover of the 300 m ajor cooperative ' i n the world i ' n arly l ,OOO bil lion doll ar th equi al nt of t he Canad i an GDP Cronan 2006 . And 90 per ent of tho ' coop rat ives were tab 1 i h d b for L 980-a long vity u n quall d i n the pri vate ' tor, wh re only one-th i rd of new firms la · t mor than fi ve year . S uch longevity i an i nd icator that working in a c ooperati v i. far more ati fyi ng and 1 . . ri ky than work i ng for onventional capital i t fi rm '. Thin k that i n 2006 alon th 1 03 -year-old and once-powerfu l Ford Motor Company 10 t more than 1 bil lion doll ar a month. mortgaged all of it a et , and di mi ed 1 1 5 600 employee . Cooperative are found even i n the U nited S tate , where the m ulti bi l l ionaire ationw ide M utual Insurance Company and the frui t g rowers c ooperatives Sunkist and Ocean Spray tand out. The S w i supermarket hain M igr s is a co p rati e w it h it wn bank and manag ment h 01. So i s C op its m ai n competi tor. I n Italy there are 1 40,000 coopera.
.
378
Political Philosophy
tive grouped i n to three main federation cov ring nlO t ectoL of the economy, from a gricu lt ure and engineeri n CJ to banki n CJ and culture . The mo. t thoroughly cooperative firm. are t h e workers cooperatives, or fiml . under participative management, where every worker i. a co-owner and conver. ely. The social pri nci ple. of these l abor-managed coopera tive. are equaLit parti 'ipativ demo 'I'll '), and solidarit r-both internal and w ith . i ster organi zation, . Thu. they have the i rtues noted by Lou i . B l anc i n 1 39 whi h we recalled abov '. Beside labor- manag 'd fi n11 ' provi de more job security than 'apitali t enterpri e ' which arc l i k 'ly to fold if th 'ir earn i ngs dec l i ne, w herea. i n hard t i me. the worker-owner ' ar ' b ke ly to tay in bu ' ine s because their priori ty i s to sub i t not to get ev 'r richer. Som ' of the J arg '. t and most U ce ' ' fu i e nterpri 'e of thi k i nd ar ' th ' I ta li an Lega dell ' ooperative ' Mutue, founded i n 1 86 and th ' Span i. h Mondrag6n Corporacion Coop rati a. born in 1 95 6, and which i. currently the ni nth Span i . h busine. . fi rm . B oth are federati ons of worker cooperative . . The L ga i ncludes some 1 5 ,000 coop rati es w i th about 4 m i l 1 ion m mb rs and Mondrag6n 1 20 firm. w it h 7 7 000 member. . The difference i n memb rshi p i s du to t he fact that most of the Lega members are cu. tom rs wh r a. al l th members of Mondrag6n are worker-owner " The 'e two cooperative federation ' have very di fferent origin ' . The Lega, l i ke mo ,t coop rati ves in B ritai n, Germany, France and S weden, i . a child of the labor union ' and 'oc ial-democratic part ies ( Earle 1 986 . And Mondragon wa ' founded i n the Ba 'que Country by the young char i ' matic prie 't Don 10 '6 Maria AriLmendiarrieta the Red Prie · t to Con. er ative. ) assi · ted by four engine r. ( Whyt and Whyte L 988 , De. pit th ir ry dift r nt origin th pol icie of tho two federa tion of cooperative. ar quite i m il ar, They both combin ad an d soc i al princ iple w ith · tate-of- the-art ngi neering and 'Olllld bu i ne . . strategies. I n principle. they practic equality, workpl ace demo racy, and sol idarity; th y ha e th i r own bank and m anagem nt chool ; they ar highly diversi fied, and trade w i th one another as well a help partner in di tress. And both fu l fi l l the defin i ti on of the ideal cooperative-i t componen t are total ly owned, operated and m anaged by i t member . Most other cooperatives de iate from thi ideal. Either they h i re worker , do not ful1y own their mean of production are not d iver i fied or do not innovate in t i me . Yet, as w i l l be een below, even some of those model c operative have tarted to de i ate s mewhat from thei r ideal in thei r effort to compete w ith t h e private sector. I,
VI Ion
3 79
Let u take a q u i c k l oo k at IVlondragon. Thi fed rat i o n of eoopera ti es adopted and i mpl mented a , et f pri nciple, w h ich it has re fi ned �006a: 34 ff). Here are or updated fr m t i m e to t i m Mondragon C . these pri nci ples i n my ow n w rds : .
1.
pen admission : Mem b rs h i p i s open t o a l l m th
p r i n i p l"s
f the organ i zati n an d p ro
t h " m - e l es pr f s. i n a l l y
capa b l e ; n e w l y h i red w r k e r are e n c u raoed t
j in
f t e r a pr
ary p ri d of t h rc" years. 2.
Democrati or on ization : are d j sc u
ed in the g e n e ra l assem b l
mem er,
ne v o t ."
Labor .
0\
ma nagenl e n t
\ t h lJ o h t h
ereig n t
:W
,
b i de . b y t h
which
rk i ' the m a i n sou rce
age n t t ran f fin i n g n a t u re .
c i e t , and th
reg u i - i te re s u r e s , r e p r i v i l g e . M re v e r, t h e
I
l i ve member . 111
rule " n
f wea l t h and "the mai n L
t
I t
p ro ' u re
i v e , a l i m i ted r m u n c rati n , and c n f r
n
Pa rti . ipatOf) 6.
opera
h u m an b e i n g .
apital i instrumental alld s u b rdillo le 10 labor: I t i th
f ea h
f the day -to -day op"rati o n s t h e p l ic i e s a n d p lans
t i v e is in c h ar e
nly
f M n drago n are i t s c I
ap i l a l i � I
IUlgemeflt at al l I" c i s .
Retributil e solidari!) : T h e go i n g the p ri vate fi rm s i n t h
alade
re c n
same sector, a n d t h
nan t w i th t ho e o f
m an ag er-worker spread i s
far s m ] J e r t h n i n t h e private s e t o r.
7.
Inler-cooperati
II :
The various u n i t · exchange mem ber ' a s needed, poo l
r i sk s , and share research and tra i n i n g ; bes ides, M ndrago n cooperate ith
i. t r
rgan i z ati n
o ial framiormati n :
M
in
pai n and a r ad.
ndrago n attempt t
for ' a fre"r. mor ju t and s l i dary . l i d ari t y w i t h a l l I h
nil er. ali!) : and share the
0
als o f peac
\
h
\\1
j u s t i e , and de
o f i n terna t i o n a l c o perati v i s m . 1 0.
e
its -hare i n the 'earch
d
iety: r
f ra"
i a l ec n my"
1 pment c haract e r i s t i c
Education : Impr v i ng the educat i n , b th professi n a l o f the mem bersh i p as w e l l as o f t h e immediate s
nd
C
opera t i e ,
ial env i ro n m o t .
M ondragon suce ss h a been explai n d by it strong comnl i t m n t to t h e abo v ' pri ncipl s, along w ith j o b secu ri ty, work sat L facti n, and pride in belongi ng to a succe , fuJ comm n undertaking. This i s ob i ous from i ts effi ciency, w hich 'xce d s that o f m ost com parabJe private e n te rp ri s 'S, and its , urv i al rat · of ne arly 1 00 perce n t in hal f a c ntury. The surv ivabi l i ty of the I tal i an cooperati v 'S is about 90 percent. That of cap i tal ist e n t 'rpri s s doe not reach 50 perc 'nt. How ver the above doe not uffi e to explai n the u ee of Mon dragon i nce, a cordi ng to the proverb th road to hel l i paved w i th g od i nte ntion . I u bm i t that the key to M n dragon ucce h a been
380
Political Philosophy
a w i e intertw in i ng of comnutment to the above oci al pri nc iple. with an ori gi nal and thorouCJh modern bu. i ness . t rateCJY that i nc l ude. h i gh diver. i fi eation, qual i ty control , l arge rei nvestment rate , re, earch and development 5 .5 l?i , or twice a. much a. i n the U . S . pri vate . ector), in novation competitivene . . , concern for l ient . ati. faction and export. 54.4� of manufactured goods). La, t� but not lea. t, Mondragon has it. own bank Caj a Laboral ) soci al -se urity organ i zation (Lag un-Aro , u n i v c r 'ity ( Mondrag6n U nibertsitatea a n d quality- 'ontrol laboratory-al l of w h i h confer it autonomy 1 is-ci-l i corporations and the state . I n short, thi s coopcrative parti ipatc in thc m arkct as a nlcdium- ' i zcd pcer' i t provi de ' i t mcmbcr w i th a n u n 'quailed workplacc, economic sccuri ty, and l i fc tyl " and it growth ha d 'mon stratcd that workers co-pops can bc a powcrfu l 'ngi ne of capital ac 'umulation" Gunn 2006: 349). Mondragon and i t i ster coop 'rativ 's ar ' modcl . of self-gov 'rned [md sel f-pol iced common. , hence counter-exampl . to th Hobbe. i an para digm that domi nates standard economic theory. Still, the vast m ajority of fi rm. around the world ar privately owned. Why then ha. the cooperative mode of own r. h i p and management not ful fi ll d the promise it show d B l anc in I 39 and M i l l i n 1 48 . Thi . i s a b i t l ike asking i f ducation i. so de. i rable, why are there so many i gnorant peopl e . Th answer i. , of cour 'e, that getti ng an education requ i res both per 'onal effort and a favorable env i ronment. An equally pert inent q ue ·tion i . thi '. S i nce private enterprise i s '0 profitable why does i t ben fi t only a tiny m i nority? Why i ' i t racked ev ery few year ' by unpredictable rece . -ions? Why do thou 'and ' of people die per day from hunger or hunger-re lated d i sea 'es? Why do hal f of the fi rm . in th U n i ted State fai l during their fi r t fi year of e x i . t nce� W hy even form r giant l ik GM Ford, and e hry 'ler hav bee n known to b g th U . S . go rnment to bai l th m out? Why ha e orne of th b iggest pro pered only becau th y obtained d fen 'e ontract · . out ourced l abor, ripped off th ir c l ient or raked th ir employee ' reti re ment fund ' . ooperative ha be n far mor . ucc ful than private n t rpri . in both ]onge i ty and work ati faction. Stil1, they con titute only a t i ny ector of the bu i ness world. Why i s thi 0'. Severa] explanation of thi fact ha e been offered (e.g., E l ter ] 989c . My ow n explanation i thi s : Most cooperative tart smal l and w ithout the a et , cap i ta], credit. o r knowledge u u a l l y req u i red to overcome t h e barrier to entry i nto the market; most of them occupy narrow overcrowded n iches e.g., a bakery during a bread emergen y ) ; t hey often h ave an u ncerta i n legal statu ; t hey depend more on the commitment than on the skill f thei r f u nder ; t hey
ision
38 1
do not have cnough -apital to employ advanced technologic or u ndertakc large bu, i ne. . enture. · and very few of them ha e the reserve. needed to keep afl oat d uri ng severe rece . . ion, . For al l of the, e rea. on. , l abor-managed cooperati e, . eldom reach the . i ze required to take advantage of the h uge red uction in co. ts that reo ult from m ass production joi ned w i th advanced te hnology and smart m anagement. Let u. face i t. S ucce. sfu1 cooperatives are e l i ti . t organiza tions i n that they only adnlit k i l led and com m itted members. U n ' k i l led worker , or individuals i nd i fferent to so -ial justice need not appl y. The b 'ggar " o-op i the stuff of fi -tion, from Cervantes to B re hl. The cooperators onstitute the aristo ra -y of the worki ng and lower m iddle c lasses. L i ke all aristocracie th ' ooperati ve i elf- l i m i t i ng . H ow succ '. .ful can a cooperative become? J uan B . Ju ,to 1 947 : 420), the brain surgeon who fou nded the fi r t Arg 'ntine cooperati e, adm itted a. far back a. in 1 907 that, "if th y rcoop rativesl prosper, they l ose all cooperative . p i rit.' Fai lure i. bound to happ n through i ther or both of two m chanism. , one internal and the other d riving from the capital i st nvi ronment. Th fi rst i s thi . . W hen a cooperati e. or any other . ocial . y. t m for that matter, grow. beyond a c rtai n . i ze, the bonds bet\veen m anager. and rank-and fi l e-memb r. weaken, and so does workplac democracy. For example, the members of the huge and highly ' ucce ' ' fu l Cai ' 'e Desjard i n ' credit coope rati ve i n Quebec meet only once a year: They do not participate d i rectly in the day-to-day operation of thi ' big bank which de 'erves being cal led a cooperative only becau 'e it is owned by it . members and d i , tributes i t ' earn ings among the m . M uch the 'arne applies to the Credit Cooperatif, France's sixth large ·t banking group. The moral would . em to b : Keep cooperati e mall. B u t mall fi h do not lao t long i n a sea tee m i ng w ith big fi ' h and harks. H enc th perp tual ten ion b twe n lofty principl and pract ical goal . Th 'econd m chan i m l i k ly to tran ' form a coop rati i nto a capi tal i , t nt rprise i . t h e need t o comp t w i th private fi rm . in the am c tOf. For exampl as M ondragon grew to becom a tran ' national conglomerate, market value such as competitivene efficiency and client ati faction started to crow d out socia] va]ues, uch a o] i darity equality, and participative governance. A far wor e ca e wa that of the B olivian m in i ng cooperati ve . The 4,000 membe rs of the e cooperatives allotted them el e high earn i ng but did not reinve t i n i m pro ing the venti lation y tern, which had be om i n . u fficient and consequ ntly u n healthy and i n ecu re. Wor e was to c me ut f gre d : A t the b g i n n i ng of 2007 the C operati e m iners
382
Political PWlo ophy
c i a hed w i th th salari d Ini ner w h " or k d at t h t at -ow ned fi rm that m i ned th same fabu lous H uanun i t i n m i ne . Accordi ng to press report. , the c perati e mi ners had , ei zed part f the state-ow ned part f the m i ne i n search f more profi table . am . . ThL caused the . ecuri ty g uards to fi re on the w uld-be t i n pi rate s. Th i. tragedy moved the I ft i. t g vern ment to n at i n al i ze the e n t i re m i n i ng i ndu. t ry. Tn , u m , the. e m t rl l ng c perativ s fai led becau. e they m i , managed the mselves, and r p l aced ol idari ty w i th the 'spirit" f cap it al ism . Another r ad t c perative breakdow n 1 t h i re w rker or ut ouree j b . In thi w ay som e of th w rk i p rform d by non- w ners, the upper m an age ment c u n c i l b c m mor p w rful than the gover n i ng cou nci l at th ba e , and employee part i c ipat i n w eake n . A a re ult, i n M n dragon " [t]he rel at i on h i p w ith th cu tomer i c m j ng to be pJi i I ged er empl yee rel ation and th employee' r latlonship to the co perative i t. e l f ' ( heney 1 999 : 1 48 . The I tal i an experie nce is . i m i l ar. "The big coop. are l os i n o the ir i d e I gical i n spi rat ion a n d concentrate i n creas i n g l y on m an agerial e xperience and m arket competi t i vene. s agai nst pri vate or publ ic ector rivals ( arle 1 986: 204 ) . he I srae l i k i bbutz i m are paral l e l . I n b u i ness, a i n art, excessi e u c e. . m ay bre d e mplacency cor rupt i o n and eventual l y fai l ure . t i l l co perat i ves would presumably thrive in a c i al order w here al l fi rm except f r th '> fami l y -operated ne , w ere cooperati ve . ( Oddly, i n Franc", the n rst bourge i n at i n i n h i t ry about 44 percent o f t h '> finn h a e n o e m p I yees, and nearJ y t h '> ame number have bel\; een 1 and 1 9. B ut uch ec nOlnic order, fte n cal led mark f sO ialism ha never bee n t ried it i s eldom d i scu cd i n the l iterature and i s not even me ntioned i n th p r g ram of any contem p rary p l i t kal p arty. Would it h e lp if the tat w e re to sp n or cooperative s ? Not n the w hole, becaus co perati v are vol u ntary a n d s I f-g erni ng as oci a tions' more ver they sw i m agai n. t th current i n that th y . eek s c i al j u . t ice . L i ke I e , courage . and c reati i t y, co perat i ve can n t be i m p , ed. This is why th tat -c n t rol lcd kolkho ,e (col lect i ve farm s ) I f-go erned and i n the f rm r ' i t U n ion fai led. Far fr m bei ng s e k i n g t develop th fu l J p ten t i a] o f th ir m e m b rs, they were � r 'cd t m eet qu tas s t arbi trari ly by di tant bureau 'rat . When th y fai lcd t to , , the ir tllan ag r. just do ,t red th ba l anc sh ts. A n d when th st ate- w ncd fact ri es did not d Uv r their supp l i , a 'c rdi ng to p l an th
ko/kllo m a nager woul d travel far aw ay and try to bri b the offici al i n charge o f the need d upp l i s . Fear breed corruption not cooperat io n .
ision
383
Of 'ou r c, th tatc nU1Y e ncourage th organi zation of new coopcra ti es and help finance their operation as wa. the ca. e in Mexico duri n CJ the Cardenas period ( 1 934-40 ) . B ut i t . hould respect their autonomy, for the very idea of a . tate-control led cooperati ve i . a n oxymoron equi valent to a . tate-. ponsored anarchi . t cl ub. The problem L that, e en if moo t people were persuaded that market . oci al L m i s t h e right road to economic democracy, i t i . not c lear how this project ou ld be implemented by peaceful means. Yet the Italian Lega found a viable solution a centu ry ago-buying fai l 'd api tali t ente rpri 'e and turn i ng them i nto ooperativ ' . A we had seen earlier, a s i mi l ar though mor ' radical 'ol ution 'merged in Argentina aim 0- t ac c identaJly at the turn of th ' m i l lenn i u m : Th ' occu pation of factori 'S that had been gutted and abandon 'd by th 'ir owner . So, this is a po ' ' ible g 'ne is of e onomic d 'mo -racy : A pho 'nix-li ke r ' ivaI from the a hes of . elf-combu, ted capital i. m. A cIa . . ical arg u m nt for capital ism i . t hat it encourage. initiat i . Schump ter 1 950 refuted this argument by showing that in th modrn corporation i nnovation l ies in team. of exp rts . M oreover, it is well k nown that th mod rn corporations are not run by bold ntrepren ur. but by managers-who ar typically more motivated by bonuse, and other perk ' than by th pro ' pect ' and risk ' of free enterpri ·e. I n sum, not only the labor-owned-and m anaged c ooperati ve, but also the modem corporation 'ugge 't that capita l i ·t ' are los i ng their raison d 'etre. fler aU, the c u rrent capital-labor rati o in the U n i ted S tat . is only $ 1 50,000, a ' u m that most bank ' would lend to the a erage homeown r. And, by r eat i ng that about two-th ird ' of all new A merican bu ' i ne 's firm ' la , t Ie than f i year , t h e yearbook Bu ine H Failure R e ord ha ' unw it t i ngly punctured the myth that capita l i m i . a ' afe and e fficient road from rag to riche . 6. S ustainability
Exc pt for n ocon. ervative and mark t fundamental i ,t . veryon is increa ingly conce rned over the rapid exhau tion of non- renewable natural re ources, oi l ero ion, global warm i ng, desiccation, 10 of oil and other envi ronmental disa ter ( Stern 2007 . In urn, the m odern economy, whether cap i ta l i t or not, i s un u tai nable. Regrettably, there i no con ensu on how to mea u re u tainabiHty hence on how to m anage it. I hop the fo] )ow i ng sugge tions may help. We start by rec al l ing the tandard d i t incti n between renewable r a nd non-renewable nr) re ources. Resource management (e.g., C lark 1 976
384
Political Philosophy
tcachc. that the fonner c .m be cxploi ted i n a u. tai nable fa hion provided the h arve . t i n g rate i . . i g n i fi cantly . maller than the reproduction rate . ( I n obv iou, symbol . , Sr = II / r , and r « I . A , for non-renewable reo ources, by de fi n i tion they can not be e x ploited i n a . u, tai n able man n er; for ex ample, a m i n eral �eam and an oil well w i l l eve n tual 1 y become ex hausted . The best w e can do i. to repl ace tho. e resource. w ith altern ative materi aL , the w ay n atural drugs are , y n thesi zed in the laboratory, and copper wa repJa 'd ba i a l l y w i th and wh 'n fiber optics w as i ntrodu ed i n tel 'phony. I n short , S'II' = fraction o f materials ubstitution. Obviously, S, ranges bet ween 0 [md l -[m u nattainable idea l . The total degree of sustaillabili0 can th ' n be d ,fi ned a the sum of the i nd ices of u 'tai n abl ' e ploitation [md sub , t i tution . (That i S = Sr + Sm: We shal l l ater u , th i ' index to i mprove on th ' U hum(U] de e lopment i ndex . Contrary to w hat . om economi st. h ave fantas i z d, not all re. ource . are eith r fu] ] y renewable or ful l y r plac able . The case of wat r is a . clear as trag ic. There is no k n ow n way to reple n i . h t h d e p-ly i ng aqui fers, and , om of the surfac water vaporat . and e . cap . from Earth . Our p l anet i. dry i n g up. ) En i ron mentali st. are right in worry i n g about t he sustai n ab i l it y of the natural enviro nment, 'ubject a ' it ha ' been for two centurie . to the brutal demand ' of large- 'cal i ndu ' t ry and rapi d transportation . W h i le the i r e fforts had ' ome ' ucce " i n the 1 970 ' and 1 980s, the i r cau 'e ha . been 'ystematical l y ignored or even boycotted by n ear- ' i ghted bu ' i ne ' s me n and the pol itician ' and economi ·t ' who priori t i ze economic growt h o er susta inabil i ty-as i f n ature were i n fi n i te a n d r e ' i Iient. There i s no economic activity w i thout n atural re 'ource ' , and the ' are fi n i te and u l nerable. How ver, economic growt h , or at l ea. t an economic · teady .tate i. i n principl compatible w ith n i ro n m n tal protection. Thi ' k i nd o f growth i . w hat th B mndtlan d ommi ion call d su tainable deveLopment-' t hat w h i c h me t . all th n e d of the pre n t w ithout compromi i n g t h abi li t y of futur g n ration t o meet t h i r o w n ne d ," WCED 1 98 7 ) . Fi ne, b u t hard t o meet a s l o n g a o u r ru lers are comp l i d t w i th reck l e corporation to t h e poi n t of rol li n g back the en i ronmen ta l -protection legi lation pa ed in the ] 970 and ] 980 . In fact, at thi w ri t i n g u tain able de e lopm e n t i s but an admirable but d i tant goa l . A an e nthu i asti c practi tioner put it, "beyond ay i n g e entially waste not. w a n t not, su tain abi l i ty fa1 l off a c l i ff when ap plied t i lie s l i ke the u e of i rreplaceable oil or irrepla eabl m i nerals or de po i t i ng e sen t i al l y i nd tmctibl e p l lutant i n t t h general envi-
ision
385
ronnl nt. And w hen it come to biod i cr ity the confusion and i nternal [ i n ] con. i tencie, are even wor. e ' ( A ppleton 2006 : 1 4 . u. tainable development i. a noble goal becau. e it i part of our moral obl igat ion to our off. pring. B ut it L unattai nable unle. s development is understood a. e 'OS() 'ial (both natural and . oci al ) rather than a, either purely en i ron men tal prote tion or purely economic growth and unle . . i t i. guided by a , ystem ic and interdi scipli nary research i nto a myri ad of i tem , . u h a gr ' 'n dome tic-produ ·t accounting, g reen non-pollut ing) eng i neering and chemi 'try, solar-heated hous ing, aIr 'mativ ' en 'rgy source. such a ' sol ar 'wind' , population contro l , . hrin k i ng of the N orth-South gap, technological a i stance to developing countri e ( so that they w i l l pol l u te less rather than b ' 'n g iven handouts by the nlajor offender ) radical reduction of g re 'nhouse gas e m i . ion far beyond the one req u i red by the Kyoto protocol) , i nternat ional m an agement of th . ea. , i ncrea. in agricultural effici ncy. tc. J ust thi nk of the l ast it m . Food production costs now about fou r t i mes th nergy it del i ers-a case of technological and economic '"rational ity' gone . ociany mad. Which incidentally i . why r placing gasoline with thanol derived from com is uneconomic: because corn production con, u rnes lots of oil fertiliz rs, and pe. ticides. The production of biofuel from . ugar can refuse as practiced in B razil, i . more efficient, but the soi l era 'ion cau 'ed by 'ugar cane cultivation is huge. U ' ing com to fuel cars i s not only economically inept, it is al '0 immoral becau 'e it diverts food from mouth · to gas tank ', and rai ' . the price of food of all kind ' . It only bene fit , the com grower ' and the pol i ti c ian ' who hope to win their gratefu l vote ' . S ome experts believe that t he G MO ' genetically modi fied orgam 'm . ) a r the olution a . far a ' food production i concerned. Tru G M O c rop ' are bigg r than normal crop ' . B u t at what ocial and n i ronmental ost. ! The m u h-prai ed Gre n Re olution tarted in I ndia i n th 1 960 . was achi ved u ing h igh-yi ld grain. tog t h r w i th f rtil i zer and irrigation and i t greatly i ncrea ' d t h grain produ t ion in I ndia and el ewhere . B u t thi m thod enriche l andown b cau. e these mean ' ar v ry expen i e r and i mpoveri h e poor farmer who c o n titute the va t majori ty o f t h e I ndian rural population. I t also exacerbate t h e con fl ic ts over t h e use of water degrades the oil, and deplete the aquifer , for i t call for the drilling of wel l at ever increa j ng depths. Fi nal ly concentration on a few h i gh yield cultivar decrea e biodiver i ty and thu i n i te plagues l i ke the famous I ri h potato blight around 1 850. If all the e co t are fact red i n i n turns out that "organic" agricu lture i s more effective than agri bu i ne FAO 2007 .
386
Political PWlo ophy
B ide , the u e of M O put fann e r at th m er y of a B w g i an t c rporation. , l i ke t h e i nvent r f the de i i i . h ' term i n ator" gene, that ster i l i zes the . eed f the plant i ssued from the genetical l y m d i fi ed . eed. O n top of i t al l , m . t I ndian. cann t afford t o b u y t h e res u l ti ng B asmati ri ce, reputedly the be. t i n the world. These and other perver. e con sequences f the ' m i rac le" seeds, have bee n denounced by . oci al acti i st. such as Vandana h iva 2005 . A 'human i nt r t ' facet f the ree n Re o l llti n i that f th un cou n ted I ndian farmer t reed to seU thei r l an d and m ig rate to the shanty t wn urrollnding th big citie , where th y ca e nge al ng ide 111 nk y and u ltur . A nother horrify i ng i de i that an m any I nd i an farmer h a b e n f reed t e l l a Jddney in order to pay bac k t moneyl en der -on l y t rem ai n s debi l itat d that they c an h ard J y w ork. A neo L i beral m ight object that the w rd ' forced ' in the pr i u sentence i s i nappropri ate, si nce those pe p i e are al . free to com m i t suicide-w h i ch they ofte n do. W h at woul d the Indian poor do � ithout the freedom g uaranteed by the i r adm i rable co nstitution? I n short , a ocioeconom ic pol icy m ust be sustai n able i n three m utu al l y complement ary way : en i ron mental l y, econ m ical ly and cial ly. Otherw i e a nati o n ru n the ri k of becom i n o , l i ke h i n a an conom ic giant o n the verge of en ir nrne ntal col l ap e and pol i t i cal tunn i l . To be su t ai nable, de "lopme n t m u t be i nteg raJ rather t h an ect ral or piecemeal ( 8 u nge 1 9 79a, 1 99 7 ) . 7. Peace War is not
n l y the
111
t i rrational and wa te fu l m e an s t
resol v "
i nternationaJ con fl ict . I t i s a l the most hei nous cri m as the Li ue Internationale et Perm anen te r ic 1 de la Paix proc l ai med in Paris in 1 70, on the ev of the Franco-Pru i an w ar. War i th u l t i m at i m m ral i t y becau. i t i nv I v s m ass murder a n d t h e i rreversible d isruption f the l i ve o f many peopl wh h a e no stake in it, and who hav not bee n consulted o n \ hether they were w i l l i ng to m ake the u l t i mate sacrifice b en pre en table an t ther � r for ' the cau e ." Wor. e, m t war ha i m m ral . J ust thi n k f the c I n i al wars and of th tw w or ld w ars b th higg red by the t rri t rial am biti n s f g r at p wer . lr n i caH y mi l itary h i st fi ans teach u that m ost c n temporary w af enL i n i t i at rs en t up i n d � at. Thi s i tue t th fact t hat u n for se n af b und to occ ur duri n o the c ur f any war, parti 'u larl y w h n pro tract d: un x pected en my re i st anc n w weaponry b l e k i ng of acce to r sourc shi ft i ng a ll i ance dam tic oppo i ti o n , and other . There-
ision
387
fore th i n fonnation a 'qui rcd during the war and u cd by th m i li t ary to make tactical decisions, often outweigh. the i nformati on available prior to its outbreak . Thi. i s the i nformation that had been used by the pol iticians to m ake the "rational ' , trategi de i. ion to . t art the ho. t i l i tie. ( S l antchev 2004 ) . Therefore, while we may know how war. begin, we are seldom able to predict how they wil1 end. Ibn KhaldGn 1 967 ) knew al1 thi . a, far back a. 1 37 7 . I f o n L y for t h i s reason, t h e rational-choice m o d 'Is of w a r a n d revolu tion e.g., Bu 'no de M e 'qui ta 1 9 1 , Boix 2 00 are ba icaHy w rong . I n pafti 'ulaf, the probabilisti ' consideration occu rring i n such model arc out of place be au e th 'r ' is nothing random about p it:Ulning to k i l l and d ' 'troy on a large seal ', not e en i f i t i i nd i rim inate a i n t h e cases of carpet-bombing. or arc util ity or e l se Lo ) consideration apposite if a. is cu tomary, they are I j m i tcd to body counts and overlook the civil ian lo. ses, euph mistical1y called 'collateral damage, ' a. well a. th cultural destru c tion . . S ome pol i t ical sc ienti. ts h ave clai med that democratic war i niti ator. ha a . omewhat gr at r ' probabil ity' of w i nning war. than th ir un democratic '"en m ie . . ' ( They should say ' frequ ncy.' not 'probability.' B u t th y do not note that the mor d mocratic a r gi me, th more sham ful i t i ' for i t to perpetrate m i litary aggre . -ion " [or these 'how contempt [or t he right · of other ' not quite a d mocratic fee l i ng . Such i ncon ' i 'tency i s particularly seriou . when the cau 'e i ' morally de ' pi cable, a . wa ' the ca 'e with the t wo Opiu m War ' to keep the opium trade going) and the two B oe r War ' ( to grab the land of the Orange Free S tate) waged by the B ri t i ' h m p i re a ' w 1 1 as by the many 'punitive expeditions" again 't th arious p opI that dared r i st B ritish rul around the world. For tunat l y, m any Brit fel t moral re ul ion at the Bo r war after all th Boer wer white and h ri ' rian . and ven d cade. Iat r m any A mericans oppo ed their m i l i tary ' feat · and d feats in Vi tnam-at I a t a . . oon a student tarted bei n g drafted . G nuine commi t m nt to d mo racy at home 'hould i ndud re pect for i nternational l aw in parti u l ar th seIf dete rm i nation of people . I t i s well known that m odern wars are total. They affect not only the combatants but al 0 c iv i lians and their natural and ocial env i ronment. They have economic. politicaL c u ltural and demographic cau e and ef fect . I n particular. war break up fami li e , bu i ne es pol i t ic al parties and entire nation -as weU a generate new war both i nternational and i i l . Re all the Ru i an Revolu t i n l arg Iy a byprodu t f World War l' the Cold War, prutially a byprodu t fW rId War n · the Chi n e R volu -
388
Political PWlo ophy
tion, part l y a n equenc f the J apanes I nv a i o n of C h i na' th S pa e Race, part of the old War ; and the col l apse of the iet empi re, part l y a.o;; a c o n . equence f t h e arm . race and t h e viet m i l i tary i ntervention in A fghan i . tan . S ee M ayh w 2005 for the m u lti fari ous en cts of fi ve major w ar. n al l aspects of A merican s ci ety. ) There for , just as wars are too im portant to be left i n the hand. f the m i l i tary s the i r study is too comple and i mportant to be the excl usive concern f Ini l itary hi torian and p l itical c i e n ti st . War h u l d be i n v e tigated b y aU ocial cienti st a n d t h i r m m n fi nd i ng hou l d b e made ace ible t every body. Thi 111 i g ht h e l p alert and mobi l i ze the pub l ic agai n t the mach i n ations f un J ected yet p w erful functi n arie -entr pre neurs uch a the ' architect f the I raq w ar, p l an ned and exec uted o n the ba i of l ie , and cou nting n the com p l i c i ty of parli ame ntar i an and j urnali t . a w e l l a n the gu l l ib i l ity of the pub J i c and the i le nce of most pol i t i cal c ie n t i t. . H o� m ight war be a oided? Acc rd i ng t the s -c alled ' democratic peace theory, end rs d by . ome e m i nent p I itical . c ie n ti sts, such as Ru ert 2003 ) as wet l as pol i tical ph i l . pher such as R aw l s ( 1 999), and p l i t icians suc h as B i l l l i nton , de mocracy i s the be t peace guar antee. The "probab i l i ty of w ar betw en t:\; democrat i c state. w u l d b e e x t rem '>Jy I w . M ore prec i el y accord i n g t o t h e doctr i n e i n questi n t h e retati n bet \ e '>n d '>m c rati zati n and w arfare \ ould we l i ke a p arabola or an f \ ar grow at th '> i nverted U : W h i t '> th '> 'probab i l i t y " ( frequency beg i n n i ng f the democrati z at ion pr ce , it decrea e after a peak ( ee, e .g . , K adera '>t al . 2003 . Thi theory acc unt � r th '> fact that the B ri ti h '
i m perial i st wars, such a th ri m ea n war the B o r war and the N rth western Fronti r h sti J i tie. w re waged w h i t democracy wa expandi ng at home. It also explai n why th ampl i tu d and i n tensity of the A merican attack. o n I ndo h i n a and the concom itant A merican upp rt t r the outh Vietn am e e reg i me i ncrea. ed at the ame time that ne\ c iv i l rights leg i slation w as bei ng e n acted on the d me. tic front. f B ut d In 'rati ' p a ' th ory d e not a 'c unt f r th p r iste n ' A m rican m i li tary aggr ssi n after Vietnam . W i tn . s the r J n t l e . . i ne r a. e i n th n u m be r o f A merican m i l it ary ba. e n aJ I c n t i nent , a. wel l as the U . S . . upp rt of aJ I the repressi e reg i m s i n th T h i r t W rid. Dem cratic p a ' t heory i too s i m p l t b t rue : it i nv lves o n l y tw pol i t ical ariable . . and i g n or s oeopol i t i cs th ec n m y in particular n at ural re ources and th cultu r ( i n p art i cu l ar id ology , I f th r i s a real con n ction betw een peac and d m ocracy, i t i m uch \\ ak r.
ision
389
W hat is pIau iblc L that as long a an i n t rnational confl ic t i . not o er territory or natural reo ources, i t has more chance. of bei n g resol ved i f the partie. i n the confl ict are democratic. becau. e then they will tend to resort to debating and barCJain i ng rather than k i l l i ng . It i . tempt i n g to belie e that publ ic opi n ion i. an add itional factor in a democ ra y. B ut o erwhel min gly adveLe publ ic opi nion did not prevent the B riti. h gov e rn ment from joining the U n i ted tate. in invading I raq : nor did i t . top the B ush J r. Admi n i tration in ke 'P 'end i ng oldiers ev 'n after all the m i l i tary expert agr cd that thi war cou ld not be won. Public opinion is pow 'rless w ithout popu l ar mobil i zation. H ow m ight the l i kel ihood of international confl ict b ' m i n i mi zed? The joint operation of the fol lowing mechanisms m ight do the t rick: a) rcdu tion of all armament to defen ' ive weapons, such as ant i -air raft gun , and nationa lization of the all11 production and trade ; b) a strong non-partisan peace mov ment, s i m i l ar to th one that forced Pr . id nt N i xon to r . igll' (c the . trengthening of democracy to include m andated publ ic participation in deciding man rs of war and p ac . (d drastic world-wid r duction of consumption of fo . . il fuel. ; ( e international . tewardshi p of natural r . ource. ; ( f) a muscled UN capabl of nforc i n g the observance of i nt rnati onal law; g ) schools and pol itical parti . teaching that aggre ' ' ion on any lev I i s i mm oral and u l t imately coun ter-producti e ; (h) ' upervi ' ion of corporate activities abroad to prevent e xp loi tation and interference in internal affarrs�a . in Angola, Chad, Congo, l ory Coa ,t, S ierra Leone, and other former colonies. ote that, wherea ' 'ome of the 'e mechan i s m ' are dom , tic, other ' are i nternati onal ; but every one of them d pend ' on other member ' of th arne ' t. I n particular, th pro. pec� for peace are d i m i f the w ruthy countrie ' k p con ' u m i ng oil at the pre ent rate, for mO. t of it can b acquir d by force. 8. G lobal Governance
Th horror of th Fir t World War p r 'uaded som key European tate men of the need to con truct a g lobal organi zation capable of put t i ng i n place the fir t g]obal secu rity mechan i m . Thi wa the League of ation , born in 1 9 1 9. Regrettably thi organi zation had two birth defect . I t enforced the wrongs i n fli cted by the Ver aille Treaty u pon the defeated power . and in ented two art i ficial and therefore fragi ] e nation -Yugo lavia and Czecho 1 0 akia. B eside i n the 1 930 i t d i d n o t stop t h e aggressi n of t h e l a wIe tates-Gen11any Japan, and haly-Iargely from fear of comm u n i m .
390
Political PWlo ophy
The Se ond World War per u aded th n L ightened stat m n of the day e en the arch-i m peri al i st and be l l i co. e h urch i l l , that i n ternationalism trump. n ational ism ; that an i nterdepe n dent w rid l i ke ours need . . ome g lobal go ern ance t pre ent n ational i nter st fr m com peti n g w ith one an th r t the p i n t f cau. i ng g l bal cri ses from fi n anc ial m e l td w n s t o w rid war . . T h i s rea. o n i ng l ed i n 1 945 t t h e prese nt i nte rn at i onal sy ste m , c mp . ed f the U N and i ts age ncies, i n part i cu l ar FAO W H O , IL U E 0 , a n d U N D P, a s w e J l a s t h e fear orne trio-the I M P, W E , and W T , nee ATT-supple m nted b y a et of i n ternational tr at ie e Ken nedy 2006 . U n fortunatel y, thi s new sy tern t 0 i s fl awed . � beg i n w ith, i t i s rep r e ntat i ve but n t dem ocrati c . It i re presentat i v b cause it member are app i nt d by the mem ber tate ; but it i u ndem crati c because the w althie t nati n s w i e l d d i pr port i n ate p wer. Por x ample, et pow e r h a. rendered the U N al l but i ne ffectual as a p ace bro ker; the m i . . i o n f the W TO i s to ex pand i nternational trade reg ard less f human rights consideration. and i n � ay . that be nefit. m o. tly the n i ted ates and the E U ; and the I M F lends money on c ndi tion t h at the borr wer ob. erve. the Wash i n o t n nse nsu. , w h ich i nc l udes curbi n o s i al expe ndi ture . B eside , the . aid system doe. not even c n template do i ng anything e ri ou ab ut Tn t of the gl bal chal lenge , from g l obal warm i ng verpopulation, and resoure deplet i n to globaJ securi t y and v ioLat i n s f human right . Last, but not J e ast, its funding i in u fficient an n u al budget amounts to w hat Can ad i an for peacekcepi n g : the U pend on B ox i ng D ay. The nccd for a m uch m re equ i table, effccti c and robust gl bal gov'>
'
rnance bec mes ob iou. the moment on real izes that th r are g lobal i ssue. that n ne of the nearly 200 m mb r n ations can beg i n to tac kle alon . Thi is because people are not h ep and the i ssu s in questl n are p lanetary : The pol i t ical frontiers do n t ch ck g lobal w arm i ng r st p th d i ffu i o n of path ge n germ or non-recyclable w aste . Nor do they restrai n c rporatl ns h u ng ry for cheap n atural resources or the desperal ly p or a n x iou to g t j b. abr ad. Let us fa ' i l, the U n i ted " late s, n t th U N . i . C U ff n t J y the J f-ap poi n led gJobaJ C p. A c 'ording to B rz ez i n . ki ( 2004), Pres i te n l C arter'. 1 p at i naL ecuri ty Adv i . e r, a n t a member f the i n fl u n l i al Center for trat g i c and I n lernationaJ tudi , th r arc n J y lwo opti on : G lobal d m inati 1l r g l bal /eadership- i ther by the U n ited ' tat . . of c ur . W h at about g lobal demo rae attai n able through t rength n i ng the U N rath r t h an \\ ak fli ng i t or ignor i ng i t altog t h r
ision
39 1
Some pol i ti cal acti v i t belie e that th g lobal c iv i l ociety 'ould accomplish what not even the UN ha� been able to do. They rem i nd u. that there are about 40 000 i n ternational civil , ociety organizations ( T NGOs plus . ome powerful 60,000 tran. national corporation . . True, nearly e ery one of the. e organi zations cou l d make a ontributi on to global governance, but only in dialogue w ith the national . tate, rather than by them . el es, because none of them has any pol itical clout--except of cour. ' in 'ou ntries ru led by corrupt pol iti ian or m i litary. Kant and oth 'rs have bel i ev 'd in the need for a world � 'deration. The goal ' of such supranational go e rn ment can b ' tated w ithout much controv 'r y. For in. tance, they ould be the on '. advocated by the World Federali st ; or those of the A l l i [mc ' for a R ' ponsi ble Plural and U nited World www.a1l iance2 1 .org . or 'lse those advocated by the Democracy ollaborati ' at the U ni ersity of M aryland www.GOS .org . B ut so far no on seem . to have h i t on how to bel l the cat. Tn particu l ar. the pol i tical sci ntist. . peci al izing i n int rnarional r l ations ha not devot d m uch thought to a constructive approach . Under. tandably. th y are more i n terest d i n th many current conflict. than i n a po . . ibl future global c ooperation. Y t, fortunately, in trying to d sign a world fed ration we do not ha to start from 'cratch, becau 'e the experience o f the European U nion i . rich i n both accomp l i 'hments and fai l u res. To begi n w ith, we know the mo ·t i m portant fact : That the initial i m petu ' for i t came from a firm determination of a handfu l o f pol itician ' ,md civil serv,m t ' to avoid further war ' in u rope. In t h i s regard, the founders of the EU and i ts predece ' 'or ' put unwittingly i nto praclic Thoma ' Paine" principl : "com mon i nter t produce common curity. ' (Contra t thi w ith th c urr nt mantra: ' World p a through world trade .' W al 0 k now that the E U i having trong economic political . I gal and c u l tural impact on i t , m mb r tat . which i n t u rn xert a healthy bottom-up i n fl u nce. Thi s t wo-way traffi c force m utual adaptations through cooperation and n gotiation rather than confrontation . Thi ' is why member h i p i n the E U has had a far tronger i mpact on centrali zed ( ' imple' tate , uch a France and G reece, than on federal ' com pound' state uch as Germany, I taly, and S pain ( S chmidt 2005 ). H ence national federal i m, a pract iced by the U n i ted S tate , India Canada, and S w itzerland, i a good preparation for world federali m . Fortunately m uch g lobal governance can be achieved w i thout g lobal goveo1J11.ent and s me g od re ult have been gained t hrough complian e w i t h i nternati nal law and the ac ompanyi ng re traint n i mperial amb i -
392
Political Philosophy
tion, . A n cpi, t m010gical reali st w i l l argue that n i ther exhortation nor violence w i l l a hieve thL goal . B u t he may hope that, ju. t a. B ri tai n wa. forced to regu rgitate India when it real i zed that it coul d no longer afford to rule i t B ri tain . succe . . or i n the world . ystem m ay eventual l y re, i gn its job a. top cop, and . eek i n . tead the company of the good guy. i f and when the co. t of bombing and occupy i n g foreign , oi l exceed, the benefit. of exploiti ng i t . M ay we hope that c ome of the rational-choice . oci al s 'ienti t who adv i 'e the Leaders of the Fre ' World w i l l argu ' that , uch a cost-benefit analysi i s req u i red i f only to prevent th ' current A merican fiscal debt from cru hing the n 'xt few generations of Am 'ricans . I n the m '[m t i me 'om ,thi ng C,Ul b ' done to corr ct th ' 'rious flaw ' i n the organizations and treat i 's that regu late i n t 'mational trad " i n particu lar the global ization proces . These fl aws wer ' pointed out by th ' World Com m i s ion on the Social D imension of G lobali zation ( U N 2004 which started by noting that " fplubl ic debate o n globali zation i. at an i mpass Opin ion i. frozen i n the ideological c rtaintie. of entrenched po. ition. and fragmented i n a variety of i nt r sts' ( po i x ) . The faul t l ie. not with global ization it. I f but by defi c iencies i n i ts go manc : The "liberalization" proce . . i. b i ng conduct d in a way that "is generati ng u nbalanc d outcomes, both b twe n and within countrie. Wealth i . bei ng c reated but too m any countrie ' and people are not sharing i n i t . ben fits. They al '0 have l ittle or no voice i n 'haping the proce ·s. Seen through the ey ' of the va ,t majority of women and men, globali zation has not mel thei r simple and leg i ti mate a 'piration . for decent job ' and a bette r future for their children . . . . The 'e global i m balanc . are moral l y unacceptabl a n d pol itically un ' u slainable" o p . c i l . : x ). Th rea 'on i. that globalization ha . been de igned in a sectoral fa. h ion : , Global mark t5 hav grown rapidly w i thout the parall I d v lopme nt of economic and oci al i n titution ' nece . ary for h i r mooth and equ i tabl functioning. At t h same t i me, th r i con rn about the unfairn of key g lobal rul e ' on trade and fi n ance and th ir asym m tri effect on rich and poor countri . . . . Th rul ' and pol icie. are th outcome of a sy tem of governance largely hap d by powerfu l countrie and powerful player . There i a eri ou democratic deficit at the heart of the sy tem' op. c i t . : xi). I n hort, globalization ha failed to i mprove the quality of life of the va t m ajori ty of hum an . Thi i becau e. having been de igned and i mplemented by the powerful , i t has enhanced i nequal i ty. In sum, an i m pro ed and viable regime of g lobal governance remain t be i nvented neg t i ated, and constructed . Raw1 1 999 : 37 ketch d an adm irable "Law of People ," w hich he called a ' reali t ut pia." I t .
0
0
ision
C
=
1 /5 H + K + ES + D + S
395
l2J
where H and K are the . a m e a . i n [ 1 ] where as ES = Econom ic . e u ri ty i ndex , D = Democratic development i ndex , and S = u. tainable env i ronmental development index.
M y definit ion of the cconomi - se u rity i ndex ES i thi ES = GDP i nd ' x
x
E mployment rat '
x
1 - G i ni i ndex) ,
l3]
where th ' G i n i index, whi -h varies b 'tween 0 a n d 1 i t h e standard m a. ur of economic inequal ity. G q ual . 0.25 in S weden and Japan. 0.4 1 i n the U n i ted States and Turkm nistan , 0.59 in olombia and H a it i . and 0.74 i n am ibia: N DP 2006, Table 1 5 ). T h rea. o n for r plac ing th E in r 1 1 with th abo ES i ndex i. that a h i gh GDP do s not h Ip th unemployed or the very poor. Th D occu rring in r 2 1 i s the de mocracy i ndex i ntroduced in chapter 7, 'ec t ion 7. D measure ' the degree of participation in i n fluencing both poli cy and governance. As w i l l be recal led, i t , val ue i ' - 1 for autocracy, near 0 for repre 'entativ democracy, and + 1 for participative d moc racy. F i nal ly, the environmental su ·tainabi lity i ndex S wa ' i ntroduced i n 'ection 6 . H owever, t h i ' i nde i s fl awed becau 'e i t i . unrelated t o TMR , o r total m aterial r q u i r ment. A w e a w i n t h pre iou ' chapter TM R i s the amount of natural re 'ourc . requ ired to produce U S 1 00 worth of good . The curr nt value of TM R j about 300 kg of m aterial p r U S $ 1 00. Th r ar n¥o way of dec rea i ng thi man trou rate to a u ' tainable Ie 1 : to i n rea rad i ally th i n e t m nt i n R & D i n green ngineering and chem i , t ry and to rai . substantial l y the pri of non renewable raw m aterial . I n any event, u n l i ke TMR , the de i rable su tainabil i ty i ndex hould be a non-dimensional quantity lying between 0 and 1 or better, between - 1 and + I . Thi de i deratum would be met if natural re ource could be attri buted a natu ral pric one i n natural product -rather than a market price i n bank note . For i nstance how m uch g reen pace could a barre l f crude o i l buy i n audi A rabia' or how m any bu hel f wheat uld a gol f c u rse i n Arizona pr duce?
396
Political Philosophy
Presumably if me'L u red by our dev lopment i ndex a few countries, in particular the Nordic one. , wou l d retai n their pre, ent ranks; other. , su h a. Co. ta Rica and U ruguay, would be upgraded becau. e of thei r good pol itical perform ance; Great B ri tain, t h e U n ited S tates a n d other. wou l d be downgraded becau. e of their economic i n . ecurity - and sti l 1 other. , u h a . hina a n d Cuba wou l d b e downgraded becau. e o f thei r poli t ical backwardne . . . So much for the goal, namely, 'nhanci ng the quality of l i fe of e eryone. Let u now ta k l ' th . que t ion of th . be t mcans to attain it. The orthodox rcc i p ' i s i m p le cnough: Combinc pol it i cal dcmocracy w i t h free markcts. In other word , pol i t i 'al dcmoc racy wou ld b ' th ' pro 'cdure for actu a l i z i ng joi n tl y two alu " : the pur. uit of happin . , , and th . public good. H owev 'r a ' we aw i n thc preccdi ng pagcs, though highly aluabl " poli tical d mocracy i s i nsufficient, for i t i . vul nerable, as well as i ndif ferent to other k y values and the correspondi ng rights, c h iefly l ivel i hood, qual ity, a n d sol i darity. I n other word. th procedural conc pt o f d mocracy adopted by Schump t e r Lipset, a n d Poppe r i . far too n arrow. W n ed nourish ment, ducation health car , and human di gnity in ad dition to the abil i ty to resolve confl icts in a peaceful manner and k ick out the rascal ' from c i ty hal l . A long w i t h many other ' , I b l ieve that we need t o enlarge pol itical democracy '0 as to include th above-mentioned mi " i n g values and the corre ' pondi ng right · and dutie · . In an earlier work ( Bunge 1 98 5 : 1 72- 1 7 integral democra ' wa ' characterized a ' t h e reg i me w here everyone is fre to enjoy all the resource ' of 'ociety, a ' wel l a . to par ticipate i n any . oe i al activities ubj ct only to th l i mitation impo d by th right. of oth r . I n other word . I . ubmi t that th prop r mechani m to actual ize all . ix key value ' l i st d previou ly-l i elihood, equality 01 idarity, the pursuit of happine. . comp t nce, and the public good-i inte rat democra . This may be denn d a th joint rule of 1. 2. 3.
4.
em ilvmental d mocra :, : equal but managed a 'cess to natural res ur es and their u tai nable exploitati n ; biological demo Tac J: gender and olor b l i ndness' ecollol1li ' d 'Illocracy: predom inance of self-managed fi rm s fam i l y on ems, operati ve , and nonpr fit rather than e ither private or . tale owner hip and management f wealth ; culrural demo racy: equal acccs. t the art i . t i , h umani stic cientific and t chn logi al heri tage ;
398
Political Philosophy
principle cannot be i mplemented w herever the law favor the powerful, or where the rich can afford to pay for better legal advice than the poor. For i n , tance , in the U ni ted tates, B l ack m urderer. are about L t i me. as l i kely to be convicted than thei r White counterpart, . ) Final l y, global d mO Ta ' is t h e practice of lib ru1, ; lalite, frat rnil ; amon g nation . . Equi alentl y : world governance in the i nterest of al l people. a. well as of the future generation. and the concomitant end of regional and global cop . . The attainment of the e goals i n olvc world d i amlanlcn t, international oopcration, and global governancc of th ' natural r 'source . This concludes our chara teri zation of intcgral dcmocracy. W hat i . th j u ·tification for it? Let me propose the fol low i ng reasons: ..
•
1.
2.
3. 4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
S i n e different per. on. have di ffcrent nced. , di. P siti n. and talent. , ev ry ne hould get what he needs t real ize her e l f, and hou ld C Jl tribute t the comm n good to the be t f her abi l itie . ( Loui . B lan ). e ither unattended need and legiti mate a piration , nor re pon i b i l i ty shirking. S i nce work i : t h e ultimate ;ouree of all wealth S mi th , R i ardo and M arx , every able adu l t hou ld hay both the right and th duty t do 6ain fu l work. Neither alms nor rents nor . pai l . . S i nce everyonc i s entitled t o t h e fru i t · o f hi ' labor Locke and M arx profi ts . hould be shared equi tably. 0 exploitation. S i n e ea h per. on i . " the nly afe g uardian f h i wn right and i n tere. ts' (M i l l , all w rker. . hould havc the . amc . ay in the way their workpla i rganiz d. One worker, ne ote in rnanag ment. Becau " all work require� ome k i l ls, and i nce i n no ation i " e " "ential to biolog ical and ocial ur i aI, u pervisor and manag r should be te h n icaJ ly c mpetent besides being hone t and fair. Bos es no experts f. The common g od i be t pre er "cd whcn e "cryone ha the opportu n i ty to protect, use, and enri 'h it a 'cord i ng to rules designed in the l ight of s ience and tcchnology, and adopted democratical l y. Neither ungoverned nor m ismanaged comm n good . S i nce self-real i zati n i a hu man right. and . i nce frccd m fccl s g od l ib rty , hould be prote ted along w i th equali ty. 0 l i b rty with i neq u ity. S i nce e ryone need " help from s me ne el e, and be aus it fee l " go d to do go d, aItru i m and olidarity hould be r garded a e s ntial to the ci i l ized c e x i ten e f all social groups and the should b' promoted according Jy. 0 right w i thout dutic " H uman right. 'an only be guaranteed w here benefi ts and burdens are equi tably di tribuled- 0 that no per on, organization or nation can take advantage f any other.
400
Political Philosophy
breed v iolence, which i both morally w rong and practical ly i nexpedi ent. S t i l 1 . i t may b e the l ast reo ource to topple a n i nt ran. i gent murderou. regime. The purely parl iamentary road to radical . odal reform too i . blo ked becau, e legal ly elected parli aments are expected t o abi de by the l aw of the l and, which favors privi lege . There i s , however, a possible way out, namely to ombine cooperati ve. w ith pol i tical activ ism : that i. , to multiply the number of cooperati ve finns, rei n force the i r i nter-fi ml coop 'ration, and fight for legislat ion to protect them. I n other words, i t is con eivabl ' that a more just . o iety m a y emerge from th ' conj unction of ooperativ ' fi rnl. and democratic contention. B ut for t h i to happen radi 'ally new pol i t ical parti e must em 'rge. 1 0. Concluding Rema rk
H umankind i . currently fac i ng a mon. trou. bundle of g lobal i . . ue. , all of them . oc ial and th r fore with a moral component. Even a pr l i m i n ary study o f t h e curr nt world problem . . how. that the most pre, , i ng among them ar th attain ment of world peace, en i ronm ntal . u. tain abi l i ty, economic . tab i l i ty, and . oci al j ustic . l n temational law mu, t be enforced to prevent furth r armed confl icts, non of which is l i kely to sol v any soc i al problems; w mu. t start to m anage natural resource. i n a rati onal manner be for t h e enti re planet become ' a wast l and ' u i table only for germs; we need economic ' lability becau 'e economic cyc le ' are wa 'tefu l ; and we need a good mea 'ure of 'oc ial j u 'lic not only because it i . a moral i mpe rative but al '0 becau ' we ' hould avoid fratricidal and wa 'teful cia . . , ethni c, ,md rel ig iou . wars. Anyon c,m und r ·tand the ' problem ', but th y are '0 comple t hat common n or intui t ion can not cop w it h them . And 'orne of them ar so n w. that non of the traditional id olog i . and pol i tical phi lo 'oph ie. h a th mean to h lp olve t he m . Rath r on the contrary. the outdat d ideologi e , in parti ular the r ligion are part of the prohl rn. for they demand uncritical fai th and a k u to d ivert our att ntion from thi. world. They cannot off r workable 'olution becau th y do not r ort to th soci al cience and technologie : The ru l ing i deologies offer ready -made solution crafted with outdated tool , often de igned to protect pedal intere ts rather than humanki nd. Be i de , m any of the e formulas are unreal i tic. for they are a u med to fi t al l people in aJl c ircumstance . regardle of the peci al need and a p i rations of real p ople. For example, the I M F, the W B and the TWO have i m p sed the o-called Washi ngton C ns nsu to all nati n
References
w H aven , T: Yal" n i Ackerman, B ruce. 1 9 O. So 'ial Jusli e in III ) Lib ral Stale . v r ' i t)' P r . ' . A d a m . , J h n . 2006. 'The fai lufC of ' c a t b I t I gi slatioo." 10 M . Verweij a n d 1 . Th mp on. ed .. Clum ') olutiolls for a Comple . 'v'f'orld: Governallce. Politic.\'. alld Plural p, rceptiolls. New 'lor : Palgrave-M acrn i llan. Adriaan. e, Albert, Stefan B ri ngezu. A llen H ammond, Yuichi M origu hi, Eric R denburg, Donald Rooi h and Helmut S hiltz. I 97. Resource Flo H s : The Malerial Basis of induSlrial E ' nomies . Washi ngton. D . ' . : WorJd Re our e' In t itllte. Agassi, Jo "ph. 1 5. Teclmolo . : Philo ophi 01 and So ial A�p I . Dordrccht and Bo ·ton : Reidel. A kerl f, George A . I 4. /111 Eeoll l1Iic TheoriSl 's Book of Tales. Cam ridge: Cambridoe U n iv r. i t Pr A L berdi, Juan B auti tao 1 934 1 1 870] . EL crimen de la gil rra . B ueno. A i rc. : on 'j o o l i berant . ALbert, M i ha 1 . 2 0 . Parecon: L�f. after Capitalism. London : Ver�o. A lbre hI. 000 E., and ott G. AJ brecht. 2007. "Th ben fit and co'ts f i nequal i ty for the advantaged and disad antaged." Social S iellc Quarterly 88: 2-40 . A nasta ' , Paul T. . and John . Warner. 2000. G ,,'e l l Chemi.\·try: Theory and Pr lCti e. 0. f rd: . f rd Un i vers i t Pres . . urti . and Ed\ ard Gmbb. _006 . ' i i as Anders n . Rob I't, J am iation acti v i ty i n f u r democrac i ' : ' American 0 iolo 'ical Review 7 1 : 3 76-4(X). A nder. 00, Arthur ' . , and Fran oie i I en. 2002. "Globali zation and the oreat -turn: Jnc me J nequalit Trend i n 1 6 O E D countrie. :' A m rican Journal of ociolo ') 1 07 : 1 244-99. _ . .
A rendt Hannah. 1 9 9 l 1 95 8 ] . nze Hllman ollditioll. Chi ago, J L : U n i ersit f Chi ago Pre S . -- . 1 76 [ 1 96R ) . Totalilarianism : Part Three (�f Tlze Ori illS of Totalitarianism . San Di go, CA: H arvc t . A ri , t t l . 1 94 1 . Polili ·S. I n R . McKeon ed., The Basi ' Work ' �fAri totle. ew York: R andom H u . . A ron, Ra),mond. 1 96 . Delli ratie et (otalitari.\·me. Pari ' : G a l l imard. Artu. , Patrie , and M arie-Paul Virard. 20 5 . Le capitaLisme est en tra;1I Ie s ·all/ode/mire. Pari. : La cle ouverte.
403
404
Political Philosophy
A ner, Greg ry P., Alan R . Town. end Mercede. M . . Bu tamante Gabriela ardolo. and Lydia P. Olander. 2004. "Pasture degradation in th central A mazon." Global Chelll e Biolog 1 0: 44-862. A ' lrod. R., and W.O. H am i l ton. 1 1 . 'Th" olution of coop ration." Science _ 1 1 : 1 390- 1 396. Ba caro, Lu io. 2006. " Ci i l oci t y mc t th statc: Toward ' asso iat ional dcmo ra y . " Sr.cio-c·collomi · Re i u: 4: 1 85-208 . B aJda 'arri . D l ia. and Peter Bearman. 2007. "Dynamics of pol iti aJ polarization ." Al1pri call ociological R Vieli-' 7 2 : 7 4�8 1 1 . Ball, Terence. and Richard Bellam , ed . . 2 3 . The Cambrid 'e HislDlY of Til' mi 111Cell/III ' Political Thou hi. C ambrid ge : ambridoe U niver i t, Pre ' . B ancljec, Abhij it . A ngus Deaton, Nora Lustig, and Ken Rogoff. 200 . An El'aillation of n orld Balik Re 'ear "" Wa 'hington, D. .: World Bank . Barber, Bcnjam i n . 200 [ 1 9 4 [ . Strong Democracy: Parti ' ipato r . polili s for a New A e. Berkeley. ' A : n i veL ity o f alifornia Pre ' . B u, Ie , Oa id H . 1 9 I . For es of Ord r.' Poli 'ing Modem Japal/. Berkel ' ! : Univer i t f Cal i f rnia Pre . . B c aria. Cesar . [ 1 7 64 ] . Dei d 'Lilli e delle p IIII . Fir nz": M ur. ia, 1 973. Bedau. H ugo A . and Pau l G . e a ' 1 1 , eds. 2004. D batin the DeaTh Pellally. Oxford n ivcl ity Prcss. B I I . Dan ie1 . 1 960. The Ell 1 of ld -ology ill the We.\' t. ew York: Free Pres ' . Benda, Julien. 2006 [ 1 92 7 ] . Til Treasoll of the Imelle 'tllals. P i . Cala a , N J : Tran ac l ion Publ i her. . B ' ntharn, Jerern . 1 982 r 1 789 1 . All Illtrodu lioll io the Prill iples ofMorals alld Le ,isla lion, J . H . Burn and H . L . A H art, cds. London and New York: M tbucll. Bcrlc, Adolf A . Jr, arId G ard incr . �1can . . 1 32. The Modern C0I7,oratioll and Privat ' Property. New York: Ma m illan. Berlin. Isaiah. 1 96 . ''Tw c )ncept of l ibert ." I n I. Berlin. Four Essa s on Libert),. Oxford: Oxford U n i er ' it y Pres ' . --. 1 997. Til C,voked Timber of Humanity: Essa s in the History of Id as. Princeton, J : Prin eton n ivcrsi t Pr" s . Bennarl, S heri . 2006. The Primae of Politics: S o ial D mocra ' y alld til ' Makin ' of niver. ity Pre 's. Europe 'Y TIvelltieth entltr ·. N w York: "'ambridg Bernay . Edward L. 1 92 . Propaganda. w Y rk : Li e ri ght. Bernbard. U len, Ur fi hba ber. and Ern ·t r hr. 200 . "Parochial altrui sm in buman ." NatuI'C' 442: 9 1 2-9 1 5 . B t J acquelinc. 2 7. " Legi ti mac di lcmma, : the 1l\'1 F'� pursuit of ountr ow ner hip." Third World Quarter/. 28: 46 -48 . B i bby Andrew, and L i nda haw, "ds. 200 . Makin ' a DiJlePllc .' Coop rati ' Solutioll;} to Global Po ert)'. Man hester: ooperatjve ol lege. B i ' s t t . Jam . . 2007 . " Wh ATO r"ally s mot th 'crb . ." The Globe & Mail. M arch 22. p. A 1 9. B l anc, Louis. 1 4 7 [ 1 8 3 9 1 . [ 'organisalion. III travail, 5 th cd. Pari. : Societe de r Indu. tric Fraterne l l . Blau P t r M . 1 77. Inequality and H lero� 'l1eily. N w York: Free Pr" s . Bloor, Da id. I 7 . Knowl i e and S ')Cial imagiller),. London : RoutJedg & Kegan Paul . B l u m, Wj ll iam. 2005 . Rogue State: A GlIide to the World 's alii SlIpe rpo wer. Monroe. M E : C mm n C uraoe Pre ',. Bobbio, Norbert . 1 98 Stato, govel'llo, '0 'iete): halllll/(�nti eli W I di-ionario politic . Torino: E inaudi .
405
References
--. 1 990. L ' til d i diritti. � ri no: E i naudi . 1 3. Ii dubbio la .'i elta. Rorna: La � uova Italia Scientifi a. -- . 2005 [ 1 9 8 ] . LiberaLism and Democrac . Lond n : Ver o. Bogho sian, Paul A . 200 . P; ar of Knowlcd ' ' : A 'ainsr Relaril'ism and Con trEI tiviMll. o ford: larendon Pr ss. Boix, "ar1cs. 2003. Demo 'rc/ ' (lnd Redisrribillioll. a mbridge: "ambridge niver. i ty Pre . Bor6n , A t i l i A . 2005 . ''The truth about api tali. t democracy." So ialist Re. ist r 2006, pr. 28-58. New Y; rk: Monthly Revie Pre" . . Boudon. R ay mond I 95. Le juste et Ie I rai: Etud s sur I 'obj > tivite d s val urs eT de la ollflaissGII ·e. Paris : fayard . . 2004. Th Pov 1'1. of Relativi m. x ford: B ardw 1 1 PI' S S . Boudon, Raymond. and f\,j aurice lav J i n. eds. ] 994. Le rei llil i me est-il irre,\'i,\,tibl, ? Pari : Pre ' e U n iversitaire d e France. B randt, R ichard B. 1 979. A Theor ' (�f til Goo .l and the Ri ht. Oxford: l arendon Pre . . Braud"l , F rn and. 1 9 2 [ 1 9 7 9 [ . il'ili;:.ation & Capitalism I YI · i S" Celltllr v I . : The P,'npe til ' of the World. N w York: Harper & Row. Braun, Johan n . 2006. EilljW'/rLIf/ ) ill die Re htsphilosophie 2d ed . Tlibi ngen : M hr S iebeck . Brecher. M ichaeL a n d Jonathan Wi l kenfeld. 2000. A 'Iud ' of Cri 'i ' . A n n Arbor. � 1 : U n i e r ity f M ichigan Pre . B rennan, Geoffrey. 1 9 7. " Rational choic poli t ical theory:' I n A. Y i n nt, cd . . Politi cal Tlleor ': Traditioll and Divers;t pp. 89- 1 1 1 . arnbrido : ambridge n i crsity Press. B ricm nt. Jan. 2005 . 'Th e re_ p n, ibi l ity f the int lIe tual." 1n 1. Mc G i l vray. ed .. The ambridge Compallion to //OlIIsk I. 2 O� 1 94. ambri dg e : ambridge U niver. ity Pre . . B rown, ourtney. 1 9 4. '-Poli tic and th envirorull nt: �onlinear in tabi liti s dominat . ' Americall Political Sciell e Review : 2 9 2 - 303 . B rown. L ster B . _0 3. Plan B: Re.\cllin ' 1I Planet LInder rre.\S lind a Cil ili�atiol1 in Trollble. New York : The Eal1h Poli y Institute. Brzezi n . ki, Zbigniew. 004. Til > hoi 'e: Global Domination or lob(d Leadership. ew Y rk : Ba ic B ks. B u kl ', . Wal ter, cd. 1 968. Modem S 'stems Reseclrch for the Behcn ioral Scielltist. Chi ug , I L : Aldine. B ueno d M e q u i ta, B ru . I 1 . Til W r Trap. N w Hav n, T: Yale niver iLy Pre s. B u no de Me quita, B ruc", and Da id Lalman. 1 99_. War and Rea 011 . New Ha en, T: Yu le /l iver 'i ty Pre " . B u ller, David J. 2005 . Adaplin Millds: El'ollltiollOl) Ps 'cholo y allli the Persi ,tent QI/estfor Humal/ Natl/P. C ambri dg e. M A : M IT Pre . B u nge, M ario. 1 963. The Myth of Simpli 'ity. Engl"wood C l i ff , N .J . : Prcntic '-Hal l . . 1 967. ScienTili Reseal' h, L. Berl in-Heidelb rg- ew Y rk : pri nger· � dag. Repr. : Philosophy of i II e. 2 voL . N w B run�wick. N J : Tran action. --. J 973. "A deci. ion theoretic mod I of the A merican War i n Vietnam. Theor alld D 'cisiol/ : 28--. 1 974a. '1'h cone pt of ' 0 'ia l stmctme." In W. Leinfi J 1 n r and E. Kohler, eds., Developments ill the Melhodolo y of Social ience: 1 7 5-2 1 .- . DonlrechL: Reidel . . 1 74b. "Th meth do10gy of de elopment i ndicatOl . ." U ESCO. Method and A nal i Dj i ion, Dept. of So jal Sciences. -- .
•
I
.
_
1
�-
1
406
Political Philosophy
--
. 1 97 . . " What i.
O.
3
quality f l i fe i ndicat rT' Social lndi ators Research 2 : 65-
. 1 977. ' A . �tem e neept of the i n ternati naJ . tern:' In M . B u nge, 1. GaJtung, and M . Ma l itza. dS., l'vlalh mali al Approach ) 10 Inlernational Relalions. 1 9 1 - 305 . B ucharc . t : Romanian Academy of So ial and Political S icn cs. ----. 1 979a. Trealise on Ba i Philosophy. vol . 4, A \1' Oriel of y 'Iem . Dordrc b t : R e i leI. -- . I 79b. "A model of se re y.' Jourl/al of Irr�l'rodlicible Results 25: 25- 26. --. I 8 1 3 . cie1lf�fi ' Materialism. D rdrecht: Reide l . -- . I I b . D c elopm n t i ndicator . S o ial lntli alor ' Resear'h : 6 -3 5 . -- . 1 9 . Treatise 011 Basic Philosoph , v .1 . 6 : ndenitalldill the World. D rdreeht: R"id I. --
--
. 1 989b "Game the ry i. n t a u e ful tool f r thee p l i t ical
--
. 1 99 1 a. "Charges again t applied game theor
logia 1 2 : I 5-2 L .
ienti. l. ' Epistemo
ustai ned: Repl to
. chmidt ."
Epi 'remolo ia 1 3 : 1 5 1 -4 .
. 1 99 1 b . ''A critical xami nation o f t h e new s o 'iology of ' i nee, Part 1 ." Philo 'Wphy of the oeial iellces 2 1 : 5 24-5 O. Part f I : 2 2 : 46-76 J 9 2 ). Repr. i n B unge I 9 . -- . I 996a. Finding Philo '01711) ill Social Sci /J ·e. ew Hav n, T: Yale Uni er i t)' --
Pr . . ----. I 996b. " In prais of i ntol"ran c t
barlat an ism i ll a ad"mia." A nnols ofrhe New Ih ' FlightJrom S ien e and Reason 775: 96- 1 1 5 . ---. I 996c. "Th seven pi l lar of Popper ' s ial phi lo opby." Philosoph ' ofrhe So ial Sciences 26: . 28- 56. -- . 1 997 I 1 9 01. Cien ia. Ie 'lIiea y de.mrrol/o. B uenos A i res: Editorial SudameriYork A adem)' of
'ien
liS:
cana. --. 19 8a. So ial Sci II e lind'r Debar . Toronto: ni cr ity of Toronto Pr" · S . -- . 1 998b. Th philo. ophical technologic : ' 1/'chllology ill 0 'iety 20: 377-384. ----. 1 999. The So iology-Philosoph ' ol1ne tiol1. w Brune w i k, J: Transa t i n Publ i hers. --. 2000a. "Ab olute 'keptici. m equal ' dogmatism. ' Skepli (II Inquirer _4. o. 4: 34- 6. _000. i 'n es 3 --. 2 b. "Philosophy from til" Ollt id ." Philosoph> oj The So ial 2 7 -45. --. _0 3a. Em ,. , n 'e and om er ' I 1 C . Toronto: n i v I ity of Toronto Prc ·'s. --. 200 I . Phi/o.wph . ill Crisis: Tile Need for Re 'OIlS[ru ·rioll. A mherst, . Y. Promctbcli . B k. . . 200 b. Philo 'ophical Vi ·tioll(.lI) . Amh r t , N Y: Prometheus Book -- . 2006a. A . , tcmi pcr. pecti" , on rime." In Wik. lrom and S ampson, cd . : 8- O . b . "The philo oph b"hind p. lido, ienec: Skepti al Inquirer 4): 2937. 06 . ha in ' Reality: Srrife 0 er Realism. Toronto: 'nivcrsi t of Toron t Pres ' . -- . 2007a. 'Did Weber practj e th objectj ity he preached . I n L. McFal l " ed. , Max Weber " " Ohj cti, i ' R consider d: 1 1 7- 1 34. 11 ront : n i ver ity of � I' n to Pr . . _ ____
_
407
References
2007b. "The ethic. f . ience and the . ience )f ethi :' In Pau l Kurtz, ed., d eli e and Erhi .\', pp. 27-40. A mher ,t, N Y: Prom theu B oo " . B unge, M ari , and Ruben A rd i la. I 7. Philosoph ' of Ps),c"olog ' . Ne York: Springer Verlag, 1 8 7 . B ura 0 , M ichael. 2005 . "For public cioloo ." Alii 'rican Sociolo ,ieal Re\ i I \ ' 70:
-- .
4Burdeau, George . 1 967. '/ i'air ' d sci lice politiqll , 2nd ed . . 2 vol . Pari " : L.G . DJ. \\' '' 'iell of the Milld, _n d ed. B u s , David M. 2004. Evolutiollary P )' '/wlo y : The B . ton M A : Pear n . Byer. , M i hael. _ 05 . War Law: Understanding IlllemarionaL LllI V and A rmed O1�f1icT. New Y:. rk: Oro e Pre. . Cam ron Da id R . , Gu 'tav Rani, and Anal i sa Zinn, cd " . _0 6. Globali- tioll and Self Determillation: Is the Nation-State lid -r 'i - e ! New York: Routledge. "'ard. D and A. Krucger. 1 99 . Myth alld Mea 'urement: The Nel £ 'Ol1om; 's of the Millimum ���/ge. Pri nceton, 1: Pri nceton Univer ity Pre . arter, l j rnrn . 2005 . Our Elldall red Vailles: Amer; a s Moral risi . 1'\ew York: Sim n & Schu 'ter. 7. R" i"w of D . L. KI i nman's omell/porar ' So iolog : 1 56 1 5 . Chan. Tal Wing. and Jo eph Goldberg. 2007. " ]a s and tatu " : Th one ptual d istinction and its mpirical relevance." A me rica II So 'iolo i '(II Review 72: 5 ] -5 2. Chen , e rge . 19 9. VaLues at work: Employee Parti ipation Meets Market Pressure at MOlldrag611. hha a: ILRI rnel l U niver. ity Pre . Yor : Wil", . l ar , olin. 1 976. Malhemclficcil Bioecol1omi 'So 1'\ "'olcman, Jam S. 1 990. Foulldations of � o ci(lI TheOl)'. 'ambrid o" M A : Bclknap Pre, s of H arvard n iver it. Pres . 1 992. "The rational recon t ruction of 0 i t)'." A lii ri all Sociological ReI ie w 8: 1 - 1 5 . 01 " Romand. 2002. "Pl ural ization and radical demo racy : Recent development · j n crit j al t h e r and p tmoderni m :' I n Katznel. n and M i lner, e d ., 2 6-3 1 2 . Col li ns , Randall. 1 99 . The S dolo '} of Philo 'ophi : A Global Th ory of In tell tual hange . arnbridoe , M A : Harvard n i ver i t. Pres . "'ondor et, M . -J , - A . - . Caritat, M arquj · de. 1 976 [ 1 7 2 ] . Reception pce h at the Aca demie Fran�ai e . I n S I et�d Wrimgs if ondoreet, K M . Baker, ed. Indianap I i , I : Bobb. - Merri l l . r m e l l , .Tohn . 200 . Hitler's Scinlfists: cience, War. and tlu' Devif 's PacT. ew York: Viking. C utr t, Th rna . 200.- . Demo ratie eOllTre cap itaIi 'me. Pari : La Oi. pute Cow l i ng , l\'t auric . 200 [ 1 9 3 ] . Th ' Natur al1d Limits of Political S i 'l1 e. Cambridg": Cambridge niver 'ity Pr s . "'raig Roberts, Paul . 2007. "Th failur of A merjca a, a moral for : ' h'!/ormatiol1 Clear in ' HOlls , February 2 . rew. , Frederic , cd. 1 998. Ullalllhori�ed Fr'lId: Doubters Confrolll a Le 'elld. N w York: Penguin. Cri k Bemard . I 2 . III D �fj>1l of Politi , , 4'10 . cd. London : P ngu i n . r n a n , Gary. 200 . T h e World 's Maj r Cooperatives alld Mullial BII ;lIe s. Geneva: I nternational ooperati c A l lian . . Dahl . Rob J1 A. 1 957. The concept of power. B -Iwvioral iell e 2: 20 1 - 2 ] 5 . -- . 1 97 1 . Polyare")': Participation an i Oppositioll. !\e H aven, CT: Yale n i er ity Pre . ni ersity --. 1 985 A Prefac to E 'onomic Demo 'me ' . Ber 'Ie and Lo A n o I of Calif mia Pre ' . . '�
.•
I
-�- .
J
408
Political Philosophy
. 1 89. Democ rac., and its Criti " . ew H aven, CT: Yale U niver ' i ty Pre . . --. 2 O. A dcmocratic paradox . Politi (lI S iell 'e Quart ' riy 1 I S : 5-4 . require ? Political -- . 2005. What p l i t ical i n�titll tion doe ' large-. cale dem era S i 11 (;> Quarterl ' 1 20: 1 7- 1 97 . Davidson. Donald. J 9 O. Essay.\' Oil A ·tiol / � alld C.-I ellIs. Oxford: J a r n don Pres , . Da L. 0 . 0 .. and " . . Holt. 1 993. Experinpnral Ec:oll om i . Pri nceton J : Prin eton n iveL ity Pre, . Dawe , C hri . topher T., J am H . Fowler, Tim John. on, R i hard McElrath, and Oleg Smimov. 2007 . . Egali tarian m ti\ e in H uman, :' Nature 46: 79 �796. Dc i . Edward L . and R ichard M. Ryan. 1 9 S . lntrin ·i Moth atioll and elf-Determina tioll ill Human Behavior. New York: Plenum Pres . d Figuciredo, R u i lP.. J r., and Zachary Elkins. _003. " Arc patllot · bigots? An i nquiry i nto . the vic ' of in-group pride." A me rica II jo u mal of I'oliti 'al 'iell e 47 : 1 7 1 - 1 Derriennic, Jean-Pierre. 200 I . Les lIures c:iviLe ' . Pari : Pre e de ' cience P . Des hner, Karlheiz. 1 9 . Mit G It /tllrl dem Fiihrer. Koln : K i epenheuer & Wit ·ch. 0 ' Waal, Fran B.M. 1 982. Chimpaw e Polili s: S x (llld Power Among Apes. Baltimore, M D : Joho. H pkins nivcr. i ty Prc ' . . --. 1 9 . Good Nalured: The o rig ill. of Righi alld Wmng ill Hum(l1lS and Oth r All imal ' . ambridge, M A : J larvard U niver. ity Pre ', . --. 200, . 'H om homini l upus? Morality, the . oeia] in, tincl. . and our fell w primates.' In J . - P. hang ux. A . R . [)ama 'io, W. S inger, and Y. h ri 'ten. ed ' . N'lIrobiolo y of Human Vollies, 1 7- 5. Berli n , Heidelberg-New York : Springer. Deli ' Ie, Esth r. 1 998. Myth , Memory & Lie : Qllebec ' ImelLi 'el1t.'iia (lnd t17 Fas iM Telllpialion 1 939- 1 960. M ontreal : R bert Davies M ul ti mcdia. Derrieni , Jcan - Pinn' . 1 995. National; m> et demo Tarie. Montreal : Boreal . Die i ng. Pau l. 1 9 2 . .; IIC m d Ideology ill the Policy Sciel/ces. Ne\ York: A ldine. Dij k ' t rhui . Ap. Marteen W. Bo . Loran F. ordgren. and Rick B . van B aaren. 2006. 'On making the right ch ice : Th del i berati n-wilh ut-altenri n e ffect:' Sci nee 3 1 1 : I 5-07. o mh ff, O . Will iam. 2 06. Who RuLes America ? POH el; PoLiti " alld ocial Challge, Sl t cd . N w York: M Graw - H i l l . Doniger. D a id D . . Antonia Y. H rzag. a n d Dan iel A . Lashof. 2006. "An ambitioll . ccotrist appr a b to global warming Icgi lation:' iell 'e J 4: 7 4-65 D wn , . Anthony. 1 957 . A ll c·collomie Th or l of V�mocrac '. ew York: Harper. Do . le, M ichael W. 1 986. Libcrali rn and world pol i tic, ." Allleri (Ill PoLilicaL SciCli e Red('\ RO: 1 L 1 -69. Drur S hadi a B. 2 S. Th ' Politi l id G.\ oj Leo traUSJ. updated cd. New York: Pal grave Macmi J lan. Durkhcim. Emile. 1 97_. Sele I ,d Writ in s, A . G idden . cd. Cambridgn K : ambridgc n ive ' i ty Pres ' . Du eroer. M aurice. I 7 . Les parlis politiques, tit ed. Pari : Armand C l i n . . -- . 1 974 [ 1 972 ] . M o I � m D mocl'(} ·ie.\': 1:: 'o/wmie Power 1 er 'II ' Politi 01 Power. H insdal " IL : The Dr den Pr ' . . D worki n , A ndrea. 1 999. Fem inism and POrl1ograph I. Ncw York: 0 ford n i veL ity Pr s . . Dw rkin, Ronald. 1 98 1 . " What i s equal ity? Part 2 : Equal ity of re ·ources." Philml"Jl'hy and Public Affairs 1 0: 283- 45 . --. 1 9 6. Lcm ',\' Empire. Cambridge, M A : B e l knap I Harvard U n iver 'ily Pres ' . -- .2000. Sovereign Virtlle: The Theory all I Practi e of Equality. Cambridge, f A : Harvard ' nivcrsity Prc " s. Dyzcnhau , Davi d 1 997. LegaLil) and Legilima 'y: ad Schmill, Hems Kelsen. an i H r ma ll lIel/ r il l Weimar. Oxford : Clarcnd n Pr" . . '
409
References
Earle. J hn. 1 886. The Italian Cooperativ MOl el1l lit: A Portrait of the L(>ga Na-.ionale delle CJoperative e MI/tlle. London : A l l n & n w i n . Ea ·ton, D a id. 1 9 . Til Political stem . N e Y rk : A l fred Kn pf. Eatwcll . Rogcr. I 9 . Fa ciJm: A Hisrory. London: Chatto & Windus. Eco, Umberto. 1 995. " r-fas i rn:' N w York Revi 'W of Books Vol . 42, No. l l . Edward . , Pau l . 2004. Ileid>gger 's 011111 ioll. . A mh rst : Pr m th us 130 k ' . I . E. Eichn r. I fred S . ed. 1 98 . Why Economic ' i ' not yet a ·iell · . b arpe. Ein tein , A l bert. 1 50. "The la\ f s ien e and the laws of e t h i , :' F reword t Phi l ipp Frank. Relath it\ I : A Ri h r Tna" : v- iii. Bo ton. MA: B cacon Pr" s. Eliae n , S en, ed. 2006. Building Democrac., and Ci\ iL Society East ofthe Elbe. L nd n and N"w York: Rou t ] cdg " . Elst r Jon. J 9 9a. ttl: ' alld B J/H for the Social Sciences. ambridg amb ri dg ,
'melll of So 'i ty. Cambri dge : ambri dge Uni r it . 1 989c. "From her ' to there; or, i f coop rati e ownersh i p i . sO d ' irablc, h y ar ' there . fe w 0 perarive T' Social Philo 'ophy & Polk ' 6: 3 - 1 1 1 . --. 1 9 . Poliri a l Psy holo 1) . Cambridge: ambridge n i ver. ity Pl1 . . . Emer . F. E . ed. 1 969. System ' Thinkillg: Selected Readings. Hardm nd worth: Pengui n
--
.
Book . Engels. Friedrich. 1 954 1 ] 7 I. Anti-Dii"rill H u.
J.
Mo. cow : Foreign Language ' Publ i 'hi ng
.
. 1 950 L 1 8 4 ] . The Ori Jill ' of the Famil l, Prh at ' Proper I alld the Star . 1 n v o l u m ' 2 of Karl Marx alld Friedrich Ellg I. : Sele I d Works. London: La wrc n '
---
& \vi , hatt.
R. 1 99 . "Do b i l l of right malt r? Th Canad i an Chart r of R i ght atld freedom ." Americall Political iell e RevielV. 90: 765-779. E man M i l t n .T and N )rman T. Uph ff. 1 984. Local Orgallizations: Illterm cliari . ill Local De l elopm e n t . I thaca. NY: orne l l U n iver i ty PI' ss. E pin o-Ande r en. G0. tao I O. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Pri ncet n, N J : Princeton n i ersi t y Pre ELZioni, Amitai. 1 98 . The MoraL Dimensioll. Nc York: Frc ' Pre . . Falk , R.i hard, H i lal El cr, and Lisa Ha.ijar, cd . 2007. 1l1lmall RiglltY: CriTical on 'epT, lume . . New � rk: R u t le ige. in Politi 'al Si . 'lice. 5 rAO. 2007. I nternational 'onferen e n Organic Agricultu re and Fo d e u ri t y. Rom , 3-5 Ma 2 007. Farl Jo hua, and Herman E . Oal . 2 6. E olo ,i 'ai E ol1omi s. Wa hi ngton, D .C . : I l and Pre . Fearon, J am D .. and Da id D. Lait i n . _0 3. 'Ethnicity in 'urg n y, and c i v i l w ar." A lIleri all Politi al Scien 'e Review 97: 75-90. F h r. Ernst, and S imon Gacbtcr. 2000. "Co p ration and p u n i . hm nt i n publi go d ' experi ments," AmeriC(l1/ Ecollomi . R 'vieH 90: 980-9 . Fehr, Ern t. and r Fi. chbacher. 2003. Th natur ' of h uman altruism." Nature 425 : 78. -79 1 . Ferguson, 1\ i t . 2 7 . 'Capturing h uman behav ior:' Nature 44 : 733. F1eischacker. amuel. 2004. A Shorr History of Dislribllri e Justi . amb rid ge M A : Epp. Charles
'
••
.
.
Harvard
n ivcl"' i ty Pres .
Fliessbach. K.. B . \V ber. P. Trautner. T. D o h me n . U . unde . E. E lger. and A . Fal k . 2007. S · c i al c . mpari n affects reward-rel ated b ra i n a ti i t, in the human e nlTal triatu11l." cielle 1 8: 1 05- 1 0 . Fong , hri. tina M ., S amucl Bo Ie , and Herbert G i n ti . . 2005 . R ciproc i t and t h ' w I fare 'tat :' I n G i nt L t a L _77- 02. .
410
Political Philosophy
F ucault, Mi heJ . I 69. L 'arrluJoiogi du ·avoir. Pari" : Gall i mard. Frankfurt, H . H . A. Frankfurt J . A. Wil son. and T. Jacob. en. 1 49 1 1 4 ]. Before Phi losoph .: The Ill telle ctua L Adventure o.fAllcient Man. London : Pen ouin. Frederi kson, Georg M. 200_. Ra iSI11: A Short HiMory. Pri n ton N J : Pri ne ton n ive ' i ty Pres '. Frccdcn. M i han J . 1 996. Icleologies ancl Politi 'al Theor)': A COil 'eptual A t proCi h. o f rd: larendon Pre . Freedman, La ren . 1 9 3. Til , ElOLutioll of Nuclear Sm:lle " 2d d. !\e Yor ; St. Martin'. Pres. . Frey, B runo S . 1 7 . Not Just for the MOlley: All E ol1omi Th ory of Personal Motiva tio". heJ tenham, K: Edward EJgar. Fliedman, M i lton. 1 9 Capitalism alld Fr edom. Chicago, LL: n iver i ty of h i ag Press. . 19 I . "Old w i ne in new b ttle. :' The Ecollomi ./ournal 1 0 1 : 3 3 -40. Fu l ler. L n . 1 95 . "Po iti i ' l11 and the fide l it t law: A repl t PI' res I' Ha rt Harvarl Law R 'vi \I' 7 1 : 6 0-672. ----. 1 9 4 . The Morality of Le/Hi. ew H a en, 'T: Yal Galbrllith, Jam . K . , and �1aure n Berner. d . 2 1 . Ineq uality and Industrial hall ' : ni edty PI' A Global 1t'1\. alllbridg : Cambridg G al brai th. John Ken neth. 1 9 . The A natom of Power. B lon , M A : H o ught o n M i f fl i n . . 1 9 7. A Histol o.f £ 'onomies: The Past a s the Present. L ndon: H am i 'h H am i lton. G ar fa-Su r" !\if{u iruo, and M ario B ung '. 1 976. D i ffe re n ti ation, participati n, and oh ' . ion. Qualit and Qualltity 1 0: 1 7 1 - 1 7 . Gardner. Mart i n . 1 9 9. " Gaiai ' 111 ." Skepti 'al lnquirer 1 : _52-256. G arz6n-Vald '. , Erne ' t . 2000. In tiILtr.:ioll . '/./i idas: Estl.ldio · d? ti '(I y polfli a . Mexic : Paid6. . . 2 4. EI terrori. mo d Estado. I n Calamidade ', 1 37- 1 76. B arcelona: Gcdi. a. Geertz, C l i fford. 1 3 . Lo al KnowLed e: F/lrther Essays in Inte l]Jreth e A nth ropo logy. n\ York: B asi Books. Gell ner, Erne 'to 1 9 5 . Re la ti vi sm ill tlte So 'ial Sc ien " .\'. ambridge: Cambridge n i vcr. ity Pre 's. Gerring, J hn, and Jo hua Ye nowilz. 2006. A nomati e turn i n p litical cien e '. Polity 2 8 : 1 0 1 - 1 33 . Gey. , Benny. 2006 Rati o nal t h e rie r v tel' turn ut: A Re iew." Political Studies Re i I\' 4: 1 6- 5 . Gib o n , Jame ' L . 200 . "Enigma of intoleran e ." p.?rspe 'Iil!? . 011 Politics 4: _ 1 -34. G iddn ns , A nthony. 1 9 84. Tit ' 011 tiruriol1 of So iety. Berk 1 y : n i v J. i ty of alifornia Press. G idden ' , Anth n , and D . Held, eds. 1 2 . Classes, POH'el; and COllfli ·t. Berkeley and Lo A ngele , A: n i ver it)' of '. l i fornia Pre . G i l bert , Ben d 'y B . 1 966. Til , £volution of National 11/. uran 'e ill Crea t Britaill: The Ori ins of the Welfare Sta te . London : Ii hac 1 Jo�cph . G i l l igan, James. 2 I . Pr'\ enting iol I/ce. New York: Thame H ud. on. G i ner B ira Vi ente. J 969. EI Tribullal de las A /las de la ega de Valen 'ia: 960- 1 960. Valen iu. G i nt i s. Herbe rt . 2000. " Strong reciprocity and human sociality," ./ollrl/al ojTIzeoreti al BioLo . 206: 1 69- 1 7 . Gintis, Herbert, amuel Bowie. , Robert Boyd, and Ernst Fchr. ds . 05 Moral Sellti ment. (md Mat riaL Imerests: The FOllndations of Cooperation il/ £cOl/omi Life. ambridg , M A : M IT Pres . .
'
-,
'
_.
--
,"
--
.
--
.
.•
'
.
_
.
References
41 1
Gla .er, Amihai, and Lawrence S . R Jthenberg . 200, . Why Govemmellf Succeeds and Why II Fails. Cambridge. M A : H arvard n iversity Pre s. G d i n , R bert E . , and Phil i p Pett i t, ed . 1 5 . A Companion to ColltemporQl . Politi al Philo ophy. Oxford : Bia k\ e l l . GouJd, t e v n J . 1 999. Rocks of 'e : S 'iell 'e alld Religion il/ the Fullness of Life. ew York : Ballantine. Grabiner Judith V. 2004. Newton, Maclaurin, and Ihe AUlh rit of lathernati . American Mathemati al Monlhl . 1 1 1 : 84 1 -52. Graham, Loren R . I 8 1 . BetH een Science and Vallf('s. ew Y rk : C lumbia n i er. ity Pre . . Green, Donald P. . and A lan . G rber. 2002. "Re laiming the xperi mental t radition i n pol it ical scicn n ." I n Katznnlson and M i lner, cd . . : 05-8 _. Griffi n , Keith. ] 999. Alt 'matil e Strate 'i ' \ for E ol/omie D'velopmelll, 2m d. ew Y rk: Palurave M a m i llan. Gr _ Bertram. 1 9 2. Friel/dl ' "-asci m : Iii Nell' Face if Power in A m rica. B . Ion, MA: South End Pre s. Or S S . Paul R . and orman Levitt. 1 994. fligher �IIP >r. Ylition: The A 'ademi ' LeP and il. Quarrels willi iel / ce. B al ti more M D : John H opkins U ni er�ity Pre s. Gros . Pau l R . . orman Le itt. and M. W. Lew i '. ed ' . 1 99 . Tip Flight from cien e and Reason. A nnals o/ the Ne\ �'ork A cadem) o/ Sciences, Vol . 775. G rusky, David B . . and Ravi Kanbur, eds. 2006 . Poverty and Ineqllalit ', Stanford. A : Slane rd Univer i t)' Pre. '. u i l lcn, Mauro F. 20 I . "I. globali zation c i il i zi ng de tru tiv r feebL n 1' Anllual Rel iew of Sociolo y 27: 235-60. Ounn. Christopher. 2006. " 0 pcrati es and market fai l u re . ." Review ofReldi {II Polili 5 - : 4. 'al .col/omics 8: Gurr, Ted RobeJt. ed. 1 980. Handbo k of Politi 'al ollfti t. ew York: free Pre '. . Gutman, Amy, and Denni Th rn on. 1 996. Democrac., and Disagre memo ambridge M A : H ar ard ni er. ity Pre. S. Gii th , W., R. Schmittberger, and B. S hwarzer. I 2. 'An experi mental analy i . matum bargain ing :' JOllrnal of E ollomi Be/JaI'iur& O r 'ani-arion. 3 : 3 7 Haan. or11]a. el a1. . e d . 1 9 . Moralit. lIlId the Social Scien 'e.\'. New York: oillmbia ni er. ity Pre . . H aberma , J iirgen. 1 97 1 . T ward a Ratiollal () 'il' I. I .ond n: Heineman n . -- . L 988 1 1 967 1 On lhe Logic of tile Social Sciell e s . arnbrido , M A : M IT Pre . . H al be r 'tarn, Da id. 1 97_ Til(' Best and th Brightest. New York : R andom H Oll. e . H arawa , Donna. L . "Situated knowledge. : T h c i n c qu . t i o n i n f mini III and the pri iJege of partiaJ per pe ti" ." Femillist Studies 1 4: 575-599. H ar ourt Mark, and Geoffrrey Wood. cd . _0 6. Trad' l1ioll lIlId Democrac '. Nnw B ru ll ·w ick. J : Tran a tion . H ardin, Garrett. L 9 6 . The traged f the H ardin, R u_ . e l l . 2002 . " ' I re t-Ie el epi tern of Politi 'al Philosoph ' 10: 2 1 2-229. Harding, Sandra. 1 99 . The iel1<:e Question in Feminism. I tha a Y " rn II ni cr it Pres . I Jarff, Barbara. 200 . "No Ie ' on. learned from the l JoJocau t? A ' , essing ri 'k of g no cide and p l i t ical ma ', murder 'in e 1 95 5 ." Am rican Political S ienc R view 97 : 5 7-7 . H arringt n, Anne. J 96. ReellchclIlted ience: Holism ill German Ltlturefrom Wilh 1m 11 10 Hiller. Princeton N J : Prill eton n i ersity Pre ' . H art, H .A.L. 1 95 8 . ·'PO. itivi. m arId the 'paration of law and moral. ." Han art! Lall Review 7 1 : 59 -629. .
.
'
412
Political Philosophy �
H ay e k , Frederi k A. I 76 [ 1 44] . TIl(' Road to Selfdom . Chi g , I L : Uni Chicao Pres . . 1 4 [ I 551 The COllnter-Revollltion of Science. G len e, JL: The Free Pre s . . 1 73. Lau� Le 'i larion and Liberl ' 01. II: The Mira ' e o/So ial Justi e . hicag J L : U n i versity of hi c ag o Pre ' . ----. 1 9 9. 'The PI' t n e of knowlcdg ." A merican £ 'ol10111i ' Re l 'iell' 79: 3-7. Hebb, Donald O. 19 . On m tiva ti o n and th u g h t . Contributions a I' '1/I(} des s 'ien 'e . de I h01ll1ll 2 : 4 1 -47. R 'pro I n H . A . B uchtel, e.d, Til oncepttwl Nen OIlS S 'stem, 1 7-_ 1 . 0 ford: Pergam n Pre , 1 9R2. Hed trom Peter. 200 . Di . tillg III ocial: On the Prin ipl S o/Analylical 0 'iology. C amb ridg e : C a mb d dg e n iver i ty Pre ' . Hegel, Friedri h. 1 1 1 1 82 1 1 . Elem Ilts o/ the Philo oph ' 0/ Ri ,Ill. H . B . N i . b t, t rans!. a m b ridg : ambridg n i v l ' ' i ty Pr ss. HetTre, H avard, Tanj i a Ellig en, Scom G a te , and Nil Petter G ledit. h . 200 I . 11 ward a democrati - ci i l peace? Dem rac y, p litical hange, and ci il war. 1 8 1 6- 1 9_2 . Alii r i all Political Scien ' e R view 95 : 3-48 . Heidegger. Mart i n . 1 97 1 1 943 1 . W)m Wesen del' Wahrll >il. tb cd . Frankfurt : V. Klo ' term an . ---. 1 954 1 1 947 1 . S ri f tiber den " J I u ma n i Ill U . III Plarons Lehr� VOIl der Waltr" it. 2' ed. : 5 - 1 1 9. B e rn : Fran ke Verlag. H i l bronner. Rob rt . 1 974. An Inqlliry into tlte Human Pro pe 't. London : Calder & B ar . Hellman, John, 2 02 . Th ommullirarian Third "''t1y: A /e.mnd r Marc 's Ordre Nouv 'all 1 930-2000. Montr al & K i n g ton: M G i ll-Queen' ' n i ersity Pre . . Hendry, D . F. . and N . R . Ert n . 1 9 . A. ert] n without empi rical ba. is. I n Bank of Ell ,Ialld Pallel of A cad m i Consultants Pa p r n o 2 2 : 4:- 1 0 1 . L ndon : Bank of England. rid wide difHeni , 7. , Witold J., Benne l l A . ZeI ner, and M au r F. G u i l len. 2005 . The fll. ion of market -ori n ted i n frastructure r form. 1 977- 1 9 . Am ri an So iologi al Re\ iew 70: 7 1 - 97. Henrich, J cph "t a!. 20 . " Costly puni h m n t a ro . human . ocieti s ." S ienc' 3 1 2 : 1 767- 1 770. Hern gg 1', Rudolf. 1 9 9. A nhropologie : wis 'hen Soziobiologie unci Kilitunt'i, seils hap.
---
.
-
,
"
'c
.
'
B o n n : Habel t .
Hcrodotu . . 4 1 5 BCE. Til , Histories, ne cd. London : Penguin. 1 972. H e rman , Edward S., and N a m h m ·ky. 1 98 R . M(l1It�factllring 0 1 1 "ent: Tit Political E 'OI/Om)l of til ' iHas.\' Media. N w York: Pantheon. l lermann. Esther, Jo ' e p all , Maria Vi t oria J l e rna nde z- L1oreda. B rian J lare, and M ichael Tomas" 1 10. _0 7 . "Humans ha e " 01 cd spc ialized k i l l -' of ocial ogn i t ion : The ] 7 : 1 360- 1 66. cultura l i ntel l igence hypothe ' i s." S 'iell He kelh, There e, Li Lu, and Zhll Wei Xing. 200.- . " The effect f hina' n - hild fami l p li c y aft r 25 year ." Neu Ellgland Journal (�f Medicine 3 5 , : 1 1 7 1 - 1 1 76. H i k. , A lexander. 1 999. So iaL Demo 'rae\' (mel Welfare apitaLism: A Cent/ll)l oflllcollle Se uril.\' Po/icie . ltha a. Y: ofl]cll niv rsity Pr , S . H i l l , Thoma E . , Jr. 1 9 1 . ''Th III ag" of affi rmative a tion." 0 ial Philosophy & Polic : 1 08- I 29. H i l t n , Bo d. 1 99 1 . The Age of Atonement: Til ir{f/uence of Evangelicalism 011 So 'ial alld E onomic Thought 1 785- 1 865 . ew York: O x ford U n iver iry Pr ss. H b, bawm, Eric. 1 992. Nations and Nationalism .',in e 17 '0: Programme, J\l1."lh, Reality. ambridg : 'ambridge n i ver it)' Pres . . H och. h i ld, Jenni fer L . 2005. "APSA pre. ident. r 'fleet on pol itical . c i nee: Who k n w, hat. when, and how . " P, rspe ,til s on Politic, 3: 09-334. '
.,
I
�.
References
413
Hoffmann, Peter. _00 . Stauffellberg: A Falni' , History. 1 905- / 944. Montreal & King ton: McGill -Queen" n iver· j ty Pres ' . H uhe, L i e ' bel and G ar M ar ·· · . 200 I . Millti-Level Governallce. Lanham M D : R wan & Littlefield. Horowitz, I rv i ng Loui . 1 96 5 . "The l i fe and d ath of Proj 'ct amelot.'· Trtlll. action 3 : - 7 ; 44-47.
. 1 999. Heh >moth: Maill Cltrpnt· in th , Hi ·tOI . alld 'f1wOI ' of Political odolf) .' . w Brunswick , J : Tran 'n tion. H un t i ngt n, Samuel P. 1 68a. Political Ord r ill Iwngin SO 'i 'ties. New Ha en, T: Yal ni cr. ity Pre s. . I 96 8b. " The ba e of ace mmodalion." Foreigll Affairs 46: 642-65 . 1 . The Third Wa ve: Demo mti-.arioll in the Lm TI entieth C ntur ·. Norman: .1 U niversity of Oklahoma Press. . 1 99 6a. The ClCI. h oj ei ili;:.arion and the Remaking of World Order. '''w York: i mon and Schu t r. . I 996b. "The W'. t: n iqu '. not u niversaL" Forei II I\ff'airs 7 5 : 28-46. H utchi n. on, A l lan C. 2005 . Th ompalli s HI. f(, ep: Corporate Govemall e for a Democrati So iet)' . Toronto: Ir in Law. Ibn Khaldflll. 1 967 1 1 3 7 7 ? 1 . The Mltqaddimah. 3 vol. 2nd ed. Trans. F Ro 'entha l . Lon don : Routlcdg & Kcgan Pau l . Lngenieros. Jo · e . 1 92 Emilio Boutroux y la filo ofia Lmiver itaria ell Frail ia. B ueno ' A ire : C peraliva ditorial L i mi tada. Inter-American Devel pment Bank. 2006 The Politics of Poli i . Wash ing ton D.C.: l O B ; Cambridg " M A : H ar ard n i c rs ity. tnt! rnational Labollr Offic . 2 004 . E 'ol/omi . Se urityfor ( / Belter World. G"nc a: lLO. . 111 quality alld A 111 ri an D 1110 ra : Jacob Lawrcn " R . , and Thcda Sko pol, cd . 2 Wltat We KIIOI\' and What W? Nt: d to Learn . w York: Ru ' It Sag Foundation. Ja b. on, M ichael ., and the taff of the enter f r Science and the Public I n tere · 1 . 2006. Six A r l/lmellts Jor a Greeller Die t . Washington. D . . : Celller Jor ' i'll 'e alld
--
--
�-
.,
.
'
the Pllblic Interest.
J amcs, Patrick, 2(XL. intenllltional Relatioll alld S ienrUic Pro 're : Stru tllral Reali 11/ Reconsidered. C l umbu , OH . Ohio S tate ni ver. i t Pres . J am s, Wil l iam. 1 9 7 1 1 90 I. Addr sc on thc Phi lippin" qu sti n . ln H ritill g 1 902 - 1 9 /0 . e w Y rk : The Li brar o f America. Jar ie, Ian . 2007. "R lati i sm and hi tori i ' m ." l Jl . P. Turn r and M. W. R i jord. eds. , Halldbook of the Philosophy of Sciella: Philosoplty ofA nthropology and Sociolog , 55 -5 . Am tcrdam : El sevier. Jeffers n, Thoma . I 5 3-4 [ 1 809 ] . The Writings of Tholllas J ffe ,"oll. Ed. H . A . Wa h i ngton. Washi ngton: Tay lor & M aury. Jen 'en, Keith. Joseph all. M ichael Tomasello. 2007. "Chimpanze . are ratjonal ma j mizcrs:' � 'ien 'e 1 8 : 1 07 - 1 09 . J hn o n , 'halmer . 2006. N m >sis: '11, /"('lst f)(I 'S ofth ' Am >ricall Repuhli . Ne\v York : Henr Holt and ompan . J m , S . K . , and Ben Fine. 2006. The N u; D v lopm nt Ecollomics: After the Washillgtoll Consensu. . London: Zed B ooks. Jones. Derek . 2007. 'The productjve ffi ien . of I tal ian produ er ooperatj e ': Evi dcn from onv ntional and coopcraLiv firms." In S . Nov kovic and V. na, ds., Cooper ltive Firms ill Global Markets. 0 1 . J 0: A dvall es in tlte E 'ollomi ' A llal ·si.\· of Participatol:V and Labor-Malia ed Firms. OX} rd: ELe\ ier. J . t, John T. , and J i m Si Ian i us. ed . . 2004. Political P ')'cllolo ') : Ke., Readin 's. New York: Ps cholog. Pre. . ..
414
Political Philosophy
J u en 1. B rlrand de. 1 9 3 [ 1 94, ] 0" Power: The t.l tu ml Histor.\ of its Growth. 1n d ianapol i ' : Liberty Fund. J u t , Juan B. 1 94 7 r l ] . O b ms o111pLetas, 1. IV: Teorfa practi a de la h i.'ifo ria. Bu n s A i r s: La Vanguardia. Kadek di, Gopal K. 2004. 01111110n Propert . Resour 'e M(lIIagem Ill: Refle 'tions on w D"lh i : Oxford ni ersity Pr" '. . Theory and til Indiall Experien ·e. Kadera, Kelly M . , Mark J . re cenzi. and Megan L. Shannon. 2003 . "Democrati , ur i al, peace, and war iJl the i nt ernational . y tem:' A lfieri '{III Journal of Politi al Science 47: 2, 4-247.
Kaldor M ary. 3 . Global Civil So i 'I .: A ll A l lswer 10 War. Cambridge : Pol ity Pr" s . Kaplan, Fred. 1 9 8 3 . The Wi�ards of A nna eddon. New Y:. rk: im n and S h ll · ter. Katznel on, Lra, and H len V. M i l n r ds. 200_. Poliri al S iell e: Th ' /(Ire of the Di,\' iplille. N w York: W. W. OJ10n & 0.; Washi ngton, D . . : A merican Pol i t ical icncc A '0 iation. Kaurmann, Daniel. . Kraag, and M. Ma_ tru7.� i. 2006. " Go emment mailer. : Governance i nd icator for 1 9 6-2(X)5 :' World B an Pol icy R carch Worki ng Paper 40 1 2 . Kel en, H an, . 1 1 -2 . "The la a a 'pe i f! s ial te hnique:' Unil ers ity of Ch icago L \\' Revielll 9: 75- 7. Kenned . Pan l . 1 98 . Tit Rise and Fall of Gr�at Powers. Lond n : Fontana Pre s. -- . 2006. Til , Parliament oj Mal l : Til Past. PrJ ent. lIlId Future 0/ the Unil'd Na tioll . Toronto: HarpeJ ollin ' . Kenworthy, L ane, a n d J na P n t u n . 2 0 5 . . R i i n o i nequality and t h e p l i tic f redi lribution in affluenl ountrie ." Per pecth'es on Politics : 44 -47 1 . Ke ne . . John Maynard. 1 1 936 ] 1 97 3 . Til Gelleral Til (1)1 of EII/plo 'men.t. Interest and MOil 'y. I n Colle 'Ied Writings . V I . London : M a mi llan and ambrido U n i rsity Pr s . . K i f. hner. Ori n . 2005 . "Tri umph of G lobaUsm: A merican Trade Pol itic ' ." Politi 'a/ S 'i� nee Quarf,r!) 1 20 : 479-, 0 . Kitch r, Philip. 1 98 . miltillg A ml itioll: So iob iolo alld til , Qllestjor HI/IIIOIl Natl/re. Cam rido , M A : M IT Pre . Kl i n , Naonti . _ 07. The hock Do I rin : The Rise of Di 'aster apitali 111. Toronto: A l fred A. K nopf Canada. Knight, Margaret, and Jam" Herri k, ds. 1 995 . flLlmani t A mhology: From vllfll ius to A ft >lIboroli h. Amher L N Y: Prometheu B ook Kobl itz. i l . 1 9 8 . "A tale of th ree equation ': or. th mperor hav n J Ihes.' Mat"� malical IntelligenceI' I 0: - 1 0. Koenig , M i hael Li ane Young, R al ph Adolph , Daniel Trancl, Fiery lL hmafl M arc Hau 'er, and A n t ni Dama ' i . 20 7. Danlag I the prefr ntal ortex in rea, utilitarian moral judgm n ts." Narur 44 : 0 -9 I I . Kolnai. Aur l . ] 93 . The \� ar ag lil/.\·t the West. London : GoJ lancz. Kr"i ner, G hl E . , B l ak E. AsfoJ1h, and Davi d M. Slus . . _006. "Identity d nami s i n cupational d i rty work." O r '(.mi:atioll Sciell ce 1 7 : 6 1 9-636. Kri. tensen, Petter, and Tor Bjcrkedal . 2 00 7 . "E plain i n the rel ation betwe n birth order and i ntel ligence." Science 1 6: 1 7 1 7 . Kuklick. B ru e. 06. Blind Ora Ie,\.' lilt 'lie tllals lind HarJrom Kel l l l II to Ki,\sillg r. Princeton, J : Prin eton Ili r'ity Pre . . Lamont, orli " . 1 98 2 . The Philo 01'11. of Huma n ism , l ed. N w York: Frederick ngar. Lang, Sero . 1 9 1 . The FiLe. New y: rk: Sprincrer. La ki, H arold. 1 9 5. The Stat il l Theol) and Pmcti . '. Lon(\on : Ge rge A l len & Un win. _
I
_
I
References
415
La. lett Peter. 1 967 . P l i ti cal phi l . ophy, hi. t r of. In Paul Edward , ed., The Elleyc/o Free Pre s. pediG of Philosophy, 01. , 70- 1 . New York : M acmillan La ' wel l . H arold. I 5 PoLitics: Who G ts What. How, When. 2nd ed. Cle eland and New York: World Publ ishing o. La ' ·well. Harold. and Abraham Kaplan. 1 950. Power alld S ciety: A FramelVork for Political lllquiry. "w Havcn. "T: Yal niver. i ty Pre 's. Latour, B runo, and S tev n Wooigar. 1 979. Laborator) L�fe: The ocial COllstruction of S ientifi ' Fa 'ts. London and B crJ H i l l : Sag '. Lauren , Henry. 1 9 O. 00 , 2007 . La question d Palestill . Pari. : Fayard. Lawn, Philip. 2005 . "I a dcmocratic-capitaJi t s , tcm compatibl w i th a low-growth or ' teady- tate economy ?" 0 'io�E ollomi Rei iew 3: 209-232 . L IeI' , Fel icia B, and M ah -Jabecn oobadcr. 00. ''The effect of i ncom i nequal ity on the health of s leeted S demographic group ' . Americall Journal of Public Health. 0: I 92- 1 97. 1 ee, he I-Sung. 2007 . "Lab r union and g I g v manc : A ro -nati nal. compara tive anal)' . i : America/1 So iolo 'ical Rel iew 7 2 : 5 85 -609. Lchn , Ri hard . _006. ovemm >n1 and BII.�';'les . .. A meric;an PoliTi al E '0110111. J ill om paratil Pel's!, ' Iii e. Will h ington, D . . : Q Pres . Lenin. V ladi mir J l ich. 1 992 [ 1 9 1 7 [ . Til tate alld Rel'ollilioll. London : Pengui n . Lepper, M ark R . , a n d David Greene, ed . 1 97 . Til Hidden CO.'if of Rewards: Neu P, r .\·pe 'Iive 011 the Ps IlOlogy of HI/m m Moti! arioll. H i l l 'dale, J : \-Vjle IErl baulTI. Le ' n ff, M ichael H . 1 99. PoLitical Philosopher.., of the Tu entieth enlUly. 0 � rd: B lack w I I . L c i. -Wi l li am . , Da i d , and David P 'arcc. 2005 . llIside the Neolithic Milld: onscious lles , Cosmos and The Realm of Go i . Londoll : Tham ' & Hudson . 1 ewontin. Richar I. _000. It A ill ', ec ssaril.\ So: The Dream ofth ' Humall Gellome and . w York: N w York Review of Book, . OIlier JIIL/sioll . Lil la, M ark . 00 I . The Reckles ... Milld: lilt lIectuals in Politics. e, Y; rk: New Y;Jfk Review B ooks. r
_
"
'
.
1
Lomnitz, Lari sa. 1 97 7 . N Morks ali i MarginalilY: L�fe in a Me"i an /Wllly' 111 1 . 'an Fran i o. A : Acadcmic Pre . . y. Dordreeht: 'ambridge MA: Har ard Lytt1cton, Adrian, cd. ] 97 . Italian Fas isms: From PareTO 10 >nTile. New York: H arper & Row. Lucretiu ( 5 8 B . '.E. ) . �f t"e Narure of Things. London : J . M . Dent, 1 92 1 . Luhmann, ikla . . 1 9 7 . The e l ut i nary di fferentiation between iet and int raction." 1n J . . Ale ander. B. G iessen, R. M Unch and N. J . Sm I 'er. ed ' . The Mi '1'0Ma 1'0 Link, 1 1 2-. 1 . Ber ele : ni er ity of Cali C m i a Pre. . M a h iavell i . N iccolo. 1 940. The Prine alld Ihe Di.,collr"es. N "\ York: Modern Li brar . -
.
416
Political Philosophy
Ma Culloch, Robert.2004. " The i mpact of i ncome on the ta Ie for re oil:' Ameri 'all 1011l1lal of PoLitical i 11 e 4 : 3 - 48. M aced , t phen, el a l . 2005 . Democ rac) at Risk: How Political Choices Undermil/e Ciriz'l1 Parricipatiol1 and What We (/1/ Do A bout 1t. Washington, D. .: B rooki ng I n ·t jtution Pr . ' . Ma K innon, "atheri n . 1 9 9. Toward a Feminist Theory of rhe Stare. "ambridge, M A : H a r ard ni er i t y Pre . M adero, Fran c i J . 1 908. La sIIcesi6n presidel/ ial ell 1 9 1 0: EI Partido NacionaL D m ocr atico . San Pedr , C ahuila [ Mexic ] . M aclean, R . Craig and I ana G ud"lj . 200 . " R �ourc omp t ition and . ocial confl ict i n expe ri mental popll latj ns of yeast: 498 - 50 1 ." NatLire 44 1 : 498-50 1 . M aguir . M ., R . Morgan & R . Reiner, cds. 19 4. Th ) 0. ford Handbook of ri111i11010 'yo Oxford: 1arendon Press. M ah ler, Yin ent A., and Dav id K. Je uit. 2006. "Pi ' al redi t ri buti n in th de el ped c untrie : New in ight. from the Lu xembourg I ncome Study." Socio- E 'OI/Omic R \ iew 4: 483- 1 1 . M ah n r, M arti n , cd. 200 I . del/rifle Reali 111: elected EssClys ofi';fario Bunge. Amherst N Y: Prom th u Book . -- .2007 . "D marcating , ienc from p 'eudoscien e ." I n T. Ku i per ', ed., Handbook of the Philosoph o.fScience: Gel/eral Philosophy of dellc -Focal h.me ·, pp. , 1 55 7 5 . Am ,t rdam: Elsevier B Y. M ahner, M artin. and Mari B u n � . I 96. ' I reli!Tiou educati n mpatible with ience edu ation �"Sciell & Edll ation : 1 0 1 - 1 23 . . I 97. FOlll/datiol/s of Biophilo. oplly. Berlin-Heidel bcrg- N ' W York: Spri nger Verlao 1 997. Majone , Giand meni o. 1 9 9. f...\ dellce, A pulllelll, alld Persuasion ill til Poli " Pmces ·. New J laven, T: Yale U ni ver ity Pre ' 5 . M an n , Mi hae l . 1 986 . TIl(- Sources of odell Power, 0 1 . 1: A History o.f Pmw-rfrom the Be Jil/llill ' to A . D. 1 760. ambridoe: Cambridge U n i r it Pr -- . L 9 3. The SOllrce ' of odal POH er. I. [ I : Til Rise of Classes and Nation-states, 1 76 - 1 1 4 . ambridge: Cambridg" ni er" ity Pr" s. -- . 2004. Fascirst ·. ambridge: uunbridge n iver 'iry Pre" . M arch . J ame. G . , aJld H"rb 11 S imon. 1 958. Orgalli;:.ation ' . ew Y rk : John Wiley. uperior de In e Mari hal, J uan. 1 990. 1:.'1 illf I 'wal ' /a politi ·a. Mad rid: Con ej tigac iofl '. ientHi M ari n v, i kolay. 2005 . ' D economic ' an tion de labi l i .e untT. leader ?" Allier; em 1011l1lal of PoLitical i 11 e 49: 5 -57 . Mar 'h, David. and J leather avigny. 2004. "Politi al sci en e as a br ad hurch: Th search for a plurald di iplin"." Politi . _4: 1 5- 1 f\·l ar 'hal l, Theodore H. 1 96 . So i% ' . at the Cro 'sroad md Other Essay.\'. London : Heinemann . M art In z - e l va, 1 . M . 1 9 1 . A p e t o p icol6gi o. I n J . M . Va1.qu z , ed. Los 'iulllo ' 'n Murcia //0 ', 1 980. M urcia: U n i cr idad de M urcia. M a. S" Dougla. . 2006. "Race, l a ' " aJld markets: Soc ial pol i y i n th 2 1 .1 ntury." I n D . B . G ru. k and R. K aJlbur cd . , 1 1 7- 1 2 . Matta. JagaJl Iladha, Janaki Ala\ alapati, J o h n Kerr, a n d E v a n l\·1ercer. 2005 P e r ' pe t ive. n tran i tion t participatory f rest management: A ase I u d fJ m Tam i l Nadu, I ndia." So iet)' and Natural Re.\'Ources 1 8: 8 9- 70. M a hew, David R . I 9 1 . Divi led we ovenl.· Par ontrol, Lawmaking and 1nvesti ations, 1 46 - 1 990. New H aven T: Yak 'nivcrsity Prc " s. -- . 2005 . ' War and Am ri an Pol i t ic ." P, rspe 'tives 011 Politic. 3: 473-493 . I
__
•
. •
417
References
Mc Adam, D ug, Sidne Tarr w, and Charle Til ly. 200 1 . D lIamics of COIIf m;rJll . Cambridge: C ambridge U ni er�ity Pre , s . McD nald, M ichael P. , and Samuel L . P pkin. 200 1 . The myth f the \ an i hino ter:' Ameri an Pulili al Science Review 5: 963- 74. Merom, G i l . ] 999. " I 'rae l " national 'e u rity and t h m t h o f exceptiona l i ' m ." Polili 'al � 'iell e uarrerly ] l 4: 409-434. Merton Robert K. I 36. "The unanticipated C n equen e , of 'odaJ a (i n ." Ameri 'm/ Sociologi 'al Review I : 894- 04. . 1 96R [ 1 95 7 ] . So 'ial Til 01 alld Social Structure, enlarged ed. New Y rk: The Fre Pre s. . 1 97 2 . The So 'iology of iell e. hi ago, l L : Ili er'ity of Chicago Pre .. . M ilgram, tan Ie)' . 1 974. Obedi I1C 10 AUlhority. N w York : H ar pe r and Row. Mi II. J ohn tuart. 1 965 I 1 87 1 1 Prill iples (>i'Politi (II E vl/omy. 7tl' ed. In olle 'led Hvrh, I . . Tor n to: ( ' niver it f 11 r nto Pre '. : L nd n : ROll tJedoe & Kecran Paul. . 1 24 L 1 7 ] . Autobiography. New Y, rk : 'oillmbia n iveL ity Pre. . M i l ler, Da id. 1 989. M ark 't, Stat and ollllllunity: Theor ticcil Foulldations of Market �ociCllism. Oxford : Clarcnd n Pr , . --. 1 9 6. ''TWo h er: for merito rac . JournaL of PoLitical Philo 'ophy 4: 27701. . 1 9 9 . Prill iples of Social Justi ·e. 0. f rd: Clarend n Pre . . M i l l , . W right. ] 9 9. Tile POlI'er Elite. London : Oxford niver ' il)l Pre' ' . M i nt2berg, Henry. 1 9 . Millt;:.ber 011 Malia emenr: Inside our trange World of Orga ni:.(llion . N"w York : The Frc Pre s. . 2(X)4. Managers not MBAs. S an Franci . co: B rr 't-Kochlcr Publisher .. M intzb rg, H nry, B rll Ahl trand. and Jo, cph Lam pc 1 . 2005 . Strate . Bites Ba k Upp r Saddle River. NJ : Pear-'on Prent ice HalJ oaddeL l\·1 an. or. 2007 . "What the l raqi tudy group m i ssed : The I raqi peopl ." Footnotes , : I , 4, 1 0. Mo . i nger P i rre . 1 . La p . hologie morale. Pari : Pre. . s n i ve r s itaire s de France. M ftitt, Terrie, and AV " halom Caspi. 2 06 . hE idenc from behav ioral g neti for environm I1tal ontribution ' to anti ' ocial condu t ." I n Wik trom and Sampson , ed ' . : 1 08- 1 5 _. M ondrag6n Corporaci6n ooperati a. _006a. Informe allllal 200 -. .2006b. Historia de l t I W experien 'ia. Mo re, B arringt n, Jr. 1 003 [ 1 966] . Social Origin ' ofDictatorship. Bo t n, M A : Bea n Pre . . oore-Lapp ', France ' . 1 97 1 . Di I for a Small Plallet. New Y rk : Ballantine. Moore Lappe, Francc " , and JO" cph Coll i ns. 1 988. World HUll 'er: 1 2 M ·t/1 . London: Earth 'can Publication ' . M tel ler, Frederick. 1 8 1 . " In n vaLion and e aJ uaLion:' Science 2 1 l : M ungiu-Pi pppicli, A l i na. 2006. " rruption: Diagn i an I treatment." Journal of De 1 7, No. : 86-99. mo rei M u ssol in i , Bcnito. 1 93_. "Th doctrinc of fa. i sm:' In Lyt t l ton, 39-4 - . M rdal Gunnar. 1 . Obj til it)' il1 () ial iell e. N c York: Panth o n B ook . arizn. , Kevin. 2003. "Both gu n. and butter, or neither: CIa s i nterests in the politjcal e n m f re armament. A merican Political dellee R('l'iew 7: 20 - 220. arveson, Jan 1 998. "Egalitarian ism: Partial . ounterprodu t i e and ba 'eles ' ." In A. M a n, ed., ideaL ' of Equality. 0 ford: Bla b\ e l l . ]\;a h, Gary B . _ 00 . The VI/knOll'll Americall Revolllti{)lI: The Unru( Birlh ofD 'mocra y YOI' : Viking. and the Sri'll ' I , to Create America. N
--
I
--
--
"
"
--
--
'
--
"
418
Political Philosophy
Naylor, R. Th ma . 006. atcmic Pur 'es: Mone). M tho and Misinformation in the War King ton : M G i l l - lIccn ' Pre . . an 'FI.'I.,.o r. Montreal Neu ner, J acob, ed. 2 0 . G d 's RuLe: Th Politics of World ReLi 'ioll '. Wa hinot n , D.C . : corgetown n i ver i ty Pr"s . N u rath, Otto. 1 9 I 1 1 94 5 1 . Review of F. A . Hay k ' The Road to Selfdom.. In GeslJm melte philosophi.5che lind met/lOdologi c/1e � ·hri/tel1 . 2 vols. Vi"onna: H oldcr-Pi chler-Temp k . Nicl ell, Kai. 1 9 5 . Eql lCllity (lilt.! Libert\·: A Defens ' of Radical EgaLitarianism. Tot wa, J: R man & A l lanheld. N iou. Emerson M. S . P t r . Ordeshook, and Gregory F. Ros . 1 9. The Balan ' of POI rer: tability ill International Systems. 'ambridge: ambridge ni\ ersity Pr s . Nordhau '. Wmiam. 2007. " ritical as ' umption ' in th Stern Revie\ on cli mate change." Science 3 1 7 : 2 1 -02. N e. A lec. 1 98, . 17" EcrJllomi . , of Fea,\'ible So ·ialislIl. L ondon : A l len and U n w i n . Nozick, Robe rt . I 7 4 . Anarchy. State. and Utopia. N e w Yor : B a ic Boo . NUll, Jose. 2000. Demvcra 'ia: l obierno c1e1 pueblo 0 gobierno de los politi 'os ? M adrid: S i o lo XXI dc Espaii a. N us baum. Martha. 2000. Womell alld . ·0 'iol De elvpm ?nt: The COl'abiliti s Appna 'h, ew �)fk: ambridge U niver ' i ty Pre, . 2 006 . . 5 q ue ,tion ' Oil pol itical philo 'ophy." In Mort n E. J . N iels n. ed .. Political Question .: 5 Questi IlS Oil Political Philosoph ', Lond n: Aut mati Pre . . campo. Jos ' A n tonio. and Lane" Ta lor. 1 9 8. ''Trad Lib ral ization in developing i th productj it)' gro th, macro price. , economic. : M od ', t benefit. but problem and i ll OIlle di tributi n:' The E 'ol1Ol1li ' Journal 1 0 : 1 52 3 - 1 546. Ohtsuk i. H i hashi, hri ' \ ph H auert, Ere� Liebe rman. an I M artin A. owak. 2006 . . . . imple ru le for t b ev I ution f ooperation on graph and '0 ial netw rk , Nature r
-- .
44 1 : 502-50, . 01. on, M ancur Jr. 19 5 . The Logi l ni er jty Pre
of CoIL
Iii
A
lion .
ambridg" MA: H ar ard
.
ren, Ld . _006. ' an p l i t i al s ienc" emulat th natural scien C " . The problcm of s I f-dj 'coll n rmatjol] analY ' i ' ." Polity : 7 2 - 1 00. Orren. Gary R. 19 . B yond s I f-interest:' In Robert B. Reich, ed The Power oJPublic Irleas, pp. 1 3-29. ambridge, M A : Harvard n i veL ity Pre. O. trom, E l inor. Go vernillg the OIllIllOIlS: Th ' Evolution of InstitlltiollS for ollective A ctiol/. New Y, rk: Cambridge n i versity Pre . -- . 2005 . "Poli i s that rowd out reciprocity and ollectivc action." I n G inti� et a t . . ed '" 2 5 3 - 27 5 , , try, S I v i a . _0 3 . "What ar t h e nec"s ar i ngredicnts for the world tradi ng order:' I n H or 't ' i eb ft , e d . . Global Gov 'mallce: A ll A rchitecture for the Wo rld E ·onolny. pp. 1 23- 1 47. Berli n : Sprin o er-Verlag . Pai n . Thoma . 1 7 l 1 79 1 ] . Ri J/as of .Mrl1l: B ill (JI/ A nsw r to Mr Burke " A lla k on the Frel/ -II Re\ olution. A mher. t, N Y: Prometheus Boo . ' cw York: Palgra c ' Pani , M . 2002. lobali:atioll Clnd National E 'ol1ollli ' We({are. Ma mill an . Pan itcb. Leo. a n d Col i n L e " eds. 0 'ioli ,t Regi5ter 2004: The N \r Imperial /w/leflge . London: Merl i n Pre s. Pap , Robert A. Bomb;1I J to Win: A ir POI er alld Coer im ill War. Ithaca. N Y: omell l n i er j t Pre Par ns Talcot t . I 5 1 . The Social yst m. N"w York: Th" Fr e Prc. , . "
_ .
419
References
Paul Gregory S . 005 . "er -nati nal correlation. )f quan t i fiable 'ocietal health � i t h popuLar religiosity a n d 'ecularism in the pro. p rOllS demo 'ra 'i ' . Journal ofReli 'ioll & Society 7: 1 - 1 7 . Peter ' i l ia, Joan, Susan Turner and Joyc Peter 'on. 1 6. Prison er us Probatioll in a/�t'omia: Impli ations for Crime and Offender Recidivism. Santa Monica, A : RA O. Pier. on, . 1 99 - . ociali.. m cifter Communism: TiP New ,Market Socia/i ·m. Uni er ity Park: Penn . ] vaoia Stat o i er'ity Press. Phelp . Edmund S. 1 97 5 . A ltruism, Morali , and Economic Theory. New Y rk : Ru sel l Sage Foundation . Phi llip , Anne. 2004. " Defending equality [ ute m . JournaL of Polilical Blin e 's Philo ophy 1 2 : 1 - / 9 . Pi kel, Andreas. ed. 2004. " y · t ms and mechan i m s : A ' ympo ' i u m o n Mario Phi lo 'ophy of t h oeial S ienc s." Philo 01'11)' of the � o ci(lI � 'ien es 34: 1 69-299 ; 3_ - 1 . . 2006. Th, P roblem of Ord r in the Global A ge: S i.\'tems and Mec/uJlli '111.\'. New York: Palo rav ' M a millan. Piers n , Paul, and Theda S k kpol. 2002 . H i . t rical i n lilUli nali m in conlemp rary pol i tical ienc"." I n Kalzn l son and M i lner. ds.: 69 - 7 2 1 . Pinker, Sl n . 200 . The Bialik SlaTe: The ModeI'll Dellial of Human atllre. ew York: P nguin Book " . Piven, France ' Fox . 2004. ''The pol iti s of policy ·cience." In Shapi ro. Smith and �asolld, ed . . pp. 8 - 1 05 . Polany i , Karl . 1 4 4 . The Great 'h allSformation. ew Y rk: R i nehart. Polanyi , M ichael. 1 99 7 . So iet Ecollomi s & Philosophy : Selected Papers. N 'w B run. wi k: Transa lion Publi . hers. Pontus on, Jona . 20 5 . Jllequalir . alld Prosperity: 0 ial Europe \ s. Liberal Am ri ·a. ltha a. Y: Corn Il n iver i ty Pre ' . P pper Karl R . 1 9 [ 1 9 ] The Logi . of S iellt�fic Di ' ove'".,. L nd n : H utchi n on. -- . 1 962 I ] 945 1 . The Open So iet) alld its Enemie 'S . 2 vol ' . 41J1 ed. London : Rout ledoe & Kecyan Pau!. Pound, R i hard A. _007 . The E ollomi J if WH , 7th cd. A rnst rdanl : Walter K l uwer. Pound, Ro. oc. 1 95 4 1 1 924 1 . An Jlltrodu 'tioll to the PhiLosoph i of Law. Re\,. cd. N w Haven. "T: Yul" ni er. ity Pre ' . . Putnam R bert. 1 993 . Makillg Dem ·ra .r Work: 'I i'aditi liS ill Model'll Ital l• Pri nceton, J: Pri nceton Univ rsity Pr s . . 200 A PSA Pre. idenlial Addre . : "The publ ic r Ie f p liri I cien e:' Perspec tives 011 Politi s I : _49- 256. Qui nn . Denn i ' P., and J hn T. W olley. 200 I . 'Oem era y and nati nal ec performanc : Th pI' f ren f r stab i l ity." Ameri all Juurnal of Polirical 4 : 6 4-6 7 Rabkin, Jeremy A. 200 . UIW lVir/lOlIr Nations ? Why onsrilUtional 0 emmel1T Requires ol'erei 'n tates . Pri ncet n. NJ : Princel n ni er ity Pre ' . Rapoport, A naro!. 1 96 . ·Cri tiqu '. of game theory." In Bu Ide , cd., 474- 9. Raw!. J )hn. 1 7 1 . A Theory O/JII ·Iice. Cambridge. MA. The Bel nap Pre f Harvard Uni rsity Pr . s. --. 1 999. Tile Law if Peoples . Cambridge, M A : J larvard niver. it)' Pre ' . R b6n, 1 . . and l . Saavedra. 2006. Empre,m r c/lperada : La allto e,\ tioll de 10 rmba jadores. B ueno ' A i res: apital Intele 'tual. Regan, D nald H. I O. tililarianism and Co-operation. Ox[ rd: l arend n Pre . R i neck W Ifgang H . 1 9 . Global Public Poli 'y. Wa h i n gt n. D. . : B rook ing I n titution. "
"
-
--
•
.
,
--
,
'
,
420
Political Philosophy
tre Res her, Ni h la . 1 9 7. Obje ·tidf) : The Obligations of Impersollal Reaso1l. Dam , IN : Notre Dam" Uni ersi ty Pre . . Re trep , I an, and Sal mon Ec ' tei n . I 79. La agri IIltura cole tiva en ArJexico: La exp 'ri Jllcia de La La 'una, 2nu cd . 1\,1 ' i o. D.F. : Fondo d Cultura Eeon6mica. Riaboi. Jorge B . 2006. La ' mil cara ' de los 'ub 'idios agri ola . Re i ·ta del EJ : omercio Exterior Lntegra ion, No. 6: 1 1 7 - 1 3 . Robin on. l\-1 ary, and J hn Eatwe l l . 1 74. All Introductioll to Mod rn Economics, re . cd. Ncw Yor : M Oraw-H i l l . Robin n Matt. 2007. " A " ia's . Iow fi nancial c meback." IlIfernafiollal Herald Tribll1l July 4 . Ro kenba 11, Bettina, a n d Manfred M i L i n ' k i . 2006. "Th effi i e n t interaction o f i ndire rc i pro ity and eostl punishment.' Nature 444: 7 1 8-_3. Rodri k, Dan i . ] 99 7. "Has Globakarioll G me too Far"!" Wa ' h ington D . . : Institute for I n tematj nal Ee n mie . . --. 2007-0 . "One E onomi : M any re ipe . ." Items & I 'sue . 6, No. 1 -2 . Wa_ hington : The So i al Science Rc ear h Coun i t . Roscnbcrg, A lexandcr. 1 9 O. Sociobiology and the PreempTion of S o 'ial S i 'n<:e. Bal t imore �1 D : Joh n s Hopkin. 'niversi t Pr" s. Ro. si, Peter H .. Howard E. Freeman, and Mark W. Up 'ey. 1 99. Evaluatiol/: A 'sTemmi . Approach. Th u. and Oak , A : Sage Publication . Rothman, Kenn th J ., and Sander G reen land. ] 99 . Moriem Epidemiolo 1-", 2ml ed. Philadelphia, PA : L i ppineou-R a en. Rothstein, Bo. 1 9 JllsT InsTiTUTions MaTT r : The Moral and PoliTi al Lo ,i if The Uni t rsal \0\'; (jar State. arnbrido : arnbrido" U n i er it Pre . . Rou ' , eau , J"an-J acqu '. 1 973 1 1 75 5 1 . A Di. course 011 The rigil/ oI ll/equality. Ln The Sr.cial Colltm 'T alld Discours s, ed. G. D. H. 01 . London: E er man '_ LibraI' . Rudi-Fahi mi , Farzaneb . 2002. "Iran' fam j l pI' gram : Resp nding to a nation" ne d ." Wa hingt n, DC: Popul ation Reference B ureau, June. Runci man W.O . 1 9 . Relativ D privaTion and 0 ial Ju ·ti ' . London: RouLlcdg . Ru. 'ell, Bertrand . L 947 . . Phil . phy and pol i ti . :' In UnpoPlIlar Es ·ays. L nd n: Al Ien & nwin. Rus 'elt, B ruc M . J 993. Grasping the Dem JcraTi . Pea 'e: Pril/ iples for (J Post-CJld War Worl i. Pri ne ton, 'J : Prin ct n U oiver 'ity Pr ss. R n, lae G . 200. . America the \lirtuou ': The Crisis of Demo rae.' alld th QII sT for Empi,., '. N 'w B run i , N J : Trarl a Lion Publisher. . Sain t-Sim n [ Henri de] . 2005 . Eerits economiqu . et politiqlles: A nrhoiogie 'ritiqll . Pari . : P e ke\. amp 'on, R belt J . and John J l . Laub. 1 99 . Crime ill lhe Makin : Patlllva ' S and Turning PoinT thl'OlI 'h Life. ambridge, M A : H arvard n i v I ity Pr s . ands. Ph il ippe. 006. Lmi'le s World: America lIlri the Breakil/ 1 of Global Rilles fnm FDR 's Atlalllie Charter to Geor e \¥. Blish '05 IlLegaL War. New yo; rk: Vik j n o . S a p I ky, Robert M . 2005a. "The i n fl uence o f c i a l hierar h y n pri mate health." 'i ell ' 30 : 648-5 2 . . 2005b, Si k of po ·crty. S ';enTUic A merical/ 2 9 3 , 6: 92 -99. Sartori. Oio ann i . 1 94. ComparaTive ConstitllTional En 'illeeril1�. New York: Ne York n iver ' j t. Pre, ' . Scanl n , T h mas M . 2 00 . The D(fjiclIlty oi Tol ranee: Es 'Cl) s in Political Philo.'lOph . ambridg : ambridg n i v r ' i ty Pr ss. Schram, S an e· rd F.. and Bri an C� terin . ed . 2006. Making Politi al ciell e Matter. "\ York: N"w York n iversity Prcs . Sch ' B ing, Thoma C. 1 960. Til Strclte " of ollfti 't. N '\ Yor : Oxf rd U nivcr i t Press. ·
�
References
42 1
Schelli ng, Th rna. " and M non Halperin . 1 96 1 . Strat 'gv alld A rms olllrol. ew York: TWentieth entur F und . Schmidt, Viv ien A. 2 0 5 . TIem 'ra i n Eur pe : The i mpact f European inte!!TUlion :' PerJpe til'e on Politic 3 : 7 1 -7 79 . Schmitt, arl . 1 976 1 1 92 7 ] . The Oil 'ept of the Political. ew B rul1swi k. NJ : R utg ni er. ity Pre . . Schonwandt \ alter L. 200 2 . Plalllmg ill d r Kri 'e: Stuttgart : W. Kohlhammer. Schumpcter, Jo. cph A . 1 950 r 1 942 1 . apitali m,Socialism alld Demo rClC "I cd. N w York: H arper & R S c hump" tcr. Jo eph 1\.. 1 50 r 1 942 1 . apitalism. ocialism alltl Demo ra \I. l ntro. T. B tromor . N ew York: J larperTor h bo ks. cot t , J ame ' '. 1 . n0apoll if the Weak: £ eryday Forms of P, a alit Re istanc'. N 'W Hav 11 . :1': Yale niver'ity Pr · S . Scot t , Eu ge nie . 2004. £vollltioll vs. reotiOllism: All Imro lucfioll . We ·tp rt T: Greenwo d Pre . Scott. John T., R i hard E. M al l and, Phi l ip A . M i c helbach, and B ri an H . Born. tcin . 2 00 I . " J u t dc , s rt . : An c ' pcri m Iltal tud of di t ributivc ju. ti e norm� . ' American JOllrnal o.fPoliti al i 'll > 45 : 749-767. Searl , Joh n . 1 995. The COlIslru 'Iioll of 0 'ial Reali ' . New York: The free Pre ' . Sk P I, Theda. 1 979. States alld ocial Revolutiolls: A omparafil e A llalysis of Frail ' . w York: ambridge niver'ity Pr · S . Ru .\·ia, alld IIi1lo. Sen , A martya. 1 9 4. P pulali n : Del u i n an d Reali t . New York R view of Books , Vol . 4 1 . No. 1 . --. 1 999. Developm 111 as Freedom . N '\ York: K n pC S n i , Dan A. 1 993. ElemellfY of a Theory o.f Plans. Ph. D. The j" Thc W harton School. U . l\U . 94 1 3 07. Shapiro, lan, Roger. M. Smith, and Tarek E. M asoud, eds. 2004. Problems alld Methods ill The flldy of Politics. Cambridge : ambridge Uni ersit Pre ' . Shi a, Vandana. _00 . Th III lh of g lobalization expo. d: Ad an ing toward living dem cra . In J .O. Speth ed .. Worlds Apart: GLobali-alioll and the Ellvironmenl, 1 4 1 - 1 4. -- . 2005 . II/dia Dil ided: Diver it alld Demo 'racy ul/der Alta 'k. New York : Se en Stori s Press. Simm n . A . John. 200 . Politi al Philo 'ophy. New Y, rk : 0 ford ni er ity Pre . Singer. P 'ter, and Thomas Rcoan , cds. 1 976. Allil1Ull Ri ,/ltS and Hllmall Obligation. . Englewood l i ff. , NJ : Prenlice H al l . S inger. Tani a Ben S y nour. John P. O ' Dohcn. K l aa E . S tephan , R a mond J . Dolan, and hri D. Sjoberg G ideon. ed . 1 9 7 . Erhi ' ·. Politi ·s, and So 'ial Re ean'lt. 'am bridge MA: chenkman Publ . o. Ski nner. Quenti n . 2002. Visiol/.\· of Politic . 01. L : Re 1arriill M'II1od. ambridge: am rido { ' n iver ' i t Pre,s. Skinn r. Quentin Partha Dasguptu- Ray mond Geus , M I i a I ane, Peter La lett, Oora O ' Nc i l l , W.G . Runciman, and A ndr 'W Kuper. _002. " P l i l i ' al Philo. oph : Th 1 W from "ambridge." Journal (if Politic II Philosophy 1 0: 1 - 1 9. S lantc h v B ranL lav L . 2 4. " H w i n i ti ators end th ir war : Th duration of warfarc and the term of peace. " A mericall Journal of Politi al S iell 'e 48: 8 1 - 29. Smil, Vac\a . 1 999. China ' great famine: 40 year later. British M dical .Ioumal 3 1 9: 1 6 ] 9- 1 62 1 . S r i n , Pitirim A . 1 9 6. Fads alld FoibLes ill /vlodem 0 ioLo . alld Related iellces. C hicago. IL : Henry Rcgne ry Soros, 0 ' r c. 1 998. The risis of Global apitalism [Open So iet)' Entlal1 -'eredl. N w York: Public flai rs . • _
I
J
422
Political Philosophy
Th Ag of Fallibility: Ol1s('qltellces of the War Oil T. rror. N e\ York: Publi c Affairs . Spinner- Halev, Jeff, a n d E l i Labeth TheLs-M r e . 2003. Nati nal identit a n d e l f-e tee m ." Persp ti e ' 011 Politi s 1 : 1 5-53_. pinoza. Benedict de. 2007 I ] 670 1 . Theolo lical-Political Treatise. Jonathan L rae!. ed. n i versity Press. ambridg : ambridg S tern. ichola_ . 2007. The 1:.: 'ol1ol1li 's of Ihnat' Chal1 : The Stem R i,} . ambri Ige: Cambridg ' nivcr. ity Pr ' . . Stem, N ieh la , and hri Tay l r. 2007 . . Climate change: Ri. k, ethic. , and the S tern Rc LCW:' S iell e 1 7 : 203-04. tigl itz, Joseph E . , and Andrew harlton. 200 . Fair Trade for A ll: HOI\ Trade call Prom ute Del' lopm(,l1l. N w York: 0 , ford n i v I ity PI' s . t rau ' , Leo. 1 98 1 1 959 1 . H Iwt is Polili al Philosoph ? A lld Olher E.\·sa IS. GI ncoe. I L : The Free Pre. . SlroQ:at7. te en H . . Daniel M . bram , Al lan MeR bie , B runo Eckhardt. and Edwar I Ott. 2005 . " ro d p cholog, on th ' M i l l 'nniurn B ridoe."Natllr' 438 :43-4. un-tzu. 1 994. The A rt �lWar. R . O. awy r, cd. cw York: Barnes & Nobl . tab r: 45 -5 1 Su k i nd Ron. 2 4 . ' Without a doubt.'· N II" York Tim s Maga:.in , 1 7 64, 1 02 , 1 06. Sulton J hn R. 2004. ''The p ol 1 tical ec nom of i m pri nment i n afn ue n t Western democraci . 1 960- 1 990." Ameri '(111 Sociologi 'al ReI iew 69 : 1 70- ] 89. Szuromi , Phil , Barbara Ja ny, Oani 1 C1er , J ame A , tin, and B r ' 0 " Han . n, ed . 2007. " Energy for th" long haul ." Sciell (' 3 1 5 : 7 1 - 1 3 . Tal man, J [ acob ] . L. I 70 [ 1 95 1 1 . Til Ori 'ill. of ToralitariclII Demo 'racy. N ' w York : W. W. ollon . Tawney. R. H. 1 964 [ I 3 ] . t:quali I re . ed. New Y rk : Barne & Noble. Ta y lor, 'h a rle '. 1 99 . "Nationali m and mode m ity." I n J . A . J lall, ed. The tate of the Nation: El'Ilest Gellner and th th or of Nationali.'im, pp. 1 8 1 -2 1 R. Cambridge : Cambridge n ivcrsi t Pr . . Ti l l . CharIe , ed . 1 975. The Formatioll of Natiollal tates ill Western Europe. Prin t n , J : Prin cton n ivcrsi t Pr" s . -- . 1 990. Coer im. lpilal, alld El lrop eall State 'S . Oxford: B Jackwell. ----. 1 99 . Durable Inequality. Berkeley, A : I l i c r i t of aJi fomiu Prco 's. -- . 1 999 . . P w r-top dow n and b t t m up." JOlll'I/al of P liti al Philo 'ophy 7 : 330- 5 2 . --. 00 . Til Politics � f ollectil e iol n . . Cambridge : ambridge U niver i ty -- .2006.
I
. 200 . Regimes all i R ?perro i re 5 . ' h icago , l L : C hic ag U ni ver ity Pre ' 5 . niv"r i t Pr" · S . --. _0 7 . D mo ra y. Cambridg": Carnbridg Tinnan. John. 2006. 1 00 Way,\' A merica i ' S relVill l III' the World. New York: H arp r. � cq ue i l le, Ale. i ' d . 2000 [ 1 .- -40] Democracy in Ameri a. Tran ' lated H. M an field and M. Winthrop. Chicago: U niver it of hicaQ: Pre_ , . -- . 1 985 . Selected Lett rs 011 Politi '$ and Soci . Ed. R . B oc c h '. Bertie : U n ivcr . ity of "'al i fornia Pre 's. Todorov, A I andcr Nc u � . M andi dza Amir Goran, and ry stal . Hal l . 2 5 . "lnferen e. f competenc from fa predi t ejection out ome ' :' 'i lit'? 0 : 1 6231 62 . . ToJ sto , Leo. 1 999 [ 1 899 1 . Re llrre lioll. Tran ' 1 . L . f\·l aude. Oxford: 0 ford niver 'ity Pre . . __
Touraine. Alai n . 2005. VIl IlOU '(,GII para{Ji 'me: Pour omprelldre Ie mOlld' d 'Glijollrc.l 'Ill1i.
Pari : Fayard.
References
423
Trei man, Daniel. 2007. The A rch it cllIr' of GO' emmellt: Rethillkill ' Political D C fl rraliz,atioll. Cambridg : ambridge Un i ver ' ity Pres ' . Trigaer, B ruc G . 200 Un lerstcllldill Earl Civili::,atiolls: 11 Comparative Stud '. C ambridge: Cambridg" ni crsity Pre. s, T ai, Kcl lcc S. 2007 . Capitalism a'it/wllt Democra 'y: The Pr;\'(lte Sector ill on.tempor(1)1 China. I thaca, Y: ornc l l n i crsity Press. Tuana an , and R emarie � ng ed . 1 995. Feminism and Philosoph .: t. \· sellfia l R adill gs ill Theor ' ReillTerpretatioll ·. alld Appli 'ariol/ . Boulder, CO: We tview Pre .. ·N. 2 . n o rld ol1lmi sirJll 0 1 1 t h e ocial Dimensioll . oj Globali::,alir)l1. G"n va: I LO. 'N. 20 7 . Inter '01 ernm nwl Panel on limal' Chan ' . c New York Times A pril . DP. 2006. H u mo ll Del elopm '111 Report 2006. Gene a: Va h"r, Laurcnt- M i hel . 00 I . V,P Iri.He hislOire >t CIIltres pelits eaits politiques. Montrea l : Liber. . 2004. Le dpuscllle d 'lIl1e i iDle: Ni 1-;; h el la pens ;e flU 'iSle. Montrcial : Liber. Vanek. J aroslav. 1 7 5. 'if-Malia 'emenl: E 'OI1OI11i Liberalioll ojM{lIl. H armondsworth: .
".
--
7.
R e,\ torill
J
111 Ii
c.
i n i nnati,
UfV 'y. and A me rican Dcmocra 6. ''Th ps. hologi aJ
I . !\e
Y rk : Academic
7.
O u r Common
I. . Tilbinge n : J . C .B . vol ' . 5( ' ed . TUbjng n : J . . B . Mohr, a. G '.\' lfIlm elle eck . . 1 98 b. Ges(I1l1l11ell ' Paul Sicb c ).
--
po l iti ' 'he A I�f\'iit-;.e
·chrijiell. :lIr
Tiibi ngen : J . C. B . f\·l ohr Pau J S ie
Wis,\' 1/ 'ch lfrslehre.
Ttibingen : J . C . B . M hr
424
Political Philosophy
Wei n . t ck, Dan i e l . 1 9 9. "Bui lding rru t in divided . ietie. : ' JOllrnal of Political {,hilosoph 1 7 : 2 7- 07. ndiri n" oender, and v Lin o i n Welch, Su an, and John H i bb i n o . 1 992 . 'Finan i al A mcri a n National I ctions." JOllmal o/ Politi J 5 4 : 1 97-_ 1 3 . We ton, Ore . 2007. Til Politi al Bra;lI: The Rot o.l £motioll ;n De 'it:iing the Fate of tlte Nation. N w York: Publi A ffairs. We termarck FAiwar I . 1 906- 1 90 . The Ori ,in and Development of MoraI Idel.I ', 2 I . London : Macmi l lan. Whyte, William Foote, and Kethleen K i ng Whyte. 1 988. Makil lg MOl ldragon: Th Cro\ th and DYllami .'i 0/ the �-\-'lJ/'ker ooperati e omp lex . I thaca" l L R PI1 , . Wi t r " m , Per-Ol f. 2006. H lndividual , etring and act [ aim : S ituati nal me ha n i sm s and t h e xplanat ion of crim ." In P.- O. Wikstrom and R . 6 ] - ] 07 . ----. 2007a. " 0 i og w ithout know i n o : Jl]Jl]on pitfall i n crimc prc v cntion ." I n G . Farrell, K . Bower. , S . John n , a n d M . Town Ie , e I . Ima Jillatiollfor rime ('r.'l'en tiOIl, pp. 59-80. New York: rimina] J ustic ' Pre. , . --- . 2007b. " In 'earch )f cau 'e and explanati n. f rime. ' In R . D. King and W. Wincup , cd . , Doil1� Reseal' '11 011 rime alld Justice, 2d cd. 0 ' f rd: Oxford n i ver. ity Pre '. Wikstrom, P.-O., and R. Sanlpson , cd . 2 06. Til Explanation o/Crime: ont' l:l Me ha IIi 111.\', md Developlllellf. ambridge, K: ambridge n ive 'ity Pre. ' . Wil k i n n , Richard O . 005 . The Impa t of Inequality: How t o Make 5 i k 50 ieties Healthiel: New York : New Press. Wi l k i n on, R ichard G . , and Kat ' E . Pic ctt. 2006. In om i neq ual ity and population health: r i w and explanation of the id n " �oc: iCl I 'i nee & l'vledi '11Ie 62 : 1 76 - 1 7 4. WjJ n , E d w a rd O . 1 97 5 . So iobiol 'Jgy: Tlte Modem S 'IIthe is. am bridge . M A : Belknap Pre . Wimmer. A ndrea ' , and B rian M i ll . 2006. "From empire to nat jon 'tate: Explaining war. in the m dem rld, 1 1 6-200 1 ." American ociologicaL Review 7 1 : 867- 7 . n ivcr ' ity Press. Wolf, M art i n . _0 4 . Wil y Globali�ation H orks. N w Ha "n, CT: Yal W l i n , R ichard, cd. 1 9 3 . The Heidegger ontrover, . ambridg , M A : M IT Pres . Wol i n , h Idon S. 2004. Politi ·s Clnd Vision: o1llinuity alld Inl101 mioll in WeSTern Political T hO ll ,ht. enlarged ed. Princeton J: Pri nceton n iveLity Pre. _ . ---. 2008. Demo 'ra y 111 'orporaled: Mallaged Delila 'ra y alld lite Spe 'Ier ofll lve rted TotalitarianislII . Princet n, N J : Prin et n U n iver" i t Pre. '. World Bank. 1 99 7 . World De elopm 1It Intii ators 19 7. Washi ngton, D.C.: World Bank. Wright, Erik O l i n cd. _ 005 Approac:lle . to lass A llal), i . 'am blidgc: ambridge n ive ' i ty Pres ' . Zakaria, Farced. 2004. Til > Futltr> o/Freedom: Illiberal Demo 'ra 'y ar llome md Abroad. New Yi rk : W.W. N rt n . Zi 'gler, Jean . 2 00 2 . L S 11011\ ealiX ow/tres dll monde. 2 " I 'd. Pari : F a ard. Zu . wski, R be rt . 00 . ' rrupri n in Po. t-C mmuni t Europe : I mmora l i ty breed. poverty." Joumal {�r So i I, Political and E '011011Ii tudies : 9-40. _ '
Inde
of
A erman B ruce, 31!l Adams John. ill Adorno, Theodor. 2 8 8 Adriaanse, A l bert . ill Aga. i. Jo f, 342 Agne\ , Spiro. 24Q Ahls[rand, B ruce, l.23 Alberdi. Juan Bauti t a % A l bert, M ichael, !..:21 57. 397 A lbrecht, Don E .. ]j A lbrecht. Scon G . 2S A lexand r of M acedonia, 366. A maz n � r t, 321 A na. ta". Paul T., 2 3 A ndersen, R bert, 6fl 112 Anderson. Arthur S . , I A nder. on, B nedi t. l..9. A nderson, Ro M . 2 3 A ngenot. Mar , 1 7 AppJeton, A l be rt F. , lli A PS ( A m rican POlitical Science A . . ocia tion . 91. A rendt. Hannah. L � ---l. 1 42 . 1 99 , ,
,
.
, _ _
.
.
,
A ri stotle. L L L :!.L ..A. !..:!L !.Q.L
=.L 240.
A rizmendiarreta. Jo 'e Ma rfa. 3.1& Aron. Ra y mond, l.42 A rtus, PatTi k W8. A hok. ill Asner. Gregory P., ill Atattirk, K mal. ill A ug u ·t ine of J Uppo. L 2illi Axelrod, Rob rt. 2S6 B abeuf, Gracchu. , 28 B ac am, Lucio. 265 Bacon. Fran is . ...L 22Q Baldasarri. Delia. 25 Ba", Terence. 1 B anerjee . Abhij i t, ill
B arber, Benj amin, :dh � 359. 3m B ay ] y. David H .. _55 Beccaria, Ce arc, 2 57. ill BeJ 1 , Daniel, M..l Benda, J u l ien, 84 Ben Gurion. David. 3ill Bentham, Jeremy, ..J.. ill B rie Adolf A.. 341 Berl i n Isaiah, L 06. 3ll1 Berman, Sheri 1..1: � 67 .l1fi Bernay - . Edward L .. 292 Berner, Maureen , ....! ill Bernhard. Helen. l.Q3 Be s t . Jac q uel i n e , 26.l B i bby, Andr w. l1l B i n Lad n. 0, ama, 262. B i mar k. Otto, U 95. B i ssett , James, -5. Bjerkedal. Tor. 53 B l ai r, Ton y ill B l anc, I .oui . . 999, !..!b . :7. 372, ill B l att. John, 2Q4 B lau. Peter M . , 6S B loor, Dav id 22Q ,
_
3Q1
ames
B l u m . W i J l j a m , l.92
B bbio, N rberta, � ---l. L:L 1..5fi Boghossian, Pau l A . , 1.1 Boix, Carle , 2 9 6 3.£1 Bol i var S i mon. -.5 1 Bol ton, John, 224 Boron, Atil io. -..is. B udon, Ra mond, !.L 28l B randt. R ichard B .. ill B raudel, Femand, � 06 . .16Q B raun, Johann ill B re her, M ichael, 2B2. B rennan, Geoffrey 3 J J B ricmont. Jean, 84. B rundlandt 'ommis. ion. 3.&l B rl. z in. ki. Zbigni w. 2 24, =.2L 90 B uckley Walter, .5.& ,
_
,
425
_
426
Political Philosophy
B uddha 4 1 . . 5 1 B ueno d M qujta. B m 'e. -.l .!.L... 270.
� :lli1
Buffe t Warren. 2 5 B u ller, Da id J . , 52. Burawoy . M ichae l . ill B urke. Edmund, 3M B ush, George ll. W, . ill Bu. h, Ge rg W., _4. =..1 � � B u.. . David M .. .ill2
17
alvin. Jean. 51 apra Frank . .52 'ard. Davjd, ill Cardena . . Lazaro. ill arter, J im m , 1 56. � 2l.8 Caspi , Av. halom , 34.2. �L t l i s, Ylanucl, 2 2 1 Cato. 52. han, Tuk Wing, 11 harlton, Andr w ill Chavez, H ugo. ill Cheney. Di k, 1 96. 244, 2&2. hene , George, 382 'bomsk . oam. � 2. U llQ hri t, Je, u . . � Chri st ian oal ition, 2.l.& C I A entral I ntell igenc Ag ncy . 1Al Jark. Col in, 3.S3 Clau e\ i tz, Carl von, 1.22. Javc1in, Maurice, 11 l in tOn, B i l l , � 60. _74. 3 1 7, ..JJ1. 3 88 'olbert. Jean -Bapt i st . 295 Coleman , J ame S .. L L 304. ColJ ins, Jo seph. 2lQ Col lin. R andal l , 28 omte. Augu. te. 22Q Condon:el. M .-J ,-A.-N. Curitat, M arqui� dc, x , 3 1 33 OJlfucju ' . 4 J . 92 'onselhciro. Antonio. illS. Cornwel l. J hn, ill outrot. Thomas, 3fi2. Craig Rob rts, Paul. 2R2 r w , Frederi c k. 28 Crick. B ernard . ...... !.Q. 4.1 ronan, Gary, ill Dahl , Robert A . , ill 1 67. _ 1 . 299. � 35 , . :6- 5 7 , � 3m Daly, Herman E . , 329 Da i,. D, D . . �
Dawe , hri . t pher, 2R o breu. Gerard. 22£i Deci, Edward L., 254 de Figuciredo, R u i J. P., Jf _90 De Waal , Fran. B . M . , lli Dcl i sle, Esthcr. 3Q8 Derrida. Ja que. , 9. Derrieni . Jean-PierI' , _07. 290 D . hner, K arlhei n7., lA5 Di Pictro, Antonio, 124 Die ' ing, Paul, _6 1 , . 1 5 D ij k tcrhll i . Ap. 82 Oi Taeli. Benjamin. ill Domhoff, G. Will iam, l.22 Doniger. Da iel D., 328 Dow n. , A nthony, � � 2ill D Ie. M ichael W. . 270 Drur Shadia B., I . 4 1 Duh m . Pierr , ill DlI rkhcim, Emile, ..l.:. _90 Ouverger. Mau rj c e . 1 5 8. � 2.lO. Dworkin, Andrea, 1.66.
Dworkin, R nald, v i i i , � ill Dyzcnhau , Da id, ill Earle, John, 3 2 Easton, David. 5& Eatwell, J ho. ill Eatwell. R oger, li....:. l..28 Et:k 'tein, Snlom60, ill Eco, mbcrto. l42. Ed ard , Paul, ill E j n. tein. Al beJt, ill El. ter, J n . L 77. 288, 1&Q Eme ry, F. E., .s.a Eng I�, Friedri h. lL � U � ill Epicuru. , 41 Epp, CharJe, R., ill Esman. M ilton J . , L ill E s ping- Ander ' n. C d ' l a. 20. _97 . 67. 3 , 31Q ETA ( Sa que Separat i. I M v ment ), 21fl. Farle , J s hua, 3 _9 Fearon. J amc. D. m Fehr. Ern. t. 54.=.S5 82. ill... 2&1 Ferguson Neil 224 Fine. Ben. 26.1 Fi 'chbacher, lIr 55, � 1Jl1 Flei ha ker, Samuel. l..Q5 Flies bach. K . , ill Fong. Christi na M . . ill
Index of
Fost r, Norman, ill Foucault. M ichel. lQ, 220. France, A natol e, 62 Franc , Franci sco, lQ8 Frankli n , Benj amin. ill Frederi kson . George M . , 1 74. 3f& Freeden, M i chael. lA.l ill Freedman, Lawrence. !1L 3Q9 Frey. Bruno S . , 6Q •
Friedman M i l ton ....! 4 1 . .!..L.:. L 7 . LL 1 75 . 1 76. 2 1 1. _. 5 . 297 . . 1 5, I
Fukuyama, Fran c is, ill Ful l r. [ n. ill Gal brai th, J ame. K . , --.& 118 Galbraith. John Kenneth 1 75 . 3 1 9 Gandhi. Mahatma. ill Gar 1a- lIer . Maximo, 6li Gardner, Mart i n . 330. Gar .6n-Val de , Erne to. l.illl !.2L 35.2 Gauthier, David. � l.3Q G�iehter, Simon, ....:h 82 ill Geeltz. � l i fford. !.L.: l..32 Gellner, Erne t 1 7. l..63 Genti le. G iovan n i , 62 Gerring, John, 62 Ge ' . B 11lly. 203. Gib , Jame. L . , 2 8, 3ill G iddens, A n thony. 22 Gilbert. Bemlc B . , 260. 35, ill G i l l igan, ar I. L 22.1 Giner- Boira. Vi enle, 28 Gintjs, IJ rbe lt. _5 . 45. 55. 2L. 1 02. U 19 G l azer. Amihai, 116 God . 2.L 1 45. _06 Goering, Hcrmann , 8J. Go the. Johann Wolfgang. 2ll G Idbcfg , Jos ph 11 G rbachev. M i khai l. Gould. S te en J . , l4!i Graham, Loren R. ill Gr en. Donald Po o ill Gree ne. Davjd, l.54. Grcenland, Sandcr, 293 G riffi n . K i l h. 296. Gro. " B ertram, M2 Gui llen, Maur F .. ill Gunn, h ri l ophe r, 3.B.ll Gurr. Ted Robclt. _22, 22h
ames
427
Guth W., 2&1 H aberma,, J iiroen , 22Q Halbel tam. Dav id, :ill2. H alperin, M orton. 3llR H a m i lton . W. D .. 28.fi H a m m urab i . ill I laraway, Donna. 22Q Hare u rt. M ark, 264 H ardin, Garrett. 2 �. 45. !:......! 321 Hanlin. Ru. ell. 82 H arding, Sandra, ...2: 22!l Harfl'. Barbara, lAl H arri ngton. Ann , ill H art, H.. A . L.. _52 H a ek. Frederic A .. � !....ill: 1 5 7. L
L TIfl
Hebb, Donald O. 24. I Jed. t rom, Peter, � 43 Heg 1, Georg W.F. , 2 3 . 252 Hegre. H a ard. 22.1 Heidegger, M arti n . !.L l..2. 1.Q8 H IIman. John. lfi2 Hel ctiu . laude, 4.1 Hendry , David F. . ill Heni z, Witold J . , ill I J e n ri c h, Joseph. 22. � � 204. Herman, Edward S .. l1fl Herodotus. 20Q Her.l, Theodor, 88 He keth, There e un H ick. , A le ander. 2l.8 H i l l . Thomas E., lill1 H i lton, B oyd, m H irschman. Al beIt. 2 8. ill H i t ler. Adolf. ---!. ...Q.. 1 _ . 2 8R Hobsba\ m. Eric. 1!U Ho h child, Jenni fer L., 91 Hoffmann, Peter, US Holme ' , Oliver Wend J I , 68 H ogh c , Licsbct, 2fi1 H rowi lz" I rv i n g Loui , lJh l14 H ume. Da" id, 2.1 H un t i ng t n, Samu 1 P. � !.:J.... 1 76- 1 77, 2 . 27 -�7 L 2 9 H usse j n , Saddam, 5..R Hus. cr! . Edmund, A. II H utchin'on, A l lan " ' ill [bn KhaldOn, 3.B1 [ L O [ n ternabonal Labour ill
Ortiee
, vii,
428
Political Philosophy
I M F n temali nal M nelar Fund , 2 1 2 I ngen iero ' , Jos ', 2 I nter A merican De elopment Bank, 295, 32_ I RA ( !ri. h RcpubJi a n A rm , 2 76 I WA l n t"rnatjonal Worki n g m n ' s s . 0 iation). 3 7 1
Kad kodi, Gopal K . , 2 - , 32 Kadcra. K l l y M., 3 Kahneman, Daniel, 54, 1 Kaldor. Mary, 265 Kant, Immanuel, 4 1 , 1 1 7. 1 27, 1 3 Kaplan, Abraham, I , 1 77, 09 Kaufmann . Dani 1, 4 Kel ' 1 1 , H ans, 252-253, 3 1 3 Kenned . J hn F. , 39 Kennedy. Pau l, vii, 80, 1 3 2 . _ 1 1 . 90 Kenworth , Lan , , 204, 297 Key ne , John M a y n ard , 23, 1 . 9 , 29 1 .3 Khmer R uae, 9 Kirshn"r, Ori n , _74, _ 7 Ki ' ing r, Henry, ] 1 , 29, 85 Kit h r, Phi l ip. 2 5 K lein, aomi . 6 1 Kobl i tL, Neil, 1 76 Koenig . M hael, 8R Kolnai. Aur 1 , 10, 4, 3 7 Krei ner, G len E . . 94 Krist"nsen Plter. 3 Kropotk in . Petro I Kuhn. Thoma ., 34 K uk l ick Bruce. 1 77 . 302, 1 2 Kurosa a, A k i ra, 1 7 Kuzncts, S i m n, 296 _
Kymli ka, Wi l l , 1 6 1 Lailin, Da id D ., 2 3 L a k Vi toria, 2 7 Lalrnan, D a i d , 2 70 Lam p I, Jo. ph, 1 9 Lang, Serge, 1 76 Laski, Harold. 227, 62 La lett, P t r, 5 Las. aIL" Ferd inand 6_ La 'well, H ar Id, 1 2, 202 Latour, Brun _ 20 Laub, John H . , 2 5 Lauren . . HeM . 07 Lawn. Phi lip, 1 60 Leaoue of N ation , 389 Le B n , G u. lave 290 LeClerc Fel icia S., _ 9 Le , heol- ung, 264 Lega d IL " oopcrativ c M utue 378 Lehne. Richard. 246 Leni n , V ladi m i r l lich, 2 , 1 70, I R , 2 5, 52 Lepper, M ark R . , 282 L" 'noft·, M icha I H . , j i i L"wontin. Rj hard. 52 Uebkne ht, Karl , 208 L i ne In A braham, 5R Lilla. Mark. 4 Lip. et, Se, m ur M . , 295, 6 Locke. John, 4. 1 1 9 Lombro 0, ' . are, 259 Lomnitz. Laris. a, 10 I L ijen. R ick. 3 0 Lorentz, Konrad. 2 6 Lo elock, J ame ' 30 Lo ejo, Arthur 0 . , 1 44 Lu retiu. , 3 7 7 Luhmann, N ik l as, I Luther. Mart i n 1 4. 2 ] 7 Luxemburg, Rosa. 20 M acedo, S t 'phcn, 300 Ma hia elli. iceol' . 5 -6, 90, 20 1 , 2 1 7 M acCulloch. Robcrt, 4 Mac · nnon. athedne. 1 66 M a Lean, R . raig, _ 7 f\·ladero. Franci 'co J . . I 9 M adi. n, J ame ' , 354 M aguir , M .. 1 M ah ler, Vincent A . , 364 M ab n r, M arti n , . 23. 2 7 . 1 43, 3 1 0
Index of
M ajon , Gi and menico 3 1 7 M ajor. John, :no. M andela, Nebon, ill M an n . M ichac l . _ 1 63, L _ 1 222 1 M ao Zcdong. ill M ar h. Jamcs G . , 43. 54 M arino , ikolay, 22& arks. Gary. 2fil M ar. h, David, 1 M arshall Thcodore H . , 367 M artinez-Sel va, J. M., 61 M arx Karl , I.L � U � � _90, . _
. _
---.b � 314
Mas. cy. Douglas S.. 600 M atthew, 2.L =..!Q. 306 M atta, Jagannadha, 33Q M ay Rob rl M . , 29 M ayhew. David R. U 3 cAdam. Doug. � L 2 2 2 . 0 M c Donald :vi i haeJ P. , 3!ll. Mc Lach l i n . B erJ y. 2..l.O. M c N amara, R bert S .. � 23 1 . 3il2 Mean . . Gardiner Coo 341 Mend hico III Mcrom. G i l , 3ill Merton Robert K . � ---.! L 20 1 . 2 2 1 , _
c,
ill
M i hel. , Robert , l..21 M i l gram . Stan ley. 292 M i l l , John Stuart, 1 05 . 1 !l 1 60, 1 72. 357, 74- 7 , 32ft M i l ler, David. � 357, � 372 M iJ I. . . Wright, L.b 2llS M i n tzb rg. Henry, � 3.l.Q j randola. Pico del la. ill Moaddel. M an.ooc, 2E9. M o s. i nger, Pierrc 8ft Moffitt. Terrie, 342. Molierc, ill M o ndragon Corporac j o n ooperat iva.
:n&:lliQ
Mont quieu. Chari . de Sec n dat, 250 Moore, B arrington, J r. , 1 56 . ...32. Mo reo G. E., 4Q M oore-Lappe, Fran e . :.L: 3 2 ung iu-Pj pppidi, A l i n a. l..24 M u sol i n i , Benito, _6, 62, 2 J 7 Myrd a l . Gunnar. 81 'ader, Ralph. 264, 4 !\ arizn)" KC\Iin, 1 1 'arvcson, J an, 3lQ
ames
429
Ka"h. Gary B . , l..62 ATO. lli K aylor, R. Thoma" 262. Nehru , Jawaharlal , ill !\eu. ncr, Jacob, ill 'cw Labour, ill
len York '/imes, l..22. iel. en. fran�ojs, 1..5& ill K iel. en, Kai , 31Q N icls n. Morten E. J . , 31Q K ietz ('he, Friedrich, L 4.l !\ iou , Emcr. on M. S., 21l i -xon. R ichard, 1 1
. rdhau. , Wmiam, ill , v , A lec, 314. !\oLick, Robert, !1....: 1 57, 3.lQ. Kun, J . e, 1 5 . , 201 . . 70 Nu sbaum, M artha. � 91. Ocampo, Jose A .. l1B.
OEC D (Organ ization for Economic Coop-
eration and De elopment ) , 35A H i . ha. hi. 2&1 Okun, Arthur, 297 01. on, M aneur, J r.. 45. -..L ill OPEC Org anization of Pctro\culll Exportin!! Count rie ' ) . ill Orren, Gary R . . l36. O rwell . George. 29 o tr m , E l i nor, 2 5 . 45 . � 2 3 . 2 , O hl . uki,
311i o try, Syl via, 454
Pai ne, Th rna. , LL 321 Pani , M . . 245 Pape, Robert, 3Q2 Parson , Tal ott, fu1 p. cal, B l ai 'e, l..2!i Pa smore, John, 26l Pau l . Gr gory S. l.46 Paul th Ap stle. I . 2 1 Pericl , 111 Peron, E v ita. ill! Peron, J uan D., 1 0 1 . . 70 Peter, i l i a Joan. 302 Phalea of Chalcedon. l..54 Phcl ps, Edmund .. l!B Piaget. J an. BE Pickel, A ndrea. , 1.2: � 2 2 2 , 246, 269 Pier. on, Paul, 06 Pinker. S tc en, 52 Pinochct, Augusto, l..lil _
430
Political Philosophy
Piu. xn 1 45 pjven, Frances Fo , 1 6 Plato, 1 , 347, 5 2 Plotinus, 1 1 7 Polan i, Karl, 360 Polanyi. M i hacl . 3 24 Pontu . . on, Jonas, 9 1 55 204 297, J67 Popki n , Samuel L.. 0 I Popper K arl R . , 1 9 29. 4 1 . 84, ::JQ. 07 3 1 3. 3 1 5 , 3 6 Po ner, Richard A . , 29 Pound , Roscoe, 3 1 3 Pr bi ch, Rau L 244. _95 47 Proudhon, pjcrr'"' J . , 2 l J Putnam. Robert. 1 22- 1 2 , 04 _
Quinn. 0 n n i . P., 296
Ru. ell, BTU e M ., 2 70. 388 Ryan. R ichard M . , 2 4 Ryn, CJae G . , I . 4 1 Saa,'cdra, I . , 362 aint- ' i mon, H nri dc. 1 5 7 Samp on, Roberl L _55. 340 24 -, 274 an ds . Phi li ppe. 1 . I Sap l"ky. Rob rt M . , 1 48, 1 75 Sarkozy. N ic hola. , 2 Sarmiento, Dom i n ao F., 35 1 artori. iovanni, 2 0 avigny. Heather, 7 canlon. Thomas M o o 1 30 Schram. an� rd F, 1 7 2 Setl ' l I i ng , Thomas C , 1 1 , 45 8 5 , 1 77 , 308- 09 _
_
Rabel ais. fran�oi s. 02 Rand, Ayn 4 1 1 2 R A D orporation. J 77, 09. J 2 Rapoport, AnatoJ, 30 Rawl , J hn, , 1 04. 2 1 . 352, 5 . . 366. 367 373, 3 2 Rcagan. Ronald. J 2 Rebon 1 .
_
-5.
Re rrepo, I an. 377 R iaboi . J orge B., 2 7 3 Ricardo, Da id, 273 Rob 11:, mig, 2 9 Robin on. Joan. 1 75 Robinson. M att . 26 1 perative movement, 3 76 Roc h d ale Rockcnbach, B ttina, �5, 5 5 Rodri , Dani, 1 78, 296 Roosevelt, Fran k l i n D., 5 ] Roo 'e elt. Theodore. J 96 R ehm, Ernst. _5 Ros i , Alice, 9 Ro si, Pctcr H . , 347 Ro. n b rg. A l xander, 285 Rotblat, J o seph 5 Rothenberg. Lawr nee, 1 6 Rothman, Kenneth J . , 2 3 Rou · seau. Jean-Jacqu s. 5 2 , 5 7 . 1 1 5. 1 O. 352, 369 Rudi-Fahimi, Farzan h. 3 J I Runci man, W. G . , 98 Russe l l , B rtrand, 28
S c ott, E u g eni e 1 73 Sc tt, Jam. . , 1 6. 29 1 Searle, John, 1 6 en , A martya, 7 . 3 3 Seneca, 5 eni. Dan A ., 23 Shiva, Vandana 3 26, . O. 86 hul man, S tho ] 7 3 S immon. , A . John. v i i i lllon, Herbert 43, 5 4 S i nclair, · pton. 264 i ngcr, Peter, J 4 Sing r. Tania, 82 kjn ner, B . F. 52 Skinn r, Qu nlin, 1 43 S kocpol. Theda, 7, 2�2 6 S mart, John, 1 28 m i l , Vac1 av, 1 1 mith. Adam. 94. J 02 mith, John MOl nard, 3 1 1 Sol idarity m vemenL 2 1 5 S0101l, 256 Sorol in. Pili rim A., 3 1 0 SOJO. , George, 1 78. 3 1 5 35 p nc r. J lerbert, 1 56 pinner- H aley, Jeff. 2 0 pinoza. Benedict d . ] O. 1 3 Stali n , I sir. 24. 1 99 Slauffen berg, Klau ' von, 1 28 Stcm, 1\ ichola. , 383 tev nson, RobcJt Loui s. 8 2 _
�
Index of
Stiglitz, J seph E . , ill Strau . '. Leo. L !.L � --.L ..l.. 3QR Sirogal ., S teven .!:L ill trong, Karen Hectkerts, :M2 S un-tzu. 2il2 Slk k i nd, Ron, 22 Szuromi . Phi l, III Talihan, 33 Talon, Jacob. L.. , !:L.: 1 54. L Tarde, G ahriel, 25.2 Tan'ow, . idncy, � U _22 Tawil y , R . l::L l.Wl Taylor, �harles, L :!.L: 1M Taylor, Lan . ill Thatcher, M argarct, � � 125 Ti l ly, Charles. 2 2. 97. � l..[L li � _22, � J 3M __ •
To quc i l lc . A le x i s de, 1 213
:;... ;..;;.; 1 =-=-..;;;;...;
Todorov, A le ander, 82 9 Tol. toy. L 0, 5 1 9, 1 . _ Toma. e l lo, M ic hael , 81 Tourai ne. lain, 66 Tranpar ncy I nt rnational, 122 Tribunal de Aguas d la Vega de Valen ja, 283. 375- 76 Trigg r. B ruc G . ill Tuana, Nan y, 22Q Twain, Mark, 83 _ _
.
43 1
Vega. L pe de 3Q4: Verba, Sidney. � Vit:toria, Queen, 24 Vohs, Kathl en D .. ill Vol taire, 141 Vonncgut, KlIJt. 2S Von M i . e. , Ludwig, 43. Von Taaffe. Eduard F. J . , 1 544 Wal ler. t in, Immanuel, 26 Walzer, M ichael, � 1 90. 2llii Wantchekon, Leonard, 365 Warneken . F l i x . 82 Warren, Earl, ill \ B ( W rid Bank), !1Q. � 226. Webcr, M a , 1 6. -= � -.L � j 42. li _ 3 . 322 Wei n stock. D aniel, TI Welch. Susan. ill W tcn, Drew, 2 8 W �terJ1larck. Edward. 256. ill Wh te, Katleen Kina, ill \ hyte. Will iam F te. ill Wieland. Chri. toph, 83. , 3 - 34 Wikstrom. Per-Olof, Wilkinson. Richard G . , L 224: WiJson. Edward 0 . , ill WilsOIl, Wo()dro� . ill Wimmer, Andr a ' , 2Q3 Wi \ a, Ken- aro, 122 Wol in, heldon S .. � 26 1 . ill Wool gar, S tevcn, 22Q Wright, Erik Ol i n . 11 \ TO orld Trade Onran i1,at ion . 2 1 2_ I . 27 .
.
Ye. nowitz Jo hua. 4ll Yun u , M u hammad, 3. 6 Vacher, Laurent-Miche l , ....:h 1115 Vanek. Jaro�la . 57 . . 97 Van ss, Dani 1 , � 4 J , ill Val ti mo, Gianni, 1 1 Veblen, Thorstein, L 52
ames
Zakaria, Fareed. ill Ziegler Jean, 2 1 . 297 ZU7.0W. ki. Robert. 122
I ndex of Vega
S trauss. Leo. 1 . 1 1 . 1 5 . 3 1 . 8 . 308
Verba. S idney. 299
ueen, 2 Kathlc"n D . _ 1 1 Voltaire, 1 7 Y, nn gut. KUJ1. 9 8 y, n M i. e. , Ludwi o . 4 Y, n Taaffe. Eduard f. J . , 1 544 Vohs .
S u s k i nd, Ron, 29 mi, Phil.
L pe
V i toria,
34_
u n - tzu. 205
Szur
43 1
e 304
S t i g l i 17.. J 'eph E., 2 1 Slrogatz, Sleven H. 3 4 S t ro n g , Karen Heetkerts,
arne
1
.
Tal i an 3
ob. L.. 0, 1 4_ . 1 54 , 323 G a b rie l . 2 5 9 larrow, i d n e y, 1 63, 1 8 3. 2 2 _
Waller-tein, I m manuel, Walzer, M ic hae] 1 1 9 , 1 Want hekon. Le nard,
Tawne . R . ] l . . 1 0 9
Warneken . Fe l i , 8
Tay] or,
Warren , Earl ,
Talon, Ja
Tarde ,
harle - , 1 9 , 1 1 9 . 1 64
Tay l r, Lance, 1 78
WB
Thatcher, M.argaret.
2. 9 7. 1 63 I 3, 1
TI l l y, C harles
2_2, 22
64, 1 1 0. 1 95
4_
rid Bank . 1 7 .
L. 2 _
Weber, Ma , 1 6, 62 , 85, 87, 1 1 3 . 1 42 , 1 88 ,
. I
_
_33. 3 2 _
Wei nsto
, 304. 364
k.
Daniel.
77
Welch . . u sa n . 29 1
To
xis
q u ev i 1 1 . Al
de
1 58. 1 68- 1 6 ,
223
r \/, A le x ander, 82 T< I S lOY. Le , 5 1 9 , 1 3 . 259 M i c hae l . 8 1
Tou rai ne. A l a i n . 66
Tranpar n
y I n tern a t i o n al,
1 22
Trib u nal de Aguas de ]a Vega de Val
ne i a,
Tuana
Twain.
G
..
17
W i l son . Edward 0 . , _85 dr
W.
55
W i m mer. Andreas, 203
N ancy, 220 M ark, 8
U U n ited Nati Ir . 2. ] 1 - ] ] 4. 1 , 1 58, 257. 2 4 , 297, 9 U N DP D e v e l o p m e nt P r g ra m . x , 5 7 1 59 . 249
U N ICEF.
w, _88
W i l ' n, W
_ 3. 375- 376 Tr i g g e r, B ruce
Dr
Whyte, Katieen King 378 W h le, Wi l l iam F le . 78 Wieland. Christoph. 83 W i · strom. Per-Olof. 25 , 8-34 Wilkinson. Ri hard G . , 1 48 , 2 4
Tod
Tomase l lo
West n,
Westermarck, Edward, 256 , 2 8 ]
Wiv wa. Ken- ar , 1 2 2 Wol i n , Sh ld n S . 84. _6 1 , 354 Woo igar S te v e n , 2_0 Wri g ht . Erik O l i n . 7 ] WTO orld Trade Organiz' l i n ) . 2 ] . 27 .
,
Yesn W ill, Joshua.
1 55
46
Yu n u , M u hammad, 336
Va her, Laurent - l\·l i hel, 4, Vane k , Jarosla . 35 7 ,
97
Van Ness, Dnni 1. 4 1 , 34_ Va t l i mo , G i an n i , 1 1 Veb le n . T ho rs te i n . 8. 5 2
1 5 54
Zakaria. Fareed.
Z i eg l e r J ea n , Zuz
w sk i . R
6I
.
297
be r l 1 2 2
_ 1 2-
Index of Subjects action. ollective, 45 theory. See al. 0 praxiology act i i. Ill, legal, 342 adm i n i. I rati n. =-.:.=. ee al.m £! vernm nl A ffi rmative A tion, 22 Agathon i m , � See a lso ethic , h u m an i st agenda. 356 agent, L2Q A IDS, 224 A lcthic Oath, 84 alienation, � alliance. p l i ti aI, See oalitian, pOliti al altrui m, l34 anarchi 'm. ill antirealism, 2ft a ' sas · j natjon. pol i tical, 32.l a. . t, pol itical, 05-306 A lelie/�� so ·iaux. ill Atlantic Charter 367 authorjtarianism. ---:. 28 aut crac , 3.ll3. aUlonomy. l.O1 a ioJot.ry, 3&3.2 background nowledge, 3..l=32. Bayesjanism. e? subjective probabi l i ty b l ief, !L 1Afl Bev ridge Report. 323. B i g B rother efr ct, U big qu tions, 1A6 biofuel . ill bioI gism, 51. biopoliti s. 34. � bi so iaI. 16. biparti an�hip. 201 801 h ism, S e Communi. Ill, So iet
brinkman. hip. 3illi bureau rae . 234. Camelot Project. l..1:hLM apabi lily. individual. 9J.. apital p l i ti aI, =-= 05-306 . ocial, 5 J 6, � capitali m, 65, 1 59.. 6 1 chan c , 1 ee a l so objective prob abil it charity, l..Qfl hemi. try. green , 2 8 hristianity, fill. Christian R ight, 81 iv ic - mi ndedoess. � C i v j l Right · movement, 43 ci iJ 'ocj ry. 59-6 . ) 96. _64-266 i i lization, � i i l i zalion ' , lash of, � 2Il -'Iarity Act 84 cIa s, so iaI. ll c1imale hange, 284, � S('e a/.'IO St rn R port oali lion, pol i t ical, 2Q6=:2il8 coer ion, � cogni t ion, ..3. cohesi n , . 0 ial, � l ie ti i m, � See alw hali ' m J11J11on - pool resource. 3 2 8 c mmune " 75-376 communi. Ill, _ 1 I So iet, 1 1 0. 1 99 communitarjanism, !..!2:. 1.6.1 competence. l.l.hl..l2 competition, .. J . 205. m petili ne. , 36 1 - 62 concept. 2 __ •
._ _
433
434
Political Philosophy
conO i t, 2 1 . _05 onformi ' m . 8 confu ' i n . 2 2
cont ntion. p l i l ical, 1 83-232 contract, 1 3 1 so i a L, ] 0- I 1 contra tariani m, 1 2 contractua l i m, See c ntractariani m ontradicti n, 1 gical, 1 0 on t ologi al. 1 e> also contl i t control, . ocial, 1 30. 235 _54- 260 on emiona l i s m , 1 4 co perati n 2 , 74- 3 cooperati e fi rm, 1 1 7 , 74- 8 oop rati i m, 1 6 1 , 1 7 1 - 1 72 corporation, 1 2 1 corruption. pol i t i al. 1 2 1 - 1 24 co -t-benefit anal i . 44 counterfactual, 9 olIntTy. 24 1 , 'ee a!.w nat jon creati n i m. 1 47 crime, 56-57, 1 - 5- L , 2 I . 38-343 riminolo , 3 7-343 cruelty, 1 4 cult ural i m. 5 7 culture, 6 5 datum 3 , 33 death penalty, 2 1 dec ntrali za t ion. 00 decj - jon theory, ] 7 7 Decla ration de, dmirs de I 'homme e r du
25 1 d "cp c logy, 1 65 dem racy. . so iational. 2 64-_65 u l tural , 97 d I gated, 354 economic 97 en i r n mental, 7 gl bal . 398 i ndex, 303, 95 int graI, 3 1 -400 cito 'en
,
_
legal, 7- 98 l i beral. 1 67- 1 69 mea 'ure f, 302- 06 participati e, 2 6 pas i e, 266 pol iti aI, 26 - 269, 35 - 5 procedural, 96, S >e (1/ '0 thin clem ra y repre eotati e, 0 -304 so ial, 1 70 thin , 26 , 2 demographic pol ic , 33 1 - 5 deontology. I 26 dnprivation, relati e, d"regulati n , 1 78 de i re. legi t i mate, 372 development. economi , 296 5
I "lariat, 1 7 1
. oeial, See 0 i d iver i t dog rnati 111, 24 d lIar, 2 1 3 2 2 8 dyn a mjcj m. , 20-2 1 d t pia, 62- 63, S l' (llso
t pia
ir omentali , m
C onomy, p liti al. 294-2 9 'gali t arian i m, 99 ual i fied, 370 radical, 37 - 7 1 egoj sm, 1 2 Ej ido, 1 1 5 . 76 lite. 268 emeroen e, 2 empiri i m. 25, See cnginc ring, . oci a l , 3 1 3
(11.\'0
po itivi m
-
435
Index of 'ubjects
Enr n , l.23 env i ronmental. prole tion, ..1!1 llfi=33l science, � environmcntali . Ill, lfiS epidemiology, ... 92- .. 4. 3 6- 37 pi. tern logy. � � 22 equality. QL. 96- 1 0, 1 74- 1 75, Se > d mocrac equ i l ibdum. market, 22!i equ ity, liM equival nc cia .�. 69=.1fl error, p l i tical, 2 2 ethic.. , 32=42 evident , 1 6, 32 evolution 5 1 exactne�s, 8 externality, 3fiO.
g od comm governan e. =::.....:.� oovernmenl, lli=218 graph, 7.fJ. green mO\'Clllent, l.fi2. guerril la. L ill also
Fabiani 01, ill fa t, moral, ill so ial lli fa I l i b i J ism. 23 fa. cism, 1 42, � � 1 97- 1 9, 3hl fear. pol i tic. of, 222 fem i n i m. l..65..:..l6!i academic, li 22il=22l. fl ' ibi l ity, labor, 14 f reo t manag 111 nl. 33fl:::33.l fraternity, See solidarity free market, � free rider. 'ill free trade, llll free w i l l . ill freedom. See li berty fun t ion, specific. 61 fundam ntali. 01 , rel igiou ' , ill Gaia Cull, 3.1Q game theory, :l.lO=1l1 GOP Gro's Domestic Product , � . 93 G i n i i ndex of i n om i neq ual i ty , L ill
o looal warm i ng, . 28-329 globalizati n. � 5 -246, 297, 322 OMO OeneticaH M od ified Organi m ,
ill
happi ne�s, 3!lli:J!i1 H DI ( H uman Dev lopmen l rnd x 3 4 health care, L 320. hermeneut i s, 1.ll. h istory 06- 0 hol ism, 22. 61.6S homo oecol/omi '/1.'1, � 66. HOleHing la 212 human de elopmenl, i ndex 57. 3 - 94 i ntegral. 94-39 hu man rights, 1 1 - 1 1 4. 121 human i sm . ecular, � � humani. t cial . l uelie , 280. H ulU Power, 224 h y p thesis, 1 ... . 32
,
39. -
,
ideal i 'm . phi l �ophicaL L 2ft identity pol i t j " . See nationali ' m ideolot.r it:al di t a n e, � ideology, 6 � A merican, ill religious, 'e rel ig ion ienti fi , i12=.lRQ so iopoJjtical. 1A&.l..&2. I M F I n ternati nal Mon lar Fund , See WaShington Con. e/lSu. i m migration, 3 . 2 i ndependence of power" , 242. indicator. 33 i ndividual i:m, 2 1 . 63.:.65 inegal i tariani. m. 3lfl ine-qualit , ocial, � 293-294 i n f rence, d ductive, Se logic practi 011 , 11& influencc 1..81 innovation. 3..8.1 i ntegral h uman de e lopmenl i ndex, . 94�
.12fi
i n tegration, 1R i ntcrest.
436
Political Philosophy
material � � perc j ved, 2ill i n ternational law, 245. ill i nternational r ]ation. , 2 9-276 i ntcrpretation, 1" i ntersubjccti ity, 21 i n tuitioni · m. 24 I slam. 61 i .. u , so ial, � 49. 344
KibbutL. 3Th kn ledge, n Kyoto Protocol, 2 4 labor movemcnt. M labor union , li 2!ill lai �e2-fairei ' 01 , See neoliberali 01 land r form, 1 1 5. ' 76- 77 law, cri minal , 2 - 54. � economic theor of, 2 3 111 1 of, 26& leade r!; hip . � ill Left -Cent r-Right, 1..5...G.l6l leg i timacy, 250- 254 l iabil i t y pol i t ical � l ibcrtariani Ill, See anarchi, Ill, ncolibci.lli . m l i berty. 67. 67 Limits to Growth, l.6Q
J ivabiJ i ty, 24 I hh i ng, ==.J. 246-247 logi deducti e 2=..ill modal, M 1achiav l Iianisrn, 230-2. I M A D M ut ual a, ured D . t ru t ion ), 85. 3ll£
M agin o t Line, 9.1 managedal i m, 1 , L11 1 anhattan Proje t. � 43 Mani pli/iti trials, ill marginalit , o<:ial, 13. market, frec, ill 1ar'shall Plan, � __
_
martyr, 64=:65 Marxi o m . l39 materiali�m, L2 dialectical 2.l emcrgcnti t, 8 max i m i zer. 54 meani ng, s mantic, 13 m c hani, m so ial, 1.&.12 media, 26.k262. mcliorism, 24 m l t i ng pot paradigm. 7!l m rito fa y, 7 2 meta- law. 25!i metaph sic . . See ontolog m tap liey, 118. method, _ L metbodolog . 1 1 microcrcdi t , 3 6 microeconomics . .ik54 M iddle Ea , t conOit:t, 82 m i l itary. 262=263 M i l lennium B ridge. 334 minimum wage, ill m i . m atch bet ween ord and deed 27727 m hi l i t , . cial, � moderation. poli tical, ill modernization. 260. modus, nolens. 11.8 p nen , ill volens. ill m ney p er f, 21 1 Montreal Protocol 2 4 moral philo oph , ee ethi , moral sen ti ment . � � ll!2. mosaic paradigm, N mo em "nt, p liti al . ....2. 66. 1!11 multicuitural i . lll, 79, Ll&ll2 natali III ill nation. 1 5 . 1 9. 24 1 -242 nationalism _ Lb 246. _7 _90 I J ' lami , ill kind, of, llik.l6.i nati n-, tate. See nation NATO North A tl an ti c Treaty Organ i za ti n , m , _
�.
Index of 'ubjects
naturali. m, :ill moral, ill nature, human, il=51 nazism (! ' fasc i " Jll ncgati i rJl, 23!i neoconscr alivc See neolibcral rp rati m, 241 n neolibeJaUsm, � ill 3Zb324. n l ihertariani . m , l2S New Deal, 1 1 1 . . 323 !\e R ight ee neoliherali ' 01 ]\;GOs Non -Governmental Organization , � 264-266 ' O M A N n-Overl appi ng M ag i :teria .
�
norm const i tutive, 25n. regulati e 25.6 obesity epidemic, ill objecti i ty, ill o l:upation, lL 24ligarchy, l!l1 ontolog , � 1 & perational defi n i t ion. -.J operation i . III opj nion. puhli , l!N opportunism. l.6ll pac ifism, 25 parcto optimallty, :....l 4.S. parlicipation, T2.:1J. party. politi ai, 23& pat mali�m, 100 peace. 386 peace the ry, dell] ratic, 2 70, 8 'ocial ist, 269 peoplc. 24!l. phen menol gy. 24c phi lo_oph , lA£ p lann ing, � pIa ticity -= 51 plutodemocracy. 1M... 2.lQ, 246 pol i e, 255 pol icy. � pol i tical philo ophy. v i i , i:. 46=41 p l itical . cien e, See p l i tol g politici . m. 51. pol itics ---.! ll2.
437
p l itolog , ii . 5 -. 8. � pol i ty, � 7-240 pol arch , m See also de entrali .ation popu lation control, � 13 1 -1 15 populism, � :ill3 po. itivL m legal. 1 0. - 1 2 phi losophical, 3Q p i h i l i ty, 1.3 pos i ble-world. ontology, 1 poverty, 42 power, lB4=l.26 coerci e. l.8l. cultural . 2.H=22l e no 111 i l..Q2 2Q2=:2lA eli te, l22 eman ipating, 1.81 horizontal. L86. in contention, l..94. in governance, .L24 k i nds of. 1.&2 mea ure of l24=.lli p l i tical, � rccoun:c. l2il=..l.2.l so ial. 7Ji . ource of. 1SQ also Agent strn�gle fOJ See C ntention v rti a I . l.8ll pragmati ·m . .!A, � 2&12 pra i log , 43A.6. ee al '0 Action theory predicate 2 prc . . , l.22 preventi c strike. l.26. pri mal 10gy. 28!i privat spbere. 52 privatization i ndex, 24 probabi l i ty objecti e, See Chance subjectivc, .2 I 5 - 1 6. _04. 3lfi:1il problem. 344 so ial. 279. 11 proce. ual i. 01 , See dynami m pro '[cation, !L.:. l..34 program. eval uation. 341 so ial. 322:32S prohibition, 212=2BQ Proj ct for t he New Am rj an entury. _
. •
,
h l4il
prom i. , or n te, political. 2 0 propCl1)'
438
Political Philosophy
ate. 67.
6 1 -36_
, 372- 73 See also
Span i . h, 20 et et. 2 2 2 Verdi gri , 3 1 r"'ward , 3 1 rhetoric, 3 1 7 rights, 1 1 _- 1 J 9
apitali s t
7-292 15
qual i ty of l i fe �ee H O I u a n t phrenia, 0 fa i 'm, 34, 1 7 , 369 radi ali m. pol i t i al. 2 2 Ra 'homon effect, J 7 rational- hoice theory, 7 . 24 7 - 3 . 44 rational ism. 24 raLion a l i t nceptual 8, 34 - 5 0 economic 25 See ciiso egoi. m realism, moral, 1 4 r ali Ill, philo ophical, 1 4, 27, reali ' m , pol iti ai, 27, 2 7 2 r e iprocity, 54�55 recon il iation. 0 1 reference, e manLic, 1 3 r"'feren e group theory, 1 3 r gi me h a nge 222-227. See also r 'vo]uti n reg u lat ry agency, 6 1 relatednes ' , s c iat, 5 , 287 relalivi m , 1 4, 1 6, 8, 1 26- 1 -7, _ r I i" f slale. 'e w I farc tat rel i aion, 60-6 1 , 1 42- 1 4 , 2 1 4-2 1 , 2 3 repubJ i ani m. 9-60 revenge, ] 0 r"volution, A merican. 92, 2 1 9 Chi ne se, 226, _48 uban. _2 French 92 2 1 , _2 2 , 242 German, 227 Green, 3 5-38 M ex ican, 24 Pari , 1 96 , 222 Quiet, 222-22 R u . sian, 209, 226 227 S icntifi , 34
c ience. bios ial. ] 6 i n govemm nt. 279- 1 2 pol i t ical v i i , 4 See also politolog cial, 3 1 5 Scientisll1 . 1 . 30- 3 1 , 1 72 eCllrity. 92-96 biolog ical, 93 economic, 9 -94 en ir n mental, 2-93 nali nal. 96-96, 243-244, 30 I
2- 1 5 , 25
.
o ial Datwinisl11, 5 1 cial demo ra y. I S, , 1 70 ocial i 'm, J 5 3 , J 70 amh ritarian S e Communi oop rative. 1 7 , 374-3 3
111 ,
S viet
democratic, 1 55
mark 1. 1 7 _ , 364, 97
iet
"'ee als
38
govern-
lode
of 'ubjects
439
Iti matum game. _87 han r, ] 1 7 274 u nemploy m ent, 1 9 'ni ted S ta� S lIpremc Court. 24 'nivcrsal Declaration of H uman Right , 1 27 , 1 37 , 2 - 1 , 22 rban . pra I, 8 3 t i l i tarianism, 4. 4 1 . 1 26, 1 2 - I 0 tilit expe t c d 44, 5 ubjecti e, 37, 1 0 'topia, 35 _ _
pol i t ical. 2 3 7 'oeial. 0 y temi. m, , 2 , 5 1 tabula ra. a, 5 2 t a u t logy. 9 taxation, 67, 295 te hno ra y. 347- 4 techn I g 1 - 50
agllenes, . I 3 value, 8-39 90- 1 2 theor ', Sc ' A xiolog, Vel' a i l les, Treaty of, 272. 322. 89 \II rst hen, 35, 2, ee also herm ncuti _
,
00 S e also War
ec nomi " "grand' , 3 middle range, 8 pol i ti al. v i i . 5 3-54 Th rna the re m , 20 1 TM R Total material req ll i rem nl , 33 1 , 95 to lemn ce. 1 1 8 - 1 1 9. 1 0 tOllure. 257 tota l itariani. m, I , 6 1 -62, 1 99-200, 2 1 6, o
trade, free. 27 -274 traditional i " m, 1 3 Traged of the common . 25. 45. 286 t ran. nati nal c rporati n , 245 t ru th . 1 4 c ri terion, 1 5 fa tual, 1 4- 1 moral, 1 4, 1 33- 1 4 '
wage. minimum. 3 _ 1 War, 6 , 6, 2 6i i l . 20 , 223- 224 Cold, 4, 1 1 0, 1 70 1 1 , 270- 7 1 Diny. 1 92 Falk l and ', L 95 I raq , 388 J u t, 206 Oil Terror, 1 40. 230, 2T - 76. pre enliv . 1 96 ix Da . _75 Thirt Year ', 270 VieulaJll, 2 I 2 74, 3 9 Wa ' hi ng t n C n e n. u , 1 5 , 26 1 , _ _ , 390, 400 --. 36. 67-369.
work. ee labor world Ii d ration, 3
9.- ,
