《Thick and Thin - Moral Argument at Home and Abroad英文学习课件》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在学术论文-天天文库。
ThickandThinMoralArgumentatHomeandAbroadMICHAELWALZERUniversityofNotreDamePressNotreDameLondon-iii-Copyright©1994byUniversityofNotreDamePressNotreDame,Indiana46556AllRightsReservedManufacturedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaLibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataWalzer,Michael.ThickandThin:moralargumentathomeandabroad/MichaelWalzer.p.cm.Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.ISBN0-268-01884-7(alk.paper;cl.)ISBN0-268-01897-9(alk.paper;pb.)1.Distributivejustice.2.Pluralism(SocialSciences)3.Democracy.4.Politicalethics.5.Internationalrelations-Moralandethicalaspects.6.Self-determination,National.1.Title.JC575.W35199493-43201172--dc20CIP∞;ThepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirementsoftheAmericanNationalStandardforInformationSciences--PermanenceofPaperforPrintedLibraryMaterials,ANSIZ39.48-1984.-iv-ContentsIntroductionixOne:MoralMinimalism1Two:DistributiveJusticeasaMaximalistMorality21Three:MaximalismandtheSocialCritic41Four:JusticeandTribalism:MinimalMoralityinInternationalPolitics63Five:TheDividedSelf85Acknowledgments105 Index107-vii-IntroductionMyaiminthisbookistwofold:first,torehearse,revise,andextendasetofargumentsaboutjustice,socialcriticism,andnationalistpoliticsthatIhavebeeninvolvedinmakingforsometenyears.Therevisionsandextensionsalsorepresentsomanyresponsestomycritics(Iamgratefultoallofthem).ButIshallnotengageinanypolemicshere;Iwantonlytogettheargumentsright--whatthatmightmeanistakenupinmythirdchapter--nottogainsomeadvantageinthecriticalwars.Thesearewarsthatcanneverinanycasebewon,sincenoneoftheparticipantsareinclined,norcantheybeforced,tosurrender.Thereisnofinalarbiter,likethesovereigninHobbes'sLeviathan.SoIshallstrengthenmyargumentsasbestIcanandwaitforfurthercriticism.Nothinginthesepagesisfinishedordonewith.ButIalsowant,second,toputmyargumentstoworkinthenewpoliticalworldthathasarisensinceIfirstpresentedthem.Thisnewworldismarkedbythecollapseofthetotalitarianproject--andthenbyapervasive,atleastostensible,commitmenttodemocraticgovernmentandanequallypervasive,andmoreactual,commitmenttoculturalautonomyandnationalindependence.Auniversalornear-universalideologyside-by-sidewithanextraordinarilyintensepursuitofthe"politicsofdifference":whatarewetomakeofthis?Thetwoarenotnecessarilyincompatible,thoughtheirsimultaneoussuccessisboundtopluralizedemocracyinaradicalway.Itwillproduceanumberofdifferent"roadstodemocracy"andavarietyof"democracies"attheendoftheroad--aprospectdifficulttoacceptforthosewhobelievethat-ix-democracyisthesinglebestformofgovernment.Andsometimes,atleast,differencewilltriumphattheexpenseofdemocracy,generatingpoliticalregimesmorecloselyattunedtothisorthathistoricalculture:religiousrepublics,liberaloligarchies,militarychiefdoms,andsoon.Nonetheless,Iwanttoendorsethepoliticsofdifferenceand,atthesametime,todescribeanddefendacertainsortofuniversalism.Thiswon'tbeauniversalismthatrequiresdemocraticgovernmentinalltimesandplaces,butitopensthewayfordemocracywhereverthereareenoughprospectiveandwillingcitizens.Moreimportant,perhaps,itprohibitsthebrutalrepressionofbothminorityandmajoritygroupsindemocraticandnon-democraticstates.(Icountmyselfamongthewillingcitizens;Ithinkitbesttobegoverneddemocratically;butIdon'tclaimthatmypoliticalviewshavethedefinitiveendorsementofGodorNatureorHistoryorReason.)Differenceis,asithasalwaysbeen,mymajorthemeandabidinginterest.ButImeantobegin,inthefirstchapter,bydescribingwhatItaketobeauniversalmoment--notaphilosophicalbutanactualmoment-andthepoliticsandmoralityitrequires.Iwillthengoontorestatemyownparticularistaccountofjustice,inthesecondchapter,andof socialcriticism,inthethird-alwayskeepinginmindthememoryoftheuniversalmoment.Inthefourthchapter,Iwilltrytoshowhowtheuniversalismof"self-determination,"alwayscongenialtodifference,canalsoconstrainit,settinglimitstoourparticularistprojects.Andattheend,inthefifthchapter,Iwillprovideadifferentiatedaccountoftheselfthatwill,Ihope,rendermydefenseofdifferenceelsewheremoreplausibleandpersuasive.WhenIwroteSpheresofJusticetenyearsago,Iargued(andIstillbelieve)thatweneedfocusonlyonthings,theobjectsofdistribution,toworkoutacriticalaccountofdistributivejustice.Theaccountdoesnotrequireor"reston"atheoryofhumannature.Butthereisapictureoftheself,nothingsograndasa-x-theory,thatisconsistentwith"complexequality"asIdescribeditthereandwithversionsofcomplexitythatIhavedefendedelsewhere.SoIwillappeal,attheend,totheinnerdivisionsofmyreaders--assumingthatthesearenotunlikemyown--andinvitethemtorecognizethemselvesinthethick,particulariststoriesIwanttotellaboutdistributivejustice,socialcriticism,andnationalidentity.Iwilldescribeinthesechapterstwodifferentbutinterrelatedkindsofmoralargument--awayoftalkingamongourselves,hereathome,aboutthethicknessofourownhistoryandculture(includingourdemocraticpoliticalculture)andawayoftalkingtopeopleabroad,acrossdifferentcultures,aboutthethinnerlifewehaveincommon."Thereisathinmaninsideeveryfatman,"GeorgeOrwelloncewrote,"justas...there'sastatueinsideeveryblockofstone."1Similarly,therearethemakingsofathinanduniversalistmoralityinsideeverythickandparticularistmorality--butthestoryofthesetwoisnotatalllikethestatueandthestone.Theyaredifferentlyformedanddifferentlyrelated,asweshallsee.____________________1GeorgeOrwell,ComingUpforAir(NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,1950),Part1,chapter3.IhaveborrowedtheideaofthicknessfromCliffordGeertz'sdefenseof"thickdescription"inhismuch-citedTheInterpretationofCultures(NewYork:BasicBooks,1973),seeespeciallychap.1.Butitisnotmyclaimtoofferathickdescriptionofmoralargument,rathertopointtoakindofargumentthatisitself"thick"-richlyreferential,culturallyresonant,lockedintoalocallyestablishedsymbolicsystemornetworkofmeanings."Thin"issimplythecontrastingterm;itsuseisillustratedinthefirstchapter.-xi-ONE:MoralMinimalismIIwanttobeginmyargumentbyrecallingapicture(Ihaveinmindafilmclipfromthetelevisionnews,lateinthatwonderfulyear1989),whichistheactualstartingpoint,theconceptualoccasion,ofthischapter.Itisapictureofpeoplemarchinginthestreetsof Prague;theycarrysigns,someofwhichsay,simply,"Truth"andothers"Justice."WhenIsawthepicture,Iknewimmediatelywhatthesignsmeant--andsodideveryoneelsewhosawthesamepicture.Notonlythat:Ialsorecognizedandacknowledgedthevaluesthatthemarchersweredefending--andsodid(almost)everyoneelse.Isthereanyrecentaccount,anypost-modernistaccount,ofpoliticallanguagethatcanexplainthisunderstandingandacknowledgment?HowcouldIpenetratesoquicklyandjoinsounreservedlyinthelanguagegameorthepowerplayofadistantdemonstration?ThemarcherssharedaculturewithwhichIwaslargelyunfamiliar;theywererespondingtoanexperienceIhadneverhad.Andyet,Icouldhavewalkedcomfortablyintheirmidst.Icouldcarrythesamesigns.Thereasonsforthiseasyfriendlinessandagreementprobablyhaveasmuchtodowithwhatthemarchersdidnotmeanaswithwhattheydidmean.Theywerenotmarchingindefenseofthecoherencetheory,ortheconsensustheory,orthecorrespondencetheoryoftruth.Perhapstheydisagreedaboutsuchtheoriesamongthemselves;morelikely,theydidnotcareaboutthem.Noparticularaccountoftruthwasatissuehere.Themarchhadnothingtodowithepistemology.Or,better,the-1-epistemologicalcommitmentsofthemarchersweresoelementarythattheycouldbeexpressedinanyoftheavailabletheories--exceptforthosethatdeniedtheverypossibilityofstatementsbeing"true."Themarcherswantedtoheartruestatementsfromtheirpoliticalleaders;theywantedtobeabletobelievewhattheyreadinthenewspapers;theydidn'twanttobeliedtoanymore.Similarly,thesecitizensofPraguewerenotmarchingindefenseofutilitarianequalityorJohnRawls'sdifferenceprincipleoranyphilosophicaltheoryofdesertormeritorentitlement.Norweretheymovedbysomehistoricalvisionofjusticewithroots,say,inHussitereligiousradicalism.Undoubtedly,theywouldhaveargued,ifpressed,fordifferentdistributiveprograms;theywouldhavedescribedajustsocietyindifferentways;theywouldhaveurgeddifferentrationalesforrewardandpunishment;theywouldhavedrawnondifferentaccountsofhistoryandculture.Whattheymeantbythe"justice"inscribedontheirsigns,however,wassimpleenough:anendtoarbitraryarrests,equalandimpartiallawenforcement,theabolitionoftheprivilegesandprerogativesofthepartyelite-common,gardenvarietyjustice.IIMoraltermshaveminimalandmaximalmeanings;wecanstandardlygivethinandthickaccountsofthem,andthetwoaccountsareappropriatetodifferentcontexts,servedifferentpurposes.It'snotthecase,however,thatpeoplecarryaroundtwomoralitiesintheirhead,twounderstandingsofjustice,forexample,oneofwhichisbroughtoutforoccasionslikethePraguemarchwhiletheotherisheldinreadinessforthedebatessoontobejoinedontaxationorwelfarepolicy.Themarch,itmightbeargued,isanappealforsupportabroad;thedebateswilldrawonhometruthsandlocalvalues;hencethereliance -2-ongardenvarietyjusticeinthefirstcaseandonmorehighlycultivatedanddeeplyrootedvarietiesofjusticeinthesecond.Butthisisnotthewaythedistinctionworks.Rather,minimalistmeaningsareembeddedinthemaximalmorality,expressedinthesameidiom,sharingthesame(historical/cultural/religious/political)orientation.Minimalismisliberatedfromitsembeddednessandappearsindependently,invaryingdegreesofthinness,onlyinthecourseofapersonalorsocialcrisisorapoliticalconfrontation--as,intheCzechcase,withcommunisttyranny.Because(mostof)therestofushavesomesenseofwhattyrannyisandwhyitiswrong,thewordsusedbythedemonstratorsshedwhateverparticularistmeaningstheymayhaveintheCzechlanguage;theybecomewidely,perhapsuniversallyaccessible.Weretherenocommonunderstandingoftyranny,accesswouldfail.Atthesametime,thesamewordshavefurthermeaningsforthemarchers,whichtheywillargueaboutamongthemselvesandwhichwe,lookingonfromfaraway,maywellmiss.TheyresonatedifferentlyinPraguethantheirtranslationsresonatein,say,ParisorNewYork.Thecontemporaryargumentaboutrelativismanduniversalismisprobablybestunderstoodasanargumentabouttheextentandlegitimacyofthoseresonances.Whatrangeofdifferencecantheideaofmoralitycover?IwanttosuggestawayofthinkingaboutthisquestionthatattendstotheexperienceofthePraguemarchers.Clearly,whentheywavedtheirsigns,theywerenotrelativists:theywouldhavesaid,rightly,itseemstome,thateveryoneintheworldshouldsupporttheircause--shouldjointhemindefenseof"truth"and"justice"(Iamquotingthesigns,notexpressingironyorskepticismabouttheirmessage).ButwhentheyturntothebusinessofdesigningahealthcaresystemoraneducationalsystemforCzechsandSlovaksorarguingaboutthepoliticsoftheirunionorseparation,theywillnotbeuniversalists:theywillaimatwhatisbestforthemselves,whatfitstheirhistoryandculture,andwon't-3-insistthatalltherestofusendorseorreiteratetheirdecisions.2Thisdualismis,Ithink,aninternalfeatureofeverymorality.Philosophersmostoftendescribeitintermsofa(thin)setofuniversalprinciplesadapted(thickly)totheseorthosehistoricalcircumstances.Ihaveinthepastsuggestedtheimageofacoremoralitydifferentlyelaboratedindifferentcultures.3Theideaofelaborationisbetterthanadaptation,itseemstome,becauseitsuggestsaprocesslesscircumstantialandconstrained,morefreelycreative:governedasmuchbyidealasbypracticalconsiderations.Itaccountsbetterfortheactualdifferencesthatanthropologyandcomparativehistoryreveal.Butboththesedescriptionssuggestmistakenlythatthestartingpointforthedevelopmentofmoralityisthesameineverycase.Menandwomeneverywherebeginwithsomecommonideaorprincipleorsetofideasandprinciples,whichtheythenworkupinmanydifferentways.Theystartthin,asitwere,andthickenwithage,asifinaccordancewithourdeepestintuitionaboutwhatitmeanstodevelopormature.Butourintuitioniswronghere.Moralityisthickfromthebeginning,culturally integrated,fullyresonant,anditrevealsitselfthinlyonlyonspecialoccasions,whenmorallanguageisturnedtospecificpurposes.Consider,further,theideaofjustice.Itappears,sofarasIcantell,ineveryhumansociety--theideaitself,somewordorsetofwordsthatgiveitaname,institutionsandpracticesthataresupposedtomakeitreal,toexemplify____________________2Infact,theargumentforseparationisaminimalistanduniversalone,invokingtheprincipleofself-determination(seeChapterThree).Butwhatevercooperativearrangementsareworkedoutforthenewstateswillobviouslydependuponmoreparticularunderstandings.3MichaelWalzer,InterpretationandSocialCriticism(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1987),pp.23-25.-4-justiceortoenactandenforceit.AndsowhenwereadinthebookofDeuteronomy,say,"Justice,justice,shaltthoupursue,"wehavenodifficultyagreeing;wefillinourowndevelopedunderstandingofjustice(thisisthesubjectofmysecondchapter),whichindeedguidesorwhichweacknowledgeoughttoguideourpoliticalandlegalpursuits.4ButifsomeoneweretoproduceforusathickdescriptionofwhattheDeuteronomistactuallymeant--aclosereadingofthetext,areconstructionofthehistoricalcontext--wewouldnotfinditsoeasytoagree.Wemightwellpreferaresponsemorecomplex,differentiated,orambiguousthansimpleagreement.Orthedescriptionmightseemsodistantandalienastoleaveusentirelyunresponsive(butwewillstillrecognizeitasadescriptionof"justice").Again,whentheprophetIsaiahcondemnsasunjustthepracticeshecalls"grindingthefaceofthepoor,"heescapes,atleastforthemoment,allcomplexity:thatisunjustsimply.5Weknowittobesoevenifwedon'tknowwiththesamecertaintyandunanimitywhatwouldcountastreatingthepoorjustly.Amaximalistaccountofpracticesandinstitutions,whichIsaiah'scriticismprobablypresupposes,wouldleavemanyofuswonderingifjusticecouldreallyrequireanythingquitelikethat.Whatevertheoriginsoftheideaofjustice,whateverthestartingpointoftheargumentinthisorthatsociety,peoplethinkingandtalkingaboutjusticewillrangeoveramostlyfamiliarterrainandwillcomeuponsimilarissues--likepoliticaltyrannyortheoppressionofthepoor.Whattheysayabouttheseissueswillbepartandparcelofwhattheysayabouteverythingelse,butsomeaspectofit--itsnegativityperhaps,itsrejectionofbrutality("grindingtheface")--willbeimmediatelyaccessible____________________4Deuteronomy16:20.5Isaiah3:15.-5- topeoplewhodon'tknowanythingabouttheotherpartsandparcels.Prettymuchanybodylookingonwillseesomethingherethattheyrecognize.ThesumoftheserecognitionsiswhatImeanbyminimalmorality.Iwanttostress(thoughitshouldalreadybeobvious)that"minimalism"doesnotdescribeamoralitythatissubstantivelyminororemotionallyshallow.Theoppositeismorelikelytrue:thisismoralityclosetothebone.Thereisn'tmuchthatismoreimportantthan"truth"and"justice,"minimallyunderstood.Theminimaldemandsthatwemakeononeanotherare,whendenied,repeatedwithpassionateinsistence.Inmoraldiscourse,thinnessandintensitygotogether,whereaswiththicknesscomesqualification,compromise,complexity,anddisagreement.IIIFormanyphilosophers(inboththeAnglo-Americanandcontinentaltraditions)minimalmoralityislittlemorethananinvitationtofurtherwork.Moralphilosophyisusuallyunderstoodasatwofoldenterprisethataims,first,atprovidingafoundationforminimalismand,second,atbuildingonthatfoundationamoreexpansivestructure.Isupposethatthegoalisasingularandmoreorlesscompleteaccountofwhatweoughttodoandhowweoughttolive,anaccountthatcanthenbeusedasacriticalstandardforallthemorecircumstantialconstructionsofparticularsocietiesandcultures.ThesearchforsingularityisprobablyoverdeterminedinWesternphilosophy,butitismorespecificallyinspiredherebytheapparentsingularityofthemoralminimumor,atleast,bythefactofgeneralagreementonsuchminimalistvaluesas"truth"and"justice."Ifweagreethisfarand,itappears,soeasily,whynotseekalargerevenifmoredifficultagreement?Somethirtyyearsago,agroupofAmericanpainters,whowerealsotheoristsofpainting,aspiredtosomething-6-theycalledMinimalArt.6Thecapitallettersderivefromsomemanifestocallingforaformofartthatwas"objectiveandunexpressive."Iamnotsurewhatthosewordsmeanwhenappliedtoapainting,buttheynicelycaptureoneviewofminimalisminmorality.Appliedtoamoralrule,theymeanthattheruleservesnoparticularinterest,expressesnoparticularculture,regulateseveryone'sbehaviorinauniversallyadvantageousorclearlycorrectway.Therulecarriesnopersonalorsocialsignature.(Idon'tknowifMinimalArtwassigned.)Thoughitmayhavebeentaughtwithspecialforcebythisorthatindividual,itwasneverhisorhers.Thoughitwasfirstworkedoutinaspecifictimeandplace,itbearsnomarkofitsorigin.Thisisthestandardphilosophicalviewofmoralminimalism:itiseveryone'smoralitybecauseitisnoone'sinparticular;subjectiveinterestandculturalexpressionhavebeenavoidedorcutaway.Andifwesucceedinunderstandingthismorality,weshouldbeabletoconstructacompleteobjectiveandunexpressivecode--akindofmoralEsperanto. Butthishopeismisbegotten,forminimalismisneitherobjectivenorunexpressive.Itisreiterativelyparticularistandlocallysignificant,intimatelyboundupwiththemaximalmoralitiescreatedhereandhereandhere,inspecifictimesandplaces.HencewhenweseethePraguemarchers,wedon'tinthefirstinstance(orperhapsever)endorse"truth"and"justice"asabstractpropositions.Rather,werecognizetheoccasion;weimaginativelyjointhemarch;ourendorsementismorevicariousthandetachedandspeculative.Wetoodon'twanttobetoldlies;wetooremember,orwehavelistenedtostoriesabout,tyrannyand____________________6OnMinimalArt,seeTheOxfordCompaniontoTwentieth-CenturyArt,ed.HaroldOsborne(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1981),pp.375-377.-7-oppression.WeseethepointoftheCzechsigns.Atthesametime,however,wegiveto"truth"and"justice"ourownadditionalmeanings;weallowthemtheirfullexpressiverangewithinourownculture.SowhilewemarchinspiritwiththemenandwomenofPrague,wehaveinfactourownparade.(Thismayseemlessthanobviousinthecaseathand,sincePragueisculturallyanearbyplace.Imagine,then,amarchfor"truth"and"justice"inRangoonorBeijing.)Wemarchvicariouslywithpeopleintroublewhoevertheyare;andwehaveourownparade.Thisdualistmetaphorcapturesourmoralreality.Weshouldnottrytoescapethedualism,foritfitswhatIaminclinedtocallthenecessarycharacterofanyhumansociety:universalbecauseitishuman,particularbecauseitisasociety.Philosopherscommonlytry,asIhavealreadysuggested,tomaketheadjectivedominantoverthenoun,buttheeffortcannotbesustainedinanyparticularsocietyexceptatacost(incoercionanduniformity)thathumanbeingseverywherewillrecognizeastoohightopay.Thatrecognitionvindicatesatonceminimalismandmaximalism,thethinandthethick,universalandrelativistmorality.Itsuggestsageneralunderstandingofthevalueoflivinginaparticularplace,namely,one'sownplace,one'shomeorhomeland.Societiesarenecessarilyparticularbecausetheyhavemembersandmemories,memberswithmemoriesnotonlyoftheirownbutalsooftheircommonlife.Humanity,bycontrast,hasmembersbutnomemory,andsoithasnohistoryandnoculture,nocustomarypractices,nofamiliarlife-ways,nofestivals,nosharedunderstandingofsocialgoods.Itishumantohavesuchthings,butthereisnosingularhumanwayofhavingthem.Atthesametime,themembersofallthedifferentsocieties,becausetheyarehuman,canacknowledgeeachother'sdifferentways,respondtoeachother'scriesforhelp,learnfromeachother,andmarch(sometimes)ineachother'sparades.-8-Whyisn'tthisenough?ThinkoftheexodusofIsraelfromEgypt,theAnabasis,Muhammad'shegira,thePilgrims'crossingoftheAtlantic,theBoertrek,thelongmarchoftheChinesecommunists,thePraguedemonstrations:mustallthesemergeintoone grandparade?Thereisnothingtogainfromthemerger,forthechiefvalueofallthismarchingliesintheparticularexperienceofthemarchers.Theycanjoineachotheronlyforatime;thereisnoreasontothinkthattheyareallheadinginthesamedirection.Theclaimthattheymustbeheadinginthesamedirection,sincethereisonlyonedirectioninwhichgood-hearted(orideologicallycorrect)menandwomencanpossiblymarch,isanexample--sowritestheCzechnovelistMilanKunderainTheUnbearableLightnessofBeing--ofleftistkitsch.7Itisalsoanexampleofphilosophicalhighmindedness.Butitdoesnotfitourmoralexperience.IVItispossible,nonetheless,togivesomesubstantialaccountofthemoralminimum.Iseenothingwrongwiththeefforttodothatsolongasweunderstandthatitisnecessarilyexpressiveofourownthickmorality.AmoralequivalentofEsperantoisprobablyimpossible--or,rather,justasEsperantoismuchclosertoEuropeanlanguagesthantoanyothers,sominimalismwhenitisexpressedasMinimalMoralitywillbeforcedintotheidiomandorientationofoneofthemaximalmoralities.Thereisnoneutral(unexpressive)morallanguage.Still,wecanpickoutfromamongourvaluesandcommitmentsthosethatmakeitpossibleforustomarchvicariouslywiththe____________________7MilanKundera,TheUnbearableLightnessofBeing(NewYork:HarperandRow,1984),PartVI:"TheGrandMarch."-9-peopleinPrague.Wecanmakealistofsimilaroccasions(athome,too)andcatalogueourresponsesandtrytofigureoutwhattheoccasionsandtheresponseshaveincommon.Perhapstheendproductofthiseffortwillbeasetofstandardstowhichallsocietiescanbeheld-negativeinjunctions,mostlikely,rulesagainstmurder,deceit,torture,oppression,andtyranny.Amongourselves,latetwentieth-centuryAmericansorEuropeans,thesestandardswillprobablybeexpressedinthelanguageofrights,whichisthelanguageofourownmoralmaximalism.Butthatisnotabadwayoftalkingaboutinjuriesandwrongsthatnooneshouldhavetoendure,andIassumethatitistranslatable.Amoralitythatdidnotallowforsuchtalk,whosepractitionerscouldnotrespondtootherpeople'spainandoppressionormarch(sometimes)inotherpeople'sparades,wouldbeadeficientmorality.Asocietyorpoliticalregime(likethatoftheCzechcommunists)thatviolatedtheminimalstandardswouldbeadeficientsociety.Inthissense,minimalismprovidesacriticalperspective.ButIwanttostressagainthatthemoralminimumisnotafreestandingmorality.Itsimplydesignatessomereiteratedfeaturesofparticularthickormaximalmoralities.HenceIaminclinedtodoubtthatwhenwecriticizeothersocietieswearebestdescribedasapplyingminimalstandards;atleast,thatcan'tbeallthatwearedoing.Itis,ofcourse,theminimalismof"truth"and"justice"thatmakesitpossibleforustojointhePraguemarchers.ButwhenwecriticizeCzechcommunisminwaysthatsuggestanalternative,wemovequicklybeyondtheminimum,knowingthatsomeof whatwesaywillechopositivelyinPrague(orinthisorthatpartofPrague)andsome,perhaps,won't.Criticizingtyranny,forexample,Iamlikelytodefendthevaluesofsocialdemocracy,thoughthesearenotbyanymeanstheuniversalvaluesofanti-tyrannicalpolitics.Othercriticismsoftyrannywillrepeatonepartofmyargumentandignoreorrejectotherparts.ButIhaveno-10-philosophicalreasontoseparateouttheparts(Imayhavepoliticalorprudentialreasons).Thecriticalenterpriseisnecessarilycarriedonintermsofoneoranotherthickmorality.Thehopethatminimalism,groundedandexpanded,mightservethecauseofauniversalcritiqueisafalsehope.Minimalismmakesforacertainlimited,thoughimportantandheartening,solidarity.Itdoesn'tmakeforafull-bloodeduniversaldoctrine.Sowemarchforawhiletogether,andthenwereturntoourownparades.Theideaofamoralminimumplaysapartineachofthesemoments,notonlyinthefirst.Itexplainshowitisthatwecometogether;itwarrantsourseparation.Byitsverythinness,itjustifiesusinreturningtothethicknessthatisourown.Themoralityinwhichthemoralminimumisembedded,andfromwhichitcanonlytemporarilybeabstracted,istheonlyfull-bloodedmoralitywecaneverhave.Insomesense,theminimumhastobethere,butonceitisthere,therestisfree.WeoughttojointhemarchersinPrague,butoncewehavedonethat,wearefreetoargueforwhateversuitsourlargermoralunderstandings.Thereisonemarch,andtherearemany(or,therearemanymarches,andthensometimesthereisone).VIneedtodiscussacontemporaryversionofmoralminimalismthatclaimstorespecttheoneandthemanybutinfactdoesnot.Itispopularthesedaystothinkoftheminimuminproceduralterms--athinmoralityofdiscourseordecisionthatgovernseveryparticularcreationofasubstantiveandthickmorality.Minimalism,onthisview,suppliesthegenerativerulesofthedifferentmoralmaximums.Asmallnumberofideasthatweshareorshouldsharewitheveryoneintheworldguidesusinproducingthecomplexculturesthatwedon'tandneedn't-11-share--andsotheyexplainandjustifytheproduction.Commonly,asinJürgenHabermas'scriticaltheory,thesesharedideasrequireademocraticprocedure--indeed,theyrequirearadicaldemocracyofarticulateagents,menandwomenwhoargueendlesslyabout,say,substantivequestionsofjustice.8Minimalmoralityconsistsintherulesofengagementthatbindallthespeakers;maximalismisthenever-finishedoutcomeoftheirarguments.Thisingeniousdoctrinefacestwoseriousdifficulties.Firstofall,theproceduralminimumturnsouttoberathermorethanminimal.Fortherulesofengagementaredesignedtoensurethatthespeakersarefreeandequal,toliberatethemfromdomination, subordination,servility,fear,anddeference.Otherwise,itissaid,wecouldnotrespecttheirargumentsanddecisions.Butoncerulesofthissorthavebeenlaidout,thespeakersareleftwithfewsubstantiveissuestoargueanddecideabout.Socialstructure,politicalarrangements,distributivestandardsareprettymuchgiven;thereisroomonlyforlocaladjustments.Thethinmoralityisalreadyverythick--withanentirelydecentliberalorsocialdemocraticthickness.Therulesofengagementconstituteinfactawayoflife.Howcouldtheynot?Menandwomenwhoacknowledgeeachother'sequality,claimtherightsoffreespeech,andpracticethevirtuesoftoleranceandmutualrespect,don'tleapfromthephilosopher'smindlikeAthenafromtheheadofZeus.Theyarecreaturesofhistory;theyhavebeenworkedon,sotospeak,formanygenerations;andtheyinhabitasocietythat"fits"theirqualitiesandsosupports,reinforces,____________________8JürgenHabermas,MoralConsciousnessandCommunicativeAction,trans.ChristianLenhardtandShierryWeberNicholsen(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,1990);SeylaBenhabib,Critique,Norm,andUtopia:AStudyoftheFoundationsofCriticalTheory(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1986),chapter8.-12-andreproducespeopleverymuchlikethemselves.Theyaremaximalistsevenbeforetheybegintheirrule-governeddiscussions.Theseconddifficultyperhapsonlyrestatesthefirst.Rulesofengagementassume,obviously,thatinthebeginningtherearerulesandthenthereareengagements.Minimalismprecedesmaximalism;oncewewerethinbuthavegrownthick.Ihavealreadydisputedthisview;nowwiththeexampleofdiscourseanddecisiontheorybeforeuswecanmoreeasilyunderstanditsproblems.Fortheminimalmoralityprescribedbythesetheoriesissimplyabstractedfrom,andnotveryfarfrom,contemporarydemocraticculture.Ifnosuchcultureexisted,thisparticularversionofminimalmoralitywouldnotevenbeplausibletous.Maximalisminfactprecedesminimalism.Butnoparticularmaximumisthesolesourceofthemoralminimum,letaloneofalltheothermaximums.Whenfull-growndemocratsimaginethattherulesofdiscursiveengagementarethegenerativerulesofmoralityinallitskinds,theyareverymuchlikeanoaktreethat,endowedwithspeechandencouragedtospeakfreely,solemnlydeclarestheacorntobetheseedandsourceoftheentireforest.Butthisatleastsuggestsacertaingenerosity.Whatisperhapsabetteranaloguewouldbeprovidedbyanoaktreethatacknowledgedthefullrangeofarborealdifferenceandthenarguedforthecuttingdownofallthosetrees,nowcalledillegitimate,thatdidnotbeginasacorns.So(some)proceduralistphilosophersarguefortherejectionofanymoralitythatisnotorcouldnotbeproducedbytheirprocedure.9Moralminimalismhasindeedacriticalfunction.If,however,everymaximumbutone(ourown)isruledout,____________________9IthinkthatthisistheargumentofBruceAckerman'sSocialJusticeintheLiberal State(NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,1980).-13-wecanimmediatelyadoptthatoneasourcriticalstandard:whybotherwithminimalismatall?Unlesswecanidentityaneutralstartingpointfromwhichmanydifferentandpossiblylegitimatemoralculturesmightdevelop,wecan'tconstructaproceduralistminimum.Butthereisnosuchstartingpoint.Moralitiesdon'thaveacommonbeginning;themenandwomenwhoworkthemoutarenotlikerunnersinarace--whoalsohaveacommonsetofrulesandacommongoal,neitherofwhichplayapartinthelessorganizedworkofculturalelaboration.AfarmoremodestproceduratismhasrecentlybeenurgedbyStuartHampshire(inhisbookInnocenceandExperience),whodefendswhathecalls"athinnotionofminimumproceduraljustice...theconditionsofmeredecency."10Hampshireisinclinedtoidentifytheseconditionswiththecommon(hesays"species-wide")experienceofpoliticaldeliberation.Heaimstoderivefromthisexperienceasetofpracticalrulesorunderstandingsthatmightprotectmenandwomenfromcrueltyandoppression.Hisisclearlyanargumentfor"truth"and"justice"--alwaysinaminimaliststyle:justenoughofthetwosothatthelargerargumentabouttruthandjusticecangoonandon.Thelargerargumenthasnonecessaryform;manydifferentforms(notonlydemocraticones)meettherequirementsofmeredecency.Hampshireisnotinthebusinessofinventingordeducingidealprocedurestogoverntheargumentandgiveshapeandlegitimacytoitsoutcomes.Outcomescanberightorwrong,goodorbad,inamorelocalandparticularistsense.Whatisimportantisthattheybereachedwithouttyrannicalcoercionorcivilwar.Itakethistobeausefulwayofgettingatthesubstanceofmoralminimalism;itisalso,andthismaybemoreimportant,awaycloselyattunedtotwentieth-____________________10StuartHampshire,InnocenceandExperience(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1989),esp.pp.72-78.-14-centurypoliticalexperience.Iwouldinsist,however,thatitisn'ttheonlyway.Proceduralismisappealingbecauseitostensibly(inHampshire'scase,actually)allowsfordivergentoutcomes;itlocatescommonalityonthewaytodifference.Wemightalso,however,reversetheargument,acknowledgethegreatdiversityofhistoricalprocesses,andlookforsimilaroroverlappingoutcomes:locatecommonalityattheendpointofdifference.Often,certainly,weputtogetherthemoralminimumbyabstractingfromsocialpracticesreiteratedinmanycountriesandcultures(ratherthanfromtheprocessofreiteration).Thepracticeofgovernment,forexample,bringswithitideasabouttheresponsibilityofgovernorstowardthegoverned.Thepracticeofwarbringswithitideasaboutcombatbetweencombatants,theexclusionofnon-combatants,civilianimmunity.Thepracticeofcommercebringswithitideasabouthonesty,fairdealing,andfraud.All theseideasareineffectivemuchofthetime,nodoubt,ortheyworkonlywithinhighlyelaboratedculturalsystemsthatgivetoeachconstituentpracticearadicallydistinctform.Nonetheless,theideasareavailableforminimalistusewhenoccasionsarisetousethem.VINowlet'sconsideronepossibleoccasionverymuchintoday'snews:whenthesolidaritywefeelwithpeopleintrouble,confrontingmurderandoppression,seemstorequirenotonlymarchingbutalsofighting--militaryinterventionontheirbehalf.Nodoubt,weshouldneverbeinahurrytofight;Ihavearguedelsewhereforastrongpresumptionagainstinterveninginotherpeople'scountries.11Norcaneverymoralrulethatweareabletodescribein____________________11JustandUnjustWars(NewYork:BasicBooks,1977),chapter6.-15-minimalisttermsservetojustifytheuseofforce.Wearemorelikelycalledupontospeakupfor"truth"thantofightforit."Justice,"too,isbetterdefendedwiththemoralsupportofoutsidersthanwiththeircoerciveintervention.Wemightevensaythatthispreferenceisafeatureofthemoralminimum.Nonetheless,therearetimeswhenitismorallyjustifiedtosendarmedmenandwomenacrossaborder-andminimalismalone(ultra-minimalism?)definesthetimeandfixesitslimits.Soweintervene,ifnotonbehalfof"truth"and"justice,"thenonbehalfof"life"and"liberty"(againstmassacreorenslavement,say).Weassumethatthepeoplewearetryingtohelpreallywanttobehelped.Theremaystillbereasonsforholdingback,butthebeliefthatthesepeopleprefertobemassacredorenslavedwon'tbeamongthem.Yes,somethingsthatweconsideroppressivearenotsoregardedeverywhere.Theconsiderationisafeatureofourownmaximalmorality,anditcannotprovideuswithanoccasionformilitaryintervention.Wecannotconscriptpeopletomarchinourparade.Butminimalismmakesfor(some)presumptiveoccasions,inpoliticsjustasitdoesinprivatelife.Wewilluseforce,forexample,tostopapersonfromcommittingsuicide,withoutknowinginadvancewhoheisorwherehecomesfrom.Perhapshehasreasonsforsuicideconfirmedbyhismaximalmorality,endorsedbyhismoralcommunity.Evenso,"life"isareiteratedvalueanddefendingitisanactofsolidarity.Andifwegiveuptheforcibledefenseoutofrespectforhisreasons,wemightstillcriticizethemoralculturethatprovidesthosereasons:itisinsufficientlyattentive,wemightsay,tothevalueoflife.VIIMinimalmoralityisveryimportant,bothforthesakeofcriticismandforthesakeofsolidarity.Butitcan'tsub- -16-stitutefororreplacethedefenseofthicklyconceivedvalues.Socialdemocracy,marketfreedom,morallaissezfaire,republicanvirtue,thisorthatideaofpublicdecencyorthegoodlife--allthesehavetobedefendedintheirownterms.Ourargumentsontheirbehalfarelikelytobeinclusiveofthemoralminimum,buttheyarenotcontinuouswithit,notderivedfromitorentailedbyit.Ifwearetomaketheseargumentsproperly,honestly,wehavetobeclearabouttheirstatus:theyareours,not,untilwehavepersuadedtheothers,everyone's.Minimalism,bycontrast,islesstheproductofpersuasionthanofmutualrecognitionamongtheprotagonistsofdifferentfullydevelopedmoralcultures.Itconsistsinprinciplesandrulesthatarereiteratedindifferenttimesandplaces,andthatareseentobesimilareventhoughtheyareexpressedindifferentidiomsandreflectdifferenthistoriesanddifferentversionsoftheworld.Iwon'tconsiderherethereasonsforthereiterationsorforthedifferences(anaturalisticaccountseemsbestforthefirst,aculturalaccountforthesecond).Itisenoughtostressthedualeffectoftheseprinciplesandrules.Incontext,everyday,theyprovidecontrastingperspectives;seenfromadistance,inmomentsofcrisisandconfrontation,theymakeforcommonality.Ishouldstressthatwhatisrecognizedisjustthis(partial)commonality,notthefullmoralsignificanceoftheothercultures.Mostpeoplemostofthetimedonotseetheothers,incontext,ascarriersofvalue;mostpeoplearenotpluralists.Culturalpluralismisamaximalistidea,theproductofathicklydevelopedliberalpolitics.Minimalismdependsonsomethingless:mostsimply,perhaps,onthefactthatwehavemoralexpectationsaboutthebehaviornotonlyofourfellowsbutofstrangerstoo.Andtheyhaveoverlappingexpectationsabouttheirownbehaviorandoursaswell.Thoughwehavedifferenthistories,wehavecommonexperiencesand,sometimes,commonresponses,andoutofthesewefashion,asneeded,themoral-17-minimum.Itisajerry-builtandramshackleaffair--ashastilyputtogetherasthesignsforthePraguemarch.Minimalism,then,isquiteunlikeOrwell'sstatue,liberatedfromtheshapelessstone.Wehaveinfactnoknowledgeofthestone;webeginwiththefinishedstatue;maximalistinstyle,ancient,carvedbymanyhands.Andthen,inmomentsofcrisis,wehastilyconstructanabstractversion,astickfigure,acartoon,thatonlyalludestothecomplexityoftheoriginal.Weseizeuponasingleaspect,relevanttoourimmediate(oftenpolemical)purposesandwidelyrecognizable.Whatunitesusatsuchatimeismorethesenseofacommonenemythanthecommitmenttoacommonculture.Wedon'tallpossessoradmirethesamestatue,butweunderstandtheabstraction.Itistheproductofahistoricalconjuncture,notofaphilosophical"in-the-beginning."Minimalismisnotfoundational:itisnotthecasethatdifferentgroupsofpeoplediscoverthattheyareallcommittedtothesamesetofultimatevalues.Amongthesupportersof thePraguedemonstrations,totakeaneasyexample,wereChristianfundamentalistsforwhomsecular"truth"and"justice"arenotthemostimportantthings.Buttheytoocanjoinincelebratingthedownfalloftheregimeoflies.Oftenenough,whatgoesdeepestforonegroup(personalsalvationortheknowledgeofGod,say)islikelytomeanlittletoanother--sothatthefirstgroupishardpressedtounderstandhowmembersofthesecondcanpossiblybemoralmenandwomen.Weareconstantlysurprisedbygoodnessinothers,liketherabbisofancientIsraelby"righteousgentiles"orJesuitmissionariesbythegodlessChineseorcoldwarAmericansbycommunistdissidents.Wesharesomevalueswiththeseothers,includingimportantvalues,forwhichitissometimesnecessarytomarch(andsometimestofight).Buttheminimumisnotthefoundationofthemaximum,onlyapieceofit.Thevalueofminimalismliesintheencountersitfacilitates,ofwhichitisalsotheproduct.Butthese-18-encountersarenot--notnow,atleast--sufficientlysustainedtoproduceathickmorality.Minimalismleavesroomforthicknesselsewhere;indeed,itpresupposesthicknesselsewhere.Ifwedidnothaveourownparade,wecouldnotmarchvicariouslyinPrague.Wewouldhavenounderstandingatallof"truth"or"justice."-19-TWO:DistributiveJusticeAsAMaximalistMoralityIIwanttotakedistributivejusticeasanexampleofathickormaximalistmorality.Nodoubtthereareminimalistversions;Iwillsaysomethingaboutthemlateron.Butanyfullaccountofhowsocialgoodsoughttobedistributedwilldisplaythefeaturesofmoralmaximalism:itwillbeidiomaticinitslanguage,particularistinitsculturalreference,andcircumstantialinthetwosensesofthatword:historicallydependentandfactuallydetailed.Itsprinciplesandprocedureswillhavebeenworkedoutoveralongperiodoftimethroughcomplexsocialinteractions.Argumentsamongindividualsandgroupsareanimportantpartoftheseinteractions;theydon't,however,constitutetheset,whichalsoincludessocialconflict,politicalbargaining,culturalimitation,and(sometimes)religiousrevelation.Theprocessasawholeisvirtuallyimpossibletoreconstruct,butitissurelymisrepresentedwhenitisdescribed,lateintheday,asifithadbeenguidedfromthebeginningbyasingle,comprehensive,anduniversalprinciple.Allsuchprinciplesareabstractionsandsimplificationsthat,whenanalyzed,revealtheiridiomatic,particularist,andcircumstantialcharacter.ConsidertheancientGreekmaximaccordingtowhichweought"togiveeverymanhisdue."Thismaximepitomizes,first,aprofoundlyhierarchical(and,nodoubt,sexist)understandingofboththesocialandmoralworldsandthenafairlycomplacentconvictionthatthetwoworldsarecognitivelyaccessibleindetail.Therewasno-21- singlemeasureof"dueness"amongtheGreeks(thoughsocialstatusandmoralvirtuetendedtoruntogether),butoneknew,nonetheless,whatwasduetooneselfandtoeveryoneelse.Thesignswereassumedtobeevidentoratleastavailable,andtheywerealsoassumedtodifferentiateindividualsinaconventionallygradedway,fromhighertolower,moretolessworthy.12ThoughthemaximisreproducedinJustinian'sCode,itispre-Christianandnon-Christianinitsoriginandmeaning.Hamlet'sfamousquestionUseeverymanafterhisdesert,andwhowould'scapewhipping?reflectsaverydifferentworldview.13IdoubtthattheGreekseverimaginedtheradicalegalitarianismofuniversaldepravity,whichwouldindeedturntheirmaximintoafrighteningdistributiveprinciple.Initstimeandplace,however,itdoesn'tseemtohavebeenatallfrightening;itsadvocates,foralltheirrecognitionoftheworld'suncertainties,weresureenough,mostofthetime,thattheywouldbewellservediftheyweregiventheirdue,usedaftertheirdeserts.Asimilaranalysiscanbemadeofthemaximthatepitomizes(thoughwithlessclaimtocompleteness)liberalorbourgeoisjustice:equalityofopportunityor,inthemoreevocativestyleoftheFrenchRevolution,"thecareeropentotalents."Itmightbesaidthatnothingmoreisbeing____________________12Cf.Aristotle'smorecomplicatedformulation:"Justiceisrelativetopersons;andajustdistributionisoneinwhichtherelativevaluesofthethingsgivencorrespondtothoseofthepersonsreceiving..."Politics,1280a(trans.ErnestBarker[Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1948],p.136).Forthesimplerversion,seeK.J.Dover,GreekPopularMoralityintheTimeofPlatoandAristotle(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1974),pp.180-183.13InstitutesI.i.1;HamletII-ii.-22-claimedherethanthesuperiorityofonekindof"dueness"overanother:virtueortalentmustoverrideor,better,mustdeterminesocialstatus.Indeed,thesearetheslogansofthelongstruggleagainsthereditaryprivilege.Buttheyreflectalsoawhollynewunderstandingofeverydaylife.Careersaretobeopen,thatis,freefromtheobstaclesofastratifiedsystem--butalsodeprivedofanysortofguarantee.Talentsarenotsimplyrecognizedandrewarded;theymustbedeployedinafreecompetitionforwhateveropportunitiesareavailable.Thereisnonecessarymatchoftalentsandopportunities,letaloneoftalentsandrewards.Whatis(morally)necessaryisonlyanequalityofchances,whichisalsoanequalityofrisk.Hierarchyisreplacedbyuniversalstrivingandcontention,romanticallycelebratedastheseed-bedofindividualityandself-realization.Thisselfthatstrugglestorealizeitselfiswellknowntous;itisthesubjectofmostWesternandmoderntheoriesofdistributivejustice.Wearelikelytothinkofitinthefirstpersonsingular--asJohnRawls,forexample,invitesustodowhenweputourselves, eachoneofus,intheoriginalpositionandaskwhatsocialarrangementswouldbestsuitour(possibleorconceivable)lifeplans.14Itisnoteverykindoflifethatislivedaccordingtoaplan.Todaywecommonlythinkofourlivesasprojects,undertakingsinwhichweourselvesaretheundertakers,theentrepreneurs,themanagersandorganizersofourownactivities.Andthesetofouractivities,extendedovertime,plannedinadvance,aimedatagoal(arespectedplaceinthesocialsystemoraconventionallyrecognizedaccomplishment)--thisiswhatwemeanbyacareer.ThewordfirstappearsinEnglishwiththismeaningin1803;itobviouslycomesearlierinFrench,butprobablynotverymuchearlier.____________________14Onlifeplans,seeRawls,ATheoryofJustice(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1971),pp.407-416.-23-Butthisisahistoricallyspecificandpeculiarunderstandingofahumanlife.Thinkofthealternatives:(1)aninheritedlife,whereIsimplytakeovertheplaceandaccomplishmentsofmyparentsandmakethemmyown;(2)asociallyregulatedlife,whereIgetpreciselywhatisduetomybirthormyvirtue;(3)aspontaneouslife,randomlyconstitutedbycircumstanceandimpulse;(4)adivinelyordainedorpredestinedlife,wheretheplanisGod's,notmine,andIobeyhiswillinsofarasIcanmakeitout."Equalityofopportunity"isapossible,andavaluable,distributiveprincipleonlywhensignificantnumbersofmenandwomenhavegivenupthesealternativesandcometothinkoftheirlivesascareers.Foritistheopportunitytopursuethatkindoflifethatisnowbeingdistributed.Or,moredirectly,ifwethinkofthefullrangeofdistributiveproceduressanctionedbythemaxim-admissionandappointmentcommittees,anti-nepotismandanti-discriminationlaws,civilserviceexams,andsoon--careersthemselvesarebeingdistributed.Butthiscanonlybedoneiftherearepeoplewithambitionsoftheappropriatekind,whointendtohaveacareer.Sowearedistributinglivesofacertainsort,andwhatcountsasjusticeindistributiondependsonwhatthat"sort"isor,better,onthemeaningofliveslikethatforthepeoplewhoselivestheyare.Wealsodistributelifeitself,merelife,physicallife,whichisgivenandtakenincourtsoflawjudgingcapitalcases,oronthebattlefield,orinhospitals.Herethecriteriaareentirelydifferent;wemakenoinquiryintothetalentortheprofessionalqualificationsofthedefendant,theenemysoldier,orthepatient.Itistheguiltorinnocenceofthedefendant,thethreatposedbytheenemy,andtheillnessofthepatientthatdetermineourresponses.Ofcourse,talentandqualificationarenottheonlycriteriaruledoutinthesedistributionsoflifeanddeathbutalsosocialstatus,wealth,andpoliticalpower:Iwillcomebacktoexclusionsofthislattersortlateron.-24-Casesoftriagearedifferentagain.Nowwearelikelytosortpeopleoutaccordingtotheirlifechances.Wewillnottreatthemostsickorthemostseverelyinjured(first(nor, presumably,thewealthiestorthemostfamous),butattendinsteadtothosewhohavethegreatestchancetoseizetheirchances:lifeisgiventothosewhomightstillpursuealifelongcareer.Isupposethatthisiswhatequalityofopportunityrequiresunderconditionsofcrisis.Intimesandplaceswherehumanlifewasdifferentlyunderstood,differentcriteriaapplied.Consider,forexample,themedievalJewishlawsthatregulatedtheransomingofcaptives,anunhappilyfrequentnecessitythatwasassignedfirstplaceinthedistributivehierarchy,firstcalloncommunalresources.Butwhattodowhenthereweremanycaptivesandresourceswereshort?Therulesoftriagerequiredthatwomenberansomedbeforemen,scholarsbeforelaymen.15Womencamefirstbecausetheirhonor(orpurity)aswellastheirliveswereatriskincaptivity;scholarscamefirstbecausetheirliveswereofgreatervaluetothecommunity(theywerealsotheauthorsofthelegaltextsinwhichthisvaluewasassigned).Icanimagineanumberofwaystocriticizeeachofthesepriorities,butwemustfirstunderstandthem.Theideaoflifeasachosencareer,valuedbecauseofthechoice,iswhollyalientothepeoplewhoworkedthemout.Andifitwasalsoalientothepeoplewhoseliveswereatstake,thenthiscriticalprinciple,equalityofopportunity,individualautonomy,isprobablynotonethatwecanusefullyorrightlyapplytothemedievalcase.____________________15Maimonides,"GiftstothePoor8":10-18inTheCodeofMaimonides,VII:TheBookofAgriculture,trans.IsaacKlein(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1979),pp.82-84.-25-IIIcametothebasicideaofSpheresofJusticebyreflectingonexampleslikethese,inwhichthegoverningprinciplesdidnotseemtohavetheuniversalreachthatphilosopherscommonlylookfor.Thebasicideaisthatdistributivejusticemuststandinsomerelationtothegoodsthatarebeingdistributed.Andsincethesegoodshavenoessentialnature,thismeansthatitmuststandinsomerelationtotheplacethatthesegoodsholdinthe(mentalandmaterial)livesofthepeopleamongwhomtheyaredistributed.Hencemyownmaxim:distributivejusticeisrelativetosocialmeanings.16Inowhastentoadd,giventhestormofcriticismthismaximhasprovoked,notrelativesimply,forjusticeindistributionsisamaximalistmorality,andittakesshapealongwith,constrainedby,areiteratedminimalism--theveryideaof"justice,"whichprovidesacriticalperspectiveandanegativedoctrine.Murderasawayofdistributinglifeanddeath,forexample,whetheritistheworkofaneighborhoodthugorthesecretpolice,iseverywhereruledout.Therulewillbeexpressedindifferentculturalidioms,butitsmeaning,andevenitsreasons,willbemorereadilyavailabletooutsidersthanwillthemeaningofhumanlifeasacareer,aninheritance,oradivinegift.Andoursolidaritywithpeoplethreatenedbymurderersiseasier,quicker,andmoreobviousthanwithpeoplestrugglingagainstreligiousprophets,oraristocraticfamilies,orbourgeoiscareerists. Thereisanotherconstraintbuiltintomy"relativist"maxim:thereferencetosocialmeaningsrequiressomeunderstandingofhowsuchmeaningsareconstitutedandhowtheycanberecognized.Isupposethattheymustmeet____________________16MichaelWalzer,SpheresofJustice:ADefenseofPluralismandEquality(NewYork:BasicBooks,1983),chapter1.-26-certaincriteria--non-substantivebutnotmerelyformal.Theymustactuallybesharedacrossasociety,amongagroupofpeoplewithacommonlife;andthesharingcannotbetheresultofradicalcoercion.Sinceallsocializationiscoercive,thisisagainaminimalistprinciple.Itdoesn'trequirethatsocialmeaningsbeworkedoutoragreedtoinanythingliketheHabermasianidealspeechsituation.Allthatitrequiresisthattheextortedagreementofslavestotheirslavery,totakeanothereasyexample,shouldnotcountinestablishingthecommonunderstandingsofasociety.17Wemustlookforrealagreementsofthesortillustratedbythecontemporaryviewoflife-as-a-career.Wereachsuchaviewattheendofacomplexhistoricalprocess,andinthatprocesscoercionundoubtedlyhasapart--thinkoftheFrench(andeveryother)Revolution-butnotsuchapartastorendertheagreementspurious,ameretrickofthepowerful.Socialmeaningsarenotjustthere,agreedononceandforall.Meaningschangeovertimeasaresultofinternaltensionandexternalexample;hence,theyarealwayssubjecttodispute.Thefactthatthereactuallyaredisputes,radicallydifferentinterpretationsofsocialmeaning,fierceintellectualandpoliticalbattlesoverthisorthatsocialgood,hasledcriticstoquestiontherelativityofdistributionstomeanings.Ifmeaningsaredisputedandtherefore,intheabsenceofasupremejudge,indeterminate,whatisthenatureoftherelation?Well,whatisitthat'sindispute?Whatdoweargueabout?Someoneinsists,say,thatincasesoftriageweshouldattendonlytolifechances:hisinterpretationoflife-as-a-careerissingularandabsolute.Someoneelsearguesthatweshouldattendalsoto____________________17Themoralrelationofslavesandmastersisprobablybetterunderstoodbythinkingaboutjustandunjustwarsthanaboutdistributivejustice:seeSpheresofJustice,p.250n.-27-suffering:herinterpretationismorequalified.Theymayindeeddisagreefiercely,buttheyarearguingwithinaworldtheyshare,wheretherangeofsocialmeaningsisfairlynarrow.MedievalJewswouldhavedifficultyjoiningtheargument,eveniftheycould(asIthinktheycould)figureitout.And,veryoften,distributivedisputestakeanevennarrowerformthanthis:wefindourselvesinagreementonthemeaningofthedisputedgoodandevenontheprincipleofallocationthatfollowsfromthatmeaning,andweargueonlyabouttheapplicationoftheprincipleintheseorthosecircumstances.Indeed, agreementsonthemostcriticalsocialgoodsarecommonlybothdeepandlonglasting,sothatwearelikelytorecognizethemandunderstandhowtheychangeovertimeandhowtheycomeintodisputeonlyifweturnawayfrommoreimmediateandlocalargumentsandtakethelongview.Wewillnevergrasptheideaofsocialmeaningunlesswegetitshorizonsright.IIIConsider,then,thecureofsoulsandthecureofbodiesinthemedievalandmodernWest--myfavoriteexamplefromSpheresofJusticeandonethatIwouldlike,someday,todevelopatlength.18Themoststrikingfeatureofthemedievalcureofsoulsisitssocializedcharacter.TheChristianworldwasorganizedsoastomakerepentanceandsalvationuniversallyavailable.Theavailabilitywasfinancedwithpublicfunds(tithes)andregulatedbyecclesiasticallawsthatprovidedforthepresenceofapriestineveryparish,thecatechismofchildren,confessionandcommunionatfixedintervals.Thiselaboratedistributivemachineryisbestunderstood,itseemstome,asafunction____________________18SpheresofJustice,p.87.-28-ofthesocialmeaningofthegoodthatwasbeingdistributed:eternallife.Ican'tattemptheretodescribewhatthisgoodactuallymeantinthecommonlifeofmedievalChristians.Theeverydayroleofeternityisnodoubtadifficultmatter,especiallyforthoseofuswhohavelostorgivenupitscomforts.Itisenoughtosaythateternitywasbothrealandimportantor,moreprecisely,thatmedievalChristiansagreedonitsrealityandimportance.Andfromthisagreementtherefollowedthemoralnecessityofsocializeddistribution.19Thecureofbodies,bycontrast,wascommonlytakentobelessrealorlesscertainandalsolessimportant,andsoitwasleftinprivatehands.Nooneseemstohaveworriedmuchaboutthefactthatwealthyandpowerfulmenandwomenhadaccesstomedicaltreatmentunavailabletoanyoneelse.Churchofficialswhotoleratedasimilardistributionofpastoralcareweremorelikelytobetheobjectsofcriticalattack.Thepriestly"pluralist"whocollectedtithesfromseveralparishesandservednoneofthem,livinginthecapitalcityandattendingthepowerful,isacommonfigureofmedievalandearlymodernsatire.Courtlyphysicians,whowerealsopaidoutofpublicfunds,werenotthoughttohavethesamesortofsociallyextendedobligations.Noneofthisseemsunjusttome--andthisisnotbecauseIamboundbymy"relativist"maximtodefertotheconventionsoftheage(anyage).Foriftheseconventionswereimposedbyforce,themereideologyoftherulingclass,theideaofsocialmeaningmightusefullybedeployedincriticismofthem.Butwhatwehavehereisamaximalistmorality,athickunderstandingoflifeanddeath,ahumanculture.Tothisweoughtcertainlytodefer,forit ____________________19MarshallW.Baldwin,TheMedievalChurch(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1953),introductionandchapter1.-29-makesnomoralsensetowagourfingeratmedievalChristians,insistingthattheyshouldhavehadourunderstandingoflifeanddeath.Butwecancriticizethedistributionstheyenforcedinsofaraswethinkoftheseasoptionsforourselves.Idoubt,infact,thatmostofuscoulddoanythingbutcriticizethem,soconsidered,forwearetheproductsofaprofoundculturaltransformation.Overalongperiodoftime,ordinarymenandwomencameincreasinglytoquestiontherealityorthecentralimportanceorthepublicavailabilityofeternallife.Wemightsaythattheysubstitutedlongevityforeternity--thoughIamsurethatlongevitywasalwaysconsideredagoodthing.Itisnotsomuchthatitbecameabetterthing,butratherthattheadvanceofmedicalknowledgemadeitmoreavailableandsomorehighlyvalued.Descartes,whowasinthiscaseaprophetasmuchasaphilosopher,anticipatedtheadvanceanditseffectswhenhewroteinhisDiscourseonMethodthat"thepreservationofhealth"was"nodoubtthechiefofallgoods."Heproposedtospendtherestofhislifeinpursuitofmedicalknowledgeso"thatwemightbeliberatedfromanumberofdisorders,bothofmindandbody,andperhapsalsofromthefeeblenessofoldage"--asconvincedofthepossibilityofsuccessasmedievalChristianshadbeenwhentheypursuedtheknowledgeofGodandtheliberationofthespirit.20Theincreasingrecognitionofhealthandlongevityasgoodsofgreatvalueandreadyavailabilitybroughtwithitanincreasingpubliccommitment,firsttothepreventionofdiseaseandthentoindividualtherapy.Thecureofbodieswasgraduallysocialized,evenasthecureofsoulswasbeingprivatized.Taxmoneywasassignedtopublichealth,hospitalconstruction,medicaltraining,andmuchelse,____________________20RenéDescartes,DiscourseonMethod,trans.ArthurWollaston(Hammondsworth:PenguinClassics,1960),p.85.-30-andthestate'scoercivepowerswereenlisted(torequirevaccination,forexample).Buteternallifeceasedtoberecognizedasasocialgoodinwhichthepublicanditsagenciesmightlegitimatelytakeaninterest.Itseemstomeimpossibletolookatthislongprocessofculturaltransformationandpickouttheprecisemomentatwhichjusticerequiredsocializedhealthcareorceasedtorequiresocializedsalvation.Onecanimagineanextendedperiodoftimeduringwhichastrongcasemighthavebeenmadeforpublicsupportofboththecureofsoulsandthecureofbodies,orofeitherone,or,perhaps,ofneitherone.Whatisstriking,however,is thatnocasecanbemadetoday,intheWest,fortheuseofthestate'scoercivepowertorequirereligiouscommunionorchurchattendance;anddespitethecontinuingdebateoverhealthcareinthiscountry,Iaminclinedtosaythatnocasecanbemadetodayforthedisengagementofthestatefromthecureofbodies.Whatformssocializedcareshouldtake,exactlyhowegalitarianitoughttobe,whatscopeshouldbeallowedtotheprivatepracticeofmedicine,howcoercivethestatecanbe(inthecaseofmedicaltesting,say,orofsafetylaws):allthisisstillsubjecttodebate,muchastheextentandlegitimacyofcoercioninreligiousmatters--forcedattendanceatchurchservices,forexample--wasdebatedintheearlymodernperiod.Butthegrossstructureofjustice-in-curesisgiveninadvanceofthesearguments.Theargumentsarenecessarilylocalincharacter,preciselybecausetheyfollowfromorbuildupondeepculturalunderstandings.NooneinPrague,say,willbemovedtodemonstrateonbehalfofAmericanadvocatesofnationalhealthinsurance;thatcampaignisanexampleofwhatImeanby"ourownparade."Nor,needlesstosay,wouldtaxationformedicalservicesoreventherestraintofprivateenterpriseinhealthcareprovidealegitimateoccasionformilitaryinterventioninouraffairs(inthenameof"liberty").-31-IVSo:wecannotdecideonthedistributionofmedicalandpastoralcareuntilweunderstandthemeaningoflongevityandeternityinthelivesofthepeoplewhoarebeingcaredfor.Wemustattendtothegoods--nottothegood(inthesingular)becauseevenifDescarteswasrightwhenhecalledhealththe"chief"good,itisnottheonlyone;nordoesthequalitythatgivesitits"chiefness"determinetherelativevalueofalltheothergoods.Theyareindependentlyvaluedinaccordancewiththeplacetheyholdinthelivesoftheirvaluers.NordoIbelieve,despiteDescartes'sassignmentofprimacy,thatthereisanysummumbonumoroverallhierarchyofgoods.Whenconflictsarise,wewillargueaboutpriorities,offeringdifferentinterpretationsoftheplaceofthisorthatgoodinourcommonlife.Butconflictsdon'talwaysarise.Socialmeaningsandtheprinciplesandprocessestheyentailarecommonlydistinctandautonomous.Indeed,autonomyisabasicdistributiveprinciple,itselfentailedbythedifferentiationofgoods.Whenwedistributecareers(orcareeropportunities)tothetalented,orhealthcaretothesick,orsalvationtothefaithful,wearerejectingtheclaimsofthewell-born,thewell-off,andthepowerful.Eachsocialgoodhasaseparatesetoflegitimateclaimants.Andsowemightwellgoontorecognizetheclaimsofthewell-borntosocialstatus,say,orthewell-offtomarketcommodities,orthepowerfultopoliticalinfluence.Eachoftheselatterclaimsrequires,ofcourse,extendeddiscussionandqualification;Idon'tmeantoendorsetheminanysimpleway.Buttheyareclaimsoftherightsort,whichistosay,differentiatedandspecific.Ifweinsistondifferentiationandspecificityacrosstherangeofclaims,thesumofourrejections,recognitions,andqualificationswillyieldwhatIwanttocall"complexequality,"asocialconditionwherenogroupofclaimantsdominatesthedifferentdistributiveprocesses.Noonegoodrulesoverall -32-theothers,suchthatpossessingitbringseverythingelseintrain.Justicerequiresthedefenseofdifference--differentgoodsdistributedfordifferentreasonsamongdifferentgroupsofpeople--anditisthisrequirementthatmakesjusticeathickormaximalistmoralidea,reflectingtheactualthicknessofparticularculturesandsocieties.Simpleandstraightforwardequalityisaverythinidea,reiteratedinoneformoranotherin(almost)everydistributivesystem,andusefulinthecriticismofcertaingrossinjustices,butquiteincapableofgoverningthefullrangeofdistributions.Itservesmoreasaconstraint,akindofcriticalminimalism--aswhenwesaythatsomeoneisnotbeingtreated"likeahumanbeing"orwhenwecondemnracialdiscrimination.Anyefforttoenforceequalityacrosstheboardisimmediatelyself-contradictory,fortheenforcementwouldrequirearadicalconcentration,andthereforearadicallyunequaldistribution,ofpoliticalpower.Asimpleandstraightforwardhierarchy--theoldovertheyoung,theeducatedovertheignorant,thewell-bornoverthelow-born--makesevenmoredirectlyfordomination;itissimplythetriumphofonegoodoveralltheothers.Eachofthegoodsthathaveshapedconventionalhierarchiescanplayitspartinacomplexdistributivesystem:seniorityinthemanagementofafactoryorcompany,forexample,learningintheorganizationofaschooloracademy,familialreputationinthesocialregisterandthegossipcolumn.Butasocietyinwhichanyoneofthesewaseffectivelydominantwouldbeaone-dimensional,afrighteninglythin,society.Thoughthetwentiethcenturyprovidessomestrikingexamplesoftheperverseutopianismofsimpleequality,themajorchallengetodistributivejustice--inthepastandinourowntime--comesfromtheefforttodeployasinglegoodacrosstherangeofgoods.Ihaveusedthespatialimageryof"spheres"todescribethisdeployment.Thinkofeachsocialgoodasenclosedwithinboundariesfixedbythereachofitsentaileddistributiveprinciplesandthe-33-legitimateauthorityofitsdistributiveagents.Thenthedeploymentofonegoodoutsideitssphere--moneyistheobviousexample--isakindofillegitimateboundarycrossing,anactofdistributiveaggression.Whensuchactsareoccasional,theyarelikelytobeseenascasesofcorruptionor,moreevocatively,asscandals.Awealthymaniscaughttryingtobribeapublicofficial:heiscrossingillegitimatelyfromthesphereofthemarket,wheremoneycounts,tothepoliticalsphere,whereitisnotsupposedtocount.Caughtintheact,hewillbecondemnedbythepressandperhapsalsobythecourts--forintheefforttostopsuchboundarycrossingswehavemadebriberyillegal.Butifthewealthyasaclasshavepublicofficialsintheirpocket,asitwere,ifthecrossinghasalreadybeeneffectedandthecorruptionhasbecomesystematic,thenwhatwehaveisnotscandalbuttyranny.Weusuallyrecognizetyrannybyboundarycrossingstheotherway,asintheclassicdefinitionofthetyrantasapoliticalrulerwhoseizesthedaughtersandthemoneyofhissubjects,deployinghispowerinthedomesticandmarketspheres.21Butany aggressionmakesfortyranny;plutocratsaretyrantstoo,eveniftheirrulehasnon-politicalorigins.Indeed,thisisthestandardformoftyrannyincapitalistsocieties.Ifweattendtothegoodsthatarebeingdistributed,andtotheirsocialmeaning,andtotheprinciplesandproceduresthatfollowfromtheirmeaning,thenwewillbeabletorecognizescandalousandtyrannicalboundarycrossings.Thesearenottheonlyformsofinjustice,buttheyarethemostcommonformsinanysocietythathasachievedsomesignificantdegreeofdifferentiation.Thetheoryofcomplexequalityprovidesanaccountofwhatiswrongwithplutocracy,theocracy,meritocracy,21geron-____________________21SeeMachiavelli'sadvicetohisprincetoavoidinjusticeofthissort,ifonlyforprudentialreasons:ThePrince,chapter17.-34-tocracy,technocracy,andeveryotherefforttomakeonegood,andthequalitiesassociatedwithitspossession,dominantoverallothergoodsandqualities.Thisisthecriticalforceofthetheory.Iwanttostressthatthiscriticism,directedagainstaggressiveboundarycrossings,isalsoadefenseofboundaries.Analternativecriticismofestablishedsystemsofdistributivejusticeaimstoabolishtheboundariesandthedifferencesamongspheres--inthebeliefthatsocietyis(really)allofapiece.Itsprotagonistsholdthattheoriesofsocialdifferentiationandcomplexequalityareinfactideologies,disguisingtheactualunityofsocietyandthen,dependingonthedirectionfromwhichthiscriticismcomes,eitherdividingtheopponentsoftherulingclassorfosteringanillegitimateopposition.Considernowtwoversionsofthisalternativeview.Ontheleft,orsomepartsoftheleft,societyissaidtobewhollypolitical,suchthatalldecisions,inpersonalanddomesticlife,inthemarket,inchurches,hospitals,andfriendlyassociations,andofcourseinthestate,reflectaunifiedpatternofdominationthathasitsoriginincapitalismorpatriarchyorracismandmustbeopposedwithasingle-mindeddemocratic(orvanguardist)politics.22Ontheright,orsomepartsoftheright,societyissaidtobeonelargeexchangesystem,whereautonomousindividualsoughttobeallowedtocalculatetheirchancesandmaximizetheirvalues,withoutanysortoffamilialorcommunal,politicalorreligious,interference.23Commodities,opportunities,capacities,placesorpositionsofallsortsare,onthisview,identicalkindsofthings,whichindividualslegitimatelycometopossessbypayingthe____________________22SeetheargumentofIsaacD.Balbus,MarxismandDomination(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1982).23AusefulexampleofthissortofmarketimperialismisGaryBecker,TheEconomicApproachtoHumanBehavior(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1976).-35- marketprice--andinnootherway.Thereare,nodoubt,otherdoctrinesthatassert(orseektorecover)theunityofsociallife,butthesearethetwodoctrinesmostfamiliartous.Boththeirdefendersandopponentsarelikelytobelievethatthesetwoexhausttherangeofcontemporarypossibility.One:ifwedon'torganizeapoliticalchallengeto,say,capitalistdomination,therulersofthemarketwillruleeverywhere.Two:ifwedon'tupholdthefreemarketinsocialgoods,wewillendupinservitudetothestateortheparty.VBehindthesetwototalizingviewsofsociety,wecanglimpsesomethingelse:twovisionsofhumanwholeness.Ontheonehand,theidealhumanbeingisthecitizen,aradicallypoliticalperson,activeandengaged,sovereignoveralldistributivedecisions,eventhoughthissovereigntymustbesharedwiththebodyofcitizensandexercisedcollectively.Ontheotherhand,theidealhumanbeingistherationalmaximizer,aradicallyautonomousindividual,calculating,risk-taking,whomakeshisorherdistributivedecisionsalone,eventhoughthesearesubjecttotheimpersonalcoordinationofthemarket.Whatboththeseviewsshareisthesensethattheselfisoroughttobeoneself,unifiedandsingle-mindedinallitstransactions.Insofarasthisselfacknowledgesdifferentsortsofgoods,italwaysdoessointhesameway:makingitschoicesundertheaegisofapoliticalideologyoranindividualizedhierarchyofvalue.Buttheseare,bothofthem,radicallyminimalistaccountsofthehumanperson.Theyderivetheir(realbutlimited)criticalforcefromtheexperienceofsocietieswheredemocraticdecisionmakinghasbeenrepressedordevaluedorconfinedtoaprivilegedgrouporwheremarketexchangehasbeencoercivelycontrolledbylocalauthori--36-tiesorplannedanddirectedbythecentralstate.Insuchcases,itisrelativelyeasytoseethepointofthedemandforpoliticaloreconomicrights.Butneitherofthesedemandsrepresentsthebe-allorend-allofhumanliberation.Therightsinquestionarerightstoactwithinasphere(thesphereofpoliticshasaspeciallyextendedform,butIwillleavethatasidefornow)inwaysappropriatetothatsphere.Thetwomodesofaction--politicsandexchange-drawonsomeoftheinterestsandcapacitiesoftheselfasweunderstandit,buttheydon'tbyanymeansexhaustthoseinterestsandcapacities.Infact,theselfisasdifferentiatedasthesocietyinwhichitparticipates.Theproductionofdifferenceinbothselfandsocietyisthedominantfeatureof,thoughitiscertainlynotuniqueto,modernhistory.Contemporarytheoriesofcitizenshipandrationalchoicethatignorethedifferencesordenytheirvalueought,therefore,toberejected.Plato'sobservationthattyrannyinsocietymakesfor,andistheworkof,atyrannicalselfhasramificationsfarbeyondthepoliticalsphere.24Plutocratsandmeritocrats,asIhavealreadysuggested,aretyrantsasmuchasautocratsare,andtheirpersonalitiesaredistortedincomparableways.Inallthreecasestheselfisdominatedbyasinglesetofinterestsandqualities.Itmaybethatthisdominationisfunctionaltocertainsortsof worldlysuccess(thoughPlatodidn'tthinkso).HencethestarkalternativeposedbytheIrishpoet,WilliamButlerYeats:TheintellectofmanisforcedtochoosePerfectionofthelife,orofthework.25Thesecondperfectionrequires,onthisview,aterribleonesidedness;thefirstallowsforamany-sideddevelopmentoftheself--asinthearistocraticidealoftheRenaissance.If____________________24Plato,TheRepublicVIII:566-569.25Yeats,TheChoice.-37-thisisright,thenwewouldhavetopayapriceforcomplexequality:therefusaltoassignthefullrangeofsocialgoodsonthebasisofasingletalentorasingleachievement,inthestateorthemarketortheartsandsciences,woulddepriveusofsomegreatandgloriousachievements.Butitwouldalsofreeusfromthedominationoftyrannicalselves.Isupposethattyrannicalselveshavearelativelyeasytimeplanningtheircareers.Unjustsocietiesmakeforsimplifiedprojects,sincetheyholdforththepromisethatsuccessinwinningonesocialgoodcanbeconvertedintogeneralsuccess--atriumphantparadethroughallthespheres.Butthistriumphcanonlybeachievedattheexpenseofotherpeopleseekingother,valuedbutnondominant,goods.Ajustsociety,bycontrast,makesforcomplicatedlifeplans,inwhichtheselfdistributesitself,asitwere,amongthespheres,figuringsimultaneouslyasalovingparent,aqualifiedworker,acommittedcitizen,anaptstudent,adiscerningcritic,afaithfulmemberofthechurch,ahelpfulneighbor.Nodoubt,itiseasytoimaginepeopledistributingthemselvesinthiswayandearning,asitwere,lesscomplementaryadjectives.Imeanonlytoarguethatwearemorelikelytoaimatthesedifferentqualitiesifwearesurethatintrinsicoratleastdifferentrewardsareavailableforeachofthem--andnosingleconvertiblerewardavailableforanyoneofthem.VIIscomplexequalityadescriptiveoraprescriptivemorality?Doesitgainthicknessonlybysurrenderingcriticalforce?Ihopetoanswerthesequestionsinmythirdchapter,butitwillbeusefultoanticipatethatanswerhere.Certainly,complexityisinonesensedescriptive;itmirrorstheconventionalvaluesofhelpfulness,faithfulness,criticaldiscernment,andsoon.Itrepresentstheoretically-38-theactualpluralismofsocialgoodsanddistributiveprinciplesandprocesses.Itdefendsdifferenceinadifferentiatedsociety.Butsincethese"conventional"valuesare commonlyneglectedandfrequentlydisparaged,andsincethis"actual"pluralismisoftenoverriddenanddifferenceoftentyrannicallyrepressed,complexityisalso,simultaneously,acriticalstandard.Andthetheoryisamirrorinthissecondsense,thatweseeinittherealfailuresofoursocietyandourselves.Hereisanotherwayinwhichdistributivejustice,properlyunderstood,isamaximalistmorality.Everymaximalismstandsinanintimatedescriptive/criticalrelationwithitsownsociety.Forwhatitexpressesinitsidiomatic,particularist,andcircumstantialstyleisthesociallyconstructedidealismofthesepeople.Itdescribesthethingstheymakeandvalueanddistributeamongthemselvesandthepersonalqualitiesthattheycultivateandmeantorespect,eveniftheymostoftenfailtorespectthem,inthecourseofthedistributions.Minimalism,bycontrast,isasimplifiedandsinglemindedmorality.Itworkswithanelementaryandundifferentiatedunderstandingofsocietyandself,abstractedfromalltheactualandelaboratedunderstandings.Aminimalistviewisaviewfromadistanceoraviewinacrisis,sothatwecanrecognizeinjusticeonlyinthelarge.Wecanseeandcondemncertainsortsofboundarycrossings,grossinvasionsofthedomesticsphere,forexample,liketheappearanceofthesecretpoliceinthemiddleofthenight.Butwewon'thavemuchtosayaboutthepreciseboundariesofthehomeandthefamilyorthecharacteroflegitimateactionwithinthekinshipsystem(oranywhereelse).Minimalismgivesusnoaccesstotherangeofsocialmeaningsorthespecificformsofdistributivecomplexity.Wecandealjustly,asagentsofdistributionandascritics-in-detail,onlyfromtheinsideofamaximalistmorality.-39-THREE:MaximalismandTheSocialCriticIIhavewrittentwobooksonsocialcriticism,andIamnotsurethatIhavemuchlefttosay.26ButIwilltryheretodescribe,moreexplicitlythanIhaveyetdone,howcriticismworksfromwithinaparticularistandthereforemaximalisttheoryofdistributivejustice.ForithasbeenacommonreproachtoSpheresofJustice--totheargumentthatdistributivestandardsareinternaltoaculture--thatitprecludesseriousorradicalsocialcriticism.Thisisaworrisomematter:formypurposeinwritingthebook,toparaphraseShakespeare'sOthello,wasnothingifnotcritical.27Thebestwaytobeginistosuggestthenaturalor,atleast,themostobviousformofinternalor"immanent"criticism.Ithinkthatthisisalsothemostcommonformofcriticismgenerally,notonlyofinstitutionsandpracticesbutalsoofindividualbehavior.It'snotmypurposeheretoaddressthequestionofindividuals,butitisworthnotingtheextenttowhichsocialcriticismworksfromwhatmightbecalledtheprivateorpersonalanalogy.Weoftencriticizefriendsandcolleaguesfornotlivinguptoasetof____________________26InterpretationandSocialCriticism;TheCompanyofCritics:SocialCriticismandPoliticalCommitmentintheTwentiethCentury(NewYork:BasicBooks,1988). 27"Donotputmeto't/ForIamnothingifnotcritical,"OthelloII.i.-41-standardsthatweandtheyprofesstohonor.Wemeasurethemagainsttheirownpretendedideals;wechargethemwithhypocrisyorbadfaith.Acriticwhoholdsupamirrortosocietyasawholeisengagedinasimilarenterprise.Hemeanstoshowusaswereallyare,andwhatgivesthisdemonstrationitsmoralforce,whatmakesthemirroracriticalinstrumentinspiringdismayandguilt,isapervasiveandprofoundsocialidealism.Individualsneedtomaintainahighopinionofthemselves,asenseoftheirprobityandrighteousness;andsimilarlythemembersofanysociety(especiallytheleadingmembers)needtobelievethattheirdistributivearrangementsandpoliciesarejust.Hencetheliestheytell,notonlytoothersbutalsotothemselves,theireverydayevasions,andtheveiltheydrawoverthemoreuglyfeaturesoftheworldtheyhavemade.Thecritictearsasidetheveil.Theneedforself-justificationhas,nodoubt,anumberofreasons;wecangivebothcynicalandsympatheticaccountsofit.WhydidthepharaohsofancientEgypt,forexample,orthekingsofBabyloniaandAssyria,intheearliestinscriptions,proclaimtheircommitmenttoseeingjusticedone,thepoorsustained,widowsandorphansprotected?28Wasitbecausetheythoughtthattheirpowerwouldbemoresecureiftheirsubjectsbelievedinthecommitment?Orbecausetheirownself-esteemdependedonthinkingthemselvescommitted?Orbecausetheritualsofcommitment(andthentheinscriptions)wererequiredbythegods?Orbecausethiswaswhattherulersofstateshadalwayssaidaboutthemselves?(Butwhyhadtheysaidit?)Itdoesn'tmatter.Ifthepharaohpromisesthathewillseejusticedone,thenthewayisopenforsomeEgyptianscribetotakehiscourageinhishandsand____________________28H.W.F.Saggs,CivilizationBeforeGreeceandRome(NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,1989),chapter8.-42-writeoutacatalogueofalltheinjusticesthepharaohinfactcondones.Butthiskindofcriticism,thoughbraveenough,islimitedbythereigningorconventionalideals.Whatifthescribewantstocriticizetheconventions?It'snotlikelythathemeanstodenythatjusticeoughttobedone.Perhapshehassomenewvisionofwhatjusticeentails.Ifthenewvisionistobepersuasive,however,itwillhavetobeconnectedbyargumenttotheoldone.Sustainingthepoorwithroyalcharity,thescribemightsay,bringsnoendtopoverty;whatisneededinsteadisanagrarianlaw,adivisionoftheland.(Itwillmatter,ofcourse,howthelandisunderstood.Isitagiftofthegods?Towhom?Forwhatpurpose?)Orperhapsthescribebelievesthatthispharaoh,orpharaohsgenerally,willneverliveuptotheconventionalcommitments:whatisneededispriestlyor,evenbetter,scribalrule.Idon'tknowofanyEgyptianscribeswhomadeargumentsof thissort;Ionlywanttoinsistthattheyarepossiblearguments.Theystartfromtheexistingsocialidealismandclaimthattheidealsarehypocriticallyheld,orineffectivelyenforcedbythepowersthatbe,orinadequateintheirownterms.Considerabetterknown,moreextensivelydocumented,example:thecritiqueofhierarchyinmedievalandearlymodernEurope.Heretherewas(whatprobablyalsoexistedintheancientworld)acomplexandinternallydividedideologicalsystem.Iwillmarkoff,schematically,onlytwoformsofjustification:religiousandsecular,Christianandfeudal.Hierarchyhad,ofcourse,itsreligiousdefenseanditsclericaldefenders,butChristianitywasalsoalwaysatleastpotentiallysubversive,itsbiblicaltextssuggestingakindofprimitiveororiginalegalitarianism:WhenAdamdelvedandEvespan,Whowasthenthegentleman?ButIwanttofocushereonfeudalideology,hierarchicalfromstarttofinish,thoughnotwithoutitsowncritical-43-potential.Foritwastheclaimofthegentlemen,lords,anbaronswhooccupiedeachhierarchicalrank,thattheyservedtheranksbelow.Servicewasthesocialidealofthefeudalsystem;itsfoundingmythwasataleofthestrongdefendingtheweak.29Theusualcrowdofscribes,layorclerical,providedtheusualmappingoutoftheidealintermsofjusticedoneandprotectionprovided.Andwhenjusticewasnotdoneandprotectionnotprovided,anoccasionalcriticappearedtocastigateadissoluteanddegeneratearistocracy.Butcriticismofthissort,itmightbesaidagain,infactupholdsthesystem,foritisaddressedonlytodeviantindividualsorgroups.Thebadaristocratsarecastigated,whilearistocracyitselfiscelebratedandtheidealofservicereaffirmed.Sotheyare;butthecelebrationissubversiveinsofarasthearistocraticidealisdistinguishedfromeveryactualinstanceofaristocraticbehavior.Soonsomeboldercriticwillaskwhyitisthattheselordlyandprivilegedmensorarelyperformtheservicesthatsupposedlyjustifytheirposition.Therevolutionarycritiqueofartistocratsasparasiteshasitsoriginhere:theyhaveworktodobutdon'tdoit!30Hierarchyisadistributivesysteminwhichplace,standing,androlearethicklyintertwined--indiscourse,notnecessarilyinpractice.Or,perhaps,necessarilynotinpractice,forprideofplaceundercutsthewillingnesstoserve.Aristocratsfindotherroles--leisure,display,wit,intrigue--withfarlessculturallegitimacy.ThustheboldlinesofBeaumarchais'Figaro:"Nobility,fortune,rank,position!Howproudtheymakeamanfeel!Whathave____________________29GeorgesDuby,TheThreeOrders:FeudalSocietyImagined,trans.Arthur Goldhammer(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1980),esp.chapters5,13,22.30TheAbbéSieyès,WhatistheThirdEstate?trans.M.Blondel(London:PallMallPres,1963),chapter1.-44-youdonetodeservesuchadvantages?Putyourselftothetroubleofbeingborn--nothingmore!"31Ahelpfulorprotectivelordorbaronisnowseenasacontradictioninterms(muchlikeabenevolentdespot--theadjectiveisreadilydeployedagainstthenoun).Andthenthereisnowaytojustifyhierarchicalstanding.Thewholestructurecollapses.Iwouldsuggestthattheegalitariandoctrineof"therightsofman"wastheproductof,orwasmadepossibleby,thiscollapse.Thefeudalfortresswasnotstormedfromwithoutuntilithadbeenunderminedfromwithin.Or,toshiftthemetaphor,equalitygrowsoutofthecritiqueofafailedhierarchy.32Somethingsimilarcouldbesaid,Ithink,abouttheexamplewithwhichIbeganmyfirstchapter.HowdidtheCzechs,andotherEastEuropeandissidents,goaboutcriticizingcommunism?Heretoothereexistedacomplexideologicalculture,anditseemslikelythatacertainkindofcriticism,andwithitanelaboratepatternofevasionandresistance,wassustainedfromthebeginninginreligiousandnationalistterms.Thiswasmostlyasubmergedandclandestinecritique,however,expressedonlyinprivate,tofamilyandfriends.Itwouldbeworthinvestigatingindetailhowcriticismofthiskindactuallyworksunderconditionsoftyrannicalrepression;thecrucialpoint,however,isthatitdoeswork.Itevenaffectsthedistributionofsuchsocialgoodsasitcanstill(atleastpartially)control--recognitionandhonor,forexample.But____________________31Beaumarchais,TheBarberofSevilleandTheMarriageofFigaro,trans.JohnWood(Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks,1964).Marriage,ActV,p.199.32MichelFoucault'sargumentforaradicalandprettymuchincomprehensiblebreakbetweenoneepistèmeanditschronologicalsuccessor(TheOrderofThings,trans.AlanSheridan[NewYork:Pantheon,1972]),whateveritsvalueinintellectualhistorygenerally,doesn'tseemtofitthehistoryofpoliticalandsocialcriticism.-45-themostdangerouscriticism,whichtyrantsfearmorethananyother,isthecriticismshapednotbyoldloyaltiesandideologiesbutbytheirownputativeidealism.Theprimarycriticsofcommunism,whoopenedthewayfornationalistsandChristians,weredissidentcommunists,demandingthatthetyrantsactuallydeliveronthevaluestowhichtheyclaimedtobecommitted(andtowhichtheircriticswerereallycommitted):freedom,equality,anddemocraticgovernment.Thecritiqueofcommunisttyrannynodoubtalsoreflectedareiteratedminimalism--henceourowninstantsolidaritywithit.Butthissolidarityhaditslimits,forthefullprogramoftheearliestdissidentswasacommunist,evenaLeninist,programthatcould nothavebeenendorsedbymanyoftheirWesternsympathizers.33Indeed,thefullprogramlostmuchofitsrelevance,evenforitsEasternsympathizers,assoonasthecommunistregimescollapsed,somuchwasit,ifnotafunctionoftheregimesthemselves,aproductofthemovementsandideologyoutofwhichtheregimeshadcome.Bythattime,however,manyofthedissidentshadrevisedtheircritique,introducingnewdistinctionsintothesocialidealismoftheleft.Theycametobelievethatastatecommitted,evenhypocritically,tosimpleequalityandradicalredistributionwasnecessarilytoopowerful,athreattoeveryotheraspectofitsown(putative)idealism,beyondreform.TheybecamecriticsofLeninismaswellasofStalinism(andallthelocalimitationsofStalinism),andsodrewclosertowhatwecanthinkofasthestandardmaximalistmoralityoftheWest:liberalism,democracy,"bourgeoiscivilrights."Butitwastheexperienceofinternaldissidence,andtherecognition____________________33SeetheaccountofearlierPolish(andCzech)dissidentsbyAdamMichnik,LettersfromPrisonandOtherEssays,trans.MayaLotynski(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1985).-46-oftheextremeunlikelihoodofreformfromwithin,thatledthecriticstoadoptthisexternalmodel.Thoughthetimespanismuchshorter,asbefitstherhythmsofmodernity,thecaseisthesameinthecontemporaryEastasinthelatemedievalandearlymodernWest.Liberalismgrewoutofthecritiqueofafailedcommunism.Ihaveusedtheseexamplestosuggesttheradicalpotentialofaninternalcritique:thesubversivenessofimmanence.Socialcriticisminmaximalisttermscancallintoquestion,canevenoverturn,themoralmaximumitself,byexposingitsinternaltensionsandcontradictions.Andthisseemstomethenormalcourseofcriticismevenwhenthecriticsdon'tmeantorunthefulllengthofthecourse,aimingatreformorreconstruction,say,ratherthanatsubversion.Socialcriticscommonlystartfromwheretheystand,winorloseontheirownground.IIButhow--sothecriticofSpheresofJusticecommonlycontinues--canthisoriginal,normal,internalcriticismeverfindpersuasiveexpression?34Ithinkthatthisquestionhasaveryparticularpoint:whatisbeingaskedishowinternalcriticismcaneverfindadefinitivephilosophicalexpression.Fortheclaimsthatthedissidentsmakeaboutcommunistfreedomandequality(ortheclaimstheymakeaboutfeudalserviceandprotection)arealwaysdisputed.Andtherearealternativeaccountsofvanguardtyranny(andaristocraticprivilege):moreorlesscrediblestoriesthatcanalsobegivenahistorical____________________34SeeRonaldDworkin,"ToEachHisOwn,"NewYorkReviewofBooks,April14,1983,pp.4-6,andthesubsequentexchangebetweenDworkinandmyself,NYRB July21,1983,pp.43-46.-47-dimensionandrootedinoldtexts.Sotheinternalcriticism,aslongasitisconfinedtotheinterpretationofcommunism(orfeudalism)asamaximalistmorality,alwaysfallsshort--notonlyasapracticalbutevenasatheoreticalendeavor.Peoplewholiveinsidethemoral/culturalthicknessoftheoldregime,whoreadthesebooks,obey(orevade)theselaws,celebratethistradition,andsoon,nonethelessdisagreeaboutwhatitall"means."Theresultisanintellectualaswellasapoliticalstalemate.Andthentheonlythingtodo,attheend,afterallthepossibilitiesofinterpretivecriticismhavebeenexhausted--sosaythecriticsofimmanence--istoappealtoanexternalstandard:thebestabstractandgeneraltheorythatdealswiththemattersindispute.Ofcourse,ifonereallywereinsecurepossessionofthebestabstractandgeneraltheory,oneprobablywouldn'tbotherwithinternalcriticismatall.AllthelocalcriticscouldbereplacedbyauniversalOfficeofSocialCriticism,whereaninternationallyrecruitedandspeciallytrainedcivilservice(ofprofessionalphilosophers?politicaltheorists?theologians?)appliedthesamemoralprinciplestoeverycountry,culture,andreligiouscommunityintheworld.IwouldnotbesurprisedifthemedievalChurchandtheoldCominternhadsuchoffices,underdifferentnames.Andtheremaywellbeorganizationsaspiringtothisstatustoday,attachedtotheUnitedNationsorindependentlyconstituted.Butiftheaimhereismaximalistincharacter--torenderadetailedjudgmentofmoralvaluesandsocialpracticeseverywhere--thentheoreticalpossessionisaslikelyasinterpretiveunderstandingtobedisputed.Theleapfrominsidetooutside,fromtheparticulartothegeneral,fromimmanencetotranscendence,changestheterrainoftheargument,butIknowofnoevidencethattheargumentmarchesmorereadilytowardclosureonitsnewterrain.Evenpeoplewhoreadthesamebooks(ofmoralphilosophy,say)arelikelytodisagreeaboutwhichabstractandgeneraltheoryisreallythebest.-48-Itisstillpossible,asIarguedinthefirstchapter,tomoveeffectivelyfromtheparticulartothegeneral--aswhenagroupofcriticsgiveuptheirownmaximalismandembrace(orinvent)forsomespecificpurposeamoralminimum.Thisis,Ithink,theapproachofgroupslikeAmnestyInternational,whichcancertainlyplayausefulcriticalrole--solongastheyrestrainwhateverimpulsetheirmembershavetoimposeacompletesetofmoralprinciplesacrosstherangeofculturaldifference.Successdependsuponthisselfrestraint,forotherwiseAmnestyInternationalwouldrepresentonemoremissionizingmaximalism,liketheChurchandtheComintern.Itsmemberswouldmakethemselvesintoakindofglobalvanguard,aspiring,perhaps,toruleoutsidetheirsphere,claimingpoliticalauthorityeverywhereonthebasisofideologicalcorrectness.If,however,thereis(asIbelieve)nosingle,correct,maximalistideology,thenmostofthedisputes,andcertainlymostofthedistributivedisputes,thatarisewithinaparticularsocietyandculturehavetobesettled-thereisnochoice--fromwithin.Notwithoutsuggestionsfromtheoutside,notwithoutreferencetoothermaximalmoralities,butbyandlargethrough thekindofinterpretiveargumentsthatIdescribedinmylastchapterandthroughpoliticalprocessesadjustedtothem.SocialcriticsmostlyworkoutofaHomeOffice.Allthisisnottosaythatmoralmaximalismcan'tbe"theorized"--firstofallinageneralwayandthenmoreparticularly.Wecanexplainitsgeneralvalueandthedeferenceweowetoeachofitsparticularversions(andthelimitsofthatdeference).Andthenwecantrytospecifyitscontentinsomeparticularcaseandforsomeparticularpurpose,givingatheoreticalaccountoflocaljustice,forexample,displayingtheinterconnectionsofitsvariouspartsanddefendingaviewofitspriorities.Toconstructatheoryoutofanactualthickmoralityismostlyaninterpretive(ratherthanaphilosophicallycreative)task.Ifthepurposeiscritical,thenwhatisrequiredisapointed-49-interpretation,alocalizedtheorythatconcludeswithamoralmaxim--thephilosophicalequivalentofanAesopianfable.Indeed,itisagoodthingiftheinterpreterisabletotellastory,makinghiscriticalargumentfromwithinatradition,acknowledgingthesignificanceofhistoricaleventsandpropernamesevenashereachesfortheappropriatetheoreticalterms.IIIButdoesn'tthisaccount(Iamstillfollowinginthetracksofmycritics)misstheexcitementandheroismofthecriticalenterprise?35MyimaginaryEgyptianscribetakeshislifeinhishands;theearlyCzechdissidentsputtheircareersandtheirownandtheirfamily'ssafetyontheline.Howcouldtheydothisunlesstheyweresurethattheyhadgottenthingsright--notonlythattheirinterpretationofthemaximalistmoralitywastheonetrueinterpretationbutalsothatthismaximalistmoralitywastheonetruemorality?Ihavebeentalkingaboutathinuniversalismandathickparticularism,butisn'tcriticismatitsmostpowerfulwhenitclaimstobeboththickanduniversal,richinitsdetail,expansiveinitsscope--afullphilosophicalaccountoftherightandthegood?ThinkofMartinLutherasacriticoftheChurch:hiscritiquewascertainlybasedonaninterpretationofChristianmaximalismaboutwhichhehadnodoubts(itwasn'tjustonepossibleinterpretation).Andtheargumenthaduniversalreach:everyoneshouldbeorbecomeaChristianoftheLutheransort.IfLutherhadnotbelievedthis,couldhehavebeensostrong,soconfidentofwherehestoodandwhathecouldandcouldnotdo?____________________35GeorgeSteiner,"Puttingcriticsintheirplaces,"SundayTimesBooks(London),12March1989.-50-IamsurethatLutherwasastrongmanandagreatcritic,buthewasalsobrutalandintolerant--inpart,atleast,becauseofhisChristianuniversalism.Norishetheonlymodelofthecriticashero;itwouldnotbedifficulttodescribealternativemodels,critical stylesmoreskepticalormoremodest(asIhavedone,infact,inTheCompanyofCritics).ButIwanttoattemptadifferentargumenthere;Iwanttodenythatthecriticalenterpriseisbestunderstoodwithreferencetoitsheroicmoments.ArecentandveryfinebookbytwoFrenchscholars,LucBoltanskiandLaurentThévenot,providesthesociologicalgroundingofmyargument:theyhaveshown,preciselyandingreatdetail,howordinaryanactivitycriticismisandhowitnecessarilyworksfromwithinthedifferentspheresofeverydaylife.36Itreflectsthefullrangeofsocialdifferentiation;itsvariousvocabulariesarewidelyknown;itisanactivityofthemany,notthespecialtaskofthefew,andsoitiscarriedoutsometimeswithwit,sometimeswithvulgarity,skillfullyandclumsily,bravelyandtimidly.Nodoubt,critics,likelovers,friends,andpoliticalmilitants,mustsometimesactboldlyandtakerisks.Buttheireverydaystoryisdifferent,closertowhatIhavecalled"commoncomplaint"thanhighphilosophicalortheologicalargument.What'satstakeisnottheuniversalgoodorthedivinewill,butjusticeorlibertymorelocallyunderstood.Philosophicalandtheologicalcriticsdoindeedhavemorefar-reachingambitions;hencethereadinesswithwhichtheyadoptheroicpostures.Inasense,eachonehopestobethelastsocialcritic.Ifhegetsthingsright,allthatwilleverbenecessaryinthefutureisthereprintingandtheendlessstudyofhistexts.Afterall,theobjectsofcriticalscrutinydon'tchangeallthatmuch:humangreed,cruelty,andlust;theabuseofpower;theoppressionofthe____________________36LucBoltanskiandLaurentThévenot,DelaJustificadan:Leséconomiesdelagrandeur(Paris:Gallimard,1991).-51-weak.Shouldn'titbepossibletofindtherightresponsetoallthis,"thecorrectideologicalposition,"sothatnoonewouldeverhavetolookagain?Yes,itispossible,butonlyinaminimalistway,respondingtothegrossestandmostoffensiveinjustices.Butcriticsalsorespondtoordinaryinjustice,andtheyrespondindetail,thicklyandidiomatically.Whentheydothat,criticismisadifferentsortofactivitythanitsphilosophicalandtheologicalheroessuggest.Ofcourse,thecriticstrytogetthingsright,justasIamtryingtodonow,butweoughttounderstandthiseffortlessbyanalogywithwhatphilosophersdothanbyanalogywithwhatpoets,novelists,artists,andarchitectsdo.Noarchitect,forexample,aimstodesignthelastbuilding(noteventhelastchurchorschool)andmakearchitecturehenceforthunnecessary--eventhoughheaimstogethisparticularbuildingright.Rightnessisrelativetothearchitecturaloccasion:theneedsthatthebuildingisintendedtoserve,thematerialsathand,thereigningaestheticidealism(thearchitecturalequivalentofamaximalistmorality).Architectureisareiterativeactivity,wheremanyarchitectsdesignmanybuildings,anditisinprinciplepossibleforallofthemtogettheirdesignsright--thoughthisdoesn'tmeanthattheyalldesignthesameperfectbuilding.Inpractice,ofcourse,theyallproduceimperfectbuildings:moreorlessbeautiful,habitable,useful.Andeachofthesebuildings immediatelybecomesanobjectofcriticalreflectionanddebate--modelsforthefuturethatareimitatedorrevisedorrejected.Indeed,theyareimitatedandrevisedandrejected,inendlesslyreiteratedarchitecturaleffortswithendlesslydifferentiatedresults.(Perhapsaminimalistuniversalismalsodevelops,aninternationalstyle--inhoteldesign,say--thoughthisisunlikelytoreflectthebestarchitecturalwork.)Criticismisalsoareiterativeactivity,andthecriticswhoaimtogetthingsrightaimatarightnessthatisrelativetotheircriticaloccasions.Theywanttoproduceastrongargumentandalocalpoliticaleffect,butalso,-52-again,anobjectofreflectionanddebate--sothatothercriticsaredrawnintotheargument(eventhoughtheyknowthattheseotherswon'tpiouslyrepeattheirownstrictures).Letmetrynowtodescribehowtheymightgoaboutdoingthis.Whatisthecriticalenterpriselike,initsordinaryform,expressedintheidiomofaparticularmorality?IVConsiderthepoliticalcultureofthecontemporaryWest,ourownmorallymaximalistaccountofhowpowershouldbedistributed.IwillworkoutofthespecificallyAmericanversionofthisaccount--more"federalist"than"republican,"but,sofarasmypurposesgorightnow,notallthatdifferentfromotherWesternversions.Thebasicprinciplethatgovernsdistributionsinthesphereofpoliticsisthatpowercanlegitimatelybeattainedandheldandusedonlywiththeconsentofthegoverned.Theprincipleismucholderthanmoderndemocracy;itisafeatureofmedievalmonarchytoo,wheretherulersthemselvesortheirtaxesormilitarymobilizationscommonlyrequiredtheconsentofatleastsomeoftheirsubjects--forexample,thebarons,lords,andgentlemen.Whatthedemocraticrevolutionsaccomplished,mostimportantly,wasthereplacementof"some"by"all."Itisnotsurprisingthattheidealcitizenofearlymodernpoliticaltheoryismodeledontherenaissanceandneo-classicalidealofthearistocrat.Thecitizen,néeveryman,tookoverfromthearistocrattherightsthatmadehisand,lateron,herconsentmeaningful--tookoveralsothesocialspaceandtherangeofactivitieswithinwhichconsentcouldbeexpressed.Hencetherightsofpetitionandassembly,whichthearistocracyhadalwaysheld;thenewrightofafreepress,madenecessarybythecreationofamasspublic;andtherightsofdomesticandreligiousprivacy,manifestinthearistocraticgreathouses-53-andprivatechapelsthatkingsinvadedattheirperil.Themaximthataman'shomeishiscastlewasoriginallydefendedbymenwhosecastlesweretheirhomes.IntheAmericancoloniesandtheninthenewrepublic,therewas,ofcourse,nonativearistocracy,butthecitizenwasstillconceivedinthisimageofpersonal"liberty"andmany-sidedactivism. Inanimportantsense,theprincipleofconsentestablishesaproceduralistethic.Itdescribeshowonecomeslegitimatelytoexercisepoliticalpower.Oncetheproceduresareinplace--periodicelections,freelyorganizedparties,lawsagainstthesaleandpurchaseofvotes,andsoon--wecommonlyassumethelegitimacyoftheelectedrulers.Butthisismuchtoonarrowanunderstandingofdemocraticpolitics.Infact,whatmakestheproceduralismproceed,whatgivesititslegitimizingforce,isacertainspirit,expressedinasetofpractices.37Thespiritisoneofactiveengagement,andthepracticesincludearguing,organizing,assembling,demonstrating,andpetitioningaswellasvoting.Sometimesthissortofthingissimplyassumed--asintheAmericanBillofRights:whenoneasserts"therightofthepeoplepeacefullytoassemble,"oneexpects...assemblies.Itwouldbeaverybadsignwerethe"people"nevertoexercisetheirright.Preciselyforthisreason,democracyischaracterizedbyaseriesofexpliciteffortstocreateandsustainanactivecitizenry.(ThisisthecentralpointofRousseau'spoliticaltheory,inwhichtheneo-classicalpictureofthecitizenisalwaysexplicit.)IntheUnitedStates,publiceducationisthemostimportantoftheseefforts.Thelongdebateabouthowto"Americanize"theimmigrantswaslargelygovernedbythe____________________37Cf.theargumentofRobertPutnam,MakingDemocracyWork:CivicTraditionsinModernItaly(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1993).-54-samepurpose--thoughthe"Americanizers"wereasoftennativistsasrepublicans.38Butthisfocusoncitizenshipis,intheAmericancase,neitherexclusivenorsingularincharacter.Itisacrucialfeatureofourpoliticalidealismthatthecommitmenttodemocraticprocedures,andthentothespiritandpracticesthattheyrequire,encompassesalllevelsofourfederalistgovernmentandspillsoverintocivilsociety.MuchofthepoliticaleducationofAmericancitizenstakesplaceinthesmallestpoliticalunitsthattheyinhabit--boroughs,townships,schooldistricts--andtheninchurches,unions,philanthropicorganizations,andsoon.Thisprocessmovesintwodirections:ifthecitizenslearnsomethingabouttheusesandmisusesofpower,localgovernmentsandsecondaryassociationsareatthesametimemademoredemocratic.Or,atleast,theyarebroughtunderdemocraticscrutiny.Thoughnotoftenruninstrictaccordancewiththeprinciplesofconsentandparticipation,theyarealwayssubjecttochallengeinthenameofthoseprinciples.Citizenshiptakesonarangeofaddedandmoreparticularizedmeanings:intheneighborhood,orinthecommunityofthefaithful,orinthelabormovement,oramongmenandwomencommittedtothisphilanthropyorthatgoodcause.Rousseaudefinesavirtuouscitizenasonewho"fliestotheassemblies,"meaning,totheassembliesofcitizens.39Todaywearemorelikelytogivethatdefinitionapluralisttwist:manydifferentassemblies,reflectingthematerialandidealinterestsofdifferent,thoughoverlapping,groupsofcitizens.Virtueisstillbestdisplayed,Isuppose,at____________________ 38ForadiscussionofAmerican"republicanism,"seeMichaelWalzer,WhatItMeanstobeanAmerican(NewYork:Marsilio,1993),pp.23ff.and81ff.39Jean-JacquesRousseau,TheSocialContract,Bk.III,chapterXV.-55-meetings,butthisisnotnecessarilythesortofvirtuethatproducesaRousseauiangeneralwill.Whatisvirtuousistheactivity(andthespiritthatanimatesandinfusesit),nottheoutcomeoftheactivity--itself,oftenenough,decidedlyunsatisfactory.Weaimtogivethisactivitymaximumscope.Hence,theclaimoftheItalianpoliticaltheoristNorbertoBobbiothatthethecriticalquestionfordemocratsisnotwhetherthecitizensvote,orexactlyhowmanyofthemvote,butwheretheyvote--thisclaimapplieswithspecialforcetotheAmericanexperience.40Manyissues,manysettings,muchconsentingandrefusing:thisisouridealpictureofdemocraticpolitics.Butthispicturemustnotbeoverdrawn;itcannotobscurealltheotherpicturesofsocialactivityinadifferentiatedsocietyinhabitedby"many-sided"menandwomen.Powerisnotalwaysatissue;norisconsenttheonlydistributiveprinciple.Sopoliticalvirtueistemperedbywhatwecanthinkofasapoliticalvirtue,itselfofmanydifferentsorts:familiallove,professionalcompetence,eventhe"greenthumb"thatrulesthemarket.Thereareindeedplaceswherecitizensneednotvote,andsocialcriticsareobligedtofittheirdemocraticargumentsintoalargerviewofdistributivecomplexity.Theyhavenonethelessapowerfulweaponintheirhands:athick,internalistaccountofhowonecruciallyimportantsocialgoodoughttobedistributed,anaccountthatisculturallywarrantedandatoddswitheveryactualdistribution.Iwanttostressthatthoughthisaccountstartswithsimpleequality(onecitizen/onevote),itsaimistojustifyinequality.Thewayonewinsunequalpower--toholdorcontrolastateofficeortocarryoutapolicy,say--istopersuadeone'sfellowcitizenstoagreetotheinequality:one____________________40NorbertoBobbio,DemocracyandDictatorship,trans.PeterKennealy(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1989),p.157.-56-mustfirstwinanargumentandthenanelection.Butthisshortlistofnecessaryvictoriesistooshort.Democraticpolitics,eveninitsidealform,isonlyinpartargumentative;itisalsoamatteroforganization,bargaining,strategy,demonstrationsofstrength,andmuchelse.Inallthis,powerisexercisedevenasitispursued,anditisalwaysadifficultquestionhowtheexercisecanbebroughtundertheruleofconsent.Despitethedifficulty,wecanseereadilyenoughhowacritiqueofAmericanpoliticscouldbedevelopedfromthisthickaccountofdemocraticidealism.Thecritiquewouldhaveatwofoldfocus.Itwouldaimfirstatexposingthemostimportantkindof distributiveaggressioninAmericansociety:theinvasionofthepoliticalspherebywealthyindividualsorbythemastersofcorporatewealth.Thisisnotalwaysoreverywherethemostimportant(orthemosteffective)kindofaggression:thinkofhowlongittooktheWestEuropeanbourgeoisietodisplacetheoldaristocratsfromthepoliticalsphereorhoweasilyitsEasterncounterpartswerethemselvesdisplacedbypartymilitantsandstatebureaucrats.ButthepowerofwealthiscertainlycharacteristicofcontemporaryAmerica--andbecauseitischaracteristic,ithasitsownlocalideologicaljustifications.Sothedemocraticideamustbearticulatedwiththeseinmind,againstthem,showinginspecificways,withconcreteexamples,howstatepowerisseizedandusedeventhoughtheconsentofthosesubjecttoitisneverasked.AbooklikeCharlesLindblum'sPoliticsandMarketsprovidesagoodacademicmodelofthiscriticalenterprise;itisasadcommentaryonthequalityofAmericanpoliticallifetodaythattherearenoverygoodpopularmodels.41____________________41CharlesLindblum,PoliticsandMarkets:TheWorld'sPolitical-EconomicSystems(NewYork:BasicBooks,1977);seealsotheearlierworkofGrantMcConnell,PrivatePowerandAmericanDemocracy(NewYork:Knopf,1966).-57-Democraticcriticismwouldaim,secondly,atrevisingtheinternalboundariesofAmericansociety--exposingtheexerciseofsomethingverymuchlikepoliticalpoweroutsidetherecognizedpoliticalsphere,beyondthereachoftheprincipleofconsent.Herethereareanumberofdifferenttargets,eachwithitsownideologicaldefenses,whichneedtobeaddressedonebyone:thedespotismoffactorymanagersandcorporateexecutives,theautocracyofuniversitypresidents,thepatriarchalabsolutismofmale"headsofhouseholds,"andsoon.Theargumentissimilarineachcasebutbynomeansthesame.Themorelikepoliticalpowertheseare,themoretheyshouldbesubjectedtodemocraticrules.Buttheseruleswillhavetobequalifiedorrevisedinaccordancewithourunderstandingoftherelevantgoodsatstakeinthedifferentspheres--inmarkets,commodities;inschools,learning;infamilies,mutualaffectionandthesocializationofchildren.Withregardtothelastofthese,feministliteratureprovidesbothpopularandacademicexamplesoftheformandstyleofdemocraticcriticism;amongAmericantexts,IwouldrecommendespeciallySusanOkin'sJustice,Gender,andtheFamily.42VItshouldbeclearthatthiskindofcriticism,callingfortherealizationofdemocraticidealismhereandnow,isnotadefenseofdemocracyitself.Thisisnottosaythatdemocracycan'tbedefended;wehavereasonsforpreferringit.ButItakethatquestiontobesettled--forusatleast-andbegininsteadwithaseriesofinterpretiveclaimsaboutthemeaningofthesettlement.Yes,wearealldemocrats.____________________42SusanMollerOkin,Justice,Gender,andtheFamily(NewYork:BasicBooks,1989). -58-Whatfollowsfromthatcommitment?Whatsortoflifedodemocratslivewhentheyarelivinginanauthenticallydemocraticway?Posingthesequestionsdoesnotprecludecompromisesofvarioussortswithothervalues,butitdoessuggest(whatwouldhavetobedefendedempiricallyandtheoretically)thatdemocracyhaspriorityoratleastspecialstandingamongcontemporaryAmericanideals.Theadjectivesareimportant--"contemporary,""American"--foritisclear,again,thatthiscritiquedoesnotinvolveorrequireadefenseofdemocracyineverytimeandplace.Itdoesn'tpretendtobeananswertotheoldGreekquestionaboutthebestregime.Thatquestionhasnosingularanduniversalanswer.Whatdoesthecriticdo,then,whenhelooksaroundandseestyrannicalgovernmentsinothercountries,indistantplaces,andpeoplemarchinginthestreetinoppositiontotheirrulers--demandingnotonly"truth"and"justice"butalso"democracy"?Iwasready,ofcourse,toexpressmysolidaritywiththeChinesestudentsinTienanmenSquarein1989.Butthisreadinessreflectedamorally(andpolitically)minimalistposition:solidaritywithallthestudents,despitethedisagreementsamongthem,againstthetyrants.IcertainlydidnotbelievethenthatAmericanpoliticalidealismwasabouttoberealizedinChina,orthatitshouldberealized.NordidIhaveanabstractanduniversaltheoryof"truedemocracy"tourgeupontheChinese.AndIrecognizedintheargumentsofthestudents--onehadonlytopayattentiontowhattheyweresayingtoWesternjournalists--asenseoftheirmissionortheirspecialpoliticalrolethatwasclearlyincompatiblewiththeAmericanideal(inwhichacertainhostilitytotheclaimsoftheeducatedclasseshasalwaysbeenpresent)andprobablyincompatibletoowiththeprevailingabstractanduniversaltheories.43Student____________________43FortheAmericans,seeRichardHofstadter,Anti-IntellectualisminAmericanLife(NewYork:Knopf,1963).-59-elitismwasrooted,perhaps,inLeninistvanguardpoliticsor,morelikely,inpre-communistculturaltraditions(Confucian,mandarin)specifictoChinaandcertaintoshowupinanyversionofChinesedemocracy.Mysolidaritywiththestudentsdidnotcommitmetosupporttheirunderstandingofdemocraticgovernment.Myown(American)idealismdidnotcommitmetoopposethatunderstanding.Watchingfromabroad,Icouldaffordthisbenigndisengagement,notfromthepoliticalstruggleasawholebutfromitsdetails.WereItobeinvitedtovisitChinaandgiveaseminarondemocratictheory,Iwouldexplain,asbestIcould,myownviewsaboutthemeaningofdemocracy.ButIwouldtrytoavoidthemissionizingtone,formyviewsincludetheideathatdemocracyinChinawillhavetobeChinese--andmyexplanatorypowersdonotreachtowhatthatmeans.Indeed,itseemstomethatthisideaoflocalprerogativefollowsfromwhatwemightthinkofasmoralminimalisminthe internationalarena(thesubjectofmyfourthchapter).Theprincipleofconsentrequiresthismuchatleast:thatChinesedemocracybedefinedbytheChinesethemselvesintermsoftheirownhistoryandculture.Againstthisargument,itmightbesaidthatIamallowingthe(foreign)socialcritictospeakforsome(perhapsmythical)versionofcollectiveChina,theculturaltraditionstandardlyunderstood,maybeeventheoldelites,butnotfortheindividualandhisorherrights.Inonesense,thisisclearlywrong,forIdodefendtheminimalrightsofChinese,asofCzech,demonstrators.Buttheseareunknownandthereforeabstractindividuals:minimalrightsarealltheyhave.Rights-in-detail,rightsthicklyconceived,belongonlytoconcretemenandwomen,whoare,asMarxandEngelsarguedintheirGermanIdeology,individuatedinsociety.44SinceIknowverylittleabouttheirsociety,I____________________44KarlMarxandFriedrichEngels,TheGermanIdeology,PartsIandII,ed.R.Pascal(NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1947),"Feuerbach."Itdoesn'tfollow,however,thatthecharacteroftheseindividualsis"entirelydeterminedbythedivisionoflabor"(p.65).-60-cannotfoistupontheChinesethisorthatsetofrights-certainlynotmyownpreferredset.SoIdefertothemasempiricalandsocialindividuals.Theymustmaketheirownclaims,theirowncodifications(aChinesebillofrights?),andtheirowninterpretativearguments.Someday,nodoubt,theywillproducetheirownversionofdemocraticpolitics,andthenacontroversywilldevelopoverwhetheritshouldbemore,orless,"participatory"-andperhapsIwilljointhecontroversy,notasasocialcritic,butsimplyasaninterestedstudentandsometimepoliticaltheorist.ButIhavenoreasontoanticipatethatargumentnow.AllthatmydemocraticidealismrequiresnowisthatIsupportthedissidentstudents,encouragingthemtomaketheirownway,withoutworryingaboutwhethertheirwaywillalsobemine.Thereisn'tmuchroomformoralmaximalismhere.Theworkofthecritic,whenitismaximalistwork,isalsolocalandparticularistincharacter.-61-FOUR:JusticeandTribalism:MinimalMoralityInInternationalPoliticsIAllovertheworldtoday,butmostinterestinglyandfrighteninglyinEasternEuropeandtheformerSovietUnion,menandwomenarereassertingtheirlocalandparticularist,theirethnic,religious,andnationalidentities.Thetribeshavereturned,andthedramaoftheirreturnisgreatestwheretheirrepressionwasmostsevere.Itisnowapparentthatthepopularenergiesmobilizedagainsttotalitarianrule,andalsothemorepassivestubbornnessandevasivenessthaterodedtheStalinistregimesfromwithin,werefueled ingoodpartby"tribal"loyaltiesandpassions.Howtheseweresustainedandreproducedovertimeisatalethatwaitstobetold.Thetribes--mostofthem,atleast,andalltheminoritiesandthesubjectnations--wereforseveralgenerationsdeniedaccesstotheofficialorgansofsocialreproduction:thepublicschoolsandthemassmedia.Iimaginetensofthousandsofoldmenandwomenwhisperingtotheirgrandchildren,singingfolksongsandlullabies,repeatingancientstories.Thisisinmanywaysahearteningpicture,foritsuggeststheinevitabilityoftotalitarianfailure.Butwhatarewetomakeofthesongsandstories,oftenasfullofhatredforneighboringnationsasofhopefornationalliberation?Howshouldwestandvis-à-visthetribes?Songsandstoriesaretheexpressionofathickmoralandpoliticalculture,towhoseprotagonistswearelikely-63-tobesympathetic(asintheCzechexamplethatshapedmyfirstchapter)forthinorminimalistreasons:becauseweopposetheoppression,deceit,andtorturethataccompaniedtotalitarianrule.Thesereasons,however,can'tbemadetogenerateanalternativetotality--theempireofreason,say.EversincetheEnlightenment,therehasbeenatendency,especiallyonthepoliticalleft,tothinkthatsomerationalanduniversalalternativemustexisttoboththetribesandtheiroppressors.Butmoralminimalism,whilereasonableenoughanduniversalenough,hasnoimperialtendencies;itdoesn'taspiretoglobalrule.Itleavesroomforallthetribes--andsofortheparticularistversionsofjusticeandcriticismthatIhavedescribed.Iwantnowtoexaminethecharacterandthelimitsofthismoralroom.Sympatheticwemaybe,butweneednotaccepteverythingthatwehearinthesongsandstoriesoftheoldmenandwomen.Thelefthasneverunderstoodthetribes.45Facedwiththeircontemporaryresurgence,itsfirstresponseistoarguefortheircontainmentwithinestablishedmulti-nationalstates--democraticallytransformed,ofcourse,butnotdivided.Thislooksverymuchlikeasystematicrepetitionoftheresponseofearlytwentieth-centurysocialdemocratstothenationalistmovementsthatchallengedtheoldempires.The"internationalism"oftheleftowesagreatdealtoHapsburgandRomanovimperialism,evenifleftistsalwaysintendedtodispensewiththedynasties.Theywereconvincedthatlargerandmoreinclusivepoliticalunitswerealwaysbetter.Somanynationshadlivedtogetherin____________________45ForastandardMarxistaccount,seeEricHobsbawm,"SomeReflectionson'TheBreak-upofBritain'"inNewLeftReview105(1977),pp.3-23.ThemostinterestingleftistdiscussionsofnationalismarethoseoftheAustrianMarxistsOttoBauerandKarlRenner:seeAustro-Marxism,ed.andtrans.TomBottomoreandPatrickGoode(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1978),Pt.III.-64- peaceunderimperialrule:whycouldn'ttheycontinuetolivetogetherundertheaegisofsocialdemocracy?Somanynationslivedtogetherinpeaceundercommunistrule:why...?WhenWesternEuropeisforginganewunity,howcananyonedefendseparationintheEast?ButunityintheWestisitselftheproductofor,atleast,thehistoricalsuccessortoseparation.TheindependenceofSwedenfromDenmarkand,lessthanacenturylater,ofNorwayfromSweden(andofFinlandfromSwedenandRussia)openedthewayforScandinaviancooperation.ThedivisionofBelgiumandHolland,andthefailuresofFrenchimperialism,madepossibletheBeneluxexperiment.CenturiesofsovereigntyforthegreatstatesofWesternEuropeprecededtheachievementofEuropeancommunity.Itisimportanttonotethatwhatwasachievedfirst,beforecommunity,wasnotonlysovereignstatehoodbutalsodemocraticgovernment.TheSwedescouldhaveheldNorwayindefinitelyunderoneoranotherformofauthoritarianrule.Butmassmobilizationandthepracticeofdemocracy,evenintheirearlieststages,madeitclearthattherewasmorethanonedemos,andthenseparationbecamenecessaryifdemocracywastobesustained.ThecaseisthesameintheEast.Multi-nationalismasithasexistedthereisafunctionofpre-democraticorantidemocraticpolitics.Butbringthe"people"intopoliticallifeandtheywillarrive,marchingintribalranksandorders,carryingwiththemtheirownlanguages,historicalmemories,customs,beliefs,andcommitments--theirownmoralmaximalism.46Andoncetheyhavebeensummoned,oncetheyhavearrived,itisn'tpossibletodothemjusticewithintheoldpoliticalorder.____________________46SeetheargumentabouttheeffectsofmassmobilizationinKarlDeutsch,NationalismandSocialCommunication:AnInquiryintotheFoundationsofNationality(Cambridge,Mass.:M.I.T.Press,1953).-65-Maybeit'snotpossibletodothemjusticeatall.InEasternEuropetoday,andinCaucasia,andinmuchoftheMiddleEast,theprospectsdon'tseembright,giventhesheernumberofsuddenlyraucoustribesandtheradicalentanglementoftheirmembersonthesamebitsandpiecesofland.Goodfencesmakegoodneighborsonlywhenthereissomegeneralagreementonwherethefencesshouldgo.IntheWest,powerfulstateswerecreatedbeforetheappearanceofnationalistideologyandmanagedtorepressandincorporatemanyofthesmallernations(Welsh,Scots,Normans,Bretons,andsoon).TheseparationsIhavealreadynotedtookplacealongsideconstructiveprocessesthatcreatedlargenation-stateswithmoreorlessidentifiableboundariesandmoreorlesscommittedmembers.SimilareffortsinEasternEuropeseemtohavefailed:therearen'tmanycommittedYugoslavorSovietcitizens.Theabandonmentoftheseidentitiesisstartlinginitsscopeandspeed,anditleavesmanypeoplewhohadtraveledundertheirprotectionsuddenlyvulnerable:SerbsinCroatia,AlbaniansinSerbia,ArmeniansinAzerbaijan,RussiansintheBalticstates,JewsinRussia,andsoon,endlessly. Theredoesn'tseemtobeanyhumaneordecentwaytodisentanglethetribes,andatthesametimetheentanglementsarefelttobedangerous--notonlytoindividuallife,whichisreasonableenough,butalsotocommunalwellbeing.Demagoguesexploitthehopesfornationalrevival,linguisticautonomy,thefreedevelopmentofschoolsandmedia--allsupposedlythreatenedbycosmopolitanorantinationalminorities.Andotherdemagoguesexploitthefearsoftheminorities,defendingancientirredentismsandlooking(liketheSerbsinCroatia)foroutsidehelp.Insuchcircumstances,itishardtosaywhatjusticemeans,eveninitsmostminimalistforms,letalonewhatpoliciesitmightrequire.Hencetheimpulseoftheleft,uncomfortableinanycasewithparticularistpassions,toclingtowhateverunitiesexistandmakethemwork.TheargumentisverymuchlikethatofaPuritanministerinthe1640s,-66-defendingtheunionofhusbandandwifeagainstthenewdoctrineofdivorce:Iftheymightbeseparatedfordiscord,somewouldmakeacommodityofstrife;butnowtheyarenotbesttobecontentious,forthelawwillholdtheirnosestogether'tilwearinessmakethemleaveoffstruggling....47Theproblem,thenasnow,isthatjustice,whateveritrequires,doesn'tseemtopermitthekindsofcoercionthatwouldbenecessaryto"holdtheirnosestogether."Sowehavetothinkaboutdivorce,despiteitsdifficulties.Itissomehelpthatdivorceamongneedn'thavethesingularlegalformofdivorceinfamilies.Selfdeterminationforhusbandsandwivesisrelativelysimple,evenwhenimportantconstraintsareimposedupontheseparatedindividuals.Self-determinationforthemanydifferentkindsoftribes(nations,ethnicgroups,religiouscommunities)isboundtobemorecomplicated,andtheconstraintsthatfollowuponseparationmorevarious.Thereisroomformaneuver.IIIdoubtthatwecanfindasingleruleorsetofrulesthatwilldeterminetheformoftheseparationandthenecessaryconstraints.Butthereisageneralprinciple,whichwecanthinkofastheexpressionofmoralminimalismininternationalpolitics.Theprincipleis"self-determination."Wewillmostreadilyunderstanditasaclaimfordemocraticrights,andsoitisinourtimeandplace.Buttheprinciplehasbeenreiteratedinmanydifferenttimesandplaces,____________________47HenrySmith,quotedinC.L.Powell,EnglishDomesticRelations,1487-1653(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1917),p.75.-67-alwaysinsomelocalidiomandwithasetofmaximalistaccompaniments."Self-determination"isabstractedfromallofitsreiterations,includingourown.Whenancient JewsandGaulsdefendedtheirfreedomagainsttheRomans,theargumentstheymadewerehardlydemocratic;norweretheycastinthelanguageofrights.48Butwehavelittledifficultyrecognizingtheprincipleeveninalienidioms.WhatwasatstakeforJewsandGauls,whatisatstakeforustoday,isthevalueofahistoricalorculturalorreligiouscommunityandthepoliticallibertyofitsmembers.Thisvalueisnotcompromised,itseemstome,bythepost-moderndiscoverythatcommunitiesaresocialconstructions:imagined,invented,puttogetheroutofagreatvarietyofculturalandpoliticalmaterials.Constructedcommunitiesaretheonlycommunitiesthereare,andsotheycan'tbelessrealorlessauthenticthansomeotherkind.49Theirmembers,then,havethebasicrightthatgoeswithmembership.Theyoughttobeallowedtogovernthemselves(inaccordancewiththeirownpoliticalideas)-insofarastheycandecentlydothat,giventheirlocalentanglements.Moralminimalismdoesnotsuggestasinglebestpoliticalunit.Thereisnoidealtribe;self-____________________48Seethespeechesoftheseancient"nationalists"asreportedbyJuliusCaesarinWarCommentaries,trans.RexWarner(NewYork:NewAmericanLibrary,1960),pp.29-30,74,andbyJosephus,TheJewishWarVIII:329-380.49HenceHobsbawmissurelywrongtoarguethatnations,becausetheyare"imaginedcommunities,"serveineffectivelyandinauthentically"tofilltheemotionalvoidleftbytheretreatordisintegration...ofrealhumancommunities"(NationsandNationalismsince1780:Programme,Myth,Reality[Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1990],p.46,italicsinoriginal).Evensmallface-to-facecommunities,asanthropologistshavetaughtus,are"imagined"incomplexandelaborateways.-68-determinationhasnoabsolutesubject.Cities,nations,federations,immigrantsocieties--allthesecanbeandhavebeengovernedbytheirownmembers.Thecontemporarytribesmostcertainoftheirunity,theobvioussingularityoftheiridentityandculture(thePolesorArmenians,say),areinfacthistoricalcomposites.Ifwegobackfarenoughintheirhistory,wewillfindpeople'snosesbeingheldtogether(that'soneofthemethodsofsocialconstruction).Butifthedescendantsofthesepeople,forgettingancientindignities,regardthemselvesnowasfellowmembersofa"communityofcharacter,"withinwhichtheyfindidentity,self-respect,andsentimentalconnections,whyshouldwedenythemtherightofself-government?50Except...unless...wereitnotforthefactthattheself-governmentoftribeA,happilydivorced,makestribeBavulnerableandunhappyminorityinitsownhomeland.LockedintoanindependentCroatia,Serbsbelieve(notimplausibly)thattheywillliveininsecurity.Andthen,surely,thepoliticalunithastobelarge,inclusive,undivided:allthetribesandfragmentsoftribesthatlivehere--nosesheldtogether'tiltheyleaveoffstruggling-mustcomeundertheauthorityofaneutralorthinlyconstitutedstateandshareacitizenshipthathasnoparticularculturalcharacter.Butthesecan'tbeouronlyoptions:thedominanceofonetribeoracommondetribalization.Forthesecondofthe two,ifitisn'tamerecoverforthefirst,wouldrequirecoercionofasortthat,asIhavealreadysuggested,isneithermorallypermissiblenorpoliticallyeffective.WewouldnotbeworryingaboutCroatiaanditsSerbs(orBosniaanditsMuslimsorSerbiaanditsAlbanians),ifYugoslaviahadsucceededinimposingitself____________________50CommunityofcharacterisOttoBauer'sphrase;seeAustroMarxism,p.107.-69-uponitsconstituentnations;itwas,intheoryatleast,theverymodelofaneutralstate.Neutralityislikelytoworkwellonlyinimmigrantsocietieswhereeveryonehasbeensimilarlyandinmostcasesvoluntarilytransplanted,cutofffromhomelandandhistory.Insuchcases--Americaistheprimeexample-tribalfeelingsarerelativelyweak.ButhowcanonecreateaneutralstateinFrance,say,wheretheancientlyestablishedFrenchruleoverthenewimmigrantsfromNorthAfrica,exactlyastheywouldhaveruledoveraFrenchUnionincorporatingAlgeria?Whatimperial,bureaucratic,orinternationalauthoritycoulddetribalizetheFrench?OrthePolesinPoland?OrtheGeorgiansinanindependentGeorgia?OrtheCroatsinCroatia?Andthentheonlywaytoavoiddominationistomultiplypoliticalunitsandjurisdictions,permittingaseriesofseparations.Buttheserieswillbeendless--sowearetold--eachdivorcejustifyingthenextone,smallerandsmallergroupsclaimingtherightofself-determination;andthepoliticsthatresultswillbenoisy,incoherent,unstable,anddeadly.Iwanttoarguethatthisisaslipperyslopedownwhichweneednotslide(neednot:Ican'tsaywillnot).Infact,therearemanyconceivablearrangementsbetweendominanceanddetribalizationandbetweendominanceandseparation--andtherearemoralandpoliticalreasonsforchoosingdifferentarrangementsindifferentcircumstances(forAlgeria,say,andthenforAlgeriansinFrance).Theprincipleofself-determinationissubjecttointerpretationandamendment.Whathasbeencalled"thenationalquestion"doesn'thaveasinglecorrectanswer,asiftherewereonlyonewayof"being"anation,oneversionofnationalhistory,onemodelofrelationshipsamongnations.Historyrevealsmanyways,versions,andmodels,andsoitsuggeststheexistenceofmanymoreorlesssecurestoppingpointsalongtheslipperyslope.Considernowsomeofthemorelikelypossibilities.-70-IIITheeasiestcaseisthatofthe"captive,"thatis,recentlyandcoercivelyincorporated,nation--theBalticstatesareniceexamples,sincetheseweresovereignnation-states,thenationalityancientevenifstatehoodwasonlyrecentlyachievedandbrieflyheld.Thecaptivitywaswrongforthesamereasonsthatthecapturewaswrong.Theprincipleinvolvedisminimalistandfamiliar,declaringaggressionanywhereintheworldtobea criminalact.Whatitrequiresnowistherestorationofindependenceandsovereignty--whichistosay:whatprinciplerequiresiswhatpracticeinthiscasehasachieved.Andbyakindofimaginativeextension,wecangrantthesamerightstonationsthatoughttohavebeenindependent,wherethesolidarityofthegroupisplaintoseeandthecrimeoftherulingpowerisoppressionratherthanconquest.Iseenoreasontodenythejusticeofseparationinallsuchcases.Except...unless...Conquestandoppressionarenotmerelyabstractcrimes;theyhaveconsequencesintherealworld:themixingupofpeoples,thecreationofnewandheterogeneouspopulations.SupposethatRussianimmigrantsnowmadeupamajorityofthepeoplelivinginLatvia:wouldanyrightremainofLatvianselfdetermination?SupposethatFrenchcolonistshadcome(by1950,say)tooutnumbertheArabsandBerbersofAlgeria:wouldtherightof"Algerian"self-determinationresidewiththeFrenchmajority?Thesearedoublyhardquestions;theyarepainfulandtheyaredifficult.Theworldchanges,notnecessarilyinmorallyjustifiableways;andrightscanbelostor,atleast,diminishedthroughnofaultofthelosers.WemightwanttoargueforpartitionincasesliketheonesI'vejustdescribed,leavingthe"natives"withlessthantheyoriginallyclaimed;orwemightwanttodesignaregimeofculturalautonomyinsteadofthepoliticalsovereigntythatonceseemedmorallynecessary.Welookforthenearestpossiblearrangementto-71-whateverwasexantejust,takingintoaccountnowwhatjusticerequiresfortheimmigrantsandcolonists,ortheirchildren,whoarenotthemselvestheauthorsoftheconquestortheoppression.Thecaseisthesamewithancientlyincorporatednations--aboriginalpeoplesliketheNativeAmericansortheMaoriinNewZealand.Theirrightstooareerodedwithtime,notbecausethewrongdonetothemiswipedout(itmaywellgrowgreater,withramifyingandincreasinglydeleteriouseffectsontheircommunallife),butbecausethepossibilitynolongerexistsfortherestorationofanythingremotelyresemblingtheirformerindependence.Theystandsomewherebetweenacaptivenationandanational,ethnic,orreligiousminority.Somethingmorethanequalcitizenshipisduethem,somedegreeofcollectiveself-rule,butexactlywhatthismightmeaninpracticewilldependontheresidualstrengthoftheirowninstitutionsandonthecharacteroftheirengagementinthecommonlifeofthelargersociety.Theycannotclaimanyabsoluteprotectionagainstthepressuresandattractionsofthecommonlife--asiftheywereanendangeredspecies.51Confrontedwithmodernity,allthehumantribesareendangeredspecies;theirthickculturesaresubjecttoerosion.Allofthem,whetherornottheypossesssovereignpower,havebeensignificantlyaffected.Wecanrecognizewhatmightbecalledarighttoresisttheseeffects,tobuildwallsagainstcontemporaryculture,andwecangivethisrightmoreorlessscopedependingonconstitutionalstructuresandlocalcircumstances;wecannotguaranteethesuccessoftheresistance.____________________ 51Cf.WillKymlicka'sargumentfortheprotectionofminorityculturesinLiberalism,CommunityandCulture(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1991),esp.chap.9.-72-IVThejusttreatmentofnationalminoritiesdependsontwosetsofdistinctions:first,betweenterritoriallyconcentratedanddispersedminorities;and,second,betweenminoritiesradicallydifferentfromandthosethatareonlymarginallydifferentfromthemajoritypopulation.Inpractice,ofcourse,bothdistinctionsarereallyunmarkedcontinuums,butitisbesttobeginwiththeclearcases.Consider,forexample,aminoritycommunitywithahighlydistinctivehistoryandcultureandastrongterritorialbase--liketheAlbaniansinKosovo,forexample.Theirfellownationalsholdtheadjoiningstate;theyaretrappedonthewrongsideoftheborderasaresultofsomedynasticmarriageormilitaryvictorylongago.Thehumanesolutiontotheirdifficultyistomovetheborder;thebrutalsolutionisto"transfer"thepeople;andthebestpracticalpossibilityissomestrongversionoflocalautonomy,focusedonculturalandeducationalinstitutionsandtherevenuesthatsupportthem.Theoppositecaseisthatofamarginallydifferentiatedandterritoriallydispersedcommunity,somethingliketheethnicandreligiousgroupsofNorthAmerica(thoughthereareexceptionsinbothcategories:theethnicFrenchinQuebec,say,andthereligiousAmishinPennsylvania).Byandlarge,theexperienceofmarginaldifferenceandterritorialdispersiongivesrisetoverylimitedclaimsonthestate--agoodreasonfordoubtingthedangersoftheslipperyslope.Agenuinelyequalcitizenshipandthefreedomtoexpresstheirdifferencesinthevoluntaryassociationsofcivilsociety:thisiswhatthemembersofsuchminoritiescommonly,andrightly,askfor.Theymayalsoseeksomekindofsubsidyfromstatefundsfortheirschools,daycarecenters,oldagehomes,andsoon.Butthatisarequestthathangsmoreonpoliticaljudgmentsthanonmoralprinciples.Wewillhavetoformanopinionabout-73-theinnerstrengthsandweaknessesoftheexistingcivilsociety.(Agroupthathasbeenseverelydiscriminatedagainst,however,andwhoseaccesstoresourcesislimited,doeshaveamoralclaimonthestate.)Onceagain,majoritieshavenoobligationtoguaranteethesurvivalofminoritycultures.Theymaywellbestrugglingtosurvivethemselves,caughtupinacommoncompetitionagainstcommercialismandinternationalfashion.Bordersprovideonlyminimalprotectioninthemodernworld,andminoritieswithinborders,drivenbytheirsituationtoapreternaturalcloseness,maydobetterinsustainingawayoflifethanthemorerelaxedmajoritypopulation.Andiftheydoworse,thatisnoreasontocometotheirrescue;theyhaveaclaim,indeed,tophysicalbutnottoculturalsecurity. Theadjustmentofclaimstocircumstancesisoftenalongandbrutalbusiness,butitdoeshappen.Weseeittoday,forexample,inthegeographicallyconcentratedbutonlymarginallydifferentnationsofWesternEurope-Welsh,Scots,Normans,Bretons,andsoon--whosemembershaveconsistentlydeclinedtosupportradicalnationalistpartiesdemandingindependenceandsovereignpower.Incaseslikethese,somesortofregionalautonomyseemsbothtosuitthepeopleinvolved(smallnumbersofthem--political,notethnicorreligious,minorities--alwaysexcepted)andtobepoliticallyandmorallysuitable.Thecaseisthesamewithsmallordispersedbutsignificantlydifferentpopulations,liketheAmishorlikeorthodoxJewsintheUnitedStates,whocommonlyaimatahighlylocalizedandapoliticalseparatism:voluntarilysegregatedneighborhoodsandparochialschools.Thistooseemstosuitthepeopleinvolved,anditispoliticallyandmorallysuitable.Butnominimalistaccountofjusticecanspecifythepreciseformofthesearrangements.Infact,theformsarehistoricallynegotiated,andtheydependuponsharedunderstandingsof-74-whatsuchnegotiationsmeanandhowtheywork.TheWelshandScotshavehadahandinthedevelopmentofBritishpoliticalculture,evenifthisisnotquitethehandtheythinktheyoughttohavehad.Hencetheirreadyadjustmenttoparliamentarypolitics.BoththeAmishandtheJewshavelearned,andaddedto,therepertoireofAmericanpluralism.Arrangementsofthesesortsshouldalwaysbeallowed,buttheycan'tbeimposed.WhathasmadeGreatBritainpossibleisprobablythecommonProtestantismofitscomponentnations.TheefforttoincludetheIrishfailedmiserably.Morerecently,theinclusionoftheSlovenesingreaterYugoslaviaseemstohavefailedforsimilarreasons.ThecaseisthesameforthefailureofcommunistinternationalisminPolandandpan-ArabisminLebanon.ButIdon'tmeantoarguethatthereligiousdifferencescrucialinallthesecasesnecessarilymakeforseparation.Sometimestheydoandsometimestheydon't.Thedifferencesaredifferentineachcase.Theyhavemoretodowithmemoryandfeelingthanwithanyobjectivemeasureofdissimilarity.That'swhymodelslikemyown,basedonsuchfactorsasterritorialconcentrationandculturaldifference,canneverbeanythingmorethanroughguides.Wehavetoworkslowlyandexperimentallytowardarrangementsthatsatisfythemembers(notthemilitants)ofthisorthatminority.Thereisnosinglecorrectoutcome.VThisexperimentalworkiscertaintobecomplicatedbytheunequaleconomicresourcesofthedifferenttribes.Itisobviouslyanincentivetodivorceifoneofthepartners-anation,say,industriallyadvancedorincontrolofmineralresources--canimproveitspositionbywalkingawayfromtheexistingunion.Theotherpartnersareleftworseoff,-75- thoughsomeofthem,atleast,wereneverinvolvedinanysortofnationaloppression.Theywillcontestthedivorce,butwhattheyareprobablyentitledto,itseemstome,istheinternationalequivalentofalimonyandchildsupport.Longestablishedpatternsofcooperationcannotbeabruptlyterminatedtotheadvantageofthemostadvantagedpartners.Ontheotherhand,thepartnersarenotboundtostaytogetherforever--notiftheyareinfactdifferenttribes,withdifferentpoliticalandmoralcultures,whomeettheminimalstandardsforautonomyorindependence.Oftenenough,separatistmovementsintheeconomicallyadvantagedprovincesorregionsofsomeestablisheduniondonotmeetthosestandards.ThebestexampleistheKatangansecessionof1961,inspired,itappears,byBelgianentrepreneursandcorporateinterests,withoutlocallyrootedsupportor,atleast,withoutanyvisiblesignsofnationalmobilization.52Insuchcases,itisentirelyjustifiableforunionistforcestoresistthesecessionandtoseek(andreceive)internationalsupport.Obviously,thereissuchathingasinauthentictribalism:here,themanipulationofpotentialbutnotyetpoliticallyrealizeddifferencesforeconomicgain.Itdoesn'tfollow,however,thateverywealthyorresourcefultribeisinauthentic.Andsotherearealsocasesinwhichresistancetosecessionisnotjustifiedandshouldnotbeinternationallysupported-solongassomeagreementcanbenegotiatedthatmeetstheinterestsofthepeopleleftbehind.Theirfearofimpoverishmentmustbeweighedagainstthefearofoppressionorexploitationonthepartofthesecedinggrouporagainstitsdesireforculturalexpressionandpoliticalfreedom.____________________52ConorCruiseO'Brien,ToKatangaandBack:AUNCaseStudy(NewYork:Simon&Schuster,1962).-76-VIThedominantfeelingthatmakesfornationalantagonism,themostimportantcause(nottheonlycause)ofallthetribalwars,isfear.HereImeantofollowanoldargumentfirstmadeinThomasHobbes'sLeviathan,whereitformspartoftheexplanationforthe"warofallagainstall."Hobbeswasthinkingoftheinternalwarsoflatemedieval"bastardfeudalism"butalso--morepertinentlyforourpurposes--ofthereligiouswarsofhisowntime.Therearealwaysafewpeople,hewrites,who"takepleasureincontemplatingtheirownpowerinactsofconquest."Butthegreaternumberbyfararedifferentlymotivated:they"wouldbegladtobeateasewithinmodestbounds."53Theseordinarymenandwomenaredriventofightnotbytheirlustforpowerorenrichment,notbytheirbigotryorfanaticism,butbytheirfearofconquestandoppression.Hobbesarguesthatonlyanabsolutesovereigncanfreethemfromthisfearfulnessandbreakthecycleofthreatsand"anticipations"(thatis,pre-emptiveviolence).Infact,however,whatbrokethecycle,inthecaseofthereligiouswars,wasnotsomuchpoliticalabsolutismasreligioustoleration. Thetwocrucialseventeenth-centuryargumentsagainsttolerationsoundveryfamiliartoday,fortheycloselyparalleltheargumentsagainstnationalseparationandautonomy.Thefirstofthetwoistheclaimofthedominantreligiousestablishmentstorepresentsomehighvalue-universaltruthorthedivinewill--thatiscertaintobeoverwhelmedinthecacophonyofreligiousdissidence.Andthesecondistheslipperyslopeargument:thatthedissidencewillproveendlessandthenewsectarianismendlesslydivisive,splitfollowingsplituntilthesocialorder____________________53ThomasHobbes,Leviathan,Pt.I,chapterxiii.-77-crumblesintoincoherenceandchaos.Certainly,tolerationopenedthewayforalargenumberofnewsects,thoughthesehavemostlyflourishedonthemarginsofmoreorlessstablereligiouscommunities.Butitalso,andfarmoreimportantly,loweredthestakesofreligiousconflict:tolerationmadedivisivenessmoretolerable.54Itsolvedtheproblemoffearbycreatingprotectedspacesforagreatdiversityofreligiouspractices.Itseemstomethatweshouldaimatsomethingverymuchlikethistoday:protectedspacesofmanydifferentsortsmatchedtotheneedsofthedifferenttribes.Ratherthansupportingtheoldunions,Iwouldbeinclinedtosupportseparationwheneverseparationisdemandedbyapoliticalmovementthat,sofaraswecantell,representsthepopularwill.Letthepeoplegowhowanttogo.Manyofthemwon'tgoallthatfar.Andifthereturnouttobepoliticaloreconomicdisadvantagesintheirdeparture,theywillfindawaytore-establishconnections.Indeed,ifsomenewunion--federationorconfederation--isourgoal,thebestwaytoreachitistoabandoncoercionandallowthetribesfirsttoseparateandthentonegotiatetheirownvoluntaryandgradual,evenifonlypartial,incorporationinacommunityofinterest.Today'sEuropeanCommunityisapowerfulexample,whichothernationswillapproachattheirownpace.But,again,onenation'sindependencemaybethebeginningofanothernation'soppression.Readingthenewspaperthesedays,itoftenseemsthatthechiefmotivefornationalliberationisnottofreeoneselffromminoritystatusinsomeoneelse'scountrybuttoacquire(andthenmistreat)minoritiesofone'sown--asifthestandardrule____________________54SeeJohnLocke'santicipationofthisresultinALetterConcerningToleration(1689),ed.PatrickRomanell(Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill,1950),pp.52-53.-78-ofinter-tribalrelationsistheveryoppositeofgolden:dountootherswhathasbeendoneuntoyou.Arguingforliberation,Ihavelargelyignoredthepersistentfailureofnewnation-statestomeettheminimalmoraltest:torecognizeinthenation-that-comes-nexttherightsvindicatedbytheirownindependence.55Idon'tmeantounderestimatethe nastinessoftribalzealots.Butweren'tthezealotsofthereligiouswarsequallynasty?Andtheirlatterdaydescendantsseemharmlessenough--notparticularlyattractive,manyofthem,butalsonotverydangerous.Whyshouldn'tthesamesequence,harmlessnessfollowinguponnastiness,holdforcontemporarynationalists?Puttheminaworldwheretheyarenotthreatened,andforhowlongwilltheythinkitintheirintereststothreatenothers?ThatatleastistheHobbesianargument.Nodoubttherearemenandwomenineverytribe--SerbsandCroats;Latvians,Georgians,andRussians;GreeksandTurks;IsraeliJewsandPalestinianArabs--whotakepleasureinactsofconquest,whoaimabovealltotriumphovertheirneighborsandenemies.Butthesepeoplewillnotruleintheirowntribesifwecanmakeitpossiblefortheirfellowtribesmentolive"ateasewithinmodestbounds."Everytribewithinitsownmodestbounds:thisisthepoliticalequivalentoftolerationforeverychurchandsect.Whatmakesitpossible--thoughstillpoliticallydifficultanduncertain--isthattheboundsneednotenclose,ineverycase,thesamesortofspace.Religioustoleration,however,wasenforcedbythestate,andthegodlyzealotsweredisarmedanddisempoweredbythepoliticalauthorities.Tribalzealots,bycontrast,aimpreciselyatempowerment;theyhopetobecomepolitical____________________55Ielaborateonthis"test"inNationandUniverse,TheTannerLecturesonHumanValuesXI(SaltLakeCity:UtahUniversityPress,1990),pp.549-552.-79-authoritiesthemselves,replacingtheimperialbureaucratswhoonceforcedthemtolivepeacefullywiththeirinternalminorities.Whowillrestrainthemafterindependence?WhowillprotecttheSerbsinanindependentCroatiaortheAlbaniansinanindependentSerbia?Ihavenoeasyanswertothesequestions.Inaliberaldemocracy,nationalminoritiescanseekconstitutionalprotection.Butnotmanyofthenewnationsarelikelytobeliberal,eveniftheyachievesomeversionofdemocracy.Thebesthopeforrestraintlies,Ithink,infederalorconfederalchecksandbalancesandininternationalpressure--and,whenabsolutelynecessary,forcefulintervention--onbehalfofthemoralminimum.Thenationalitytreatiesoftheinterwarperiodwerenotablefailures,butsomemeasureofsuccessinprotectingminoritiesoughttobepossiblenowthatnation-statesaremoreentangledwithanddependentononeanother.SupposethattheleadersoftheEuropeanCommunityortheWorldBankoreventheUnitedNationsweretosaytoeverynationseekingstatehood:wewillrecognizeyourindependence,tradewithyouorprovideeconomicassistance--butonlyifyoufindsomewaytoaccommodatethenationalminoritiesthatfearyoursovereignpower.Thepriceofrecognitionandaidisaccommodation.Whatformthisaccommodationmighttakeisnotamattertobedeterminedinanyaprioriway(Ihavetokeepsayingthisbecausesomanypeoplearelookingforaquick theoreticalfix).Itwilldependonthepoliticalandmoralcultureofthenewstatesandonaprocessofnegotiation.Herethedifferentmaximalmoralitiesmustbeallowedtheirappropriateroom.Secession,borderrevision,federation,regionalorfunctionalautonomy,culturalpluralism:therearemanydesignsfor"aroomofone'sown,"manypoliticalpossibilities,andnoreasontothinkthatthechoiceofoneoftheseinthisorthatcasemakesasimilarchoicenecessaryinalltheothercases.AstheexamplesIhavecitedfromWesternEuropesuggest,-80-choicesaremorelikelytobedeterminedbyconcretecircumstancesthanbyabstractprinciples.Whatisrequiredisaninternationalconsensusthatvalidatesavarietyofchoices,supportinganypoliticalarrangementthatsatisfiesthetribesatrisk.VIIButthereisnoguaranteeofsatisfactionand,sometimes,watchingthetribalwars,someofusmayyearnfortheuniformrepressivenessofimperialoreventotalitarianrule.Forwasn'tthisrepressionundertakeninthename,atleast,ofuniversalism--and,inthecaseofthecommunists,ofathickmoralityambitiouslyintendedtoreplaceeverysortofmoralparticularism?Andmightn'tithavedonethat?Mightn'tithaveproduced,haditonlybeensustainedlongenough,agenuinedetribalization?Andthenwewouldlookbackandsaythatjustastheabsolutismofearlymodernmonarchswasnecessarytodefeatthearistocracyandeliminatefeudalism,sotheabsolutismofimperialandcommunistbureaucratswasnecessarytoovercometribalism.Perhapsthebureaucraciescollapsedtoosoon,beforetheycouldcompletetheir"historicaltask."Butthislineofargumentrepeatsagaintheoldleftmisunderstandingofthetribes.Itisnodoubttruethatparticulartribescanbedestroyedbyrepression,ifitiscruelenoughandifitlastslongenough.Thedestructionoftribalismitself,however,liesbeyondthereachofanyrepressivepower.Itisnoone's"historicaltask."Feudalismisthenameofaregime,andregimescanbereplaced.Tribalismnamesthecommitmentofindividualsandgroupstotheirownhistory,culture,andidentity,andthiscommitment(thoughnotanyparticularversionofit)isapermanentfeatureofhumansociallife.Theparochialism,themoralthickness,thatitbreedsissimilarlypermanent.Itcan'tbeovercome;ithastobeaccommodated,and-81-thereforethecrucialminimalistprincipleisthatitmustalwaysbeaccommodated:notonlymyparochialismbutyoursaswell,andhisandhersintheirturn.Whenmyparochialismisthreatened,thenIamwholly,radicallyparochial:aSerb,aPole,aJew(ablack,awoman,ahomosexual),andnothingelse.Butthisisanartificialsituationinthemodernworld(andperhapsinthepasttoo).Theselfismorenaturallydivided;atleast,itiscapableofdivisionandeventhrivesonit.Indomesticsociety,this innerdivisionisproducedbysocialdifferentiation.Ininternationalsocietyandinmulti-nationalstates,itisproducedbyculturaldifference.Neitheroftheseisinanywaysimple(thedivisionsoftheselfarethesubjectofmylastchapter).Onelineonthesocialorpoliticalmapdoesn'tmakeforsingularselvesoneitherside;therearealwayscross-cuttinglines.Underconditionsofsecurity,Iwillacquireamorecomplexidentitythantheideaoftribalismsuggests.Iwillidentifymyselfwithmorethanonetribe,addingtothesocialconstructionofidentitymyownpersonalconstruction.Indeed,theexperienceofdifference,whenitispeaceful,increasesthepoweroftheindividualsubject,whomaneuversamongarangeofalternativeswithouteverbeinglockedintoasingleone.SoIcanchoosetobeanAmerican,aJew,anEasterner,anintellectual,aprofessor.Imagineasimilarmultiplicationofidentitiesaroundtheworld,andtheworldbeginstolooklikealessdangerousplace.Whenidentitiesaremultiplied,passionsaredivided.Weneedtothinkaboutthepoliticalstructuresbestsuitedtothismultiplicationanddivision.Thesewon'tbeunitarystructures;norwilltheybeidentical.Somestateswillberigorouslyneutral,withapluralityofculturesandacommoncitizenship;somewillbefederations;somewillbenation-states,withminorityautonomy.Sometimesculturalpluralismwillbeexpressedonlyinprivatelife;sometimesitwillbeexpressedpublicly.Sometimesdifferenttribeswillbemixedontheground;sometimesthey-82-willbeterritoriallygrouped.Sincethenatureandnumberofouridentitieswillbedifferent,evencharacteristicallydifferentforwholepopulations,agreatvarietyofarrangementsoughttobeexpectedandwelcomed.Eachofthemwillhaveitsusefulnessanditsirritations;noneofthemwillbepermanent;thenegotiationofdifferencewillneverproduceafinalsettlement.Whatthisalsomeansisthatourcommonhumanitywillnevermakeusmembersofasingleuniversaltribe.Thecrucialcommonalityofthehumanraceisparticularism:weparticipate,allofus,inthickculturesthatareourown.Withtheendofimperialandtotalitarianrule,wecanatlastrecognizethiscommonalityandbeginthedifficultnegotiationsitrequires.-83-FIVE:TheDividedSelfIAllselvesareself-divided(internallydifferentiated)inthreedifferentways.TwooftheseIhavealreadydiscussedinthecourseofmyefforttogiveathickaccountofsociallifeandmoralculture.First,theselfdividesitselfamongitsinterestsanditsroles;itplaysmanyparts(notonlyacrossalifetime,asinShakespeare'sfamouslines,butacrossadayorweek)inrelationtothedifferentsocialgoodsavailabletoitandtheperformancesrequiredofitinthedifferentspheresofjustice.Theselfisacitizen,parent,workerorprofessionalormerchant,teacherorstudent,doctororpatient,andsoon,definingitselfintermsofitsresponsibilities,qualifications,skills,andentitlements.And,second,theselfdividesitselfamongitsidentities;itanswerstomanynames,definingitselfnowin termsofitsfamily,nation,religion,gender,politicalcommitment,andsoon.Itidentifiesitselfwithdifferenthistories,traditions,rituals,holidays,and,aboveall,withdifferentgroupsofotherpeople,incorporated,asitwere,intoawiderselfhood.Iwanttoaddnowthat,third,theselfalsodividesitselfamongitsideals,principles,andvalues;itspeakswithmorethanonemoralvoice--andthatiswhyitiscapableofselfcriticismandpronetodoubt,anguish,anduncertainty.Ofcourse,thislastdivisionoverlapswiththeothertwo--thethreecutacrossoneanother--makingtheselfawonderfullycomplexentity,whichismatchedto,whichreflectsandisreflectedin,thecomplexityofthesocialworld.ButbeforeItrytodrawanylargeconclusionsaboutthis-85-two-waycomplexityorshowhowitsupportstheversionsofpluralismIhavedefendedindomesticandinternationalsociety,Imustlookcloselyatthethirddivisionandtheactivityitmakespossible.Theselfisthesubjectandobjectofself-criticism,ourmostanomalousand,perhaps,ourmostimportantmoralenterprise.Forthepluralismofrolesandidentities,andthepracticalpossibilityofcomplexequalityand(collective)self-determination,dependonthisinternalreflectionanddebate.Weneedtothinkcriticallyaboutthepartsweplayandtheidentitiesweaffirm.Buthowcanwedothiswhenthesesamepartsandidentitiesareconstitutiveoftheselfthatdoesthethinking?IITobeoneself,accordingtotheOxfordEnglishDictionary,is"tobeinone'snormalconditionofbodyormind"or,evenbetter,toactinwaysdictatedby"one'struecharacter,withouthypocrisyorconstraint."Ontheotherhand,tobe"outside"oneself(archaic)or"beside"oneself(contemporary)istobederanged,"outofone'smind."ButwhenIcriticizemyself,soitisusuallysaid,Ideliberatelytakeastandoutsidemyself,detached,removed,lookingonfromadistance.Ibecomethesterninspectorofmy"normalcondition"or"truecharacter,"alwaysfoundwanting.Workinghardatself-criticism,amIoutofmymind?Itisn'teasytosaywhatIdowhenIcriticizemyself.Whoisthe"I"thatdoesthecriticizing?Whoisthe"self"thatiscriticized?WhatisitthatIdivide,whoisinchargeofthedivision,whenIsetonepartofmetowatchandjudgetheother(s)?WhatamIdoingnow,asIwritethesewordsandwatchthewatcherinmyself?Whatroles,identities,andvaluesmakemeorsomepartofmeacritic?Whatotherroles,identities,andvalues,whatotherpartsofme,aretheobjectsofcriticism?AndonceIhavemappedthelinesofdivision,howdoIknowwhicharemybetterparts?-86-Socialcriticism,bycontrast,iseasiertodescribe.Onememberofsocietycriticizestheothers,orhecriticizesthesocialarrangementsforwhichtheothersareresponsible.Thedifferencebetweenhim(thecritic)andthem(thecriticized)isclear.Soistheirrelative moralstanding,atleastasseenbyhim.Whetherthecriticisaheroicfigureornot,heatleastexemptshimselffromthecriticismhedirectsattheothers.Heisdoingthebesthecan,andheisn'tresponsible,oncehehasspokenout,iftheothersrefusetolisten.(Iwon'tconsiderherewhetherhisobligationextendsbeyondspeakingout--tomoredifficultpoliticalactslikeorganizing,demonstrating,andsoon.Atsomepoint,inanycase,heisnolongerresponsible.)Self-criticismdoesn'tseemtoofferasimilarexemption.ItwouldbeoddtoclaimthatsinceIamcriticizingmyself,Idon'tneedtobecriticizedbyanyoneelse.Ifmyfriendsandneighborscrowdaround,eagertojoinin,Icansaytothem,"Goaway,don'tcriticizeme,I'mdoingitmyself."Buttheymaywellfeelthatthoughthis"I"isagoodfellow,the"self"wouldprobablybenefitfromalittleextracastigation.Still,self-criticismiscommonlythoughtanexemplaryactivity.Wemostlyapproveoftheselfcriticalself,evenifwethinkthecriticismrichlydeserved.AndIapprovetoo:Ilookatmyselfcritically,andthenIlookapprovinglyatmyselflookingatmyselfcritically.Perhapsmycriticismdeflatesme;butthenthespectacleofmyselfascriticpuffsmeupagain.Ifthisisright,whyisself-criticismsooftenpainful?Acertainamountofpainisnecessary,Isuppose,tojustifytheapproval:ifcriticismdidn'thurt,itwouldn'tbeexemplary.Butself-criticismsometimeproduceswhatwemightthinkofassurpluspain--notmerelyembarrassment,chagrin,regret,orremorse,butaparalyzingsenseofinadequacy,endlessguiltandself-loathing,whichreachfarbeyondtherequirementsofthecriticalenterprise.Wecanallthinkofpeopleforwhomself-loathingwouldbeentirelyappropriate,butthosearenotthepeoplelikelytolaunch-87-theenterpriseinthefirstplace.Theaverageselfprobably"needs"onlylimitedcriticism,finitepain.Butperhapstheenterprise,oncelaunched,hasamomentumofitsown.TheharderIlook,theworseIappear.Socialcriticsgettired,burnedout,chokedbytheirownanger,whileselfcriticssimplyimprovewithpractice.Orperhapstheself-criticistakenunawares.Slowlyhestripsawayhisprotectiveclothing,thinkingallthewhilethatwhatliesunderneathisn'thalfbad,andthenfindshimselfstaringinhorrorathisownhideousnakedness.Thepaincomesfromthesurprise.ThislastsoundslikeaChristianaccount:thecritical"I,"religiouslyidentified,face-to-facewithoriginalsin,corruptedflesh,thefallenAdam.Butthereligiouscriticpresumablyknowswhattoexpect;hehasbeenforewarned.Surpriseiseasiertounderstandifwetell(theconventionalversionof)aFreudianstory.Forisn't"theinstinctualstrengthoftheid"alwaysapainfulsurprisetothecivilizedsuperego?Theredoesn'tseemanyotherwaytoexplainthesuperego'sjudgmentalfuryasitpunishestheegoforbehavior(andforthoughtsandwishes)towhichityieldsasto"necessitiesofnature."56SoIamhandedovertowhatclaimstobemybestpart.Thestorydoesn'tendthere,ofcourse,forthepainofdiscoveryandrepressioncanbecuredoratleastamelioratedthroughpsychoanalysis(thoughnotwithoutadditionalpainalongtheway).Iamnotsureexactlyhowthecureworks,neverhavingexperiencedit,butIsuggestthatwethinkofanalysisasakindofmetacritique.Itrequiresanextendedcriticismofthe critical"I"andapartialvindicationofthecastigatedself.Thevindicationcanneverbemorethanpartial.Thesuperego,evenifwerejectitsmostfar-reachingclaims,isstilltheinternalrepresentativeofmoralvalue(andofthe____________________56SigmundFreud,CivilizationanditsDiscontents,trans.JamesStrachey(NewYork:W.W.Norton,1962),pp.72ff.,90.-88-demandsofroleandidentity),andIcannotliveincivilizedsociety,Icannotliveinthecompanyofothers,withoutitsministrations.Theselfrequiresitscriticevenifitthenrequiresitsanalyst.Thediscontentsofcivilizationarepermanent.ButinsofarasIcangenerateandsustain(withthehelpoftheanalyst)asecondcritical"I,"criticalofthefirst,thediscontentneednotbeparalyzing.ThisisFreud'sgreatinsight:thesuperegobearswatchingatleastasmuchasanyofmyotherparts.Ifpsychoanalysisexplainsthepain,philosophyexplainstheprideofself-criticism.Inthepsychoanalytictradition,itistheinstinctsthatareuniversal,whilethecriticalstandardsbywhichtheinstinctsarejudgedarealwaysthestandardsofaparticularculture.TheidistheoldAdam,and"inAdam'sfall/weperishedall."Thesuperego,bycontrast,isahumanartifact,asocialcreation,differentindifferenttimesandplaces,enforcingdifferentrulesandregulations,withdifferentdegreesofrigorandzeal.Butthesedifferencesmakeonlyamarginaldifference,forthefunctionofthesuperegoisdeterminednotbyitsownparticularistcontentbutbytheuniversalid,whichisalwaysthereandalwaysinneedofrepression.Thephilosophicalviewreversesthetermsofthisargument.Nowitisthecastigatedselfthatisvariousinformandparochialincontent,theproductofthisorthatlocalhistory,whilethecritical"I"isintouchoratleastaspirestobeintouchwithuniversalvalues.Self-criticismforthephilosopherismuchlikesocialcriticism(forthephilosopher):itisakindofreflectionintranquility,ascrutinyoftheselfsubspecieaeternitatis.Istepback,detachmyselffrommyself,createanewmoralagent,let'scallhimsuperagent,wholooksattheoldone,me,asifIwereatotalstranger.57Superagent____________________57Onwhatitmightmeantotakean"objective"viewoftheworldandofoneselfaspartofit,seeThomasNagel,TheViewfromNowhere(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1986).-89-studiesmeasoneamongtheothers,nodifferentfromtheothers,andappliestoallof"them,"includingme,objectiveanduniversalmoralprinciples.Naturally,Iamfoundwanting.Superagentisnotfoundwanting:whocouldmakethefinding?Icouldofcoursestepbackagain,detachmyselfagain,createanultra-agent,but whatcouldultra-agentsaythatsuperagenthasnotalreadysaid?Psychoanalysismakesthingssimpler:theanalystcancriticizethesuperegobecausethesuperegoembodies,ifthatistherightword,amerelyparticularmorality.Butthecritical"I"imaginedbythephilosopherspeaksformoralityitself.Itisthephilosopher'salteregoprojectedinto(thoughrarelyassimilatedornaturalizedwithin)theparticularself.Theaimoftheanalystistoestablishanewbalanceofpowerwithintheself,modifyingtheruleofcivilizedvalues,controlling(butnotdestroying)thelordlysuperego.Theaimofthephilosopheristowintheinternalwar,tomakesuperagentsupremewithintheself.Consider,forexample,Jean-PaulSartre'saccountoftheself-creationoftheintellectual,"theguardianoffundamentalends,"thatis,ofuniversalvalues.58Theintellectualachieveshisguardianship"byconstantlycriticizingandradicalizing[himself]."Thisself,saysSartre,speakingofhisowncase,istheproductof"petty-bourgeoisconditioning."Itis,again,amerelyparticularself,legitimatelysubjectthereforetothedevastationsofcriticism.Insofarasthecriticismissuccessful,onearrivesatahistoricallyandmorallydeparticularizedself--asuperiorbeingpresumably.Sartreadmits,indeed,thatweneverquitereachthishappycondition(noncondition?):oursis"adividedconsciousness,thatcanneverbe____________________58Jean-PaulSartre,"APleaforIntellectuals"inBetweenExistentialismandMarxism,trans.JohnMathews(NewYork:Pantheon,1975),pp.259-263.-90-healed."Wemust,however,aimathealing;theendofdivisionremainstheidealdestinationofthecritical"I."ButwhatifonethinkstheselfevenmoredividedthanSartreacknowledges?Andwhatifoneadmiresthe"dividedconsciousness?"IIITakenasaccountsofself-criticism,boththepsychoanalyticandthephilosophicalmodelsbelongtothecategoryofthe"thin."Theysuggestasimplelinearandhierarchicalarrangementoftheself,withasinglecritical"I"atthetopofthelineandasinglelineofcriticism.(Thinkofthis"I"asthevirtuouscitizen-selfortherationalmaximizing-selfofmyearlieraccountinChapterTwo.)Analystswanttomodifythehierarchy,philosopherstovindicateit,butneitherdoubtsitsexistence.Thesuperegomayrepresentonlyaparticularunderstandingofvalue,butitrepresentsvaluenonetheless;itistheinternalagentofcivilization,asecularizedversionofthereligiousconscience.Theanalystisalsoahierarchicalsuperior,theexternalagentnotonlyofcivilizationbutalsoofmentalhealth.Thesuperiorityofthephilosopher'scritical"I"isevenmoreobvious,foritclaimstospeakinthenameof"fundamentalends."Nodoubtthesemodelscapturesomethingofourinnerexperience--theguiltwefeel,forexample,whenwedosomethingobviouslywrong,whensuperegoandsuperagent,blamingus,seemtospeakforeveryoneintheworld,withoutambiguityorcomplexity.Theyaremostplausibleandpersuasivewhentheyrepresentourminimalistmorality.Butthetwomodelsalsomissagreatdeal.They missthecommonimmediacyofselfhoodwhenwelivebywhatmightbecalledourcriticalinstincts,withouttheministrationsofanyinternalautocrat.Andtheymissthosemomentsofdoubtanddivisionwhenitisradicallyunclearwhichpartisourbestpart,whichroles,-91-identities,orvaluesarefundamental.Thehierarchicalviewrequiresathick,pluralist,anddemocraticcorrection.59Iwillbeginwiththedefenseofimmediacyandthenmovequicklyon,forthetwoarecloselyconnected,tothecritiqueofhierarchy.Acoupleofexampleswillhelptheargumentalong.InoneofhisbrilliantandsavageessaysattackingAmerica'sinvolvementinWorldWarI,RandolphBournecontemplatesandthenrejectsthedesignationofhimselfasa"conscientiousobjector."Hedoesn't,indeed,wanttofight,butit'snotthecasethathe"wouldbedelightedtoworkup[his]bloodlustforthebusiness[offighting],exceptthatthisunaccountableconscience,likeagodlygrandmother,absolutelyforbids."Whatforbidshismilitaryserviceis"somethingthatiswovenintohiswholemodernphilosophicfeelforlife."60Bourneclaimsthathisrefusalistheactofaperson,notofan"objectiveconscience"suppressingthelowerordersoftheself.Itisnothisconsciencethatrefusesbutsomethingdeeperwithin,ormorecontinuallyactiveacross,ormorepervasivethroughout,hisinnerlife.Perhapsthisisasignofegostrengthorofacritical"I"alreadytriumphant.Idon'tdoubtthatonecouldprovideapsychoanalyticorphilosophicalaccountofBourne's"feelforlife."Butthereisnohierarchywithoutthelowerorders,andtheydon'tseemanywhereinevidence.Bloodlustdoesn'tfigureatallinBourne'spresentstateofmind;neitherdoesitfigure,ashetellsthestory,inanyofhispaststates.Hethinksand____________________59Thesamecanbesaidofalltherelatedhierarchies:reaon/passionmind/body,elite/mass,andsoon.Theyareallsimilarlythinandinneedothickening--inneedofsomenove,butnotcarzydoctrinethatblursthelines,introducesnewterms,challengesthestandardattributionofvalue.60RandolphBourne,"BelowtheBattle"inTheWorldofRandolphBourne,ed.LillianSchlissel(NewYork:E.P.Dutton,1965),pp.164-165.-92-actsinintimateaccordwithhisfeelings:thecritical"I"hasnoplacehere.Nowconsiderastoryinwhichitdoeshaveaplace,butnotahighorevenanhonorableone.Inawell-knownpassagefromtheDiscourseontheOriginofInequalityRousseaudescribeshowthe"tranquilsleep"ofaphilosopherissuddenlydisturbedbycriesforhelp.Hehearsthecriesbutcannotbetornfromhisbed. Amurdermaywithimpunitybecommittedunderhiswindow;hehasonlytoputhishandsinhisearsandarguealittlewithhimselftopreventnature,whichisshockedwithinhim,fromidentifyingitselfwiththeunfortunatesufferer.Uncivilizedmanhasnotthisadmirabletalent;andforwantofreasong...isalwaysfoolishlyreadytoobeythefirstpromptingsofhumanity.61Thisnicelyreversestheconventionalhierarchy.Theinternalizedvoiceofphilosophyrepressesinstinctandmoralvalueatthesametime.Thecritical"I"iswatchfulindeed,butthisisacalculatingandprudentwatchfulness,waryofthetrapsofsentimentalgoodness.IsRousseauendorsingthenatural,precriticalself?Notquite;heistoosophisticatedforthat.Hedoesn'tbelievethatourinternalwarshaveasingledesirableoutcome.Hemeanstosowconfusionaboutourbetterpart.InRousseau'sstory,thephilosopher's"firstprompting"istogetoutofbed,tohelpthepersoninneed.Butwhatheargueshimselfoutofisnotonlythiscourseofactionbutthesenseofguiltthatcomesfromnotfollowingit.Thephilosophergoesbacktosleepcontentedwithhimself,andthisisnotacriticalfailurebut,Rousseautellsus,acriticalsuccess.Theinternalizedvoiceofphilosophyistriumphant.____________________61Jean-JacquesRousseau,TheSocialContractandDiscourses,trans.G.D.H.Cole(NewYork:E.P.Dutton,1950),p.226.-93-Theconventionalviewofcriticismandguiltisobviouslyverydifferent.Self-criticism,ontheconventionalview,istheactivityofprescribingguilt,andguiltistheprescribedfeeling,dutifullyaccepted.BecauseIamorhavebeenselfcritical,Ifeelguilty.(Freud'sargumentisconsiderablymorecomplicated,butthetemporalorderis,Ithink,thesame.)Thisaccount,however,providesnoemotionalbasisforthecriticalenterprise.Isn'titsometimesthecasethatIcriticizemyselfbecauseIalreadyfeelguilty?Self-criticismisaninterestedinvestigationintothereasonsforthefeeling-or,asRousseausuggests,itisanattempttorepressthefeeling.Mostoften,thecritical"I"goestoworkknowingthattheselfisbadorhasactedbadly.Theverdictisin;thegoalnowistofigureoutwhatliesbehindit.Theconventionalviewisprobablymorelogical:firsttheprosecutingattorneyandthejudge'sverdict,thenthe(self-)punishmentandthepainofguilt.Butthealternativeaccountispsychologicallymoreplausible,foritcapturessomethingoftheintimacyoftheselfwithitself.Nowthepictureismorecomplex:Idon'twaitupontheindictmentofaprosecutingattorney,forhehas,asitwere,assistantsinmymindandheart--andIhaveintimationsofmoralunderstandingthatprecedehisaccusation.Iamalreadyinpain.Thereisnoprecriticalself.Ido,ofcourse,reflectintranquilityonthingsIhavesaidanddone.Ireadovermylife,andsometimesIamacriticalreader.Howdoesthisactivitycomparetothemore immediateformofself-criticism?ItislikerereadinganessayorbookthatIwroteyearsago.Thepassageoftimemakesforcriticaldistance.Itellmyselfthatsomeoneelseistheauthorofthesepages,andsoIreadthemwithmoreobjectivitythanIcouldeverhavemanagedwhenIwaswritingthem.Yes,butwithlessinterest.Iamindeeddisinterestedanddispassionate,orrelativelyso,butperhapsinterestandpassionarecrucialfeaturesoftheself-criticalenterprise.Contrastmycriticismnowandmyworryingthen(whenIwaswriting).Thefirstismoreobjective,the-94-secondmore...critical.Worryingisakindofrunningselfcriticism,theworkofatrulyengagedcritic(butnotofasingle-mindedcritic:Iworrysimultaneouslyaboutdifferentthings,ofteninconsistently).WhenIamwriting,Iprobablyworrytoomuchaboutgettingeachsentenceexactlyright;lateronIcaretoolittleaboutwhetherIactuallygotitright.Whichistheprivilegedposition?Wemissthemarkindifferentways.Butthereisadifferencebetweencriticizingtheselfandcriticizingtheproductsortheactivitiesoftheself.Actions,words,evenwholebooksofwords,canbetakenback,repudiated,apologizedfor;butIcan'tsoeasilytakebackmyself.IpromisetochangenotmerelywhatIdobutwhatIam.Thisis,however,apromiserarelyredeemed.Refashioningtheperson,likerevolutionizingsociety,islikelytoturnouttobeaveryincompleteachievement.Nodoubt,thecriticalvoicethattellsmethatit'snotwhatIhavedonethat'sbad,it'sme,cutsverydeep.ButIcantakecomfortinthefactthatthiscriticisalsome--somepartofmeturnedupontherest,demandingtobevindicated,nottransformed.AndIcanalwaysaskforasecondopinionfromanotherpartofme,andforathird.ThecriticstowhomIturnfortheseadditionalopinionsdon'tstandatdifferenttemporaldistancesfrommyself;nowdistanceisbestimaginedspatially.Ihavedifferentvalues,alternativeegoidealsorconceptionsofwhatIought(orwant)tobelike,whichexist,asitwere,atdifferentremovesfromwhatIactuallyam.Ihave,let'ssay,fantasiesofsaintliness,butthecriticalvoicethatspeaksforsaintlinessdoesn'tspeakwithmuchimmediacyorpassion.Thisself-criticisrelativelydistantanddisinterestedsinceitknows(Iknow)thatIamnevergoingtohitthatmark.ButIwouldalsoliketobemorecompassionate,moresensitivetotheneedsofothers,morearticulateinengagingthemanddrawingthemout--andhereeverycriticismoffailedattemptsornon-attemptscausespain.Thisself-criticspeaksfromcloserup.-95-Myinnerworldisthicklysettled.RememberagainYeats'slineabouthowwehavetochoose"perfectionofthelife,orofthework."It'snousepretendingthatthesamecritical"I,"intouchwithuniversalandobjectivevalue,defendstheseopposedperfections.Iaminfactassaultedbydifferentcriticsmakingdifferentclaimsonbehalfofdifferentandofteninconsistentnotionsofamoreperfectself.Indeed,IamassaultedbycriticswhodefendwhatImightotherwisetaketobeimperfection,forsometimes(whenIimaginemyselfinthemarketplace,say)Iwouldliketobemorecalculating,moreaggressive,moresystematicallyfocusedonmyowncareerthanIcommonlyam.Andthattoois self-criticism.PerhapsIshouldpicturemyself-criticsascriticsnotonlyofmebutofoneanother.Iamanobjectofattackandalsoanobserverofthecriticalwars.Iamnot,norisanyoneofmyself-critics,thesovereigndirectorofthesecriticalwars.Thecriticsthatcrowdaround,speakingfordifferentvalues,representingdifferentrolesandidentities,havenotbeenchosenbyme.Theyareme,butthis"me"issociallyaswellaspersonallyconstructed;itisacomplex,maximalistwhole.Iamurgedtoconductmyself,let'ssay,asagoodcitizen,doctor,orcraftsman;orIamcondemnedfornotconductingmyselfasafaithfulAmerican,Jew,black,woman,orwhatever.Manyexternal"causes"arerepresentedinmycriticalwars,andtherepresentativescomefromandstillhaveconnectionsoutside.Theyhavebeeninternalized,inthecommonphrase,and,ifIamlucky,naturalized--adaptedtotheirnewenvironment(mymindandheart)andtotherequirementsofcompetitiveco-existence.Noneofthemaspires,ifIamlucky,tothepartofsuperegoorsuperagent,aimingatsingularandabsolutedomination.Thesurpluspainofself-criticismisprobablytheeffectofdomination.Thisisoneofthepathologiesoftheself-asisitsanarchicopposite,whenthecriticalwarsarefoughtwithoutrestraint,andIamliterallytornapartbymycrit--96-ics,unabletomakeevenshort-termchoicesamongthem:distraughtandanxious.Butcontinualskirmishingispartofanormallife,andsoisthe(negotiated)truce,whenweexperiencewhatBournedescribed:theimmediacyofaselfatpeacewithitscritics,knowingwhatithastodo.CanIsaythatIamchallengedandcorrectedbymorethanoneconscience?(CanSocratesbeimaginedwithmorethanonedaimon?)"Consciences"isanoddpluralwhenappliedtoasingleself.InParadiseLost,Milton'sGodclaimstohaveplacedwithineachofus"MyUmpireConscience."62OneGod,oneumpire:singularityistransitive.Asecularviewsuggestsamorecomplicatedplacement.Consciencemeansshared(moral)knowledge,andifwesharethisknowledgewithotherpeopleratherthanwithGod,wewillalsosharedivergentaccountsandinterpretationsofitsmeaning.Soconscienceisitselfdivided.Myhome-plateumpirecallsastrikebutisoverruledbymythird-baseumpire.Mostly,Irelishtheseinternaldisagreements(muchasIrelishpoliticalconflicts);sometimes,theyareveryhardtolivewith.Perhapsthisdifficultyaccountsformyacceptance,sometimes,ofathinnerconceptionoftheself,accordingtowhichGod'ssingularumpire,orsomeoneelse's,rulessupreme.Hereagain,thecomparisonwithsocialcriticismisuseful.Surelysocietyisservedbestifitscriticsnumbermorethanone.Notasinglecritic,standinginaprivilegedplace,upholdingauniformanduniversalstandard,butavarietyofcriticswithcompetingstandards:then,assumingthatthereisanagent(ademocraticpublic,say)capableofchoosingamongitscritics--eventhoughitcan'tchoosethecriticsthemselves--thereisalsoroomforchoice.Therearealternativeclaimsandproposalstowhichwehavetolisten,whichcan'tbesilencedbysome ____________________62JohnMilton,ParadiseLostIII:195.-97-all-powerful,once-and-for-all,ideologicallycorrectargument.Thecaseisthesamewithself-criticism.IamservedbestifIhavemanyinternalcritics.Pluralismmakesforfreedombecauseitleavesroomforthecanninessoftheself.Buttheredoeshavetobeaselfcapableofcanniness,strongenoughtoabsorballthecriticismsdirectedagainstitandtojudgeamongthem.Theselfisindeeddivided,butitisn't(exceptinpathologicalcases)utterlyfragmented.Icanbestrongandconsistentinthisroleoridentityandtheninthatone;Icanactonbehalfofthisvalueandthenthatone--muchasademocraticstate,despitefierceandon-goingpoliticalcontroversy,canpursueaparticularsetofpoliciesandthenadifferentset.Withoutacoherentpublic,socialcriticismlosesitspoint;withoutacoherentself,anego,ame,thepointofself-criticismissimilarlylost.63ThepictureoftheselfthatIwanttodefendisordered,eveniftheorderisalso,aswewillsee,alwayssubjecttochange.IcanthinkofmyselfasaconfabulationofcriticsonlyifIamsomehowatthecenteroftheconfabulation:notquiteinchargeofallthecriticsbuttheironlylistenerandanswerer,readytosayyesorno(ormaybe)toeachofthem.IVThereisnolinearity,then,andnohierarchy.Theorderoftheselfisbetterimaginedasathicklypopulatedcircle,withmeinthecentersurroundedbymyself-criticswhostandatdifferenttemporalandspatialremoves(butdon'tnecessarilystandstill).InsofarasIamreceptivetocriti-____________________63Seethediscussionoftheselfasthesubjecttowhichactionis"imputed"inPaulRicoeur,OneselfasAnother,trans.KathleenBlarney(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1992),pp.292-293.-98-cism,readyfor(alittle)castigation,Itrytodrawsomeofthecriticscloser,sothatIammoreimmediatelyawareoftheircriticism;orIsimplyincorporatethem,sothattheybecomemyintimateworriers,andIbecomeaworriedself.Iamlikeanewlyelectedpresident,summoningadvisors,formingacabinet.Thoughheiscalledcommander-inchief,hischoicesinfactarelimited,hisfreedomqualified;thepoliticalworldisfullofgivens;ithasahistorythatpredateshiselectoraltriumph.Myinnerworldisfullofgivens,too,culturallybestowedorsociallyimposed--Imaneuveramongtheminsofarastheirpluralityallowsforthemaneuvering.Mylargerself,myworriedself,isconstitutedandself-constitutedbythesumofthemall.Iamthewholecircleandalsoitsembattledcenter. Thisatleastisthethickviewoftheself.Butwhatarewetomakeofanindividualwhoseeverywordandactinviteathindescription?ConsiderwhatIwillcallthedominatedself,whoidentifieswhole-heartedlywith,oryieldseverythingto,asingleall-powerfulcritic.Thereligiousorpoliticalfanaticistheobviousexample:god-possessedorideologicallydriven.Heisalwaysangryorworriedaboutthesamething,thoughheoftensucceedsinprojectingthesefeelingsontotheexternalworld.Theselfisoverwhelmedbythecritical"I,"whichisitselfimmunefromcriticism.Theultra-nationalistisaselfofasimilarsort,Ithink,andsoisthepersonwhochoosesYeats's"perfectionofthework,"judgingeveryhumanrelationship,valuingeverysocialgood,intermsofitscontributiontohissingularpursuitofpowerorwealth...ortruthorbeauty.AllthesecasesrepresenttheendofSartre's"dividedconsciousness,"andthoughthisisanendthatSartreclaimedtofinddesirable,itseemstomeveryunattractive.Foritcan'tbethecasethattheall-powerfulcritical"I"standsalone.Wemustimagineitdominatingotherself-critics,repressingalternativepossibilitieswithintheself.Noonegrowingupinthemodernworldis,asitwere,linearbeforethefact.Onlyrepressionwillmakeus-99-so.Iamnotgoingtotrytodescribeherethepsychologicalmechanismsofrepression(Iarguedinthefourthchapterfortheroleoffearinshapingasingularnationalidentity).Ionlywanttoinsistthatsuchmechanismsmustbeatworkineverypersonwhose"truecharacter"or"normalcondition"issingularandabsolute.Withineverythinself,thereisathickselfyearningforelaboration,largeness,freedom.Thefanatic,theideologue,the"ultra,"theperfectionistwhocaresaboutnothingbuthisownwork:allthesepeoplearenotlistening,deafnotonlytooutsidevoices(likeyoursandmine)butalsotoinsidevoices.Thecriticsarealwaysthere,embodyingorspeakingforthepossibilitiesofthecultureandthelargerself.Butifeveryoneofthesecriticshasaposition--notmerelyaplaceinthegeographyofthemindbutalsoadoctrineandanargument--whatisthepositionoftheself-that-is-criticized?Isthecenterazoneofneutrality?Doesithaveacontent?Ifitdoes,itmustbeachangingcontent,fortheselfasIhavedescribedit,thelisteningself,absorbscriticism,incorporatescritics:itisn'tintimepresentwhatitwasintimepast.Iamconstitutedinpartbymyself-critics.ButImustalsobeimagined--soIhaveargued--asanagentcapableofmaneuveringamongmyconstituentparts.Obviously,Iimaginemyselfthatway,andmyself-criticsagree,ifonlyinordertocondemnmymaneuvers.Forthem,asforme,the"subject"isaliveandwell,thoughalwaysunderpressure.Insimilarfashion,ademocraticpublicchangesitscharacterwithoutlosingitscollectiveidentityorsenseofagency,asitlistensandrespondstosocialcriticism.Butwhatisitthatgovernstheresponse?Isitthesheerpersuasivenessofthecritics?Aredifferentsocietiesanddifferentselvessusceptibletodifferentsortsofcriticism?Aretheresome(minimal)structuralprerequisitesofsocietyandselfhoodtowhicheventhemostsevere(maximalist)criticsmustadjust?Idon'tknowtheanswerstothesequestions.Atitscenter,theselfiswhatitis,"perdur- -100-able,"asLionelTrillinglikedtosay,thoughitsconfigurationchangesoverthecourseofitsendurance.64Itis,ofcourse,ahistoricalandsocialproduct;so,moreobviously,iseachinternalcriticoftheself,reflectingthevaluesofitstimeandplace.Buttheproductionandreproductionofselves,andevenofself-critics,isagreatmystery.Everyselfisitsownself,differentfromalltheothers,inneedofitsowncriticalcircle,responsiveandresistantinitsownways.(Everysocietyisitsownsociety,differentfromalltheothers,inneedofitsowncriticalcircle,andsoon.)Thereisnoidealpatternofinternalrelations.Iaminclinedtosay,ofcourse,thatthick,dividedselvesarethecharacteristicproductsof,andinturnrequire,athick,differentiated,andpluralistsociety.Itdoesnotfollowfromthisassertion,however,thatthereisasingleidealthicknessoftheselfthatcanonlybematchedbyonekindofaccommodatingsocietyorthatthereisasingleidealthicksocietythatcanonlybematchedbyonekindofadaptableself.Nodoubt,wecangivethinaccountsofaccommodationandadaptability,andsometimesitispoliticallyusefultodothat,arguingforasocialorpersonalversionofaminimalistliberalism.Butsuchargumentswillonlytakeussofar;theycan'treachtotherealityofourprivateorourcollectivelives.Therealityisthis:specificsetsofthickselvesfindthemselvesmoreorlessathomeinspecificcomplexsocieties.Therearealwaysmismatches,butwecantrytodrawthe(internalandexternal)boundariesofthesocietyinsuchawayastoreducethepaintheycause.Theboundariesaredrawnpolitically,andwemightusefullyimaginenotonly____________________64LionelTrilling,SincerityandAuthenticity(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1972),p.99.SeethediscussioninMarkKrupnick,LionelTrillingandTheFateofCulturalCriticism(Evanston,Ill.:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1986),esp.chapter9.-101-individualcitizensbutalltheself-criticsandcriticizedselvesoutofwhichthesecitizensareconstitutedasparticipantsinthispolitics.Consider,forexample,onepowerfulcontemporaryself-criticwhodefends(inmyinnerdebatesandprobablyinyours)themodernego-idealofahealthy,lean,andunaddictedself.Thiscriticischallenged,let'ssay,bytheinternalvoiceofskepticismandirony,andevenmorestronglybythevoiceofdesire,butitmakessufficientheadway,hassufficienteffectsonbothattitudesandconduct,soastobecomeafactorinourpoliticalargumentsaboutjustice.Itnolongerseemsrighttothinkofaddictivedrugs,includingcigarettesandalcohol,simplyasmarketablecommodities.Mandatoryhealthwarnings,restrictionsonadvertising,bansonsmokinginpublicspaces,andavarietyofothermeasuresredrawtheboundariesofthemarketandtheunderstandingofpropertyandprivacyrights.Ifinmyowncaseskepticismanddesirehave(temporarily)wonout,thenIammismatchedamongand probablyovermatchedbyallthehealthy,lean,andunaddictedothers.Still,inasocietyofdividedselvesandseparatedspheres,Iamlikelytofindcomradesenoughandspaceenoughtosurvive--peaked,paunchy,andaddicted.Andthattooisamatterofjustice.Thecaseisthesamewithquestionsofroleandidentity.Mymany-sidedself(assailedfromallsides)requiresathicklydifferentiatedsocietyinwhichtoexpressmydifferentcapacitiesandtalents,mydifferentsensesofwhoIam.ButifIamDonQuixote,lanceinhand,tiltingatwindmills,Iwillbemismatchedandovermatched.Theavailablerangeofrolesandidentitiesintwentieth-centuryAmericadoesn'textendtoknighthood--andneednotbeextended.Anygivensocietycanonlyrespondtoalimitednumberofdividedselves,andthesearelikelytobecharacteristicallydividedselves,listeningorrefusingtolistentoroughlythesamesetofmoralcriticsandself-critics,theproductsofacommonhistory,speakinginasimilaridiom.(Thatiswhyaninternalistsocialcriticismcangenerateindignationandguilt.)Societieshaveaparticu--102-lar,andarightlyparticular,shapebecausetheirmembershavecharacteristicselves.Butbecausetheseselvesaredividedandtheirsocietieshighlydifferentiated,pointsofaccessshouldalwaysexistfordeviantmembers.DonQuixote'sexperiencewillberelativelyrare,thoughitcanneverbeavoidedentirely.65Inthesphereofrecognition,especially,somepeoplewillfarebadlybecauseofhistoricalorculturalmismatches.Wemustprotecttheirrightsinotherspheresasbestwecan.Dividedselvesarebestaccommodatedbycomplexequalityindomesticsocietyandbydifferentversionsofself-determinationindomesticandinternationalsociety.Differentversions:notonlythenation-state,whichismostobviouslyappropriateinthosecaseswhereaparticularidentityis,asitwere,undersiege.WhenevertheinnervoicethattellsmeIamaJew,Armenian,Kurd,andsoon,findsonlyaproblematicanddangerousexternalexpression,theprotectiveshelterthatsovereigntyaloneprovidesinthemodernworldseemsmorallyappropriate,perhapsevennecessary.ButIlistentoothervoicesandsorequireotherformsofprotection:religioustoleration,culturalautonomy,individualrights.Itisnotpossibletopickoutthebestprotection,fornovoiceisnecessarilyorrightlydominant;noneofmyself-criticshasthelastword.Iamnotfinallythisorthat--afinishedselftowhomwecanfitafinishedsetofsocialarrangements.NorwhenIworkonmyself,respondingtocriticism,strugglingtofashionabetterself,doIworkinaccordancewithasingleorfinalblueprint.Butnowoneofmyself-criticslooksaskanceatthispluralizingargumentandarguesinturnthatitisself-serving____________________65Norwouldwewantitavoided:themismatchedself,whoseself-criticscome,asitwere,fromoutsidethefamiliarsocialworld,pressesagainstthelimitsofourcollectiveunderstandingsand,sometimes,exploresthelandbeyond. -103-onmypart.Thisdemocracyofcriticismsavesmefromtheharshnessandpersistenceofasinglesupercritic.SoIevadethevoiceoftruth,waitingtotellmehowbadIreallyam.PerhapsIamdoingthat;Ican'tsaythatIamincapableofsuchastrategy.I'mnot,infact,outofmymind.Eveninmynormalcondition,however,Ihearvoices,Iplayparts,Iidentifymyselfindifferentways--andsoImustaimatasocietythatmakesroomforthisdividedself.-104-AcknowledgmentsThesefivechapterswerefirstbroughttogetherintheirpresentformastheFrankM.CoveyJr.,LecturesinPoliticalAnalysisatLoyolaUniversity,Chicago,in1993.IamgratefultoThomasEngemanwhowastheorganizer,host,andresidentcriticformyvisittoLoyola."MoralMinimalism"wasoriginallyapaperpreparedforaconferencesponsoredbytheItalianLibraryinLocarno,Switzerland,andorganizedbytheLibrary'sdirectorAntonioSpadafora.ThepaperwaspublishedinFromtheTwilightofProbability:EthicsandPolitics,ed.WilliamSheaandAntonioSpadafora(Canton,Mass.:ScienceHistoryPublications,USA,1992)."JusticeandTribalism"isarevisedversionofanarticlepublishedinDissentin1992underthetitle"TheNewTribalism"."TheDividedSelf"derivesfromashorterpiecethatappearedinSocialResearchin1987as"NotesonSelf-Criticism".ThefirstfourofthesechapterswerethebasisofasetoflecturesdeliveredattheCollègeInternationaldePhilosophieinParisin1992.ChantalMouffesetupthoselecturesformeanddiscussedthemwithmeduringmyweekinParis.Inadditiontothereviewersandcommentatorsmentionedinthefootnotestothesepages,thereareotherswhosehelpful,ifsometimessharp,criticismIwanttoacknowledgehere:JosephCarens,JoshuaCohen,AmyGutmann,WilliamKymlicka,DavidMiller,SusanOkin,JosephRaz,NancyRosenblum,MichaelRustin,ThomasScanlon,JudithShklar,IanShapiro,andGeorgiaWarnke.Unknowingly,allofthemlookedovermyshoulderasIwroteandrewrotethisbook.Iam,asalways,gladoftheadviceandassistanceofcolleagues,visitingmembers,andstaffattheInstituteforAdvancedStudy.-105-
此文档下载收益归作者所有
