>Here are the last couple of pages from an essay written for a high school
audience.
>
>From Matt Stannard, "Answering Rawls," WEST COAST DEBATE PHILOSOPHER AND VALUE
HANDBOOK Vol. 8, 2001
>
>While these are good ideas, ideas that ring true to those concerned with
participatory
>democracy, my argument is that Rawls ignores the material conditions that
currently
>prevent such a public forum from becoming actualized...
He is open about his work being an exercise in what he calls "ideal theory", so the decision to ignore "the material conditions" would seem to be a deliberate one. Why do you assume that he _endorses_ "the material conditions that currently prevent such a public forum from becoming actualised"?
>Herman and Chomsky argue that there are currently five ³filters² which prevent
>genuine democratic discussion of ideas.
What ground do you have for thinking that Rawls, or any Rawlsian, isn't concerned about the existence of these various "filters", insofar as they distort democratic discourse?
>The second major problem with Rawls¹ idea of a public forum concerns his
insistence
>that participants cast aside their ³comprehensive doctrines² and instead debate
the
>within the inclusive, agreed-upon values which will not offend any other
participants or
>marginalize groups of society who wish to participate in the public forum.
The values that are "agreed upon", in Rawls's exercise in "ideal theory" are precisely reasonable values, as he describes the virtues of reasonableness, not simply values which are in conformity - as you suggest - with those of "those classes of people who are already dominant members of society".
>The Rawlsian public forum, however, cannot entertain such a critique, because
said
>critique is too ³private²-based, too ³comprehensive,² and unwilling to
compromise
>with those participants in the public forum who see no problem with patriarchy.
Is there terribly good reason to think that a Rawlsian shouldn't have a problem with patriarchy? Susan Okin championed a certain kind of liberal feminist critique of Rawls several years ago -- but is there good reason to think that Rawlsian doctrine can't be adapted to fit the terms of that kind of liberal feminist critique?
>But Rawls would not allow the Marxist to make that argument, because it
involves the
>embrace of an ³absolutist² worldview, contrary to the more ³reasonable²
discourse in
>the public forum.
Insofar as Marxism rests on propositions and theses which can be stated and argued and defended with reasons and examples and so on, it is entirely welcome in the Rawlsian public sphere. Insofar as it rests on faith, dogmatism or a refusal to engage with criticism, it isn¹t. What¹s wrong with that, from your point of view?
>It seems that, the more we think about who is and is not welcome
>in the public forum, the more clearly the picture emerges: To be
> welcome, one should not believe anything controversial.
What ground do you have for thinking that Rawls thought that?
>In other words, the feminist who argues that the idea of a public forum rests
on a
>public/private dichotomy which favors patriarchy will be dismissed by the
Rawlsian
>liberal as ³unreasonable² because feminism is a comprehensive doctrine which
>questions the underlying ideological structures of liberalism.
This is more interesting, but still highly questionable.
>I hope I have shown that the philosophy of John Rawls is an idea whose time has
not
>yet come.
Which Rawlsian, if any, believes that American / Western societies are models of Rawlsian politics?
>My intention was not to refute the ideal promise of his philosophy. Instead,
my point
>throughout the essay has been that Rawls¹ ideas require different material
>arrangements than those that presently exist.
A point of view with which Rawls would seem to agree, given the descriptions he offers of either "a property owning democracy" or "market socialism", which he thinks are the possible regimes which might form the basis of a just society, and his account of the demands of the so-called ³difference principle².
>Until that time, people ought to read Rawls as a dream unfulfilled.
Again, which readers of Rawls, in your opinion, have a contrary view?
And what did the high school audience make of this?
Pedantically yours,
Chris
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20021128/d0140d94/attachment.htm>