I am teaching Phil 2210: Social Philosophy online only now but in an audio podcast format, not Zoom or video conferencing. (No synchronous class, only recording and text and multimedia on Moodle.) On March 17th, I start into my right-wing and left-wing critics of Rawls lecture, which includes The Abstractness of Rawls's Theory from Understanding Rawls by R.P. Wolff (along with David Gauthier and C.B. Macpherson).
Here is my opening:
"Politically Neutral Ideals in Times of Political Emergency
In this lecture, I shall reconsider the political neutrality of John Rawls’s theory of justice and consider how his some of his primary non-neutral critics (Robert Nozick, David Gauthier, C.B. Macpherson, Robert P. Wolff, and Noam Chomsky) reacted to Rawls’s attempt to occupy a very precarious position that was centrist, or politically neutral between a capitalist and socialist just society (both are possibly just according to his ideal theory). Taking flak from his right wing colleagues and left-wingers at the same time, Rawls appears also not to be so politically neutral at all. Rawls knew that any political philosophy always speaks out of its time and particular cultural roots and traditions, but he aspired to reduce that contingent influence and worked at being unbiased or unprejudiced for the sake of fairness. Yet his main critics argue that he failed to live up to his own criteria of moral objectivity despite all the neutral-sounding jargon, qualifications, thought experiments, economic rational choice modeling and other teaching devices Rawls used to maintain a reputation of political neutrality. Rawls is indeed limited by his time and life roots in America, so his right-wing and left-wing critics are right to point out these limitations and the general lack of application of Rawls’s grand ideal theory to reality as we know it. Stuck inside his comfortable cocoon of ideal theory, Rawls maintained his political neutrality at the expense of clear commitments to inviolability of private-property owners and the relevance of socialist causes such as poverty, class conflict, domination, public health and pensions, and protection of future generations from climate disasters. The truth is that in a time of great political emergency, it is less reasonable to fake being neutral and it is time to act for the greater good as determined by deliberative procedural democracy guided by a spirit of considerable fairness."
I can't do the technological leap right now in the classroom, but once I head back to classroom in September 2022, it could be possible to get an audience with students and a visiting professor online perhaps. Maybe if you work out a simple method and figure out what works for you after some experiments, this could become a regular thing. I also teach a lecture on your anarchism book in my Radical Philosophy class. I hope you have good experiences with these three starts and continue to try it Zooming in future.
I respectfully disagree that "political neutrality" is a good phrase or an apt phrase to describe Rawls's theory. Although written in what some see as a rather olympian style, some clear political commitments emerge from, or are implied by, Rawls's theory. They are egalitarian commitments and could be placed under the label "liberal egalitarianism." It's one thing to say he was "neutral" on capitalism vs. socialism, though this changed in his later work, but "political neutrality" is a broader phrase than that. (The last thing needed on this blog is another discussion of Rawls, but I thought I'd register my disagreement.) If I don't respond to a reply I'm not being rude, just not up for further discussion of Rawls.
A bit of good news I am glad to hear on this day.
ReplyDeleteI am teaching Phil 2210: Social Philosophy online only now but in an audio podcast format, not Zoom or video conferencing. (No synchronous class, only recording and text and multimedia on Moodle.) On March 17th, I start into my right-wing and left-wing critics of Rawls lecture, which includes The Abstractness of Rawls's Theory from Understanding Rawls by R.P. Wolff (along with David Gauthier and C.B. Macpherson).
ReplyDeleteHere is my opening:
"Politically Neutral Ideals in Times of Political Emergency
In this lecture, I shall reconsider the political neutrality of John Rawls’s theory of
justice and consider how his some of his primary non-neutral critics (Robert Nozick, David
Gauthier, C.B. Macpherson, Robert P. Wolff, and Noam Chomsky) reacted to Rawls’s attempt to
occupy a very precarious position that was centrist, or politically neutral between a capitalist and socialist just society (both are possibly just according to his ideal theory). Taking flak from his right wing colleagues and left-wingers at the same time, Rawls appears also not to be so politically neutral at all. Rawls knew that any political philosophy always speaks out of its time and particular cultural roots and traditions, but he aspired to reduce that contingent influence and worked at being unbiased or unprejudiced for the sake of fairness. Yet his main critics argue that he failed to live up to his own criteria of moral objectivity despite all the neutral-sounding jargon, qualifications, thought experiments, economic rational choice modeling and other teaching devices Rawls used to maintain a reputation of political neutrality. Rawls is indeed limited by his
time and life roots in America, so his right-wing and left-wing critics are right to point out these limitations and the general lack of application of Rawls’s grand ideal theory to reality as we know it. Stuck inside his comfortable cocoon of ideal theory, Rawls maintained his political neutrality at the expense of clear commitments to inviolability of private-property owners and the relevance of socialist causes such as poverty, class conflict, domination, public health and pensions, and protection of future generations from climate disasters. The truth is that in a time of great political emergency, it is less reasonable to fake being neutral and it is time to act for the greater good as determined by deliberative procedural democracy guided by a spirit of considerable fairness."
I can't do the technological leap right now in the classroom, but once I head back to classroom in September 2022, it could be possible to get an audience with students and a visiting professor online perhaps. Maybe if you work out a simple method and figure out what works for you after some experiments, this could become a regular thing. I also teach a lecture on your anarchism book in my Radical Philosophy class. I hope you have good experiences with these three starts and continue to try it Zooming in future.
Sounds good and if the results are satisfying perhaps remote should be SOP as we might be in for another wave in the fall.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree that "political neutrality" is a good phrase or an apt phrase to describe Rawls's theory. Although written in what some see as a rather olympian style, some clear political commitments emerge from, or are implied by, Rawls's theory. They are egalitarian commitments and could be placed under the label "liberal egalitarianism." It's one thing to say he was "neutral" on capitalism vs. socialism, though this changed in his later work, but "political neutrality" is a broader phrase than that. (The last thing needed on this blog is another discussion of Rawls, but I thought I'd register my disagreement.) If I don't respond to a reply I'm not being rude, just not up for further discussion of Rawls.
ReplyDelete