The Possibility of Politics

The Possibility of Politics: The Shape of Political Philosophy Given the Reality of Pluralism John Roger Baxter MPhil University of York Politics January 2016 In memory of Sidney Baxter 2 Abstract: This thesis sets out to make sense of what it calls the reality of pluralism – the idea that the fundamental state between two people is some form of debate or disagreement rather than agreement. To do so it uses three very different thinkers who coalesce around the idea of pluralism despite their disparate political philosophies – Hannah Arendt, Alasdair MacIntyre and John Gray. All of the thinkers address the issue of pluralism in some way, regardless of how positively they view it. This then leads to three different types of pluralism – a positive form of pluralism in the form of Arendt’s “action”, a much more negative form of pluralism in what MacIntyre calls emotivism, and the denial of pluralism that manifests itself in the form of totalitarianism. It also attempts to address the challenges that any politics based on pluralism almost has to face if it is to be a viable political status. Finally it address the question of whether there can be a politics based on the reality of pluralism by introducing a basic requirement for all those who might enter into pluralistic debate – a form of mutual respect based on accepting the other person in any discussion or argument has a right to their opinion, no matter how far that opinion, belief or general worldview might be from one’s own. 3 List of Contents Abstract 3 List of Contents 4 Preface 5 Acknowledgments 8 Authors Declaration 10 1: Political Philosophy and Pluralism 11 2: Totalitarianism and the Denial of Pluralism 30 3: The Arendtian Alternative 55 4: After the Enlightenment 83 5: Pluralism and Belief 102 6: Rationalism, Pluralism and the Second Face of Liberalism 120 7: Pessimistic Political Thinking 150 8: Conclusion: Pluralist Political Philosophers and the Reality of Pluralism 183 Bibliography 204 4 Preface I started this because I was sick of being called left-wing by people who saw themselves as right wing and right wing by those who identified as left-wing, I was an economic liberal at the same time as being a social liberal, so those of left and right didn’t really want to know about what I saw as consistent liberalism. This bothered me, and I felt the need to investigate further the contrary nature of the left / right political spectrum and how it might be overcome. That investigation quickly showed that this was the sort of topic that has already been explored in much detail. From attempts to square the linear left / right political spectrum through to the works of Anthony Giddens and Phillip Blond, it had all already been done. With that realisation came a different sort of understanding – that political identity, regardless of where it sits on that left / right spectrum, often seemed to be very entrenched and not open to much negotiation even in an academic context, which struck me as strange given academia (on a personal level) should be about a quest to learn more through interaction with others rather than reinforcing one’s already existing pre- conceptions. As luck would have it, my MA dissertation led me in the direction of Hannah Arendt. An often criticized thinker on a number of levels (some of them justified) she still remains the philosopher whose views most clearly chime with my own. As a model for debate, learning, understanding and just being more human the idea of action strikes me as very potent yet often neglected. From there I went to the work of John Gray, a political philosopher again often maligned and dismissed, but one who for me has thrown down both in Two Faces of Liberalism and Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals fundamental questions that it remains very difficult to dismiss and should challenge many to think more not only about how they define themselves but also how they engage with others. From there I went to Alasdair MacIntyre, a thinker whose conclusions I personally struggle to agree with but 5 nonetheless a philosopher whose work brings up many relevant issues that, while writing this thesis, I have struggled with and still in all honesty need to think more about. At its heart this project is fundamentally about pluralism and the idea that we are a fundamentally pluralistic species in that we disagree about almost everything all the time. In what is for me the best-case scenario we acknowledge this but try to work around it by respecting other opinions and trying to learn from – or at least try to evolve our own opinions based on – the ideas of others. This is pluralism for me – an Arendtian interpretation of it without a doubt, but nonetheless what I believe to be the best way for us as a species to communicate since, pretty much from birth, we all have different experiences that form different identities, belief systems and opinions. The alternatives seem to me to be what we often now have in the Western world (what MacIntyre sees when he discusses emotivism) where established political identities and views simply clash with one another without ever really trying to effectively engage or the nightmare that comes with the ruthless desire to only have one opinion that manifests itself most extremely in totalitarianism. Finally there is the misanthropy that the later Gray indulges in – this seems, whatever the merits of his case, to miss the point that as humans we do exist, we do have an impact on one another, and we do need to work out how to deal with all of those realities. Every PhD needs on some level to show it is original, and hopefully the treatment of these thinkers on this topic will be enough to at least offer some sort of contribution to debates around pluralism and also to offer an interesting opinion – not matter how credible or otherwise – to these three thinkers. What this PhD will not do is reinvent the wheel or claim to be a radical break with reality. All it can offer is a commentary on what it will call the reality of pluralism, and a basic idea of why pluralisitic debate is actually so important. At the heart of this project is the notion that the idea of a singular, absolute truth is irrelevant – not because it doesn’t exist, but because even if it did / does it would be eminently contestable from the moment it was uttered. So any suggestion that this thesis is going to try to answer fundamental questions about the nature of truth would fall foul of the 6 most naked of hypocrisies, and consequently the most it can offer is observations and the occasional, tentative, suggestions. Is there anything wrong with such limited objectives for a work like this? I’d argue not. For any Research Student to be arguing that they have found the truth when every philosopher from Plato to the current day has managed nothing more than provoking further argument would be the very height of hubris, with the nemesis of the viva lurking just around the corner. Furthermore at essence of this thesis is the idea that dialogue – if it is allowed to happen – needs to be open, ongoing and intersubjective. I don’t have the definitive answer and I strongly suspect anyone reading this does not have the answer either. Yet what we do have is the ability to communicate with one another, and to see where that takes us. John Baxter January 2016 7 Acknowledgements It is very difficult to make any sort of acknowledgement section of any piece of work that readable – those who know they should be in it are reading it just to make sure that they are and those who know they will not be in it are skipping forward to the actual text. On the other hand to not have such a section would be to deny that any project like this – no matter what the quality of it – is the responsibility of one person in the form of the author but also a whole host of other people who have helped, advised, read work and just generally been there for the author. So onto thanking the relevant people. Professor Matthew Festenstein has proven to be both a guide and a critic across the course of this project. While I have moved away from what I originally wanted to study quite considerably, often at Matthew’s behest, the moves have all made sense and have helped to create a better end result than would otherwise be the case. Furthermore Matthew has shown himself to be capable of great empathy and support during the more difficult moments I have had across the course of writing this thesis. Doctor Tim Stanton has been a source of great ideas and intellectual insight – there are few people I know who are quite as demanding yet consistently correct in their analysis and criticism as Tim. I should also acknowledge Professor Matt Matravers, who as well as being a genuinely friendly member of the faculty also created, in the form of the Working Papers Group, one of the most enjoyable and rewarding aspects of studying political philosophy during my time at the University of York. Beyond the confines of that institution, Professor Roger Bromley remains one of the friendliest and approachable academics I have ever met – the sort of person who you meet with for a five minutes supervisory session and come away from an hour later feeling far more knowledgeable yet rewarded for your research and general academic endeavours.

Load more