As I'm reading for my exam, it occurs to me that two fundamental issues are in a lot of ways of radically undertheorized: liberty and democracy. Prima facie, that just sounds ridiculous. Since at least the mid-1980s, and the take off of deliberative democracy compounded by the more recent surge in civil society literature, it seems like everyone is talking about liberty, democracy, or some reasonable fascimile of them. [Or they were, until everyone decided that it was all about globalization and terrorism.]
But, still, I hold by the notion that these two concepts are not nearly taken deep enough by most writers. For example, democracy is generally toted out as a universal good. And, really, it is: people - individually and collectively - should be able to determine what their fate it. But no one seems to seriously consider the dangers of democratic thought. Sure, the standard liberal response about restraining the tyranny of the majority, a la J.S. Mill, always pops up. But I'm talking about on a more broadly existential level. Specifically, I am thinking of the concerns that people like Alexis de Tocqueville or Nietzsche might level at democracy. In that sense, the problem is more about democracy as a "leveling" force that imposes homogeneity and prevents individual greatness. Now, I'm no individualist, but human genius can be a great thing. Of course, I'm not arguing we should trade the chance for another Mozart on the backs of free men and women. It just bugs me that no one really picks up that problem and either 1) just admits it is there or 2) tries to find a way out of it.
[Caveat: John Dewey MIGHT be the one thinker that really does take this problem seriously. I do not know his work well at all, so I cannot say he takes it on *directly* exactly. But it seems that his notion of well educated individuals who are also skilled at working together would mitigate the "sameness" and "averageness" that a democracy could be prone too. In other words, righteously educated citizens would have the efficacy to stand up, branch out, and acheive.]
In terms of liberty, another idea I'm all about, no one takes on Foucault. At all. I'm sure I'm not crazy original thinker, but reading Foucault for a 2nd time in many years was a real eye opener. In my reading, I read Foucault as primarily worried about human freedom. [My earlier exposure to Foucault was under a professor who was not very friendly to post-Marxist French thinkers ... so we got the whole "He has no standards! He's a foolish romantic!" lame ass take on Michel.] So, Foucault spends his whole career showing us all the little ways that we are controlled, without our awareness and with little capacity to fight back. In fact, some of the barriers we erect because we think they'll make us free (things like liberal rights and markets), might actually take us deeper into submission.
As I read a whole host of neo-republican thinkers, who are consumed with ideas like liberty and non-domination, no one takes up this problem. No one broaches the issue of "discipline" or the disconcerting thought that maybe freedom itself is an illusion (or mostly elusive). Sure, it could just be that they all think Tocqueville, Nietzsche, and Foucault are wrong. Which is fine. They might be. But it seems that concepts such as social construction are here to stay (because they seem to legitimately explain a lot of what happens in the social world), and that most positive things we do have unintended consequences, some of which will be negative. Thus, all these fantastic Enlightenment ideals (democracy, liberty) probably *do* come with some problems. I know there are no perfect solutions, especially once the policy rubber hits the political road. I just wish someone would take up these problems in a more comprehensive manner...
But, still, I hold by the notion that these two concepts are not nearly taken deep enough by most writers. For example, democracy is generally toted out as a universal good. And, really, it is: people - individually and collectively - should be able to determine what their fate it. But no one seems to seriously consider the dangers of democratic thought. Sure, the standard liberal response about restraining the tyranny of the majority, a la J.S. Mill, always pops up. But I'm talking about on a more broadly existential level. Specifically, I am thinking of the concerns that people like Alexis de Tocqueville or Nietzsche might level at democracy. In that sense, the problem is more about democracy as a "leveling" force that imposes homogeneity and prevents individual greatness. Now, I'm no individualist, but human genius can be a great thing. Of course, I'm not arguing we should trade the chance for another Mozart on the backs of free men and women. It just bugs me that no one really picks up that problem and either 1) just admits it is there or 2) tries to find a way out of it.
[Caveat: John Dewey MIGHT be the one thinker that really does take this problem seriously. I do not know his work well at all, so I cannot say he takes it on *directly* exactly. But it seems that his notion of well educated individuals who are also skilled at working together would mitigate the "sameness" and "averageness" that a democracy could be prone too. In other words, righteously educated citizens would have the efficacy to stand up, branch out, and acheive.]
In terms of liberty, another idea I'm all about, no one takes on Foucault. At all. I'm sure I'm not crazy original thinker, but reading Foucault for a 2nd time in many years was a real eye opener. In my reading, I read Foucault as primarily worried about human freedom. [My earlier exposure to Foucault was under a professor who was not very friendly to post-Marxist French thinkers ... so we got the whole "He has no standards! He's a foolish romantic!" lame ass take on Michel.] So, Foucault spends his whole career showing us all the little ways that we are controlled, without our awareness and with little capacity to fight back. In fact, some of the barriers we erect because we think they'll make us free (things like liberal rights and markets), might actually take us deeper into submission.
As I read a whole host of neo-republican thinkers, who are consumed with ideas like liberty and non-domination, no one takes up this problem. No one broaches the issue of "discipline" or the disconcerting thought that maybe freedom itself is an illusion (or mostly elusive). Sure, it could just be that they all think Tocqueville, Nietzsche, and Foucault are wrong. Which is fine. They might be. But it seems that concepts such as social construction are here to stay (because they seem to legitimately explain a lot of what happens in the social world), and that most positive things we do have unintended consequences, some of which will be negative. Thus, all these fantastic Enlightenment ideals (democracy, liberty) probably *do* come with some problems. I know there are no perfect solutions, especially once the policy rubber hits the political road. I just wish someone would take up these problems in a more comprehensive manner...
VIEW 4 of 4 COMMENTS
As you probably could have guessed, I'm 100% with you on your journal entry. The second part of Democracy in America is absolutely critical. And on the side of Nietzsche, pro-democracy advocates have even invoked him in their arguments! Hogwash! What a bad reading!
Regarding Foucault, have you ever read his statement on human rights from '84?
Regarding theories such as Malthus, they fail to appreciate the inent to reduce suffering. While it's true that altruistic actions may actually increase suffering in the long run, it is speculation and it's also very cynical. It fails to acknowledge the value and power of humanity. The influence we have over our fate and others in respect to quality of life and compassion is actually quite profound. What's the point of a long life which is self centered?
Serving in public office is referred to as public service. A democracy functions best when it's citizens assume responsability for themselves.
I guess i should wait until I have my coffe before responding to such issues.