A Matter of Character: Moral Psychology and Political Exclusion in Kant and Mill Inder Singh Marwah A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto © Copyright by Inder S. Marwah (2011) A Matter of Character: Moral Psychology and Political Exclusion in Kant and Mill Inder Singh Marwah Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto 2011 Abstract What kind of agent does liberal political thought presuppose? Who is the subject inhabiting modern, liberal conceptions of political order? This dissertation is a study of liberal character-formation, of the kinds of persons, subjects and citizens underlying seminal works in the liberal tradition. More specifically, it explores the forms of character and agency sustaining Immanuel Kant’s and John Stuart Mill’s moral and political philosophies, as well as problems of exclusion and marginalization faced by agents who are, either naturally or circumstantially, unable to develop a properly liberal character. The project is guided by three central aims. The first is expository: the dissertation draws to light the substantial attention that Kant and Mill both devoted to the moral psychology of progressive, liberal agency, and to the conditions, processes and mechanisms forming a liberal character. The second aim is critical, examining the ways in which these ideals of liberal character stand to constrain the inclusiveness and equality at the centre of liberal moral and political doctrines. The final aim is evaluative, reflecting on how we might situate problems of exclusion, both within the broader ii architectures of Kant’s and Mill’s respective philosophical systems, and in relation to the liberalisms that we inherit from them. iii Acknowledgments While dissertations are largely written in solitude, they are certainly not built alone. For those who have, over the last few years, provided invaluable and stimulating discussion, concerted guidance, critical feedback, helpful advice, cups of coffee, company over pints and innumerable other forms of support, I owe you thanks. I owe a great debt of gratitude to my supervisor, Ronnie Beiner. Ronnie saw me through a dissertation that ended up arguing almost the complete opposite of what it initially set out to, providing me with the right combination of intellectual space and support to clamber through, and eventually fix, my own thoughts. He was a wonderfully attentive reader and critic, and was unwavering in his openness and receptivity to my sometimes half-concocted ideas. Ronnie’s deep appreciation for, and commitment to, the canonical thinkers and texts in the history of political thought is an inspiration for my own. I could not have had a better doctoral committee. Peggy Kohn not only led me towards critical literatures and perspectives from which I benefited greatly, but is, more broadly, a model of intellectual diversity and openness. She provided equal measures of inspiration and guidance throughout the process, and I continue to marvel at the breadth of her interests. Joe Carens’ analytical clarity and uncanny ability to see the forest when I could only see the trees was critically important in guiding me through this project. There are few better ways that I know to get your thoughts in order than to go for a dog walk with Joe. Simone Chambers and Lisa Ellis both provided rich comments, suggestions and insights on the dissertation, and I remain profoundly indebted to them both. Their scholarship on Kant is, quite simply, exemplary; I can only hope to one day contribute to the ongoing conversations on Kant that they each lead. The University of Toronto is a pretty fantastic place to be a political theorist for many reasons, but perhaps none more than for the colleagues and friends with whom one has an opportunity to share one’s work. More than a few of my papers and chapters benefited from the critical scrutiny of the political theory reading group, which included Erica Frederiksen, Leah Soroko, James McKee, Margaret Haderer, Jakeet Singh, Mihaela Mihai, Alex Livingston, Adrian Neer, Serdar Tekin and Kiran Banerjee; all scholars should be so lucky as to have such gifted and attentive readers and friends. In particular, I am deeply grateful to Alex, Kiran, James and Mihaela; their friendship, scholarship and willingness to read countless papers, discuss half-baked ideas and drink coffee and liquors at all hours of the day and night has made not just my work, but also my life, a whole lot better. I have been very fortunate for the opportunity to work on several research projects beyond my dissertation that have contributed to my academic, professional and personal development in more ways than I can account for. I am very grateful to Phil Triadafilopoulos, Anna Korteweg and Gökçe Yurdakul for involving me in their research and drawing me to think a little more carefully about how my theoretical interests iv intersect with the real world. Phil in particular has, over the course of these years, been a great mentor, advisor, employer, colleague and, most importantly, a wonderful friend. I am immeasurably enriched by his friendship and inspired by his example. The research that I have carried out of the course of these years has been generously supported by the University of Toronto’s Department of Political Science and School of Graduate Studies. There are not too many places that enable people to immerse themselves in the world of political theory to the degree that this department and university do; I am lucky to have had such a stimulating and supportive intellectual home. I am also thankful for my involvement with the Centre for Ethics. The Centre was not only a great source for valuable seminars, colloquia and conferences, but also provided a vibrant home for an interdisciplinary group of researchers in ethics. Under the stewardship of Melissa Williams, the Centre not only drew together a rich community of scholarship, but also reached out to graduate students. I am not alone in having benefited enormously from my involvement with the Centre. I am also grateful to the network of friends and family that have kindly put up with me as I’ve made my way through this project. Dan Newman, Kellie Davis, Matt and Isis Cowley, Carrie Gulland, Chuck Erlichman, Connie Walker, Aidan Roman-Crossland, Jeremy Coghill, Saul Davis, Céline Cressman, Dak Dekerckhove, Jennie Knopp, Nick Smith, Mark Satterthwaite, Sam and Kristin Simmons, Ian Brooks, Laura Boudreau, Amy Nugent, Tomaz Jardim, Jon Seet, Michelle Buckley: thanks for simply being your lovely selves. Thanks to my family-in-law, John, Joanna, Rupert and Verity, for so warmly embracing me in general, and more particularly, for introducing me to the joys of Cornish pasties on wonderfully memorable trips to St. Ives. And a particularly big thanks to my own family. To Jaspal, whose unceasing curiosity and steadfast refusal to follow well- worn tracks I will always find inspiring, and to my parents, Lally and Marlène, whose unwavering commitments to the value of education and learning provided all of the support a person could ever hope for, thank you. Finally, my greatest thanks go to Morwenna. She has not only tolerated the anxieties and challenges that so naturally accompany a dissertation, but has always been able to draw me out of my often-narrowed vision with warmth, perspective, love and consideration. This dissertation would not exist without her. v Table of Contents Chapter 1: Matters of Law, Questions of Character…………………….....................1 1.1 The God Who Loves You………………………………………………….....1 1.2 A Few Considerations………………………………………………………..10 1.2.1 Considerations of Method………………………………………….10 1.2.2 Considerations of Subject………………………………………….13 1.2.3 Considerations of Terminology……………………………………16 1.3 Intransigent Freedom and the Conduct of Conduct………………...…….….18 1.4 Mapping Our Way…………………………………………………………...27 Chapter 2: Unbending Crooked Timber: A Developmental Account of Kantian Moral Agency………………………………………………...39 2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………….39 2.2 Transcendental Grounding, Empirical Contexts…………………………….45 2.2.1 Between Critique and Anthropology……………………………....45 2.2.2 Elateres Motiva: Moral Feeling and the Subjective Grounds of Choice………………………………………………...49 2.3 Making Moral Agents……………………………………………………….54 2.3.1 Micro-Formation…………………………………………………..56 i. The Fine Balance of Moral Education………………………...56 ii. Stages of Pedagogy: Discipline, Culture, Moral Training…....58 iii. Moral Training I: Habituation………………………………..61 iv. Moral Training II: Propaedeutic Aids......................................64 v. Virtue and Moral Character…………………………………...67 vi. Moral Revolution and Disposition: The Good Human Being…………………………………………………71 2.3.2 Macro-Formation…………………………………………………..76 i. History: Stages of Progress……………………………………77 ii. Culture and Civilization: Bridging Nature and Freedom……..80 vi iii. Political Education…………………………………………...83 2.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...89 Chapter 3: Progressive Agents and Agents of Progress: Exclusion in Kant’s Moral and Political Thought……………………………………...92 3.1 Problems of Exclusion, Moral and Political…………………………………92 3.2 Political Exclusion.………………………………………………………......96 3.2.1 Citizens and Cobeneficiaries………………………………………96 3.2.2 Self-Mastery, Non-Mastery and Political Judgment………………98 3.3 Political Exclusion, Moral Exclusion…………………………...………….104 3.3.1 What Nature Makes of Her: Kant’s Gendered Metaphysics……..104 3.3.2 Three