Eldon Kerr i Politics and spirit: a rhetorical analysis of the works of David Graeber, 1999-2016 Stephen Eldon Kerr, McGill University Submitted August 2016 © A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts in Political Science Eldon Kerr ii Table of Contents Introduction 1 “Cynicism has replaced ideology”: undercutting the dictatorship of no alternative 15 Part one: Cynicism and ideology 17 What does Graeber think the problem is? 17 How does Graeber try to respond to these sorts of ideological problems? 21 Being prescriptive while trying not to appear so: creating a new common sense 27 The politics of vagueness 31 Part two: Ambiguity and silence, affordances of a rhetorical context 34 Of verticals, pre-formed schemes, and defining reality: Graeber’s enemies on the Left 36 The politics of attaching normative weight 40 The politics of the imagination: blurred conceptual distinctions 43 Of ethos and affordances 48 A very uncommon common sense 51 Conclusion 53 Works Cited 62 Eldon Kerr iii This thesis offers a reading of David Graeber’s works for a general audience in order to advance two related arguments about political realism, the branch of political theory whose proponents think political theorists should concern themselves less with abstract theorizing about ideals and more with the messy realities of politics in which people actually do things to other people. The main contribution of the thesis is thus to debates about methodology within political theory. The first argument is that optimistic and vague political writing, of the sort realists might think too abstract and diffuse to be a part of ‘real’ politics, should not necessarily be considered any less political for its optimism and vagueness. In fact, if one believes political horizons must be widened, then a dreamy, optimistic, ambiguity might be one strategy of accomplishing that goal. The second, more important, argument is that the spirit of a piece of writing matters, and the spirit of a piece of writing will often tend to be both philosophical and political. I argue that the ‘really’ political and the ‘abstractly’ theoretical are not as far apart as some realists seem to think. Theoretical texts are also political interventions, and political texts also carry normative and abstract spirits along with them. Through my reading of obviously diffuse texts like Graeber’s, I show that understanding ostensibly ‘specific’ texts, such as those written by political theorists, is itself a vague art; the dividing line between hazy political speech and rigorous academic language, like the dividing line between different linguistic or political contexts, is itself porous. The realist’s location of ‘real politics’ as being somehow ‘out-there’, away from the theorists’ world of dusty books, misses the political spirit which animates theoretical language, and the abstract normative concerns which animate real politics. Eldon Kerr iv Cette thèse propose une interprétation des travaux de David Graeber publiés pour un grand public afin d’avancer deux arguments concernant le réalisme politique. Les défenseurs d’un tel réalisme pensent que les théoriciens politiques devraient avant tout s’occuper non de modèles abstraits et idéaux mais plutôt d’une réalité politique constituée et compliquée par une série d’actions concrète entre individus. La contribution principale de cette thèse s’inscrit donc dans une série de débats méthodologiques en théorie politique. L’argument premier concerne une écriture politique optimiste et vague, de telle sorte que les réalistes la trouveront trop abstraite et dispersée pour s’inscrire dans le ‘vrai’ politique. Nous suggérons qu’une telle écriture ne devrait pas nécessairement être pensée comme moins politique en vertu de son caractère optimiste et quelque peu vague. Ces qualités, au contraire, permettent un élargissement des horizons politiques. Le second argument, le plus important, est que l’esprit d’un texte écrit importe, et que celui-ci se dédouble fréquemment comme politique et philosophique. Je suggère que le ‘vraiment’ politique et l’’abstrait’ théorique ne se sépare pas tant que semble le penser certains réalistes. Le texte théorique est aussi intervention politique, et le texte politique se caractérise autant par son poids normatif que par son esprit abstrait. À travers une interprétation de textes clairement éparpillés, comme ceux de Graeber, je montre que la compréhension de textes paraissant plus spécifique est elle même une approximation ; la limite entre le discours politique flou et le langage académique rigoureux, comme la limite entre d’autres contextes politique et linguistique, et elle même en jeu. L’inscription du ‘vrai’ politique comme étant ‘là-bas’, ‘dehors’, loin du monde bibliothécaire des théoriciens, ignore autant l’esprit politique qui anime le langage théorique que l’importance d’abstractions normative au sein du vrai politique. Eldon Kerr v Acknowledgements I’ve often wondered if the thanks given to advisors in thesis acknowledgements isn’t somewhat overblown or even, in the most seemingly-egregious cases, barely-concealed sycophancy. I need wonder no more. Without the tireless efforts of Will Roberts, this thesis would be a pale imitation of barely-passable work. He is a wonderful teacher, a kind man, and I feel blessed to have been given so much of his time. I’d also like to thank all students I have met in the last two years, too many to list here, who have helped me learn and grow. Your lessons were as good as professionals’! Still, thanks also to Yves Winter, Arash Abizadeh, Víctor Muñiz-Fraticelli, Jacob Levy, Tara Alward, and all the other teachers and staff of McGill University: I wouldn’t have an M.A. without you! Big shoutout to all who have lived in 1208 the past few years. Thanks for the food, drink, chat, and allowing me to clog up the living room with mounds of papers and books. To Claudia, whose last two years have been so difficult, so heartbreaking, yet who never failed to listen to my quotidian worries with such grace, charity, and charm: A++. Thanks to the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture without whose generosity this work would not exist, for better or worse. Eldon Kerr 1 Politics and spirit: a rhetorical analysis of the works of David Graeber, 1999-2016 Introduction In recent years, one of the most prominent questions concerning the status and methodologies of political theory1 has been about the question of realism. A number of theorists have worried that the kind of ideal-theory approach taken by many (and likely the majority of) theorists throughout the later part of the Twentieth century and onward has tended to overlook and even obscure vital parts of political life. Although the critics of ideal theory are drawn from different areas of the discipline and do not often share political commitments, they do share the belief that political theory ought to concern itself less with theorizing about what justice would require in an ideal world and more with the messy non-ideal realities of political life. In the following section, I will lay out what I take to be the principal concerns of the political realists, before explaining how my project hopes to correct some of their oversights. Since the concerns of realists are strongly intertwined – is it possible to really separate an action from the actor? – this breakdown will necessarily be somewhat artificial, but it should help clarify the main elements of the realist charge. What is realism? Most obviously, realism is associated with the desire to have political theorists take the ‘real world’ more seriously. It is not the attempt to get political theorists to believe that all politics is simply realpolitik (although realists would no doubt want theorists to recognize that realpolitik is a part of political life), but rather the attempt to get theorists to focus on the 1 For the purposes of this project, the terms political theory and political philosophy will be understood to denote the same thing, although do I recognize that there are often important and predictable educational background and research interests between the two camps. Eldon Kerr 2 concrete historical realities of politics and abandon their retreat into the kind of ideal-theorizing about what justice would require that is associated with post-Rawlsian political philosophy. In the words of one of political realism’s principal advocates, Raymond Geuss, “political philosophy must recognize that politics is in the first instance about action and the contexts of action, not about mere beliefs or propositions” (Philosophy and Real Politics 11). Realists believe that political theorists need to take seriously the fact that politics is always about attempts to do things. More importantly, they need to take seriously the fact that politics is not just about people doing things, but about people doing things to other people. Geuss thinks that the archetypal political question is that posed by Lenin: “Who? Whom?” (Philosophy and Real Politics 25). For the realists, politics is about who does what to whom for whose benefit. Importantly, this doing is not just the frictionless ‘putting into practice’ of principles and theories, but a realm constituted by that process of putting into practice. In the words of Mark Philp, the idea of a good life in which ethics and politics “are effortlessly linked seems a utopian aspiration…political virtue is not only not rooted in the good life, it is in its nature exposed to demands that may compromise some of our most cherished commitments” (Political Conduct 38-39). To do politics is not simply to apply ethics, but to enter a world in which my doing is always related to other people’s doing, so that what I choose to do is inextricably linked to what other people are doing and plan to do.