Can’t we all just…? No, we can’t.
Jonathan Derbyshire points out a problem with anti-foundationalism for people who have moral and/or political commitments. First he quotes John Holbo in a post I would have commented on then if I’d had time –
The real problem is that Rorty’s torn between a ‘Pyrhhonist’…anti-foundational epistemology and a progressive politics, in which he would like to demand lots of social changes, for the sake of social justice. His reformist reach exceeds his justificatory good conscience. He really thinks he’s right, but doesn’t think he can give his opponents rational grounds that they are compelled to accept.
Then he adds:
In other words, Rorty’s philosophical views prevent him from justifying or defending his progressive politics – and that’s politically problematic. So it’s not just that political liberalism needn’t line up with philosophical pragmatism or anti-foundationalism: if our fundamental liberal values don’t rest on certain substantive moral commitments – if, in other words, we’re prohibited from regarding those values as true – then are they really values at all?
To put it another way: if we don’t think we can give our opponents rational grounds that they are compelled to accept, then we have a problem, and the very first thing we need to do is recognize it rather than trying to conceal it or minimize it. I’m not sure myself that we can give our opponents rational grounds that they are compelled to accept, but I see that as worrying rather than cheery, and in either case I think it’s disastrous to pretend that there is no difficulty. But that’s what anti-foundationalists often do. They pretend that ‘we can all agree’ on certain basics and that that’s enough really. But in fact we can’t agree even on certain basics, and it’s a terrible idea to pretend that we can, because then we lose track of the fact that there really are people (lots of them) who truly don’t share our commitments to human rights or equality or women’s rights or whatever it may be.
Hmm. I feel like I wasted twenty pages or so explaining the fundamental logical flaw at the heart of Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble fifteen years ago, since Derbyshire just served up a very nice summary of the fundamental conflict between postmodern extremism and any sort of politics, progressive or otherwise.
Ah well, I got an ‘A,’ and I learned something from the effort, so it wasn’t a complete waste.
Glad to have you back, OB. Teh interweb just wasn’t the same without you.
:-)
G
Dealing with “the fact that there really are people (lots of them) who truly don’t share our commitments to human rights or equality or women’s rights or whatever it may be” is a lot like dealing with the problem of Evil in the world. I’m at a total loss. You’d think that by the 21st century people would have been able to agree on at least the most fundamental values. That seems not to be the case, and so the demise of civilisation is starting to seem possible (what with ecological collapse, permanent war and whatnot).
Glad to hear from you again, G.
Thanks, G. It’s good to be back.
“That seems not to be the case”
That’s for sure. ‘But at least we can all agree that torturing children is wrong,’ people exclaim. No – torturing children is exactly what ‘exorcists’ do, not to mention child soldiers in Uganda and Congo and elsewhere, child carpet-weavers in Pakistan, child brides, FGM – child torture isn’t even rare. ‘But we can all agree that murder is wrong?’ No – of course not – obviously not.
And as for female equality or women’s rights – don’t make me laugh.
Realisticly O.B.are these values not just western values rather than universal values?,living in hope that they will spread reminds me of Samuel Johnsons view of second mariages(a triumph of hope over expereance)!
No, Richard, they’re not. Ask some non-Western women. Ask Maryam Namazie, Marjane Satrapi, Meera Nanda, Homa Arjomand, Irshad Manji, Shirin Ebadi; ask the countless women who work for women’s rights organizations in India and Pakistan and elsewhere. Ask dalit groups; ask Amartya Sen.
The values are obviously not universal in fact, which was my point, but they’re not universal in the west either; but they are universal in principle, they are universalizable. Am I optimistic about the prospects for that? No, especially not in the near term. But do I think it’s inherently impossible? No again.
With the utmost respect, OB, Irshad Manji is as Canadian as I am, and when she speaks, she sounds even more Canadian than I do.
Of course, I blame that on Marjorie Purvey, and the Toronto School of Radio Drama . . . ;)
Hmm. Well, fair point, I suppose, Elliott, but she did spend her first four years in Uganda. (I agree that she does sound very Canadian though!)