Putting Liberalism in its Place, by Paul W. Kahn - Hamline University ...
Putting Liberalism in its Place, by Paul W. Kahn - Hamline University ...
Putting Liberalism in its Place, by Paul W. Kahn - Hamline University ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
WEITHMAN.DOC 8/17/2005 8:51:49 AM<br />
<strong>Putt<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>Liberalism</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>its</strong> <strong>Place</strong>. By <strong>Paul</strong> W. <strong>Kahn</strong>. Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton <strong>University</strong><br />
Press 2004. Pp. 321 & viii. $29.95. ISBN: o-691-12024-2.<br />
<strong>Paul</strong> <strong>Kahn</strong> beg<strong>in</strong>s this ambitious book <strong>by</strong> rem<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g his readers of<br />
important but uncomfortable facts about political life that he th<strong>in</strong>ks<br />
liberals ignore: that citizens are “potential <strong>in</strong>struments of state violence”<br />
(20) who may be called upon to coerce or kill others on the state’s<br />
behalf, and that they may also be called upon to die for the state. Thus<br />
he rem<strong>in</strong>ds us that modern states claim the right to impose heavy<br />
obligations on their citizens and to demand huge sacrifices from them.<br />
If citizens are to discharge those obligations and to make those<br />
sacrifices, <strong>Kahn</strong> implies, they must believe the hardships entailed are<br />
worth endur<strong>in</strong>g and the sacrifices are worth mak<strong>in</strong>g. They will believe<br />
that, <strong>Kahn</strong> seems to th<strong>in</strong>k, only if the sacrifices are justified <strong>by</strong> the<br />
“ultimate value” (18) of the life those sacrifices are needed to preserve.<br />
And so that life—political life <strong>in</strong> a liberal democratic state—must, <strong>Kahn</strong><br />
asserts, be a source of “ultimate value.” (18)<br />
Some th<strong>in</strong>kers accept roughly this l<strong>in</strong>e of reason<strong>in</strong>g but, because<br />
they deny that there is much of value to be found <strong>in</strong> the political life of<br />
the modern state, deny that such states are worth dy<strong>in</strong>g for. Alasdair<br />
MacIntyre once famously remarked that be<strong>in</strong>g asked to die for the<br />
modern state is like be<strong>in</strong>g asked to die for the telephone company. 1 But<br />
<strong>Kahn</strong> does f<strong>in</strong>d American political experience to be a source of<br />
mean<strong>in</strong>g; <strong>in</strong> particular, he th<strong>in</strong>ks Americans f<strong>in</strong>d mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the exercise<br />
of popular sovereignty. Part of what he hopes to do <strong>in</strong> this book is “plot<br />
the shape of the world of mean<strong>in</strong>g” that he “f<strong>in</strong>d[s] all around” him. (19)<br />
<strong>Kahn</strong> argues that the moral psychology of liberalism is <strong>in</strong>adequate<br />
to account for that world of mean<strong>in</strong>g because it has a conception of the<br />
will too impoverished to do justice to the rich experience of popular<br />
sovereignty. And so <strong>Kahn</strong> wants to put liberalism <strong>in</strong> <strong>its</strong> place <strong>by</strong><br />
“juxtapos<strong>in</strong>g to it other normative strands of our culture.” (15) This<br />
juxtaposition not only makes it possible to recover a more adequate<br />
conception of the self. It also “allows us better to comprehend the place<br />
of liberalism <strong>in</strong> our self-understand<strong>in</strong>g.” (15) The result of <strong>Kahn</strong>’s effort<br />
is a rich and ambitious exercise <strong>in</strong> cultural study, political theory and<br />
1. After MacIntyre: Critical Perspectives on the Work of Alasdair MacIntyre 303 (John<br />
Horton & Susan Mendus eds., U. Notre Dame Press 1994).<br />
101
WEITHMAN.DOC 8/17/2005 8:51:49 AM<br />
102 JOURNAL OF LAW & RELIGION [Vol. XX<br />
moral psychology.<br />
Perhaps because it is so ambitious and <strong>its</strong> reliance on cultural study<br />
so heavy, <strong>Putt<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>Liberalism</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>its</strong> <strong>Place</strong> will be a madden<strong>in</strong>g read for<br />
those whose preferences run to rigorous def<strong>in</strong>ition and to clarity of<br />
expression. The book is full of phrases like “[i]f context is always<br />
pregnant with coercion,” (127) sentences like “[e]very creed derives <strong>its</strong><br />
symbolic energy not from <strong>its</strong> specific content, but from the identification<br />
of the <strong>in</strong>dividual with the underly<strong>in</strong>g social reality,” (23) and portentous<br />
assertions like: “Mean<strong>in</strong>g exists <strong>in</strong> between m<strong>in</strong>d and body, reason and<br />
desire. The structure of mean<strong>in</strong>g is captured <strong>in</strong> the great Western<br />
metaphor of the ‘idea become flesh.’” (142)<br />
Such constructions certa<strong>in</strong>ly sound important, for they l<strong>in</strong>k big<br />
ideas—ideas such as “symbol” and “creed,” “mean<strong>in</strong>g” and “metaphor.”<br />
The problem with them is that it is impossible to figure out what any of<br />
them actually means. What, for example, is the “symbolic energy” that<br />
creeds are said to have? What exactly is a “social reality” and what does<br />
such a reality “underl[ie]”? What is it for a context to be “pregnant”?<br />
What is “the structure of mean<strong>in</strong>g” and how is it expressed <strong>by</strong> what<br />
<strong>Kahn</strong> takes to be a metaphor—but what Christians take to be a fact—<br />
namely, the Incarnation? Authors should be allowed the occasional<br />
vague but picturesque turn of phrase, for the <strong>in</strong>termittent exercise of<br />
poetic license can add touches of lyricism to works that are otherwise<br />
arid and restra<strong>in</strong>ed. But the prose of this book is neither arid nor<br />
restra<strong>in</strong>ed; it is lush and <strong>in</strong>dulgent. Virtually every page presents the<br />
reader with at least one formidable exegetical challenge. Many of those<br />
challenges will prove defeat<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
<strong>Kahn</strong>’s method also makes some of the central arguments of the<br />
book very difficult to assess. He beg<strong>in</strong>s his critique of liberalism with<br />
what he calls a mapp<strong>in</strong>g of the “conceptual architecture” (31) of<br />
liberalism <strong>in</strong> chapter 1 and a “genealogy of American liberalism” (31) <strong>in</strong><br />
chapter 2. It would have been very helpful to have been presented with<br />
susta<strong>in</strong>ed discussions of just what conceptual architecture and genealogy<br />
are, and of just what evidence counts <strong>in</strong> favor of one mapp<strong>in</strong>g or one<br />
genealogy rather than another. <strong>Putt<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>Liberalism</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>its</strong> <strong>Place</strong> needs<br />
such methodological discussions because it is far from obvious that the<br />
subjects <strong>Kahn</strong> discusses <strong>in</strong> his crucial open<strong>in</strong>g chapters are subjects to<br />
which the methods of architectural mapp<strong>in</strong>g and genealogy are<br />
appropriately applied.<br />
Architectural mapp<strong>in</strong>g and genealogy seem to entail the<br />
identification of a subject matter for treatment, and the imputation to that<br />
subject matter of a unity the pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of which it is the bus<strong>in</strong>ess of
WEITHMAN.DOC 8/17/2005 8:51:49 AM<br />
101] BOOK REVIEW 103<br />
mapp<strong>in</strong>g and genealogy to uncover. But the drive pithily to distill some<br />
one th<strong>in</strong>g that is allegedly central to a heterogeneous category is a drive<br />
to which <strong>Kahn</strong> sometimes gives too free a re<strong>in</strong>. Thus readers are told <strong>in</strong><br />
a s<strong>in</strong>gle sentence what “[c]ritical theory’s most basic argument” is (123)<br />
and what “the lesson of twentieth-century genocide” is. (200, emphasis<br />
added)<br />
Critical theory and genocide do not occupy much of <strong>Kahn</strong>’s<br />
attention. His precipitous reductions of them to tag-l<strong>in</strong>es might be<br />
dismissed as <strong>in</strong>nocent were they not symptomatic of two serious<br />
problems with his methods: the problem of overly hasty and selective<br />
assimilation of disparate phenomena <strong>in</strong>to large categories and the<br />
problem of false essentialism with respect to the phenomena that have<br />
been assimilated. Th<strong>in</strong>gs called “American liberalism” and “the<br />
American political experience” occupy a great deal of <strong>Kahn</strong>’s attention.<br />
It is <strong>in</strong> <strong>Kahn</strong>’s treatment of them that these two problems exact more<br />
serious costs.<br />
The fact that politics is and must be a source of ultimate mean<strong>in</strong>g<br />
for citizens, <strong>Kahn</strong> argues, is what liberalism is <strong>in</strong>adequate to.<br />
Americans, <strong>Kahn</strong> th<strong>in</strong>ks, f<strong>in</strong>d that mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a particular set of political<br />
experiences. He writes:<br />
The dist<strong>in</strong>ctly American political consciousness is born <strong>in</strong> the<br />
experience of revolution as an act of popular sovereignty. This<br />
can never be seen as corrupt; it is an <strong>in</strong>exhaustible source of<br />
mean<strong>in</strong>g for the citizen and the state. (109)<br />
American political consciousness is the consciousness of politics<br />
that people who live or have lived <strong>in</strong> the United States have or had. It<br />
would not be surpris<strong>in</strong>g if Americans’ consciousness of politics, and the<br />
mean<strong>in</strong>g they f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> politics, varied with race, gender, ethnicity, wealth,<br />
social location and condition of servitude. Perhaps there is noth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
illegitimate about gather<strong>in</strong>g the diverse political experiences of all these<br />
Americans <strong>in</strong>to a s<strong>in</strong>gle category. But it is far from obvious that there is<br />
someth<strong>in</strong>g common or essential to those experiences that can then be<br />
identified as “the dist<strong>in</strong>ctly American political consciousness” and that<br />
is connected with revolution or popular sovereignty. Certa<strong>in</strong>ly <strong>Kahn</strong><br />
provides no evidence for th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g that there is. And so he provides no<br />
evidence that American politics provides some one source of ultimate<br />
mean<strong>in</strong>g for which liberalism is unable to account.<br />
<strong>Liberalism</strong> <strong>its</strong>elf is a large extended family of political views.<br />
Members exhibit family resemblances. It is tempt<strong>in</strong>g to exaggerate the<br />
unity of the family and then to look to genealogy or architecture for<br />
someth<strong>in</strong>g that expla<strong>in</strong>s it. But assimilat<strong>in</strong>g members of the family <strong>in</strong>to
WEITHMAN.DOC 8/17/2005 8:51:49 AM<br />
104 JOURNAL OF LAW & RELIGION [Vol. XX<br />
one character with a s<strong>in</strong>gle genealogy yields a picture of liberalism that<br />
caricatures every family member but that does not resemble any of them<br />
all that closely. To be sure, there are places where <strong>Kahn</strong> shows some<br />
sensitivity to the diversity of liberal views. (179ff.) But more often he<br />
talks of liberalism as it were a s<strong>in</strong>gle theory, and he offers quick and<br />
unqualified characterizations of it that are simply distortions. He says,<br />
for example, that “liberalism purports to have monopolized the language<br />
of reason,” as if liberals denied, say, that Aristotelians talk about the<br />
importance of practical reason <strong>in</strong> politics. He also claims that<br />
“liberalism requires, as a matter of political psychology, that <strong>in</strong>dividuals<br />
be able to take the same attitude toward their own conception of the<br />
good as that they take toward that of others.” (116) <strong>Kahn</strong> does not say<br />
which liberals have thought this nor does he cite any textual support for<br />
his assertion. His implication that liberals th<strong>in</strong>k someone who devoutly<br />
believes propositions central to Judaism must also be able devoutly to<br />
believe the propositions central to Catholicism, Islam and atheism is<br />
either clearly false or trivially true, depend<strong>in</strong>g upon what is meant <strong>by</strong><br />
“able.”<br />
<strong>Kahn</strong>’s attempt to group various th<strong>in</strong>kers and bodies of thought<br />
under the broad liberal banner is also highly selective. His genealogy of<br />
American liberalism makes no references to such em<strong>in</strong>ent liberal<br />
historians as Joyce Apple<strong>by</strong>, Louis Hartz, Arthur Schles<strong>in</strong>ger, Jr. and<br />
Alan Br<strong>in</strong>kley. He criticizes American liberalism for endors<strong>in</strong>g a moral<br />
psychology with too th<strong>in</strong> a conception of the will, but he does not<br />
mention the liberalism of Re<strong>in</strong>hold Niebuhr. The liberalism that <strong>Kahn</strong><br />
wants to “put <strong>in</strong> <strong>its</strong> place” is thus not American liberalism as such. It is<br />
American liberal political theory of the last three decades—particularly,<br />
to judge <strong>by</strong> the number of footnotes <strong>in</strong> which he is cited, the liberalism<br />
of John Rawls.<br />
But liberal political theory, and Rawls’s theory of justice <strong>in</strong><br />
particular, make odd targets for <strong>Kahn</strong>’s critique. <strong>Kahn</strong> variously<br />
criticizes liberals for their failure to “expla<strong>in</strong> the normative conditions of<br />
the political,” (227) for fail<strong>in</strong>g “to explore the other values—that is, the<br />
nonliberal values—for which they leave room.” (19) for be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
“<strong>in</strong>complete even as an account of the operation of a liberal polity,”<br />
(144) for never produc<strong>in</strong>g “an adequate explanation of the family” (218)<br />
and for be<strong>in</strong>g unable to “understand the pornographic rebellion aga<strong>in</strong>st<br />
politics.” (219) But expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g such conditions, explor<strong>in</strong>g such values<br />
and account<strong>in</strong>g for the operation of actual liberal polities are not tasks<br />
that Rawls, at least, has undertaken. Rawls famously defends pr<strong>in</strong>ciples<br />
of justice for the basic structure of a well-ordered liberal democracy
WEITHMAN.DOC 8/17/2005 8:51:49 AM<br />
101] BOOK REVIEW 105<br />
under conditions of pluralism. His defense of those pr<strong>in</strong>ciples does not<br />
purport to explore all of the non-liberal values citizens might pursue.<br />
Nor does it purport to be a social theory account<strong>in</strong>g either for the<br />
operations of liberal polities as we know them or for the “normative<br />
conditions of the political.” It certa<strong>in</strong>ly does not purport to expla<strong>in</strong> “the<br />
pornographic rebellion aga<strong>in</strong>st politics.” Indeed, it is not clear that<br />
Rawls’s theory is meant to “expla<strong>in</strong>” or “account” for anyth<strong>in</strong>g beyond<br />
our sense of justice.<br />
Any collection of human practices as sprawl<strong>in</strong>g and complex as the<br />
set that we group under the label “politics” raises an enormous number<br />
of questions. Some of those questions are normative; some are<br />
conceptual. Questions of both these k<strong>in</strong>ds arguably fall with<strong>in</strong> the<br />
doma<strong>in</strong> of political philosophy. But philosophy will leave many<br />
requests for explanations of <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g political phenomena unsatisfied.<br />
This may be a source of some frustration for those who, like <strong>Kahn</strong>, are<br />
sympathetic to liberal values. The power and scope of liberal political<br />
theory as it has developed <strong>in</strong> recent years is truly impressive. Those<br />
who most deeply admire it might like to see it embrace even more than it<br />
does. Its ability to do so may depend upon philosophers mak<strong>in</strong>g better<br />
use than they now do of work <strong>in</strong> sociology, social psychology and<br />
anthropology. It is a shortcom<strong>in</strong>g of academic tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> political<br />
philosophy that students of it are not taught to appreciate and use<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> these fields. But some of the explanations we want provided<br />
may have to be furnished <strong>by</strong> scholars of politics who work <strong>in</strong> other<br />
discipl<strong>in</strong>es. Whether someth<strong>in</strong>g called “liberalism” can provide those<br />
explanations depends upon whether liberal scholars can provide them.<br />
<strong>Kahn</strong>’s limitation of American liberalism to American liberal political<br />
theory <strong>in</strong> <strong>its</strong> present state is therefore especially vex<strong>in</strong>g. He will not be<br />
able to susta<strong>in</strong> the case that liberalism as such lacks explanatory power<br />
until he has exam<strong>in</strong>ed a much wider range of liberal scholarship than he<br />
considers <strong>in</strong> this book.<br />
American political history and the diversity of American political<br />
consciousnesses have no doubt been shaped, not just <strong>by</strong> liberalism, but<br />
<strong>by</strong> many other forms of political thought as well. The question<br />
confront<strong>in</strong>g liberals who work <strong>in</strong> normative theory is how much of that<br />
history they wish to commend. This br<strong>in</strong>gs us back, at last, to one of the<br />
po<strong>in</strong>ts with which <strong>Kahn</strong> beg<strong>in</strong>s and about which he is surely right.<br />
Virtually all large modern states have called upon some of their<br />
citizens to die for them. The fact that they have raises two very different<br />
questions. One is the question of whether the various liberal political<br />
theories that enjoy some currency can ever be drawn on to provide
WEITHMAN.DOC 8/17/2005 8:51:49 AM<br />
106 JOURNAL OF LAW & RELIGION [Vol. XX<br />
citizens with good reasons to die—or, for that matter, to kill—for their<br />
country. The other is the question of whether those theories can be<br />
drawn on to provide citizens with good reasons to do what states which<br />
purport to be liberal democracies have asserted they should do: fight, kill<br />
and die either <strong>in</strong> whatever wars their governments may declare or <strong>in</strong> the<br />
wars those governments have actually declared. <strong>Kahn</strong> does not<br />
dist<strong>in</strong>guish these two questions. But his emphasis on the mean<strong>in</strong>g<br />
American citizens actually f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> politics suggests that <strong>Kahn</strong> is<br />
<strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> the second (cf. 263 n. 65 and accompany<strong>in</strong>g text). He<br />
seems to criticize liberalism because he th<strong>in</strong>ks the answer to that<br />
question is “no.”<br />
Perhaps liberal theory would be liable to criticism if the answer to<br />
the first question were negative, though that would have to be shown.<br />
But even if <strong>Kahn</strong> is right that the answer to the second question is ”no,”<br />
he needs to say much more clearly than he does why this answer<br />
provides grounds for criticiz<strong>in</strong>g liberal theory. Some liberal<br />
democracies, such as the United States, have called upon their citizens to<br />
kill and die for them <strong>in</strong> imperialist or expansionist adventures, <strong>in</strong><br />
response to provocations which were patently contrived, and on the<br />
basis of evidence which was later discovered to be false or to have been<br />
mislead<strong>in</strong>gly presented. Many of the citizens who have tragically gone<br />
to their deaths <strong>in</strong> these cases no doubt risked their lives while selflessly<br />
believ<strong>in</strong>g they were obligated to do so. It may be that liberal theory<br />
cannot provide a basis for the obligations alleged <strong>in</strong> these cases. If not,<br />
then it is imperative to ask much more search<strong>in</strong>gly than <strong>Kahn</strong> does (282)<br />
whether the fault really lies with liberal theory. Perhaps it lies <strong>in</strong>stead<br />
with those government officials who proclaimed the glory of the cause,<br />
pretended that the declaration of war was an exercise of popular<br />
sovereignty and asserted obligations to displace, maim, kill and die<br />
where there may never have been any such obligations at all.<br />
<strong>Paul</strong> Weithman †<br />
† Professor and Chair, Department of Philosophy, <strong>University</strong> of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,<br />
Indiana 46556.