PoliticsandVision
WILLIAME.CONNOLLY
PoliticalTheoryandthePolitical
Tostudypoliticaltheoryin1960wastoparticipateinanenterprisewidely thoughttobemoribund.Theairwasthickwithfuneralorations.Because anewscienceofpoliticswasonthevergeofconsolidation,politicaltheory inthe“normative”or“traditional”sensehadbecomeunnecessary.The oldtheorywasspeculativeandimpressionistic,whilethenewscience wouldberigorousandtestable;theoldmixedthedescriptiveandthenormative,whilethenewwouldseparatethemrigorously;theoldwastoo historicalinfocus,whilethenewscienceoflawfulregularitiestiedtopredictableeventswouldbedrawnfromobservableevidenceinthepresent. Someinterestingquestionsinthevenerabletextsmightbeconvertibleinto testablehypotheses,butinthemainandforthemostpartpoliticaltheory wasinthewayandonthewayout.Sure,theshapeofthefuturescience wasstillmarkedbyuncertainty.Several“models”competedforhegemony.Therewaspublicchoicetheory,decision-makingtheory,systems theory,powertheory,communicationstheory,structural-functionalism, andsoon.But,asDavidEastonputitinaformulationmarkedbyhis typicalpoliteness,theseperspectiveswereunitedintheiroppositionto traditionaltheoryandboundtogetherbypreceptsconveyedbestbythe wordbehavioralism:
Thebehavioralapproachtestifiestothecomingofageoftheoryinthesocial sciencesasawhole,wedded,however,toacommitmenttotheassumptions andmethodsofempiricalscience.Unlikethegreattraditionaltheoriesofpast politicalthought,newtheorytendstobeanalytic,notsubstantive,explanatory ratherthanethical,moregeneralandlessparticular.Thatportionofpolitical researchwhichsharesthosecommitmentstoboththenewtheoryandthetechnicalmeansofanalysisandverificationtherebylinkspoliticalsciencetobroader behavioraltendenciesinthesocialsciences;hence,itsdescriptionaspolitical behavior.1
Thetitleofa1961essaybyIsaiahBerlin,“DoesPoliticalTheoryStill Exist?”wellconveysthesenseofbeleaguermentfeltbymanytheorists. Berlinconcededmuchashecarvedoutaspacefortheory,forhedidnot
CHAPTERONE 4
haveaccesstothecritiqueofthepositivistmodelofthenaturalsciences soontobepublishedbyThomasKuhnandStevenToulmin.Norwashe yetexposedtotheconceptionofnaturalsciencetobedevelopedbyNobel Prize–winningchemistIlyaPrigogineinthe1970s.Prigoginewouldlater contendthatnatureitselfispopulatedmoreby“dissipativestructures” thanbythetimelesssystemsofNewtonianmechanics.Adissipativestructure,exemplifiedbycells,whirlpools,biologicalevolution,aging,andthe evolutionoftheuniverse,hasself-productivecapacities;itismarkedby irreversiblechangesthatgiveitatemporalorhistoricaldimension;and itissusceptibletochangesinthecourseofitsdevelopmentthatareunpredictable.2 Adissipativestructureinnonhumannature,thatis,alreadyexceedstheconceptionof human behaviorandinstitutionallifeacceptedby mostbehavioralistsinBerlin’sday.Ontheotherhand,badmemoriesof behavioralistreductionismstilllingeringintheheartsandmindsofpoliticaltheoristsdiscouragetoomanyfromengagingtheplaceofhumancorporealityinthedensetextureofcultureandexploringtheimplications suchalayeredconceptionofculturemightcarryforthinking,judgment, identity,ethics,andconflictinpolitics.Whilemostpoliticaltheoristsadvanceconceptionsofconsciousness,language,andintersubjectivitythat riseabovethedullregularityofanearlierbehavioralism,toomanyremain soburnedbythebehavioralreductionsofmatter,nature,corporeality, andsensibilitythattheyfailtofoldsophisticatedunderstandingsofcorporealityintopoliticalthought.Conceptionsoflanguage,freedom,identity, anddifferencewilladvanceconsiderablyasdynamicconceptionsofmatter,biology,andhumancorporealityarecurledintothem.
ButBerlin,asIsaid,lackedaccesstosuchperspectives.Conveyinga senseofbewildermentwiththeoverweeningconfidenceofbehavioralism, hesoughttocarveoutaspecific domain forpoliticaltheory.
ButIshouldliketosayonceagainthatunlesspoliticaltheoryisconceivedin narrowlysociologicalterms,itdiffersfrompoliticalscienceoranyotherempiricalinquiryinbeingconcernedwithsomewhatdifferentfields;namelywithsuch questionsaswhatisspecificallyhumanandwhatisnot,andwhy;whether specificcategories,saythoseofpurposeorofbelongingtoagrouporoflaw, areindispensabletounderstandingwhatmenare;andsoinevitably,withthe source,scopeandvalidityofcertainhumangoals.3
Thisdefenseofthetheoryenterprise,whilecontainingpromisingformulations,wasdoomedtobetranslatedbyitsopponentsintotheidea thatwhile“facts”canbeexplained,“values”remainoutsidetheprovince ofthescientificenterprise.Oncesotranslated,scientists-in-waitingwere eagertoagreetoitsterms.Berlin’sdefenseoftheoryacquiresmoredensity whenheinsiststhat“ourpoliticalnotionsarepartofourconceptionof whatitistobehuman,andthisisnotsolelyaquestionoffact,asfacts
areconceivedbythenaturalsciences;northeproductofconsciousreflectionuponthediscoveriesofanthropologyorsociologyorpsychology, althoughallthesearerelevantandindeedindispensabletoanadequate notionofthenatureofmaningeneral.”4 Theeffectintersubjectiveconceptionsofourselvescanhaveuponwhoweareandhowwebehavethrows awrenchintothepredictiveaspirationsofthebehavioralmodel.Fora newtheoryofbehavior,onceengagedbythosewhoseconductitexplains, mightinfiltrateintotheirunderstandingsandconductinwaysthatunsettletheoriginalexplanationorsparknewcoursesofactionbeyondthe imaginationoftheexplainers.Thispossibilityisendemicaslongasthe lineofcommunicationbetweenexplainersandexplaineesisnotclosedby politicalmeans,fortheconceptshumanactorshaveaboutthemselves,as Berlinsays,enterintotheveryconstitutionoftheiractionsandpractices.
ButBerlinhesitatestopushthistheme.Thelasthalfofthesentencein questionalmostreinstatesadivisionoflaborbetweenpoliticalscientists andpoliticaltheoristsinwhichtheconceptionofscienceprojectedby behaviorialistsishonoredwhenconfinedtoitsproperdomain.Theidentityoftheaggressors,wecanseeinretrospect,filteredintotheself-identificationoftheresistance.ThisStockholmEffectshowsthattheself-reflexiveloopcanhavestultifyingaswellasemancipatingeffects.Berlin’s defensiveefforttocarveoutarestrictivedomainfortheoryexemplifiesa largersetofsuchattemptsduringthissameperiod.5
Berlin,recall,askswhetherpoliticaltheory still exists.Thatlittleword speaksvolumes:“Istillbelieve;Istilldemand;Istillhope;Istillexist.” Ineachcasetheaffirmativeverbisdiminishedbythe“still”appendedto it,butparticularlyinthelastinstance.Sowhenitqualifiestheveryexistenceoftheory,thatenterpriseisreducedtoatransparencyofitself.“Politicaltheorystillexists.”Theghostacquiresalittlecolor,however,when Berlinfinallyturnstotheroleofhistoryinpoliticalthought.Wecannot knowverymuchabouttheideasandconceptsgoverningus,heinsists, unlesswecomparethemtothosesetindifferenttimesandplaces.Those comparisonsinturndonotrundeepunlessthebestperspectivesinone eraarecomparedtothemostprofoundvisionsinothers.Thebalance betweencontinuityanddifferentiationacrosstimebecomesdifficultto assesswhenyouattemptsuchtemporalcomparisons,butthepotential payoffisimpressive.Youaregraduallydrawntoward“secondorder statements”thatdonotfitneatlyintothecategoryeitheroffactorof value.Youcannowexploredeep,persistentquestionsabouthumanity, legitimacy,virtue,authority,andpolitics,questions“whichifnoteternal anduniversal,arefarmorestableandwidespreadthanthoseofthesciences,sufficientlycontinuous,indeed,toconstituteacommonworld whichwesharewithmedievalandclassicalthinkers.”6 Itisfromthese
connectionsanddifferentiationsacrosstimethatthemostsignificant spurstocontemporarypoliticalthoughtarise.
Theconcerns,anxieties,andpromisediscernibleinBerlin’sessaytella lotaboutthepredicamentofpoliticaltheoryintheearly1960sinEnglishspeakingcountries.He,likenumeroustheoristswhoreadhisessay,internalizedseveralproblematicalassumptionsofthosewhopronouncedthe enterprisedead.Andyethisinvolvementinthehistoryofpolitical thoughtallowedhimtoriseabovethoseinternalizationstosomedegree.
Theimpressivethingabout PoliticsandVision:ContinuityandInnovationinWesternPoliticalThought,publishedbySheldonWolinin1960, isthatitcarriesBerlin’seffortseveralstepsfartherunderthesamecircumstancesofduress. PoliticsandVision didnotsimplytellushowimportant itistoaddressthe“tradition”ofWesternpoliticalthought,itengaged comparativelyaseriesofexemplarypoliticalthinkersinpre-Christian thought,Christendom,andthemodernworldinawaythatrevivifiedthe energy,confidence,andvisionofanentiregenerationofpoliticaltheorists. Thebookdoesnottarrylongoverobstaclesandbarrierstothetheory enterprise,thoughitsbriefreferencestothesematterswereamplyappreciatedbyyoungreaderswhogobbledthemup.Onemarkofitssignificance isthatforatleastthreedecadesafteritspublicationahordeofgraduate studentsstudyingforcomprehensiveexaminationsinpoliticaltheory useditasaprimarysourceofguidanceandinspiration.Andwhoknows howmanyassistantprofessorshavemodeledtheirintroductorytheory coursesonit?Icouldnameone,atleast.Otherscanconfessontheirown time.
Wolinbegins PoliticsandVision withapreviewofthetheoryenterprise ashepracticesit.Weknowthatpoliticsistheclashandclangofdifferent interestsandidealsinpubliclife.Butwhatis“thepolitical”?“Whatisit thatdistinguishes,say,politicalauthorityfromotherformsofauthority, ormembershipinapoliticalsocietyfrommembershipinotherformsof association?”7 Whateverthepoliticalwasandhasbecome,thetradition ofpoliticaltheory,extendingfromatleastPlatotothepresent,hasplayed asignificantroleincraftingitandcarryingitsinsightsforward.Tostudy Plato,Aristotle,Augustine,Machiavelli,Hobbes,Locke,Rousseau,and Millcriticallyandcomparatively,asWolindoesinthisbook,istohelp clarifywhatthepoliticalhasbeen,howithasbeendebatedandrevised, whatturnsonthesedebatesandrevisions,andwhatchangesmightbe madeinitscontemporarycompass.“FromitsverybeginningsinGreece, theWesternpoliticaltraditionhaslookeduponthepoliticalorderasa commonordercreatedtodealwiththoseconcernsinwhichallofthe membersofsocietyhavesomeinterest.”8
Thefirstlengthyquotationin PoliticsandVision isapassagefrom Plato’s Protagoras. Thestatementpointstothesignificanceandpersistenceofthequestionofthepoliticalinhumanaffairs.IntheDialogue, thegodsareconcernedthat“menwoulddestroyeachother”unlessthey wereprovidedwith“justiceandvirtue.”
Zeusfearedthattheentireracewouldbeexterminated,andsohesentHermes tothem,bearingreverenceandjusticetobetheorderingprinciplesofcitiesand thebondsoffriendshipandconciliating.HermesaskedZeushowheshould impartjusticeandreverenceamongmen:—Shouldhedistributethemasthe artsaredistributed;thatistosay,toafavoredfewonly[or]...toall?“Toall,” saidZeus.“Ishouldlikethemalltohaveashare;forcitiescannotexist,ifa fewshareonlyinthevirtues,asinthearts.”9
ThisquotationpointstoapersistentthemeinWolin’sworkand,perhaps,toastubborntensioninsideit.First,itdramatizestheinternalconnectionbetweenthepolitical,thecommon,theordinary,andthepeople. Second,itsymbolizesthedifficultyofacquiringtheneededcapacitiesby havingthegodsbestowthemonthepeoplefromabove.But,third,by settingthesetermsinapolytheisticratherthanamonotheisticcontext Wolinhesitatestobuildtoomuchunity,identity,oruniformityintothem; hemaintainsroomfortheevanescenceofthenewthroughthecreativity ofordinarypeople.And,fourth,thelinkagesbetweenpolytheism,plurality,andcommonalityalsoexpressinembryoaWolinesquetendencyto downgradequestionsaboutthedivinesource,transcendentalground, finalend,orcontractualbasisofauthority,justice,legitimacy,andmembershipinfavorofaliving,immanent,andengagedpoliticsofcommonality.Thegodsbestowagift.Theydonotissueacommandorinstalla necessarylogic.Thislastprotocolisimportant.Forifthepeopleare tightlygovernedbyapriormoralorder,theirownagencyisconfinedand delimited.Butifthepeopledonothaveacertainelementofcommonality therewillbelittleopportunityforthepoliticaltofindexpressionthrough it.WhateverthecommonandthepoliticalbecomeasWolin’sjourney unfolds,thetensioninsidetheseideascontinuestoreverberate.Thesetensions,youmightevensay,arepartofthepolitical,particularlyasitfinds expressionthrough“ContinuityandInnovationinWesternPolitical Thought.”
Thethinkingofepictheoristsisreducibleneithertothecategoryofthe “normative”nortothatofthe“descriptive.”Rather,theyconjurevisions ofthepoliticalthatextendourimaginationsandenableustopursuepossibilitiesthatwouldotherwisebelost.Toenhanceourimaginationofthe possible,eventoinspire us tobringsomethingnewintobeing,theyare oftenrequiredtoexaggeratecertaintendenciesinthepresent.
Wecaneasilydisposeofthepossibilitythatpoliticaltheoristswereunaware thattheywereinjectingimaginationorfancyintotheirtheories.Rather,they believedthatfancy,exaggeration,evenextravagance,sometimespermitusto seethingsthatarenototherwiseapparent.Theimaginativeelementhasplayed aroleinpoliticalphilosophysimilartothatColeridgeassignedtoimagination inpoetry,an“esemplastic”powerthat“formsallintoonegracefulintelligent whole”...Fancyneitherprovesnordisproves;itseeks,instead,toilluminate, tohelpusbecomewiseraboutpoliticalthings.10
Aftertreatingustoseveralchaptersonwhatthepoliticalhasbecome inthehandsoftheoristsofGreeklife,Christendom,andearlymodern liberalism,Wolinturnsinthelastchaptertocontemporaryforcesthat promoteasublimationofthepolitical.Hecontendsthatthepoliticalhas becomediffusedintoaseriesofcorporate,constitutional,organizational estatesthatpullpoliticsawayfromacommonsetofconcerns.Adopting astrategythatwouldlaterbecomeidentifiedtodifferenteffectwiththe workofMichelFoucault,Wolinarguesthatthesearchesforcommunity andrationalorganization,generallytakentobecontendingresponsesto thealienationofmodernlife,combinefunctionallytosublimatethepolitical.“Mypremiseisthattheideaswhichhavesignificantlyinfluencedour politicalandsocialworld,andshapedthewayweinterpretit,represent ablendofthetheoriesofahighlydiversegroupofwriters.Inthewaywe understandtheworldwearepartlythedebtorsofMarx,butalsoofde Maistre,partlyofLeninandalsoofmanagerialism.”11 Whenyouadd RousseauandSaint-Simontothelist,asWolineventuallydoes,youhave themakingsofamodernworldinwhichpoliticalinvolvementwiththe highestinterestsofthepolitydissolvesintoapoliticalmodesofmanagementandparochialsitesofbelonging.Evenmodernconstitutionaltheory participatesinthepoliticsofsublimation.
Duringthepasttwocenturiesthevisionofpoliticaltheoryhasbeenadisintegratingone,consistentlyworkingtodestroytheideathatsocietyoughtproperly tobeconsideredasawholeandthatitsgenerallifewasbestexpressedthrough politicalforms Thishasbeendonebyreducingthepoliticalassociationto thelevelofotherassociationsatthesametimethatthelatterhavebeenelevated tothelevelofthepoliticalorderandendowedwithmanyofitscharacteristics andvalues.12
Thetaskistoreestablishapracticeofcitizenshipthatraisespeople abovetheparticularrolestheyplayinwork,family,investment,consumption,andreligion.Theurgencyofthetaskisclear,forit“isthepolitical orderthatismakingfatefuldecisionsaboutman’ssurvivalinanage hauntedbythepossibilityofunlimiteddestruction.”13
TheSinsofMethodism
Wolin’s PoliticsandVision closesonaplaintivenote,then.Buthereturnedtotheseissuesina1969essaythatbecameasimportanttotheoristsofthedayasthebook.Whilehehadinitiallytreatedthequestfor communityandorganizationastwinsourcesofthesublimationofthe political,inthenewessaythenexusbetweenmethodisminpoliticalscienceandthecharacterofpoliticaleducationassumescenterstage.The behavioralismWolinhadtriedtobracketin1960nowplayssuchanimportantroleinuniversitylifethatitposesathreattopoliticaleducation itself.Itmayseemthattogiveprimacytomethodinpoliticalresearch simplyimpoverishesthequalityofresearch.Wolinthinksotherwise.IntimatinganaffinitybetweenChristianmethodismandbehavioristfaith, Wolinsays“‘Methodism’isultimatelyaproposalforshapingthe mind.”14 Howso?Thedemandtoreducelargeideastotestablehypothesis,toeliminatepersonal“bias”inyourresearch,todeveloprefinedstatisticalskills,andtostateyourfindingsaslawfulregularitiesisnotonlyto takevaluabletimeawayfromacquiringmorerefinedskills,itisalsoto losetouchwiththeculturalwisdomalreadystoredinyouas“tacitknowledge.”Moreover,inordertosustaintheircontestablefaithinlawfulregularities,behavioralistsarepressedtoadvanceschemesofeducation,research,andprofessionalinductionthatactuallyhelptomanufacturesuch regularities.Methodismsecretesapoliticsthatinsinuatesregularitiesinto thedensecultureotherwiserepletewithpivotalmomentsofsurpriseand creativity.Inthisessay,Wolinsuggestshowandwhytheapparentlyneutralcommitmenttotheprimacyofmethodsooftengoestogetherwith anoperationalpoliticsofnarrowpragmatism,complacentcentrism,and whatlaterwouldcometobecalledthepoliticsofnormalization. Suchapoliticalworldsnuglyfitsthemethodist’sneed,notonlyforthesecurity itprovidesforhisinvestigations,butalsofortheassuredregularitiesitgives himtoinvestigate....What sortofpoliticalcommitmentislikelyfromaself whichhasbeenpurgedofinheritednotions[and]pledgedtothesupportof existingpoliticalandmoralschemes?...Aselfofthistypeislikelytotreat politicsandmoralsinawaythatavoidsfundamentalcriticismasafundamental commitment.15
Muchoftheessayconsistsofquotationsfromleadingpractitionersof thedaytodocumenttheactualityofthisconnection.Wolinthusgivesthe lietotheseparationbetweenfactsandvaluesbyexploringhowtheprimacyofmethodinsinuatesitselfintothepoliticalsensibilityofresearchers andthemodeofpoliticaleducationtheysupport.Nowondersomebehavioralistsstillshudderwhenhisnamecomesup.
Politicaleducation,forWolinhimself,isintimatelyboundtotheacquisition,dissemination,andimprovementoftacitknowledge.Tacitknowledge,byitsverycharacter,isnotfullyavailabletoexplicitformulation. Itisembeddedinvisceralhabitsofperceptionandexperience,expressed ininstitutionalpresumptions,andmodifiedthroughengagementwith profoundtheoriesofpoliticsinothertimesandplaces.Tacitknowledge isnotonlycrucialtocreativityinpoliticalthought,itisanathematothe primacyofmethodinpoliticalresearchandeducation.AsWolinplays outthesepoints,hereturnstotheprimacyofvisioninpoliticaltheory.
Vision,asIhavetriedtoemphasize,dependsforitsrichnessontheresources fromwhichitcandraw.Theseextra-scientificconsiderationsmaybeidentified moreexplicitlyasthestockofideaswhichanintellectuallycuriouspersonaccumulatesandwhichcometogovernhisintuitions,feelings,andperceptions. Theyconstitutethesourcesofhiscreativity,yetrarelyfindexplicitexpression informaltheory.Lyingbeyondtheboundariescircumscribedbymethod,techniqueandtheofficialdefinitionofadiscipline,theycanbesummarizedasculturalresourcesanditemizedasmetaphysics,faith,historicalsensibility,ormore broadly,astacitknowledge.Becausethesemattersbearafamilyresemblance to“bias”theybecomesacrificialvictimtothequestforobjectivityinthesocial sciences.16
TheaboveformulationdisplaysWolin’svisionofpoliticaleducationin action.AtthebeginningoftheessayWolinlinked,casuallyatfirst,three issuescommonlyheldapart:theprimacyofmethod,theconceptionof thepoliticalitsecretes,andthecharacterofpoliticaleducationitsupports.Then,movingbackandforthacrossthesethemes,hepreparesyou foracompactformulationthatmayleaveapermanentmarkonyour thinking.Youmightdissentfromitinsomerespect,butifso,itnow becomesclearhowmuchworkyoumustdotomakeyourclaimworthy ofattention.Wolin,inshort,performsthepoliticaleducationhepreaches. Inthecasebeforeushedeepensourappreciationoftheubiquityoftacit knowledge,recallshowitfindsvariablemodesofexpressioninthefabric ofour“intuitions,feelings,andperceptions,”andshowshowmethodism evisceratesthatwisdomthroughthereductionofknowledgetoexplicit formulation,thecontractionoftraditionto“bias”andthecompression ofeducationtoformaltraining.Itseemslesslikely(tome)thatthetacit dimensionisevisceratedbythemethodicalstricturesnoted,butmore likelythatthesepracticesthemselvesenterintoapoliticsofnormalization operatingbelowthethresholdofsubstantiveformulationorexplicit moraljudgment.
Thecelebrationoftacitknowledgefindsitsmostconfidentanddense expressioninaconservativetemper,onethatenactsmodestmodifications uponanintimatetraditioncarriedacrosslong,slowtime.ButWolin,un-
likeBurkeandOakeshott,andlikeHegel,Marx,andNietzsche,joinsthe tacitdimensiontoathemeinpartialtensionwithit.Sometimespeople live,hesays,inasystemthatis“systematicallyderanged.”The depth of thatderangement,itseems,isduetothetacitdimensionitself.Today, Wolinthinks,weliveinasystemthatcontainssystematicinjusticesand imbalances.Becausethetacitdimensionissedimentedintoperceptions, feelings,visceraljudgments,andinstitutionaldispositions,someofit,we cannowsee,consistsofintuitiveprejudicesthatmakepowerfulclaims uponourjudgmentsandidentities.Methodismismerelyoneofthem.
Wolin’stendencytodismiss“technique”ingeneralandhis(later)resistancetoagenealogicalelementinpoliticalinterpretationmaybecomea liabilityhere.Forgenealogy,whilesurely insufficient topoliticsandpoliticaleducation,isnonethelessimportanttoaworldinwhichsystematic injusticeflowsintothematerialsedimentationsoftacitknowledge.Itis acriticalstrategybywhichtoexcavateandpartiallydisassembleasubset oftacitprejudicesincircumstanceswhenyouhavecometosuspectthat theyimposehiddeninjuriesuponminorityconstituencies.Genealogy reachesmoredeeplyintothevisceralregisterthan,say,simpledeliberation.Anditaddressesmoreprofoundlythanthedisembodiedlogicof “immanentcritique”theflowofcorporealchargesintovisceralpatterns ofjudgment.Wolinhimselfpracticesathoughtfulvarietyofthatartfrom timetotime,asinthelastchapterof PoliticsandVision,andinthesubterraneanlinkagesheuncoversintheessaybeforeusbetweencommitment tomethodismandadullmodelofpoliticaleducation.
What,though,areyouto do ifandwhenelementsinyourtacitknowledgenowappeartoyouashabits,feelings,orvisceraljudgmentsinneed ofmodification?Areyoutowillthemaway?Trythatwithsmokingand drinking,orevenwithtryingnottocallaloverwhohasjustrejectedyou. Areyoutodissolvethemthroughthepowerofpuredeliberation?Try thatwiththesamethings.IsWolin,forgod’ssake,simplyadeliberative democrat?
Supposeyoubecomewaryofthesenseofdisgustorpanicyoufeelin yourgutwhen,say,atheistsorgaysarticulatetheirorientationstodeath, marriage,orsexinpublicforums.Thegut,wenowknow,containsa simplecorticalorganization;andtheculturaltransactionsthroughwhich itisorganizedissueinthought-imbuedintensitiesthatmakepowerful claimsuponyourhabits,actions,andintellectualjudgments.Suchheartfeltintuitionsmaynotbemovablebywillordeliberationalone,then. Buttheymightyieldalittletoartsoftheselfandmicropoliticalpractices thatenactnewversionsofthoseinteractionsbetweensound,feeling, image,touch,concept,andbeliefthroughwhichtheintuitionswereorganizedinthefirstplace.Ihavepursuedthe constitutiveconnection betweenpoliticaleducationandmicropoliticselsewhere.ButWolin’sem-
phasisontherelationbetweentacitknowledgeandpoliticaleducation alsoinvitesexplorationoftheconnectionsbetweentheseartsandthe practiceshecommends.
PerhapsWolincouldpursuesuchartswhilelinkingthemtothepolitics ofattunementarticulatednoblybyCharlesTaylorandFredDallmayrin themono-theo-teleologicaltradition.Theteleologicaldemocratspursue anintrinsic,ifplastic,purposewithintacitknowledgeitself,whilepostNietzscheandemocratscontendthattheundesignedcharacterandelementofmobilityintheimmanentregisterrenderitsusceptibletopatterns ofconsolidationandhabituationthatmayvarysignificantlywithinand acrosspoliticalcultures.Endorsementofateleologicalmetaphysicwould givehegemonytothecommoninWolin’sconceptionofthepolitical, ratherthanfocusingonthedifficultanduncertaintaskofopeningand reopeningthequestionofhowtonegotiatebetweenthedictatesofthe commonandthepressuresofthenewinspecificcontexts.ButifthequotationfromZeuscitedearliercarriesasmuchweightasIattributetoit, therearesharplimitstohowfarWolincangoinconnectingtacitknowledgetoanintrinsicpurposeofbeing.WhenWolin’sengagementwiththe roleoftacitknowledgeisjoinedtohispaganappreciationofadeeppluralityofbeingheispulledtowardinsertingintotheveryideaofthepoliticalaconstitutivetensionbetweenestablishedcommonalityandthepoliticsofbecoming.Thatseemstosquarewiththetextswehaveexamined sofar.Butifitdoes,whydoesWolinactinhislaterworkasifthose whoexplicitlyaddressthisconstitutivetensioninthepoliticalonlypay attentiontotheregisterofbecoming,difference,anddiversity?Doesthis newchargereflecthisresponsetoachangedpoliticalcontextorashiftin hisbasicorientationtopolitics?
Tacitknowledge,Wolinsays,containsanelementoffaithandmetaphysics.Thisacknowledgmentplaceshimatoddswithcontemporaries suchasDworkin,Rawls,Rorty,andHabermaswhocelebratelatemodernityasatimewhenmetaphysicshasbeenlaidtorestorshuffledintothe background.Butitalsoopensupapotentialdialoguebetweenhimand thosewhobringcriticalmetaphysicalorientationstoengagementwith thetacitdimensionofpolitics.ThenamesGeorgeKateb,GillesDeleuze, MichelFoucault,JudithButler,HenriBergson,WilliamJames,Wendy Brown,RichardFlathman,SheldonWolin,HannaPitkin,StevenWhite, MichaelOakeshott,MartinHeidegger,HansGadamer,CharlesTaylor, andFredDallmayrmerelyindicatethelivelinessoftheseissuesandthe diversityofcontemporaryorientationstothem.IfyouaddEmmanuelLevinastothelist,asAryehBotwinickdoes,andifyourecallthatboth JamesandBergsonaffirmedanonteleologicalconceptionofdivinity,it canbeseenthatthepositionyouassumeontheintrinsicdiversityor purposeofbeingisnotnecessarilyalignedwiththeoneyouaffirmon
atheism,monotheism,orpolytheism.ForLevinas,onAryehBotwinick’s reading,embracesafugitivemonotheismthatrespectsadiversityof being.SodoBergsonandJamesonmine.
Significantasthesedifferentrenderingsofthetacitdimensionmaybe forthevisionofpoliticsyouendorse,evenmorepertinentarethecompelling connections betweenthem.Forinsidethesevariablerenderingsofthe tacitdimension,thebestwaystomoveit,andthefundamentalcharacter ofbeinginwhichitisset,allthesetheorists converge withWoliningiving prominencetoatacitdimensionofpolitics,thedensityoftheory,the complexityofpoliticaleducation,andthelayeredcharacterofpolitical engagement.
Today,debatesovertherelationbetweenmethodsofresearchandpoliticaleducationposedsobrilliantlybyWolinin“TheVocationofPolitical Theory”nolongerassumethedualismofacontestbetween“political theorists”and“politicalscientists.”ThanksinnosmallparttoWolin, thelayeredcharacterofpoliticalcultureisnowexploredinseveralways bypoliticaltheorists.Andnumerousstudentsofcomparativepolitics,internationalrelations,andAmericanpoliticsalsoappreciatethetacitdimensionsofpoliticallife.Theystrivetoincorporatethatunderstanding intotheirinterpretivework.Theolddebatebetweenmethodistsandeducationistsnowproceedsinside“subfields”ofpoliticalscienceaswellas betweenthem.
FugitiveDemocracy
Theessayonpoliticaleducationdeferredtheissueofthepoliticalposed sosharplyin PoliticsandVision,eventhoughitcouldbeheardrumbling offstage.Thepoliticalreturnstocenterstage,however,inWolin’smost recentwork.Weshallexamineitinthecontextof“FugitiveDemocracy,” anessaypublishedin1996.ThecontinuityinWolin’sthoughtissuggested bythedefinitionswithwhichhebegins.
Ishalltakethe political tobeanexpressionoftheideathatafreesocietycomposedofdiversitiescannonethelessenjoymomentsofcommonalitywhen, throughpublicdeliberations,collectivepowerisusedtopromoteorprotectthe wellbeingofthecollectivity. Politics referstothelegitimizedpubliccontestation,primarilybyorganizedandunequalsocialpowers,overaccesstotheresourcesavailabletothepublicauthoritiesofthecollectivity.Politicsiscontinuous,ceaseless,andendless.Incontrast,thepoliticalisepisodic,rare.17
Thiscontinuity,however,iscompromisedtosomedegreebythemood ofdisappointmentthatseemstopervadetheessay.Whilethepolitical retainsitscentrality,itisnowsaidtobeepisodicandrareinessence.It
islinkedcloselytodemocraticenergies,whicharethemselveslimitedto episodicappearancesinthelate-modernage.Why?Well,first,thereis thedominanceofthecorporatesector,insideandoutsidethestate.Its independentmarketpowersandpresumptivegovernmentalprerogatives createsteepobstaclestoeconomicequalityandecologicalprotectionthat mightotherwiseemergefromthecommonexperienceofcitizens.The globalizationofeconomiclifeaddsanotherlayerofobstacles.Thenthere is,Wolinsays,theprominenceofconstitutionalism.Aconstitutionalregimealsoguardsthestatefromtheebullienceandunpredictabilityofthe people:“Insumaconstitutionregulatestheamountofdemocraticpolitics thatisletin.”18 Finally,anewentrantintotheantipoliticalcanopynow appears,the“postmodern”sensibilitythathassweptthroughtheacademyandinfiltratedsocialmovements,themedia,film,andinternational conferences.Wolinarticulatestheperniciouseffectsofthepostmodern severaltimes.
Postmodernculturalpoliticsfollowsinthefootstepsofnationalismininsisting uponboundariesthatestablishdifferences(asingenderorracialpolitics)but proclaimidentitiesaswell.Here,too,thepoliticalbecomesassociatedwith purificationor,moreprecisely,areversalinwhichthestigmaofimpurityas wellasthebadgeofpurityisswitchedsothatthepariahorvictimizedgroupis nowpure,eveninnocent,whilethedominantgroupisimpure.
Thuswhereasboundariessignifiedtotheearlymodernthelimitsofthepolitical,tothepostmoderntheyareasignofitslimitations....The highestpolitical expressionofthepostmodernidealisofaRioConferencewheretherepresentativesofboundary-transcendinghumaninterestsmeetface-to-facewithrepresentativesofsovereignstates.
Themanyphenomenathatseemtoescapeortranscendboundaries,forexampleelectroniccommunications,areoftencitedasconfirmationofthereal existenceofthepostmodern.Ifsuchisthecase,thenthatdevelopmentmay shedsomelightnotonlyofthefutureofthestate,anditsconceptionofthe political,butalsoonthedemocraticornondemocratictendencyofthepostmodern.19
Onecouldmodulatetheseformulationsbyciting“postmodern”critiquesofthepoliticsofpurity,engagementswiththeambiguityofidentitiesandboundaries,andexplorationsofmultiplesitesofpoliticalaction, includinglocalactions,socialmovementsaimedatthestate,andcrossnational,nonstatistmovementsinsupportofecology,genderrights,and soon.ButletussettheaccuracyofWolin’srepresentationasidefornow infavorofanotherquestion.Hehasalreadytoldusthatepictheorists use“fancy,exaggeration,evenextravagancesometimes”toallowusto “seethingsthatarenototherwiseapparent.”WhatisWolingettingat throughhisextravagance?
Wolin’sanxietyisthatthepostmodernfocuson“difference”addsanotherobstacletodemocraticactiononbehalfofcommonneeds.Wolin himselfsupports“diversity,”buthealsoinsiststhatitspreconditionsof existenceinvolveapoliticsofthecommon.Ironically,theformulations throughwhichhenowexpressesthiscombinationbearafamilyresemblancetothoseadvancedbysometheoristshewouldcallpostmodern, eventhoughtheinflectionsdiffer.Letuslistentoafewformulationsin whichhenegotiatestheinterdependenceandtensionbetweendiscovering thecommonandcreatingnewcommonalities,respectingoldboundaries andinstallingnewones,andpursuinggrassrootsinitiativesandaddressingthemultiplesitesofpoliticalagencyabovethelocaltowhich theymustalsospeak:
Butthroughouthistoryitisnotdifficulttoidentifythesocialgroupswhose interestshavebeenconsistentlyexploitedsoastorendercommonalityamockery;ithasbeenthesamegroupsthathavebeenexcludedfromactiveparticipationinthepolitical.
Revolutionsactivatethedemosanddestroyboundariesthatbaraccessto politicalexperience.Individualsfromtheexcludedsocialstratatakeonresponsibilities,deliberateaboutgoalsandchoicesandshareindecisionsthathave broadconsequencesandaffectunknownanddistantothers.
Yetitmaybearguedthatabeliefintherestorativepowerofdemocracyis stillpartoftheAmericanpoliticalconsciousness.Certaineventssupportthat belief:therecurrentexperienceofconstitutingpoliticalsocieties... beginning withcolonialtimesandextendingthroughtheRevolutionandbeyondtothe westwardmigrations...;themovementtoabolishslaveryandtheabortive effortatreconstructingAmericanlifeonthebasisofracialequality;thePopulist andagrarianrevoltsofthenineteenthcentury;thestruggleforautonomous tradeunionsandforwomen’srights;thecivilrightsmovementofthe1960’s andtheantiwar,anti-nuclearandecologicalmovementsofrecentdecades.
Thepossibilityofrenewaldrawsonasimplefactthatordinaryindividuals arecapableofcreatingnewculturalpatternsofcommonalityatanymoment. Individualswhoconcerttheirpowersforlowincomehousing,workerownershipoffactories,betterschools,betterhealthcare,saferwater,...andathousandothercommonconcernsofordinarylivesareexperiencingademocratic momentandcontributingtothediscovery,careandtendingofacommonality ofsharedconcerns.20
Democracyisfugitiveandsporadic,then.Whenitburstsontothescene itextendsoldfrontiersbydrawingnewgroups,concerns,priorities,supports,orrightsintothem.Hence,democracymustnotbegovernedtoo tightlybyapriorsetofmoralprinciples,constitutionalrules,corporate dictates,ornormativecodes.Democraticspontaneityencodesameasure ofuncertaintyandindeterminacyintotheoperativepoliticsofthepoliti-
CHAPTERONE 16
cal.Note,too,thebarriersthatmustbeovercome:oftencorporatepower mustbefaceddown;sometimespriorcourtdecisionsmustbeofficially interpretedtobepartoftheConstitution;veryoftentheestablishedcontoursofelectoralpoliticsmustbedefined.Stillanotherbarrierisinvolved oftenenough,eventhoughitisnotemphasizedbyWolin:intheinstances ofemancipationofAfrican-Americans,laborunions,civilrights,women’srights,andtheantiwarmovement,whatwaspreviouslytakentobe anessentialpartofthecommonworldbyamajorityordominantportion ofthepeople hadtobemovedbycreativeandbraveminoritiesuntila newpossibilitybecameinstalledinthediversityofthecommon.
Thatis,theweightofthecommonitselfoftenposesbarrierstothe politicalextensionofdemocracy.Itisinvokedtomarginalizeorliquidate challengestotheorder.ThoseWolincallspostmodernistsoftenparticipateinsuchcriticalmovements,workingtoredefinethecommonterms ofdiscourseinonewayoranother.Sometimestheytakeaimatlocal authorities.Atothertimestheyaddressuniversities,corporations,the state,nationalandinternationalchurches,theinterstatesystem,orsome partthereof.Sometimestheymixintothoseeffortscreativeactionaimed atmodifyingordinarysensibilitiesinparticulardomains.Totheextent Wolinacknowledgesaconstitutivetensionbetweenthepoliticsofestablishedcommonalityandthepoliticsofbecoming,bywhichthecommon ischangedorpluralized,wearehisallies.Totheextenthetendstodivest himselfofthistensionbypretendingthatweonlyaddressthepoliticsof differenceandbecoming,wearehiscritics.
Theambiguityinthecommonsuggeststome,then,anirreducibleambiguityinthepoliticalitself.Sometimestheresourcesofcommonalitycan bedrawnupontoexpandtheinclusivenessoftheorder;butsometimes elementsinitmustberesistedandmovedbycreativeminoritiesdefined initiallytobenarcissists,outcasts,ormisfitsbymanyordinarypeople. Oftenenough,bothtendenciescomeintoplay.Thefilms Mr.SmithGoes toWashington and TheEnemyofthePeople,takentogether,dramatize bothpossibilitiesinthecommon.Thatambiguity,inturn,helpstoexplain whysomeofusrefusetotreatconstitutionalismsimplyasabarrierto democracy.Thepoliticalnowbeginstolookimpureandessentiallyambiguous,butnolessimportantforallthat.Itsimpurityandambiguity mayformpartofthefugitivecharacterWolinsoinsightfullyattachesto democracy.
WhenyoureachtheitemsonWolin’sfinallistofcitizenmovements, thepositiveforceofthecommonshinesthroughmostvividly.Theseare thingstheorderneedstosustaingeneralinclusionandfreedom.Still, whenordinaryindividualsfromdifferentwalksoflifebandtogetherfor betterschools,workerownership,betterhealthcare,orsaferwater,what shapeandtexturedotherelevantassemblagesassume?Dodiverseindi-
vidualsandgroupsbandtogetheraroundasharedgoal?Oristhepolitical constellationitselfoftendiverseinshape,motivation,intensityofcommitment,andattachmenttoinspirationalsources?Takebetterhealthcareor supportforecologicallysoundpractices.Whensuccessful,thesecauses areoftensupportedbydisparateconstituencieswhosedifferentidentities, faiths,straits,fears,interests,sensibilities,andhopesaredrawnintoan operationalconstellationtoocomplextobecoveredbyasimplifying term.Thecomplexassemblageinwhichtheyparticipatepromotesafield ofconcernsirreducibleeithertothelanguageofinterestaggregationor thatofcommonality.
Doestheperiodiceffervescenceofdemocracyinacorporate,pluralistic,andpluralizingculturerequirefirstandforemostasharedsenseof thecommon?Ornegotiationofagenerousethosofengagementbetween diverse,interdependentconstituencieswhothenstrivetoformtheneeded assemblages?Variationsonthosequestionscomeupoftenintheessays inthisbook.Aswelltheymight.ForwhenWolinspeaksofthe“evanescenceofthepolitical”thephraseoscillatestoandfro,dependingonwhich termisaccented.Whenheposesobjectionsto“thenation”aseitherbasis orgoalofpolitics,the“evanescence ofthepolitical”comestothefore. Nowthepoliticalisforgedfromfugitiveenergies,ratherthanexpressing acommonaimalreadyexpressedbythepeople.Thisaccentdrawshim closetosometheoristshewouldcallpostmodern.Butwhenhethencontraststhe“evanescenceofthe political”to hisrepresentation ofpostmodernismheslidestowardamoregenericformulationofthecommon.21 An admirabletensioninhisconcernsmaydictatethatveryoscillation,buta hesitancytoacknowledgeitmayencouragehimtoprojectonesideofit ontoothersinordertopushitawayfromhimself.Perhaps,insomeform orother,itisanineliminabletensionfordemocrats because thedisparate elementscriticaltodemocracystandinrelationsofbothinterdependence andtension.Wolin,forinstance,fearsthattheproliferationofdifference willoverwhelmthepossibilityofdemocraticactioninconcert;buthealso resistsconsolidationofthecommonintoaunitytightenoughtobea nation.Theformerthreatensitspreconditions;thelatter,itsevanescence.
Someofus,resistingWolin’srepresentationofourviews,nonetheless learnfromhimthatthefragilityofdemocracypointsinatleasttwodirections.Theabsenceofaculturalethosofrespectandinclusionacrossmultipledifferencesalsojeopardizesthepoliticsofeducationalandeconomic inclusiveness.Thatmeansthathistoricallyformedcommonalitiessometimesfunction both toresisteconomicequalizationandtocurtailanappreciationofdiversity.InresponsetothisconditionIpursueagenerous ethosofengagementbetweenmultipleconstituencies.Suchanethosprovidesthebestchancetosupportthegeneralconditionsofeducational, economic,ecological,andparticipatoryinclusionandtorespectamultidi-
CHAPTERONE 18
mensionalpluralisminwhichconstituenciesdifferalongtheregistersof religiousfaith,ethnicity,moralsource,modesofsensualaffiliation,and genderpractice.Italsoallowspoliticstoaddressmorepositivelythat recurrenttensionbetweenanexistingpatternofpluralismandthepolitics ofpluralizationbywhichnewconstituenciesemergetomodifytheestablishedtermsofplurality.Sinceapositiveethosofpluralityandthereductionofsocialandeconomicinequalitiesarebothinterdependentandvaluableinthemselves,theabsenceofeitherposesbarrierstoattainmentof theother.Butwealsoinhabitaworldinwhichtheinterdependencebetweenthesetwoelementsistrackedbyacorollarytensionbetweenthem. Fortopursueonesiderelentlesslyisoftentogiveshortshrifttotheother. Theycoexistthenasconstitutiveelementsofdemocracystandingina relationofinterdependenceandtension.
Thesearekeyissuesofourtime.Perhapsnobodyhasalockonthem. ButWolin,morethananyoneelsewritingoverthelastfiftyyears,commandsattentiontothemandthinkscreativelyaboutthem.Howeveroften youturnthesequestionsover,Wolin’sappreciationoftheindispensability andfugitivecharacterofdemocracyentersintotheirdisposition.
DemocraticVariations
TheauthorsoftheessaysinthisvolumeprofitfromWolin’scorpusasthey examinetensionswithindemocracy,insidethepolitical,betweenpolitical economyanddemocraticpolitics,betweenthestateandcitizenactions thatexceedit,andwithinthevocationofpoliticaltheory.Theessaysin PartIfocuscloselyonthetensionbetweentheproteancharacterofdemocraticenergiesandthedemocraticneedforinstitutionaldesignstoproject thoserenewalsintothefuture.NicholasXenos,whowasmanagingeditor ofthejournal democracy fromitscreationbyWolinin1981toitsdemise severalyearslater,concentratesonthetensionsbetweenthetransgressive energiesofdemocraticrenewalandconstitutionaldesignsdesignedto protectthem.NotonlydoesXenoshimselfarguethatthesearetensions tobenegotiatedratherthanberesolvedonthesideofa“fugitive”politics ofperiodicrenewal,heconcludesthatWolinhimselfdoesnot“maintain thatdemocracyiswithoutforms,sincetheconatusofthedemosleditto occupyavarietyofforms.”GeorgeKateb,however,seesthingsdifferently.HeseessimilaritiesbetweenWolin’semphasisonademosoftransgressiverenewalandMichelFoucault’sexplorationofthe“insurrection ofsubjugatedknowledges.”Fugitivedemocracyisthe“authenticallypoliticalmoment”forWolin,accordingtoKateb,andthisleadsKatebto queryWolinona“rage”forthe“demotic”thatmayenergizehiswork. The“urgetoresistform”bothteachesussomethingessentialaboutdemocraticlifeandcarriesrisksthatneedtobechastened.FredDallmayrand
CharlesTaylorspeaktotheseissuesinaslightlydifferentkey.Fromthe vantagepointofKateb’saccount,eachmaygivetoomuchprivilegeto thegeneralovertheparticularandthecommonoverthenew.Theydraw sustenancefromWolin’searlyworkinresettingthebalanceofhislater essays.FredDallmayrputsvaluableperspectiveonthetensionbetween commonalityandinnovationbyreviewingtheeffortsofCharlesLefort, ErnestoLaclau,ChantalMoufffe,JacquesDerrida,andRichardRortyto engagethattension.HeconcludesthatWolin’sfocusonthe“grassroots” characterofdemocraticlifecarriesthebesthopetosecuretheneeded balance.Taylorlaborsonthetensionbetweenthedemocraticimperative tohaveastrongcollectiveidentitytodrawuponinrespondingtonew dislocationsandtheexclusionarytendenciessuchanimperativecanfoster.Giventheacceleratingpaceofimmigrationandothereffectsofglobalization,“democraticsocietiesaregoingtohavetoengageinaconstant processofself-reinventioninthecomingcentury,”andthesereinventions willspeaktochangesinboth“commonunderstandings”andthegenerationofnewand“variedidentities.”Whileeachoftheseessaysdefines thetensionsandbalancesinsomewhatdifferentways,theyareallmoved byWolin’sappreciationofthefugitiveelementindemocracy.
TheessaysinPartIIattendtotheforegoingissueswhilelocatingthem inthecontextofrelatedissuesthathavefoundexpressioninWolin’s corpus.WendyBrown,forinstance,arguesthattheliberalpracticeof toleranceiscondescendinginitsrelationtodifferenceand,morefundamentally,obscurestheroleofpowerinproducingtheverydifferencesthe practiceoftolerancetendstoessentialize.ConcurringwithWolin’sreadingofLockein PoliticsandVision,Browncontendsthatavibrantdemocraticpoliticswouldbothreducethescopeoftoleranceandamplifythe culturaldiversitythatfindsexpressionindemocraticlife.Shelookstoa politicsthattranscendstoleration.AryehBotwinickexploresasubterraneanlineofconnectionbetweenWolin’sperspectiveandthepoliticsof intimationspursuedbyMichaelOakeshott.AccordingtoBotwinick,“In assigningaroletotacitknowledgeintheirphilosophiesofpoliticaleducation,OakeshottandWolinalsoconfirmtheirskepticism.”MelissaOrlie engagesthecontemporarypoliticaleconomyofconsumptioninaway thatmakesclosecontactwithWolin’sexplorationsofthetensionsbetweencapitalismanddemocracy.DrawinguponFoucault’s“artsofthe self,”Orliearguesthatconsumptioncanbecomeasetofpractices throughwhichweworkonourselvestofosterfreedomandfomentdemocraticenergies.The“imaginativepracticesofcommodityconsumption aresignsofhopeamiddespairandalienatedpowerpreciselybecausethey evinceapersistentdesireforfreedomforpower,evenfordemocracy,in theotherwisepoliticallyhopelessconditionsofpoliticalcapitalism.” AnneNortonexploresthevexingquestionoftherelationbetweendeath anddemocracy,extendingthatquestionintooneabouttherelationbe-
CHAPTERONE 20
tweendemocracyandthatwhichfallsbythewaysideinthepoliticaldevelopmentofaculture.“Thepracticeofdemocracy,”shewrites,“isthe practiceofloss.”Buttheselossesarenotoftenrecordedintriumphalist accountsofthedemocraticexperience.Thesearethelossesoftemporality itself,whichWolintooexplores.
Norton’sessaycouldhavebegunPartIIIaseffectivelyasitclosesPart II,fortheessaysinthissectionfocusontradition,time,andspaceasthey findexpressionindemocraticpoliticsandpoliticaltheorytoday.Stephen Whiteexploresthreeideasofthepoliticalincirculationtoday,drawing ourattentiontodivergentorientationstocommonalityanddifference thatgrowoutofeachtradition.Heisparticularlyinterestedinassessing howeachreadingofan“ethos”ofdemocracyspeakstothequestionsof commonalityanddifference.KirstieMcClureexploreshowprofessionalizationofthehistoryofpoliticalthoughtcontributestoalossofappreciationoftheaffectiveanddemoticaspectsofpoliticalwriting,evenasthese latterforcesoperateintextsthathavebecomecanonical.Byattendingto theselossessheseekstoreinvigorateelementsinaforgotten“historythat mighthavebeen.”InabrilliantessaypublishedintheInternetjournal Theory&Event in1998underthetitle“WhatTimeIsIt?”SheldonWolin arguedthatpoliticaltimeis“outofjoint”today.22 Itissobecausethe rapidpaceofeconomyandthestateisinconsonantwithapoliticsof democraticactionmovingataslowerpaceofdeliberationandaction. MichaelShapiro,whiledrawingsustenancefromWolin,contestsoneaspectofhistemporalthesis.ForShapiro,theseverydissonancescanhave positiveaswellasnegativeeffects;theycanhelptoopenclosedidentities toself-reflection,toloosentheinvestmentofdemocratsinaunifiednation,andtoencouragetheformationofpositiveconnectionsacrossmultiplelinesofdifference.
Itisfittingthatthisvolumebeginsandendswithanessaybyaformer studentofWolin’s.IntheUnitedStatesduringthelastfiftyyears,no onehassurpassedWolinasaconsummateteacherwhoinspiresformer studentsbyhisexamplewhileencouragingthemtocharttheirownintellectualcourse.Suchaneffectisabundantlydiscernibleinthediverse piecesbyXenos,Brown,Botwinick,McClure,andOrlieinthisvolume. Anditfindsexpression,aswell,intheclosingpiecebyPeterEuben.While attendingtothethoughtoftheteacherwhosoprofoundlyinformshis work,EubenalsorevisesWolin’sappreciationofdemocracy.Giventhe paceoflifetoday,Eubenargues,thedemocraticlocalismWolinsupports mustbeaugmentedbyacosmopolitandimensionthroughwhichcitizens periodicallyactincombinationwithothersoutsidetheirownstatesto rectifyevilsthatparticularstatesandinterstateorganizationswouldnot orcouldnotrectifyalone.EubendrawsuponWolintocriticizefourmodelsofcosmopolitanism,evenashepullsthedemocraticimaginationbeyondtheconfinesoftheterritorialstate.
Notes
1.DavidEaston, AFrameworkforPoliticalAnalysis (EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall,p.22
2.SeethesummaryofhisperspectiveinIlyaPrigogine, TheEndofCertainty: Time,ChaosandtheNewLawsofNature (NewYork:FreePress,1996),p.26. “Ourownpointofviewisthatthelawsofphysics,asformulatedinthetraditional way,describeanidealized,stableworldthatisquitedifferentfromtheunstable, evolvingworldinwhichwelive.”
3.IsaiahBerlin,“DoesPoliticalTheoryStillExist?”inHenryHardy,ed., ConceptsandCategories:PhilosophicalEssaysofIsaiahBerlin (Oxford:Penguin Books,1979),p.157.
4.Berlin,ibid.,p.162.
5.Inotejustafewexamples:WilliamE.Connolly, PoliticalScienceandIdeology (NewYork:AthertonPress,1965);GeorgeKateb, PoliticalTheory:ItsNature andUses (NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1968);andCharlesMcCoyandJohn Playfordeds., ApoliticalPolitics:ACritiqueofBehavioralism (NewYork: ThomasY.Crowell,1967).
6.Berlin,“DoesPoliticalTheoryStillExist?”p.169.
7.SheldonWolin, PoliticsandVision (Boston:Little,BrownandCompany, 1960),p.4.
8.Ibid.,p.11
9.Ibid.,p.10
10.Ibid.,p.18
11.Ibid.,p.358.
12.Ibid.,pp.430–31.
13.Ibid.,p.434.
14.SheldonWolin,“PoliticalTheoryasaVocation,” AmericanPoliticalScienceReview (December1969):1064.
15.Ibid.,p.1068.
16.Ibid.,pp.1073–74.
17.SheldonWolin,“FugitiveDemocracy,”inSeylaBenhabib,ed., Democracy andDifference:ContestingtheBoundariesofthePolitical (Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress,1996),p.31.
18.Ibid.,p.34.
19.Ibid.,pp.32,35,35.
20.Ibid.,pp.38,38,43,43.
21.WhileIhavebeencalledapostmodernistbysome,includingoneofmy publishersandmyfriendSheldonWolin,itisnotthetermbywhichIdesignate myownthinking.ToomanythingsIendorsegetfilteredoutbytheterm.The termitselfhasbecome(whatpostmodernistscall)a“floatingsignifier.”Inthis case,itsstatusremainsnegativesothatitscontentcanfloatwiththeconcernsof thecriticbestowingthename.Itoccupies,therefore,theculturalpositiontraditionallyreservedfortheatheistinAmericanpublicculture.Recall,forinstance, howTocquevilledefinedthelatterthroughsimilarfiguresofrestlessness,amoralism,andnarcissism.Inthiscontextitmaybepertinenttonotewhytworestless thinkersfromwhomIdrawselectivesustenancebothrefusedthetitlepostmod-
CHAPTERONE 22
ernist,eveninitsheyday.MichelFoucaultdidsobecausethethemeoftheworld astext,advancedbysometheoristsself-describedaspostmodernists,didnotsufficientlyheedthesignificanceofhumancorporealityoraddressthelayeredpolitics ofnormalizationandresistance;andbecausehiscontestationofrationalandtranscendentalderivationsofmoralitywasmatchedinhislaterworkbyanearthy ethicinwhichyoucultivatepresumptivecarefordiversemodesofbeing.Gilles Deleuzedidsobecausehewasdeeplyindebtedtoearlierphilosopherssuchas Epicurus,Lucretius,Spinoza,Nietzsche,andBergson,whocouldhardlybedescribedaspostmodern;because,ratherthanpurportingtobepostmetaphysical, heactivelyadvancedametaphysicthatchallengedmechanistic,rationalist,and finalistperspectivesalike;andbecausehesupportedapositivepoliticsofconnectionsacrossdiverseconstituenciesthatrendershisthoughtirreducibletothepoliticaloptionsmostcommonlyassociatedwithpostmodernism.
22.SheldonWolin,“WhatTimeIsIt?” Theory&Event 1,no.1(January 1997):http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_&_event/toc/archive.html#1.1.