What's Young Up to Here?

So, i been thinking about Young's arguments against impartiality and i may have just been thinking about it too much, but it kinda seems like she's constructed straw man out of impartiality. She talks about impartiality as requiring that we exclude the particularities of life. Like on pg.111, "Precisely because the virtues of impartiality and universality define the civic public, that public must exclude human particularity." When i've been thinking about impartiality i've been thinking about taking all particularities into account, but ignoring one's own position in the affair. Less of a complete abstraction from life, but an abstraction from your position in it and an acknowledgment of all arguments, including your own. She talks about it denying feelings, but i always thought about it as putting your desires and feeling on equal footing with everyone else's. This is what i've been imagining Rawls is talking about with his veil of ignorance, as well. Either i'm confused about Rawls or im confused about Young or Young's confused about Rawls. Either way i could use some help sorting this out.

In response to Emma Goldman's essay, my main dispute is that it is simply incomplete as an argumentative essay. On the whole it lacks justification and she excludes voices of opposition. Furthermore she expounds on the theoretical and on that alone there is truth to what she says but she doesn't really even attempt to venture into the practical, other than to quarrel with Oscar Wilde's definition;

"...rather [it is] whether the scheme has vitality enough to leave the stagnant waters of the old, and build, as well as sustain, new life."

Not only is this unecessarily sensationalist but it fails to serve as a denotative description of what the word really means; she uses it to insinuate that 'existing conditions' are 'wrong or foolish', and that the new is the only acceptable conditions. This is logically absurd because under absolute anarchy or free communism, it would become the old at some point and become inherently 'wrong or foolish' or both. Practical is in reality a vague term that in any one person's mind is applied to something that is not overly tasking to bring about. In other words, it is both achievable and has an acceptable cost. But she wants to say that if it is something that aims to alter the existing conditions and is possible (at least theoretically) that irrespective of cost (seemingly) it is 'practical'.

Having understood her negative feelings about 'existing conditions' and utter faith in new ones, I find a contradiction in her thoughts on natural law:

"A natural law is that factor in man which asserts itself freely and spontaneously without any external force, in harmony with the requirements of nature."

and quoting Blackstone:

"Human laws are invalid, because they are contrary to the laws of nature."

She seems to be saying there is some kind of inherent truth or good or correctness in 'natural laws' which seem to be human impulses, drives, desires, etc. In other words biological forces are the only 'valid' ones, and 'external forces' are bad. But what are external forces but other humans or nature? Governments are still composed of individuals, who are driven by biological impulses. Where can she draw the line between action or thought that is the result of one's self, or society? Of course this brings up the nature/nurture debate but the question remains: how can one make a distinction between the forces of nature and the forces of the forces of nature? My main point though is to point out the lack of justification for this inherent correctness of nature and its expression in us, and our impulses. Just because unconscious forces of evolution made it, doesn't make it right. Mutations if you will, are mistakes. Most often they lead to the death of the organism or impairement, but they are absolutely necessary to survival. That means that our human form is only 'justified' temporarily, and as time changes, so must we. Change is good, but it is not true that the only good is change.

Human impulses can be incredibly destructive, the crusades as a case in point. The practice of rape and pillage in war and otherwise, greed, lust, other sins perhaps. Humans are not inherently evil, but they aren't inherently good either. We're a mix of both (if we wish to talk of good/evil).

My next question then is how do we protect ourselves from each other in a state of anarchy given these destructive qualities of humans? She seems to think they somehow disappear or are mitigated by anarchy:

"Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities."

She goes on to make a case that negative human behavior a result of govenments and that under the conditions of anarchy we simply won't have to worry much about them. Its interesting to note however, that she doubts our ability to confirm the inherent wickedness of human nature by not having any pure specimens to look at, and yet asserts the opposite claim (inherent goodness) in spite of the same lack of empirical data.

Without getting into the justification, I would simply assert that humans are a mix of qualities, and that they are expressed no matter what conditions they are in to varying degrees, and that we need a balance of liberty and control to maximize human growth. The question for her then is; given her strategy to protect humanity from institutions/groups, how does she plan on protecting us from individuals once they are gone?

Thoughts while reading Goldman..

Just some random thoughts I had while reading Goldman. This in particular struck a chord with me:
"The primitive man, unable to understand his being, much less the unity of all life, felt himself absolutely dependent on blind, hidden forces ever ready to mock and taunt him. Out of that attitude grew the religious concepts of man as a mere speck of dust dependent on superior powers on high, who can only be appeased by complete surrender...Man can have all the glories of the earth, but he must not become conscious of himself. The State, society, and moral laws all sing the same refrain: Man can have all the glories of the earth, but he must not become conscious of himself."

I think that society makes the individual utterly conscious of the self. It criticizes and ostracizes those who don't fall into the normal range of being. For example, children tease one another, peer pressure causes people to do things they normally wouldn't. This reminds me of the phrase "don't be so self-conscious," which does not imply that one should not be aware of one's surroundings, actions, or the actions of others -- it is to imply that the individual should not abstract an other within their own mind which holds them back. That other is often the individual's notion of what society wants. So, another way to say the same thing would be: "Don't care so much what other people think of you."

Yes, religion and society were first built upon the notion that the individual is nothing but society has progressed (a notion that Emma Goldman would appreciate) from that state to a state where individuals have the option to think freely and live as they please. This is a right which may be voluntarily given up, not an inexorable aspect of humanity.

It seems Emma Goldman was keen to highlight Anarchism's invitation to freely think, but hardly touches on the consequences when people fail to think, or worse, turn poor thoughts into action.

Emma Goldman: Quick Video History & Criticism

I searched through YouTube and found a pair of videos that go together giving some history of Emma Goldman and the anarchist movement in the United States, from her arrival in America as a teenage Russian immigrant, to her time as a villified figure in the American media after President McKinley's assassin named her as one of his inspirations, then on to her support of the Bolsheviks in the early days of the Soviet revolution and finishing with the reversal of her position of support after seeing the dark side of Lenin's new Russia.

Part 1


Part 2

Although I find Goldman's critical analysis of the oppressive factors present in religion, property and the state to be valid, I have a problem with the anarchist doctrine as a whole. What is the real plan here? Yes, we need something better than a dictatorship of the majority or of the proletariat, we need to address the inequalities and injustice that are reinforced by modern conceptions of property, and we need to be wary of metaphysical doctrines used as methods of control, but what is the plan once direct action is taken and a revolution takes place? What happens after Anarchism successfully overthrows these institutions? We need some concrete form of social organization to deal with real problems beyond the ones Anarchism identifies: problems like drought, famine, disease, wars and invasions initiated by foreign powers. How does a lawless, leaderless society deal with problems like these? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I see no clear plan for addressing these problems once Anarchism succeeds its basic goal of overthrowing these oppressive institutions.

Goldman and Anarchism

In her article, Goldman defines Anarchism to be “the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest of violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.” She believes that Anarchism frees man from enslavement, entities that bear a horrific dominance: Religion, Property, and Government. I think her definition of Religion is focused more on the Christian basis, she makes religion sound unpleasant by generalizing in one group, but I because religion doesn’t necessarily have to dominate a person, rather it could be their lifestyle like Veganism for example; people have the freedom to follow or reject it. It seems that today, especially in America, people have the freedom to practice their “Religious” doctrines.

Government is described as an unjust, slave-driving “machine,” an uncaring robber. How would this be harmful for a contactualist society, if everyone agrees to the rules?

Observing human nature is analogous to animals in captivity because both undertake suffering in cages, unable to act upon their full potential. It seems that Goldman sees people as good in themselves, that things will become orderly by themselves. By resisting and defying “all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and moral,” I can’t imagine there being order because people will always disagree amongst each other publicly and privately.

“A perfect personality is only possible in a state of society where a man is free to choose the mode of work, conditions of work, and the freedom to work,” but if that is the case, everyone will want to be a firefighter or something glamorous. No one will want to be a janitor, or a doctor who gets paid the same amount as the janitor.

Revolution and Reaction: Differences between Marxism and Anarchism

While using very persuasive language, referencing nearly all major thinkers in anarchist thought, and touching a chord with the deep discontent many feel when looking around at society today, a careful and well informed reading of Goldman will bring up several questions. The first of which is the nature of the state and the ruling class. Engels has perhaps the best analysis of the difference between Marxists and Anarchists in his piece Versus the Anarchists. In it Engels elucidates the different perspectives of the chief problem in society; the state for the Anarchists, and the ruling class for Marxists. The basic argument is that Anarchists see the ruling class as a product, or at least dependent on the state, and therefore the state should be the main focus, as it is the main problem. Marxists, however, see the state as a tool and product of the ruling class, which is provided to help that class maintain its privileges. This is an insightful distinction, and could possibly help explain the different historical failures of both Marxism and Anarchism.

This is the first issue to take up with Goldman's essay: the state is given to much focus, and the ruling class ignored. The references she makes to trade union organizing and direct action are also dated, as they all fail within ten years. Kropotkin, Tolstoy, and Bakunin are all quintessential Anarchist theorists, however they also have relatively counterrevolutionary histories. Bakunin and Kropotkin were both Russian royalty who stood in opposition to Marxists in the First International and the Russian Civil War. While Bakunin was involved in several abortive revolutions, Kropotkin went so far as to support the Whites in the Russian Civil War. Tolstoy was an aristocratic novelist and devout Christian. The historical failures of Anarchism could perhaps be chalked up to its failure to consider the issue of the ruling class. The Krondstat Mutiny, the Spanish Civil War, and general strikes in Italy, Spain, and France show the willingness of Anarchists to cooperate with the ruling class. However Marxism seems to have erred on the side of focussing too much on the ruling class and neglecting the issue of the state. A quick survey of Stalin and Mao show the potential faults in Marxism, where once the former ruling class has been expropriated, there is no real consideration of the potential dangers of the state.

Well, after a long development I suppose that my point is this: which theory, Marxism or Anarchism, is better at explaining the main problem with society? Do modern problems and alienation stem from the state or the ruling class? Moreover, to what extent can one explain the historical shortcomings of these ideologies through understanding this difference?

Goldman and the Founding Fathers

Goldman brings up an interesting point about how the founders of the United States were spirited individuals with minds to create change. “If not for the spirit of rebellion, of the defiance on the part of the American revolutionary fathers, their posterity would still wear the King’s coat.” I wonder what the founding fathers of the United States would say about the way American citizens have allowed the Bush administration to engage in a war that is not widely supported by its citizens. Sometimes I think that if the founders were here today they would be appalled by how much authority the American people have given to their government. I think if they were here, they might be inspired to rebel against the current political institutions in the United States in an attempt to create a government where, once again, the goal would be to serve and protect it’s citizens instead of exploiting them as pawns to make corporations vast amounts of profit.

Root of all Evil?

Goldman is suggesting that government, religion, and property is what causes all of our problems, and we need to do away with all of this so that human beings can finally be free to develop in healthy and life-affirming ways. And though her indictment of much of the injustices in modern society are valid, I am not convinced that it is the "government, religion, and property" as such that are responsible for all our woes. Obviously this is an immensely complex issue, but it strikes me that there is something more at the root of our problem than the things that Goldman is addressing. Yes government, religion, and private property can be used to perpetrate evil, but are these things really evil in themselves? It seems to me that Goldman is possibly ignoring the individual responsibility that each one of us has to "do justice and love mercy". Blaming all the problems on human institutions seems to beg the question.

Another question: how can Goldman so confidently assert that religion is just a total sham to keep us from "discovering our humanity"? Perhaps she is right, but why is it that the majority of people throughout all ages, and continuing on today, have a sense that there is more to this universe than the merely material? It strikes me as somewhat presumptive to simply deny the possibility of the spiritual realm simply because she thinks it has been used for evil purposes. I say this because even she herself seems to suggest that anarchism has some Ultimate Value: " It is the great, surging, living truth that is reconstructing the world, and that will usher in the Dawn."

Thoughts Anyone?

Lecture Notes: Foucault and Young

The slides from the Michel Foucault and Iris Young lectures are now online. Hope they are helpful to some of you in revisiting your lecture notes.

Michel Foucault Lectures
May 6: Foucault Intro
Teaching_Phil144_May6_Foucault_Intro.pps

May 8: Foucault's Discipline and Punish (Disciplining Power & Liberating Freedom)
Teaching_Phil144_May8_Foucault_DP.pps

May 13: Foucault's Discipline and Punish (Power/Knowledge, Normalization)
Teaching_Phil144_May13_Foucault_DP.pps

May 15: Foucault's Discipline and Punish (Panopticism, Diffusing Discipline)
Teaching_Phil144_May15_Foucault_Disc.pps

Iris Young Lectures
May 20: Iris Marion Young (Justice plus Politics of Difference)
Teaching_Phil144_May20_Young.pps

May 22: Iris Marion Young (Feminism, Oppression and Domination as Injustices)
Teaching_Phil144_May22_Young.pps

May 27: Iris Marion Young (Public and Private)
Teaching_Phil144_May27_Young_PubPriv.pps

Let me know if you have any difficulties with the files or links...

Class Note: 1-Pager Due Thursday

Please bring to class this Thursday a short one-page response paper. The paper should be one-page max., double-spaced or 1.5-spacing, typed and with your name at the top top.

The topic of the paper should be just one of the critics of liberalism we have been reading over the last few weeks. So, either a page on Foucault or Young (or Goldman or Marx) will do. Describe one of their criticisms of liberalism (or one aspect of liberalism) and briefly suggest why you agree or disagree.

You might use this as an opportunity to think about integrating Foucault or Young (or Goldman or Marx) into the final research essay which you should be thinking about and/or working on by now. As a reminder, the final research essay of 7-9 pages will be due in class (and by email) next Thursday.

Positivist Grounds?

By arguing for the establishment of some global governing body, doesn't Young fall victim to her own criticism of our moral responsibilities to one another being based purely around a positivist outlook, thus actually "robbing" the responsibilities of any actual moral application, and designating them purely as a matter of obligatory policy to the governing body's regulation of all who exist within it?

Two Questions

1. Young seems to be aiming for a society of difference without hierarchy, in as much as hierarchy would entail difference as being a basis for exclusion. Are all kinds of difference amenable to this system? Are there certain kinds of difference that we might want to a priori exclude from the liberal state? How might a just politics of difference pragmatically relate to things like religious fundamentalism (Islamic or Christian), or issues given strong moral weight as regards life like abortion or animal rights. What is the extent of liberal toleration?

2. Does Young's critique, by focusing on an emancipatory interest juxtaposed against an oppressive one, recapitulate sovereign power? Does conceiving of power relations as disciplinary power simply entail an acknowledgment that the exercise of power is diffuse and no longer connected to a unary, directly blamable body, so that emancipation must take on structures and relations rather than individuals, or might Young need to better account for the productive and complicit ways in which we partake in disciplinary power?

The Universal Citizen

In class we talked about Young's criticism of the Public/Private divide, which pointed out that power structures of the Public Sphere reach into the Private Sphere and condition the possibilities of individuals within family structures and are generally internalized into the Private Sphere. On page 110, she talks about the notion of a model of knowledge and social discourse that legitimizes the power of certain groups through the exclusion of others (pg 111, last full paragraph). To what degree do these power relations become internalized within the behaviors of individuals, such that people of excluded groups believe and participate in the discourse which excludes them? Going back to Foucault, how does his notion of power relate to Young's criticisms? Is her model still too dualistic?

The Ideal of Impartiality

In the beginning of chapter four Young argues for the 'ideal of impartiality', a feminist argument that challenges the modern conception of moral reasoning. The ideal of impartiality is very similar to Rawls's original position. "The stances of detachment and dispassion that supposedly produce impartiality are attained only by abstracting from the particularities of situation, feeling, affiliation, and point of view"(Young, 97). I agree with the idea of making laws/rights under the conditions Young and Rawls speak of. Does anyone disagree with this ideal? Why?

The Proper Distribution of Goods

America is a society with a vast array of material goods and also extreme differences in the access to those goods this directly relates to John Rawls theory of justice based on the distribution of goods, which is also important for Iris Marion Young. However, Young defines social justice in an expansion of Rawls’ distributive justice and in relation to her idea of the distributive paradigm as “the morally proper distribution of social benefits and burdens among society’s members… [and] often includes, however, non-material social goods such as rights, opportunity, power, and self-respect” (16). The distributive paradigm is Young’s critique on theorists like Rawls' conception of justice based on distribution that does not take individuality into account and simplifies people in relation to the goods that they possess rather than their personal history or current situations. She suggests that people in the distributive paradigm are just “nodes, points in the field” which becomes illogical when expanded to non-material resources (18). It is obvious to me that things such as rights or opportunity are not equal for everyone in our society, do you agree? If so, how do you think our society or any society could go about equally distributing both material and non-material goods in a more effective manner?