Charles Taylor,Philosophical Arguments
(1995)
Notes, Questions & Answers #11: "Invoking Civil Society"
1. What does T. mean by "civil society"; what is its opposite?
The opposite is totalitarianism in which the state
dictates every dimension of life. T. alludes to Marxist totalitarianism in which "no
dissident opinions shoud be expressed" (205) & everyone enthusiastically
contributes to whatever social program the state offers. The opposite social position to
this is anarchy. Civil society occupies the middle ground. Individuals are minimally
constrained by law, but largely left to pursue their individual desires/interests. As a
liberal, T. wants more than this Util. Instead of being indifferent to your neighbors in
public, & often feeling aggressive toward them in private, he wants us to be civil.
This does not only mean being polite; it also means political involvement, compromise,
& cooperation instead of self-righteous segregation.
211-15: We have talked about specialized discourse
communities. T., like John Dewey, here talks about the most inclusive discourse community,
the state, asking what it has as a focal point or what it is dedicated to as public/social
value/s. He says such values have historically varied. "For both the Greeks & the
Romans, the identity of society was defined by . . . its political constitution"
& institutions. The agora (marketplace) was the center of the polis
where discussion/gossip was about politics. The rise of the Christian church subverted
this center, convincing people that their most fundamental concerns were discussed in
church. Christianity could not entirely replace the agora with the church, but
medievalism certainly illustrated the hegemony of the church. A 3rd outlook was
defined by Adam Smith (capitalist Util.) in which the bank & money became inescapable
& universal concerns for every adult. Each of these values is public: "public is
what matters to the whole society . . . or pertains to the instruments, institutions . . .
by which the society comes together," 217. Each of these claims was totalitarian or
reductionistic. Each claimed that its vocabulary & concerns were the most fundamental
& important; that if you succeeded in its dimension, other areas of life were
unimportant. If you were powerful (or a saint; or rich), nothing else mattered.
2. What occurred in the 18th c. to radically
change totalitarian/reductionistic outlooks?
The Enlightenment, which carried on the work begun
by the Reformation: "The new notion of opinion in the 18th c. defines a
quite different model of public space," 217. The 3 models identified by T. are
hierarchical. Authority runs from the top down: emperor/general; pope; millionaire
entrepreneur. They give the orders; we follow them. "The novel aspect" of
Protestant & Enlightenment society was/is "that public opinion is elaborated
entirely outside the channels & public [formal, controlled] spaces of any authority
whatever," 217.
Although T. doesn't recognize this, don't you think that Util. & Adam Smith's "invisible hand of the marketplace" contributed to the notion of consumers or people with myriad tastes, interests, & desires. J.S. Mill told us that economic tides could be statistically followed, but that economics could not predict how an individual spent her money or, before that, exactly what she was thinking. Consumer market analysts would have to listen to individual tastes. More often the paradigm shift from top-down to bottom-up egalitarianism is located in the Reformation; specifically in Protestant churches where ministers were "called" or elected by the congregation instead of appointed by the archdiocese & ultimately the Vatican.
All 3 models were redefined by this shift. None of
them could continue to make radically monolithic or totalitarian claims when "people
have an identity . . . purposes, [&] even a will, [located] outside any political
[religious, or economic] structure," 219. In his most popular book, Sources of The
Self, T. identifies this development with Romanticism which asserted the claim that
ordinary, emotional life-experience was valuable in-itself without having to be filtered
or picked-over to fit into formal patterns offered by politics, religion, or money. As we
all know, sincerity is currency or virtue or authority on Oprah and Montel and
Rickie Lake.
Notice where T. ends up at the top of 223: "So our notion of civil society is complex." We identified 7 positions above: totalitarian/reductionist/absolute claims for determinative systems in which the single causal force is: power, Christian morality, or Util. money. We then redefined each of these by removing the absolute/transcendental claim & recognizing a pragmatism of human agency. For example, we might recognize how something like Erik Erikson's stages of human growth & development affect power or morality or money; how age & maturity & subjective psychology crucial matter in how an individual perceives these social values. However it is done, the institutions of power, morality, & money are built from the bottom-up by the life experience & decisions of millions of individuals. Finally, we added a relatively new canvas or focal point for public concern: sentiment.
Post-Enlightenment civil society has marginalized the 1st 3 claims. Totalitarian political claims (whether fascist or Marxist) seem as extreme & neurotic as cloistered religious life or work-aholic social Darwinism miserliness. Of course, fundamentalists/fanatics exist in all 3 directions but each fails to convince us that their specialized concerns should be the exclusive public concern. The other four discourse communities (power, religion, money, aesthetics) offer us temporary or alternating identities & involvements. You should be able to see where T. is going: toward the idea that a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society, which offers even more non-exclusive discourse communities that we can drop in & out of, defines a desirable society. As a liberal, T. will wish nuance this away from a shopping model & towards a "civil," public, community model where each boutique is not just tolerated as an option for individual consumers, but required to justify or proclaim its value publicly.
On to #13: "The Public Sphere"
(From #13 we will go back to #12; or if you insist: #12: "The
Politics of Recognition".)
Oct. 96
