Who’s depriving?
We’ve been puzzling over some apparently sweeping language of Martha Nussbaum’s, especially her claim that ‘the type of mutual respect that is required in a pluralistic society…requires (in the public sphere at least) not showing up the claims of religion as damaging, and not adopting a public conception of truth and objectivity according to which such claims are false.’ What does she mean by ‘not adopting a public conception’? Does she mean, narrowly, a public conception for purposes of political deliberation? Or does she mean, broadly, a public conception in the sense of any public statement or writing? It would be charitable to think she meant the former, but on the other hand, it seems to me, if she meant the former she should have used much more careful language.
But in fact she has a tendency to use tendentious language on this subject; surprisingly tendentious, I think. I was looking through Women and Human Development this morning and was taken aback by some of her wording.
She concludes an extended criticism of what she calls ‘secular humanist feminism’ by saying (p. 180):
To strike at religion is thus to risk eviscerating people’s moral, cultural, and artistic, as well as spiritual, lives. Even if substitute forms of expression and activity are available in and through the secular state, a state that deprives citizens of the option to pursue religion has done them a grave wrong…
To strike at religion? What does she mean ‘strike at’? And what does she mean ‘deprive’? Why does she equate ‘secular humanist feminism’ with a state that deprives citizens of the option to pursue religion? If you think she makes that clear in the book, forget it; she doesn’t. It looks like just pure rhetoric to me, and rather distasteful rhetoric at that, the all too familiar kind that translates disagreement as attack and forthright views as state power. And she goes on doing it.
When we tell people that they cannot define the ultimate meaning of life in their own way – even if we are sure we are right, and that their way is not a very good way – we do not show full respect for them as persons. In that sense, the secular humanist view is at bottom quite illiberal…[E]ven if a certain group of religious beliefs (or even all beliefs) were nothing more than retrograde superstition, we would not be respecting the autonomy of our fellow citizens if we did not allow them these avenues of inquiry and self-determination.
There it is again. What does she mean ‘allow’? Who is telling people ‘that they cannot define the ultimate meaning of life in their own way’? What is she talking about? She seems to be taking opinion and discussion to be exactly equivalent to state power and law – but what on earth is she doing that for? A philosopher of all people! Does she take every claim she offers as exactly equivalent to state power? That would be a tad megalomaniacal, surely.
I don’t like this stuff. I think it’s sinister, and stealthy, and illegitmate. It’s also a peculiar way of attempting to coerce people to shut up by pretending they are trying to coerce people by speaking. That’s a popular move, but I’m surprised to see Nussbaum resorting to it.
Its like that bit of bad playground rhetoric “everyone is entitled to their opinion” which is designed to shut up any debate in the name of free speech.
Its also I’m sure the kind of argument that vicars-on-bicycles use to justify peddling fairy tales.
But you wouldn’t expect a philosopher to fall the kind of thing that an intelligent 9 year old can see through, would you?
Maya
If Nussbaum looks at presenting arguments for a conclusion as an attack on those who believe a different conclusion, or as a deprivation of their right to believe said conclusion, then she needs to GET THE HELL OUT OF PHILOSOPHY because it is an inherently illiberal and immoral activity.
Ah, but wait. It is clear from Nussbaum’s way of stating the issue – and from the fact that she is a philosopher, and thus is in the business of arguing for and against various positions – that well-educated, intellectual-type folks like philosophers don’t need to be preserved from being confronted with any speech that expresses disagreement with their conclusions (or worse, arguments that undermine their conclusions). But it appears that some people do need that protection: Specifically, religious believers need it.
Nussbaum’s position can only be interpreted as declaring that the behavior which constitutes showing respect for the autonomy of people as people is different for “people of faith” than it is for we non-believers. Further, it is apparent that only religious believers require this extraordinary level of protection: Their beliefs cannot be challenged even by mere speech – by arguments – because that might “eviscerate” their oh-so-delicate and easily-upset understanding of the “ultimate meaning of life.” And it appears that everyone else’s beliefs are fair game for criticism and even sharp censure – a fellow philosopher’s beliefs, a secular humanist feminist’s beliefs, or (one can only suppose) any and every nonreligious person’s beliefs.
Talk about illiberal! And add insulting, condescending, and elitist (in the worst sense of that word) to boot! This reads as if Nussbaum is calling for the protection of the poor, deluded, fragile religious believers from any and all criticism. She appears to be demanding far, far more than mere respect for religious believers’ autonomy: She is saying that they need to be extraordinarily coddled and not have their faith beliefs challenged in any way, not even by mere speech which questions their their faith – because it would devastate them, the poor dears.
Yes, there is serious respect creep at work here, but also a perverse sort of disrespect creep. The more I see of Nussbaum’s position, the more it appears to be insulting and demeaning to the intellects of religious adherents. Admittedly, I have had occasion to be more than a little insulting to believers myself – but at least I insulted them directly for their actual flawed beliefs and ways at arriving at beliefs. Nussbaum’s patronizing concern that believers’ fragile egos just won’t be able to handle any criticisms of their world views seems much more grossly insulting than any swipe I’ve ever taken at even the most willfully ignorant fundamentalist.
At a minimum, one shows respect for one’s fellow human beings by assuming them to be as capable as oneself of exercising their human mental capacities to decide for themselves what to think and how to live. Nussbaum seems to assume that religious believers are in fact less capable, such that if their decisions are challenged in any way then they will be cast adrift. If she doesn’t really believe that, then she needs to make this sort of argument in much more clear and neutral terms rather than in this tendentious and emotive language.
One way to interpret these passages would be that Nussbaum is criticizing an expressly secular humanist conception of the state – rather than merely a secular state. A state that would actively discourage religious activity rather than merely being neutral towards it might deserve some of her criticisms, insofar as state authority being placed behind explicitly anti-religious views is more than mere criticism. But since I have never in my life encountered anyone advocating secular humanism as a state-sponsored pseudo-religion rather than simply advocating a secular state (possibly for humanist reasons, which are really no different from traditional Mill-ian liberal reasons), Nussbaum’s problem might be that she’s making an overly strong and highly rhetorical argument against a straw man.
Yeah – I was pondering the staggeringly patronizing aspect a couple of days ago, because of that interview. The whole ‘tender regard’ thing just seems to reek of the idea that believers and believers alone can’t stand disagreement. Well who does Nussbaum think she is to decide that?
She could be criticizing an expressly secular humanist conception of the state, but she really doesn’t say so in WHD – it’s very hard to read it that way. She’s just talking about different kinds of feminism.
OB:
I hate ‘me too’ posts, but I totally agree with you here. There’s a rather big difference between speaking up against opinions one holds to be mistaken, and calling for the state to outlaw those opinions. Kind of the difference between basic intellectual honesty and oppression. I can’t believe Nussbaum makes this move either.
Oh, and belated happy birthday :-)
Thanks, Merlijn!
Ophelia noted: “When we tell people that they cannot define the ultimate meaning of life in their own way …”
And, maybe, missed one slight point or question.
There is the assumption here, that life HAS an ultimate meaning – other than it’s own continuation, of course.
This is an unproven statement, and is one of the reasons philosophy, and religion, and its’ absence, atheism, exist.
But that means her WHOLE ARGUMENT is based on a false premise.
Oops.
Merlijn also has a point, but I don’t think he went far enough – the now-popular phrase “Not even wrong” applies here, does it not?
And to accuse secular humanists of being illiberal in contrast to the tender religious seems to get things completely arse-uppards…
Yeah – it takes a considerable gall for Nussbaum to call other people illiberal in that ‘argument.’
” a state that deprives citizens of the option to pursue religion has done them a grave wrong…”
And who can disagree with that? In the American context it is a straw-man. No one is suggesting that we deprive citizens of the right to follow religion (insofar as such activity comports with civil law.)
But it hardly speaks to private criticism of religion. i.e. while people should be free to pray/follow a doctrine, likewise people should be free to criticize that doctrine.
So I guess I am confused as to what Nussbaum is doing with that particular statement i.e. she seems to be creating a non-issue.
David Sucher wrote: So I guess I am confused as to what Nussbaum is doing with that particular statement i.e. she seems to be creating a non-issue.
My suspicion when someone very smart – and especially someone very analytically gifted – sets up and knocks down straw men is that there is an underlying agenda which can only be advanced by rhetoric because no argument for it would hold water.
The more I think about it, the more I think the agenda is something along these lines: Bracketing out comprehensive conceptions of the good, metaphysical positions, and all that stuff is essential to the project of political liberalism. The bracketing out of many ideas people attach great personal importance to is essential not only to the theory of how a just political system can be achieved, but it is also practically necessary if any sort of political consensus is to be even remotely achievable.
But there’s a problem: A large subset of the religious are deeply offended by even being told that they need to set aside their (unwarranted) assumptions even if it’s only for the sake of policy argument and political compromise. It is part and parcel of deeply held religious convictions for believers to insist that everyone else ought to take their beliefs to be very extra super serious and important and weighty, even those who (tragically, sinfully) do not share those beliefs in the slightest. That this is an absurd and indefensible position on the face of it never occurs to them, of course, and it would only offend them more to point it out.
So what’s a good political liberal to do? Since so many believers get pissy* about even the idea of bracketing their unwarranted assumptions – excuse me, deeply held religious convictions – from political policy-making debate, they must be lured to the table of compromise somehow. I begin to think that Nussbaum’s ludicrous over-protectionism for religious ideas is that lure: “If you just agree to keep your religious convictions off the table for the purposes of forging civil compromise, we promise not to even mention (in any context at all, ever) that those convictions are completely unwarranted and in many cases completely absurd.”
Or something to that effect. I’m just starting to see this as a possibility, so forgive my clumsiness in articulating it.
*For an example of that pissy-ness, look at the frothing rants about “pushing God from the public square” that come up whenever anyone tries to enforce the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state in the U.S. by suggesting that maybe government authorities shouldn’t endorse and advance religion. Those rants don’t just come from extreme right wingnuts: And even when they aren’t ranting themselves, religious/political moderates often rally around the ranters on these issues.
I think of it as Stephen Carter syndrome. I think his book was (and is) tragically influential and caused a lot of gullible liberals to feel very guilty. I think his book played a large part in this whole avalanching trend of Desperately Appeasing Religion.
However offensive I may find it, I am not completely sure that this approach is fundamentally flawed. Or at least, it is not obviously flawed given the premises of political liberalism (about which I do have serious doubts).
That is, IF one accepts that political compromise of a certain character is necessary, AND one accepts that compromise is impossible without the participation without at least some large subset of those people who are potentially reasonable (albeit not rational) – but their reasonableness is contingent on their being treated with kid gloves, THEN then maybe it is justified to advocate treating the not-quite-but-almost-reasonable with kid gloves so they will behave reasonably enough for compromise to occur.
But that’s an awful lot of effing IFs for my taste.