<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: Rawls, public forum, materiality</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> On 28/11/02 10:03 pm, "Stannard67@aol.com" <Stannard67@aol.com> wrote: >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 <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> >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 “filters” 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 Rawls’ idea of a public forum concerns his insistence >that participants cast aside their “comprehensive doctrines” 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 “private”-based, too “comprehensive,” 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 “absolutist” worldview, contrary to the more “reasonable” 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 isn’t. What’s 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 “unreasonable” 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 Rawls’ 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 “difference principle”. >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 </BODY> </HTML>