I've been thinking about virtue a lot lately. I'm working on finishing up a paper for my Roman Republicanism class (my last course paper ever, I do believe), and I'm focusing on the role of the censor in Roman political life.
The censor was sort of an interesting office. They did lots of boring things, like give out governmnet contracts and make sure that the taxes got collected. But they also did lots of *interesting* things. Two, in particular, are important:
1. They conducted the census and assigned people to "tribes." Tribes were the voting blocs used in popular assemblies. This would be something like modern day districting: since voting occurred on a group basis (each tribe got one vote, and they would vote based on the internal majority of the tribe), the constitution of each tribe really mattered. If a tribe was all patricians (who got more votes anyway), it would sway one way. Putting plebes in patrician tribes could swing the vote; or, plebe voices could be diluted by placing all the plebes in the same tribes.
2. The censors also controlled who got into the Senate. The Roman Senate was not elected, and it was *not* a representative body in any way shape or form. Rather, it was a *deliberative* body that advised the consuls, drafted laws, controlled the treasurey, and dealth with foreign dignataries. It was an *essential* part of the "mixed" constitution. And censors determined who got to be a member - and *virtue* was one of their key criteria.
Virtue - which is one of those fun amorphous concepts like "justice," "the good," or "reason" - is sort of a confluence of a whole bunch of ideas. Virtue might include a sense of the common good, being moral or ethical, piety, honesty, a strong work ethic, vigor, strength, and a willigness to take *action.* Virtue, of course, comes with all kinds of problems. It can be used to value some characteristics while devaluing others - thus, as a tool of power, it can promote people from a certain class, gender, ethnicity, or even sexuality. Further, virtue has an intrusive quality: making a judgment about virtue extends beyond evaluating professioanl performance or merit/skill. Rather, virtue is a statement about *character* and *essence* - it passes from the public realm to a more *private* part of our lives.
That's the bad stuff.
But virtue still really intrigues me. I don't necessarily want the militaristic, manly Roman virtue - but is it so wrong to imagine a political life where members are informed by the common good, work hard at their assigned public office, and value honesty? It would be inaccurate and cutely cynical to say that none of this happens now. I think *many* elected official and bureaucrats already behave in this way already (check out Brehm and Gates, Working, Shirking, and Sabotage and Dahl, Who Governs? for a discussion of these kind of issues). But it could be more robust - and it could be more robust particularly among citizens and other private agents (re: newspapers). Imagine a truly republican (small-r) polity, where people were willing to (really) sacrifice and demanded more from their state. It's a wonderful, wonderful thing.
I wholly understand why (classic) liberals cringe at these kinds of ideas, b/c they *are* caught up in certain notions about "the good" and community and all sorts of stuff. There is a sense where relativism goes out the door and free choice is limited here. But, interdependence is out there - communities are not just a part of life, they are an *essential* part of life. Maintaining them is important to maintaining a particular style of life - including the rights and private spaces that liberals want. There is never going to be an occasion where liberals attain that pure autonomous status anyway; embracing some ideals that help maintain "the best we have" rather than thin liberal values that seem destined to decline (because there's just nothing much to hold on to in the end, and ultimatley free choice just gets you consumerism if you ask me) seems like the best course of action.
Of course, I have no idea just what reformed republicanism looks like. I know there is some work out there on that - like Petit's Republicanism, where he argues for "non-domination" as the goal of the state via mimicking Roman tribunes. But, it's about more than institutions - it's about a stance towards the polity, one that embraces serving others at the same time that it is open to diversity and progress. Actually, in many ways, it would be like accepting Enlightenment - that combination of duty and willigness to experiment. To only compound the problem of not knowing what I'm looking for, I'm not sure how to get it - education? required service? Sure ... but is that enough? How do you *build* customs? Ugh. It's too hot and too Friday for any more social engineering...
The censor was sort of an interesting office. They did lots of boring things, like give out governmnet contracts and make sure that the taxes got collected. But they also did lots of *interesting* things. Two, in particular, are important:
1. They conducted the census and assigned people to "tribes." Tribes were the voting blocs used in popular assemblies. This would be something like modern day districting: since voting occurred on a group basis (each tribe got one vote, and they would vote based on the internal majority of the tribe), the constitution of each tribe really mattered. If a tribe was all patricians (who got more votes anyway), it would sway one way. Putting plebes in patrician tribes could swing the vote; or, plebe voices could be diluted by placing all the plebes in the same tribes.
2. The censors also controlled who got into the Senate. The Roman Senate was not elected, and it was *not* a representative body in any way shape or form. Rather, it was a *deliberative* body that advised the consuls, drafted laws, controlled the treasurey, and dealth with foreign dignataries. It was an *essential* part of the "mixed" constitution. And censors determined who got to be a member - and *virtue* was one of their key criteria.
Virtue - which is one of those fun amorphous concepts like "justice," "the good," or "reason" - is sort of a confluence of a whole bunch of ideas. Virtue might include a sense of the common good, being moral or ethical, piety, honesty, a strong work ethic, vigor, strength, and a willigness to take *action.* Virtue, of course, comes with all kinds of problems. It can be used to value some characteristics while devaluing others - thus, as a tool of power, it can promote people from a certain class, gender, ethnicity, or even sexuality. Further, virtue has an intrusive quality: making a judgment about virtue extends beyond evaluating professioanl performance or merit/skill. Rather, virtue is a statement about *character* and *essence* - it passes from the public realm to a more *private* part of our lives.
That's the bad stuff.
But virtue still really intrigues me. I don't necessarily want the militaristic, manly Roman virtue - but is it so wrong to imagine a political life where members are informed by the common good, work hard at their assigned public office, and value honesty? It would be inaccurate and cutely cynical to say that none of this happens now. I think *many* elected official and bureaucrats already behave in this way already (check out Brehm and Gates, Working, Shirking, and Sabotage and Dahl, Who Governs? for a discussion of these kind of issues). But it could be more robust - and it could be more robust particularly among citizens and other private agents (re: newspapers). Imagine a truly republican (small-r) polity, where people were willing to (really) sacrifice and demanded more from their state. It's a wonderful, wonderful thing.
I wholly understand why (classic) liberals cringe at these kinds of ideas, b/c they *are* caught up in certain notions about "the good" and community and all sorts of stuff. There is a sense where relativism goes out the door and free choice is limited here. But, interdependence is out there - communities are not just a part of life, they are an *essential* part of life. Maintaining them is important to maintaining a particular style of life - including the rights and private spaces that liberals want. There is never going to be an occasion where liberals attain that pure autonomous status anyway; embracing some ideals that help maintain "the best we have" rather than thin liberal values that seem destined to decline (because there's just nothing much to hold on to in the end, and ultimatley free choice just gets you consumerism if you ask me) seems like the best course of action.
Of course, I have no idea just what reformed republicanism looks like. I know there is some work out there on that - like Petit's Republicanism, where he argues for "non-domination" as the goal of the state via mimicking Roman tribunes. But, it's about more than institutions - it's about a stance towards the polity, one that embraces serving others at the same time that it is open to diversity and progress. Actually, in many ways, it would be like accepting Enlightenment - that combination of duty and willigness to experiment. To only compound the problem of not knowing what I'm looking for, I'm not sure how to get it - education? required service? Sure ... but is that enough? How do you *build* customs? Ugh. It's too hot and too Friday for any more social engineering...
I've been re-reading Dewey, and I think that education is a seriously overlooked part of it, though, in addition to participation (is it enough? Can we have education, required service *and* participation, please?). Dewey brings home exactly how odd it is, e.g., that we treat American History classes as either a collection of facts or as relatively crude propaganda (that's how mine were, at least) - rather than as a record of how people worked through problems of society.
One other thing I've been thinking about that I know little about (yet) is how to combine these republican ideas with a modern society in which governments are far from the only locus of power. For instance, what killed unions? Germany has worker representatives on all corporate boards... but the consensus seems to be that this just harms efficiency without actually getting the workers' interests represented...
P.S. I think it's too crude to see liberalism and republicanism as unrelated - though it's a mistake many folks (including philosophical luminaries, such as Thomas Nagel, who's got a paper on how we just shouldn't talk to each other about sex) make. Remember that for Mill, the idea was not just that we should be left alone - but that we should be left alone *so that we could carry out the important work of building our own conception of the good.* It's only recently that we've dropped the moral responsibility idea from the idea of personal freedom (or, where we haven't, it's been taken as an external standard used to *limit* freedom, rather than as an internal principle that's supposed to *motivate* our free actions).
[Edited on Jun 25, 2005 10:56AM]