I V on Compassion: Sustaining the E Pluribus Unum by Winter Eliza-Noel Brown Department of Political Science Duke University
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
On Compassion: Sustaining the E Pluribus Unum by Winter Eliza-Noel Brown Department of Political Science Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ J. Peter Euben, Co-Supervisor ___________________________ Ruth W. Grant, Co-Supervisor ___________________________ Romand Coles ___________________________ Susan Bickford Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2012 i v ABSTRACT On Compassion: Sustaining the E Pluribus Unum by Winter Eliza-Noel Brown Department of Political Science Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ J. Peter Euben, Co-Supervisor ___________________________ Ruth W. Grant, Co-Supervisor ___________________________ Romand Coles ___________________________ Susan Bickford An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2012 Copyright by Winter Eliza-Noel Brown 2012 Abstract Contemporary political events reveal a serious partisanship divide in which serious, non-bombastic political conversation appears limited. The theatrical effect is to make Americans appear as enemies of each other. And, while compassion might be bandied about as an ideological tool, it seemingly has little to offer the body politic. Yet I believe that not only is compassion possible but it is necessary at a critical time like now. After reviewing compassion’s definitions and the broad literature around it in Chapter One, I take seriously Hannah Arendt’s concerns – that compassion is not only apolitical but anti-political in its encouragement of violence or apathy, its sentimentality, and its eradication of political capacities like thinking. To address Arendt I turn to Jean-Jacques Rousseau and retrieve a neglected form of pity, one not only sociable but tied to action in the polity at large. I then consider how Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception opens compassion’s inter-corporeal dimensions, creating distance and depth between people while aligning their gestures and mannerisms. The ability of compassion to enter politics and create or strengthen solidarity via Robert F. Kennedy’s politics is discussed in the conclusion. Compassion is a discursive and varied phenomenon that appears according to context while also remaining a psycho-physical and emotional capacity to see, acknowledge, and respond to another person. It also acts as a necessary but not sufficient condition for politics, enriching and enlivening other “political” virtues like justice, equality, and freedom by focusing political sight on “the pulse of hearts beating with red blood” (DuBois, Souls of Black Folks). iv Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to those whose own love and compassion sustains me: my parents, in whose care I grew; my husband, in whose sight I bloom; and my daughter, in whose presence I find the startling brightness of hope. v Contents Abstract..........................................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. viii 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Defining Compassion.................................................................................................... 10 1.2. The Debate about Compassion.................................................................................... 21 1.3. Alternatives to Compassion......................................................................................... 32 1.4. Why Compassion? Why Now?.................................................................................... 39 2. The Arendtian Hurdle ............................................................................................................ 49 2.1. Revolutions..................................................................................................................... 50 2.2. Pariahs ............................................................................................................................. 82 2.3. Arendt’s Alternatives.................................................................................................... 92 2.4. Responding to Arendt................................................................................................... 99 3. In Defense of Rousseau’s Pity ............................................................................................. 119 3.1. Sensation and Pity ....................................................................................................... 124 3.2. Pity’s Forms: Natural, Sterile, and Sociable............................................................. 132 3.2.1. Natural Pity ............................................................................................................. 133 3.2.2. Sterile Pity................................................................................................................ 139 3.2.3 Sociable Pity.............................................................................................................. 141 3.2.3.1. Emile ................................................................................................................. 151 3.2.3.2. Julie: Dispositional Compassion ................................................................... 160 3.2.3.3. Wolmar: Rational Compassion ..................................................................... 166 3.2.3.4. St. Preux: Restraining Passions ..................................................................... 172 3.2.3.5. Concerns with Sensual Ethics........................................................................ 176 vi 3.3. Pity and Politics ........................................................................................................... 184 4. Merleau-Ponty and a Phenomenological Compassion.................................................... 194 4.1. Corporeity and Intercorporeity ................................................................................. 200 4.2. Compassion .................................................................................................................. 216 4.3. Violence and Compassion .......................................................................................... 226 4.4. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 241 5. A Compassionate Political Ethos and the United States’ E Pluribus Unum.................. 246 5.1. The Man and the Myth ............................................................................................... 251 5.2. “The Slow Violence of Institutions”.......................................................................... 255 5.3. “The Mindless Menace of Violence”......................................................................... 265 5.4. Political Style: Re-conceiving Solidarity................................................................... 273 5.5. The Dangers Involved and Implications for Politics.............................................. 292 References................................................................................................................................... 308 Biography ................................................................................................................................... 323 vii Acknowledgements The cliché is that writing a dissertation is a lonely affair. I certainly had my share of solitary days, particularly after I spirited away to California with my (now) husband and our dogs and sought to finish my dissertation relatively isolated from my advisors and colleagues at Duke University. Yet this move resulted in a sharper image of and, correspondingly, amplified gratitude for the support and love that not only travelled across the country but also germinated in California. My community changed and doubled, and it is to these twin communities, each replete with friends who challenge and inspire me, that I acknowledge my debts and humbly offer my thanks. But, first, there are those from the beginnings of my intellectual quest. Mr. Francis of Idaho Falls High School remains the quintessential figure of an educator: passionate, involved, challenging, and intelligent. He revolutionized my thinking and planted the seeds that larger academic dreams (and capabilities) lay within. Dr. David Madsen shepherded me through undergraduate studies, providing some of the harshest critiques of my writing while engraining a serious devotion to the notion that “words have meaning,” all with a good dose of humor and care. And Dr. Theresa Earenfight gave me license to dig into primary texts and step beyond the usual bounds of classroom research. At Duke University I was fortunate to be surrounded by colleagues who were collaborative and challenging, and my own growth as a scholar gained from the spirit of our conversations in and outside of the classroom. I especially learned from Joel Schlosser, Laura Grattan, Will Wittels, Dan Morehead, and David Rice. I also owe a good deal of thanks to Hollie Mann, UNC-Chapel Hill,