William James and the Force of Habit by Peter Alexander Livingston A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto © Copyright by Peter Alexander Livingston (2011) William James and the Force of Habit Peter Alexander Livingston Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto 2011 Abstract By paying attention to the habitual register of politics this dissertation has sought to contribute to the theoretical literature on democratic citizenship. More precisely, I offer a more complex account the moral psychology of political agency presumed by the turn to ethics within democratic theory. The central question of this dissertation is how do citizens come to feel empowered to act on their convictions in politics? Political theorists often celebrate civic action as spontaneity and willfulness, and at the same time lament the agency-foreclosing complexity and fragmentation of late-modern politics. Drawing out this tension in Michel Foucault’s analysis of docility and transgression I argue that a middle path between disembodied autonomy and docile passivity is articulated in the moral psychology found in William James’s account of habit. The study makes this case by looking at three episodes of the foreclosure and recovery of action in James’s thinking: his engagement with Darwinian science and his nervous breakdown in the 1870’s and 80’s; his critique of democratic docility and debate on strenuousness with Theodore Roosevelt during the Spanish-American war; and the cynical adaptation of James’s psychology by the democratic realism of Walter Lippmann in the 1920’s. In each case I argue that James’s lively account of habit as a force of unruly spontaneity functions as a therapy of action against feelings of powerlessness, docility, and incompetence constrain democratic ii conviction. The result is at once a novel continuation of the American tradition of democratic individualism and a contribution to the contemporary debates on the democratic ethics of self- making. iii Acknowledgments This dissertation would not have been possible without the patience, advice, and guidance of a great number of scholars and friends. My first and most profound debt is to my supervisor, Simone Chambers. Simone had no idea that she was signing on to supervise a dissertation on William James when she encouraged me to follow my early fuzzy thoughts on the turn to ethics. Despite the surprise, Simone stuck with this project through all the twists, turns, and dead-ends it hit along the way. Throughout it all Simone was always there to ask the tough questions and help me see what I was really on about. She taught me how to be a scholar and to trust my own thinking. Ryan Balot and Peggy Kohn both served on my committee. I’ve learned more than I can say from the intellectual breadth, seriousness, and curiosity they both bring to their practice as scholars and teachers. Each has been a profound mentor to me throughout this process. Davide Panagia agreed to sign on as an external reviewer on very short notice and brave daunting weather to make it to the defense on time. His thoughtful provocations made for a rich and stimulating discussion. I was fortunate enough to receive a fellowship at the Center for Ethics that facilitated a year of undisturbed thinking where the bulk of this dissertation was produced. More important than the time, however, was the lively and provocative community I found at the Center. The friends and colleagues I met at the Fellow’s Seminar suffered my early thoughts about James and the discussions we shared over that year have left an indelible mark on this project. To them, I thank Keith Hyams, Robin Shoaps, Darren Walhof, Chris Essert, Andy Paras, Rachel Bryant, iv Chris Nathan, and Jo Lau. And these scholarly contributions would not have been possible without the administrative wizardly of the always-smiling Ashfak Khan. Incoming Director Tom Hurka was also kind enough to let me hold on to my office long after I ought to have left to make my way through the final push of writing. I owe a huge debt of gratitude Melissa Williams. Melissa was the spirit behind the Center’s lively community. My thinking always found inspiration in her commitment to social justice and academic rigor. She was my toughest critic throughout this, but also a kind supporter who took time out of her leave to participate as a reviewer at the defense. Serdar Tekin, Mihaela Mihai, Inder Marwah, and Kiran Banerjee each read various versions of this project and put up with my unhelpful articulations of it over the years. I’ve learned as much about political theory from their friendship than I have in seminars or libraries. They are each in the own ways a model of what it is to be a scholar I hope one day to imitate. Working on James has happily put me in contact with a rich network of scholars of American philosophy who have been kind enough to give me critical feedback on many of these chapters. Dan Newman assured me I was on the right track with Darwin at an important juncture. Hannah Wells, Colin Koopman, Melvin Rogers, Mark Migotti, and Dave Rondel are each exemplary scholars of pragmatism whose wisdom kept me on the right track. I owe a huge thanks to Dave in particular. For the last ten years Dave has been pressing me on the centrality of James while my attention was too frequently captured by some other passing shiny object. My research throughout this process has been generously funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Province of Ontario, the Department of Political Science, the Center for Ethics, and the School of Graduate Studies at the University of Toronto. I am v particularly thankful for a postdoctoral fellowship at Johns Hopkins from SSHRC that made the final months of writing so much less anxious. Finally, the support of friends and family is what got me through this very long haul. In my time in Toronto I’ve been blessed with some of the most loyal, funny, and caring friends one could ask for. Without their support I would have never made it through this. They are: Adrian Blackwell, Jane Hutton, Netami Stuart, Beth Stuart, Joel Herman, Rebekka Hutton, Miike Scahill, Christie Pearson, Marcus Boon, Kika Thorne, Janis Demkiw, Stu Marvel, Marta Jimenez, Sameer Farooq, David Heron, Michael Bartosik, Amy Nugent, and James McKee. Another perk of Toronto is that I’ve had the pleasure of serving as the ‘son-out-law’ of my adopted family. To Anneli, Greg, and Annike, thanks so much. To my own family, I hope you can forgive the countless holidays I’ve spent in the bowels of the library and away from your warmth. Paul, Barb, Caitlin, and Sara-Lynn, I couldn’t have done it without you. Finally, to Merike who read every chapter, put up with all the grad school neuroses that filled the time between them, and remained my constant companion throughout it all: aitäh vi Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….. 1 1.1 William James as Educator ………………………………………………………….. 2 1.2 Is Habit Political? ......................................................................................................... 8 1.3 The Turn to Ethics …………………………………………………………………. 18 1.4 Method and Chapter Outline ……………………………………………………….. 22 Chapter 2 ‘Ceci n’est pas une psychologie’………………………………………………….... 26 2.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 26 2.2 Foucault’s Moral Psychology? …………………………………………………….. 29 2.3 Liberalism and Subjectivization ………………………………………………...…. 34 2.3.1 Foucault and the Critics of Liberalism …………………………………… 35 2.3.2 Genealogies of the Subject-Body ………………………………………… 42 2.4 Ethics and Codes …………………………………………………………………… 46 2.4.1 Foucault’s Late Meta-Ethics ……………………………………………... 47 2.4.2 The Return of the Subject ………………………………………………... 51 2.5 Ethics as Practical Reason …………………...…………………………………….. 58 2.6 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………. 65 Chapter 3 The Pragmatist Enchantment……………………………………………………….. 67 3.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 67 3.2 Darwin, Modernity, and the Culture of the Sick Soul ……………………………... 71 3.3 From Belief to Habit ……………………………………………………………….. 80 3.4 Habit Evolves ………………………………………………………………………. 84 3.5 Enchanted Darwinism and the Therapy of the Will ……………………………….. 92 vii 3.5.1 Habit, Plasticity, and the Material Brain …………………………………. 93 3.5.2 Habit and the Question of the Free Will …………………………………. 98 3.5.3 Willful Aesthetics ………………………………………………………. 104 3.6 The Miracle of Habit ……………………………………………………………… 106 Chapter 4 Docility in America……………………………………………………………….. 110 4.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 110 4.2 The Tocquevillean Thesis ………………………………………………………… 116 4.2.1 Equality, Individualism, and Docility …………………………………... 116 4.2.2 Governing Mutuality ……………………………………………………. 121 4.3 Docility and Acquiescence ……………………………...………………………... 127 4.4 Roosevelt and the Strenuous Life ………………………………………………… 135 4.5 Pluralism as Political Philosophy ……………………………………...…………. 139 4.5.1 The Evolution of James’s Pluralism ……………………………………. 142 4.5.2 Conviction and Constraint ……………………………………………… 146 4.6 Imagination and the Rhetoric of Pluralism ……………………………………….. 148 4.7 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………... 153 Chapter 5 Blind Faith? ………………………………………………………………………. 156 5.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….. 156 5.2 Modernism and Meliorism in Lippmann’s Early Writings ……………………….. 161 5.3 Lippmann’s Machiavellian Moment ……………………………………………… 168 5.3.1 The Omnicompetent Citizen …………………………………………….