Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ella myers
W orldly Eth ics
––
—
E l l a MyE r s
DukeuniversityPress
DurhamanDLonDon 2013
©2013DukeUniversityPress
Allrightsreserved
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaonacid-freepaper♾
DesignedbyHeatherHensley
TypesetinWhitmanbyTsengInformationSystems,Inc.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataappear
onthelastprintedpageofthisbook.
Formark
––
—
Contents
––
—
aCknowLeDgments ix
introDuCtion
TracingtheEthicalTurn 1
ChaPterone
CraftingaDemocraticSubject?
TheFoucauldianEthicsofSelf-Care 21
ChaPtertwo
LevinasianEthics,Charity,andDemocracy 53
ChaPterthree
TheDemocraticEthicsofCareforWorldlyThings 85
ChaPterFour
PartisanshipfortheWorld:TendingtotheWorld
asHomeandIn-Between 111
ePiLogue
Self/Other/World:ForgingConnectionsand
FosteringDemocraticCare 139
notes 153
BiBLiograPhy 195
inDex 207
aCknowLeDgments
––
—
Thoughwritingcanoftenfeellikeasolitarypursuit,Iamquite
awarethatIdidnotcreatethisbookonmyown.Iamdeeply
gratefulfortheinstitutionalsupport,intellectualstimulation,
andplainoldencouragementIhavereceivedalongtheway.
I most likely would never have found my way to politi-
cal theory or discovered its many pleasures and challenges
wereitnotforthetremendousgoodfortuneofcrossingpaths
withPeterEubenandWendyBrownearlyinmyundergradu-
atestudiesattheUniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz.Ican
stillrecalltheexcitementIfelteverytimeIattendedEuben’s
legendary,manic“PoliticalFreedom”classandtheinquisitive-
ness and ambition that Brown’s demanding seminars awak-
enedinme.Iamgratefultobothofthemforshowingmewhat
engagedscholarshipandteachinglooklikeandforencourag-
ingmetoseegraduateschoolandanacademiccareerasreal
possibilitiesinmylife.
IbeganthisprojectatNorthwesternUniversity,asamem-
berofalivelyandgrowingpoliticaltheorycommunitythere.
Linda Zerilli was an invaluable interlocutor and critic, tire-
lesslyreadinganddiscussingmanydraftsofthisprojectinits
early stages. Her rigorous intellectual engagement with my
ideas was invigorating, flattering, and exhausting. My work
todayisbetterforit.BonnieHonigalsoprovidedsharpcom-
mentaryandexpertguidance.Heroriginal,incisivereadings
oftextsandeventsalwayspushmetoconsiderthingsanew.I
amespeciallyappreciativeofBonnie’songoinginterestinmy
workandherwillingnesstoofferpracticaladviceinaddition
tosharpconceptualinsights.
IamluckytobeafacultymemberofthePoliticalScience
DepartmentandGenderStudiesprogramattheUniversityofUtah,where
Iamsurroundedbytalentedandinterestingcolleaguesandstudents.Iam
especiallyindebtedtoMarkButton,whoreadthecompletemanuscript
andofferedcharacteristicallyprobingandcarefulcomments.Iamgrate-
fulforourmanyconversationsoverthepastseveralyearsandforthere-
assuringwordshehasofferedatcrucialmoments.SteveJohnston,amore
recentarrivaltoourdepartment,hasbroughtgreatenergywithhim,and
Ilookforwardtoourexchangesinthefuture.Manyothercolleaguesfrom
acrosscampushavealsobecomegoodfriends.MattBasso,BethClement,
BenCohen,KellieCusten,GretchenDietrich,NadjaDurbach,Edmund
Fong,LelaGraybill,MontyParet,RichardPreiss,PaisleyRekdal,Angela
Smith,KathrynStockton,andJessicaStraleyhaveallhelpedmakeSalt
Lakefeellikehome,providingnotonlyintellectualcompanionshipbut
warm meals, laughter, and commiseration. Finally, my students have
helped me think differently and better about the questions pursued in
thisbook,andtheyhavereliablykeptmeonmytoes.
Manyotherpeoplehaveplayedanimportantroleinhelpingthisbook
seethelightofday.InadditiontothoseI’vealreadymentioned,Iwantto
acknowledgePaulApostolidis,CrinaArcher,JasonFrank,MichaelHan-
chard,andPatchenMarkell—allofwhomhavereadandcommentedon
partsoftheprojectatvariouspoints,posingtoughquestionsandoffering
fruitfulsuggestions.Thanksalsototwoanonymousreaderswhoprovided
astute,provocative,andveryhelpfulcommentsonthemanuscript.My
workhasbeenshapedinwaysbigandsmallbydiscussionsovertheyears
with Cristina Beltrán, Michaele Ferguson, Kristy King, Jill Locke, Lida
Maxwell,SaraMonoson,JeanneMorefield,ChrisSkeaff,MattVoorhees,
andLenaZuckerwise.DemetraKasimisdeservesspecialmentionforthe
manyhoursshehasspentdiscussingthisprojectandforprovidinggood
cheerwhenmostneeded.
Earlierversionsofsomeofthisbook’sargumentswerepresentedatthe
AmericanPoliticalScienceAssociationmeetingsin2007and2009andat
theWesternPoliticalScienceAssociationmeetingsin2009and2011.Part
ofchapter1waspublishedas“ResistingFoucauldianEthics:Associative
PoliticsandtheLimitsoftheCareoftheSelf”inContemporary Political
Theory7,no.2(2008),andIamgratefulforpermissiontousethisma-
terialhere.IamthankfulforcriticalfinancialsupportIreceivedfromthe
UniversityofUtah.Asemester’sleaveallowedmetocompletethefirstfull
draftofthemanuscript,andaFacultyFellowAwardfromtheUniversity
Acknowledgments
—
x
ResearchCommitteeatpreciselytherightmomentallowedmetorevise
andpolishthefinalversion.ThanksalsotoDukeUniversityPress,espe-
ciallytomyeditor,CourtneyBerger,whohasbeensupportive,responsive,
andwise.
AsIhaveworkedonthisprojectIhavebeensustainedbyextraordi-
naryfriendswhoseintelligence,humor,andcarehaveseenmethrough.
IespeciallythankPaulAdelstein,TonyBianchi,MikeBosia,PhilDracht
andHeatherHuffman-Dracht,JasonGiven,RoshenHendrickson,Mar-
tine Hyland, Demetra Kasimis, Nick Markos, Jon McCoy, Paul North,
ChristinePirrone,LauraScott,MikeandHeatherSimons,DavidSinger,
FrieseUndine,LizaWeil,andEvaYusa.Thanksalsotomysister,Brooke
Myers-Awalt,forlistening,understanding,andbeinghilarious.Iwantto
thankmyparents,RobynWagnerandTomMyers,fortheirloveandsup-
portandforfosteringinmeasenseofcuriosity,aloveofbooks,anda
desiretokeeplearning.AndtoSolomon,whoarrivedasthisprojectwas
comingtocompletion:mygratitudeforyoursmile,yoursweetcuriosity,
andallthesurprisestocome.
Finally,IowethemosttoMarkSchwarz.Idedicatethisbooktohim
in appreciation of the wit, patience, and warmth he brings to our life
together.Hehasalwaysbelievedunwaveringlyinthisprojectand,even
moreimportant,inme,withorwithoutabook.Hisdistinctivevoiceand
visionmaketheworldmoreintriguingandmyplaceinitmoresure.
Acknowledgments
—
xi
introDuCtion
––
—
Introduction
—
2
thequestionofdemocraticethoshasbeenposed:widespreadcitizendis-
engagementwithintheU.S.polityandtheso-calledfactofpluralism.The
first,well-documentedsituationischaracterizedbyAmericans’lowlevels
of participation across multiple sites and forms of citizen activity. The
growingdisaffectionofmanyandtheseemingwithdrawaloflargeseg-
mentsofthepopulationfrompubliclifethrowintoquestionthebasic
premiseofself-government.Italsocreatesavacuumthattendstobefilled
bythemostextremeanddogmaticvoices,whichthreatentomonopolize
oratleastgreatlydistortpublicdiscourse.Inlightofthesecircumstances,
theconceptofdemocraticethosemergesasawayofthinkingaboutwhat
caninspireormotivateordinarycitizens’participationindemocraticpoli-
tics.Effortstodefineanethicsfordemocracyareusuallyconcernedwith
elaboratingsensibilitiesororientationsthat,iffostered,mightdrawmore
peopleintodemocraticactivity.Thechallengeis,furthermore,todevelop
orientations that can encourage impassioned participation in the diffi-
cult,frustratinglaborofdemocraticpoliticswhileavoidingthevitrioland
demonizationthatcharacterizesomuchpoliticaldebatetoday.
Thebeliefthatethicsofonekindoranothercaninspireandnourish
democraticpoliticsreliesuponanimplicitunderstandingofpoliticsasir-
reducibletotheformalfeaturesofgovernment—aregime’sinstitutions,
laws, andprocedures. Indeed, theinquiry into ethos asks onetothink
aboutthespiritofdemocracy,thatis,theconstellationofdispositions,
habitsoffeeling,andqualitiesofcharacterthatservetoanimateandsus-
tainpracticesofself-government.Ifthisspiritisinsomesenseweakened
orevenmissingtoday,howmightitbecultivated?4Whataffectsorsensi-
bilitiesdoesitcallfor?Andcansuchqualitiesbefosteredamongavaried
citizenryinwaysthatrespectdiversityandliberty?Thesearchforethics
isatleastpartlyaresponsetoanominallydemocraticordercharacterized
byonlyminimaldemocraticactivity.
Thesecondimportantcontextforunderstandingtheproliferationof
ethicstalkiswhatMaxWeberreferredtoatthebeginningofthetwen-
tiethcenturyasour“inescapablecondition,”orwhattodayoftengoesby
thename“thefactofpluralism.”Growingrecognitionofthecompeting
andirreconcilablegoods,faiths,andwaysoflifethatcharacterizehuman
existencehasthrownintoquestiontheideaofasinglemoralitythatwould
groundpoliticallife.Inlightofthisdevelopment,thetopicofethicshas
assumednewimportance.Ifpoliticscannolongerbeimaginedasthe
instantiationofauniversalGoodinaworldmarkedbymultiple,incom-
Introduction
—
4
Theturntoethicsinpostfoundationaldemocratictheorytakesplural-
ismasapointofdeparture,then,butitsorientationtowardthisfactis
distinctivefrombothHabermasianandRawlsianapproachesintwopri-
mary ways.8 First, when ethics of one kind or another is offered up as
nourishmentfordemocraticlife,thegestureusuallydisavowsmorecon-
ventionalformsofmorality.WorkthatdrawsonFoucaultandLevinas,
forexample,presentsethicsasanexplicitchallengetomorality,however
formalorprocedural.Indeed,ethicsinthisveinissometimescalledpost-
moralinrecognitionofitsdeparturefromfamiliarmoraltraditionsthat
arethoughttodenyordoviolencetothepluralityofvalues,goods,and
faiths.Speakingveryschematically,ethicsisunderstoodtobemorepar-
ticularandaffectivethanuniversal,reason-governedmodelsofmorality.
Whileconventionalmoralitiestendtoaspiretothestatusoflaw,ethics
privilegesthecultivationofdispositionsoverrule-following,suggestinga
wayofbeingintheworldthatcannotbeformulatedincodified,univer-
salterms.9Second,thepursuitofpost-moralethicsisusuallyunderstood
asanefforttoexpand,ratherthancontain,theexpressionofpluralismin
publiclife.ForthinkerslikeWilliamConnolly,JudithButler,andSimon
Critchley,forexample,whodrawonFoucauldianandLevinasianethics
insupportofradicalizeddemocracy(andwhoseworkIaddressinthefol-
lowingchapters),thetaskisnotprimarilyunderstoodtobeoneoflimit-
ingthepresenceofpluralisminpoliticaldebateanddecisionmaking.10
Instead,theaimistoconceptualizeanddevelopthequalitiesofcharac-
terandhabitsoffeelingthatmightenablelivelyandrespectfulexchange
acrossdeepdifference,fosteringevenfurtherpluralizationofcollective
life.Whatvirtues,theyask,mightguideandanimatecitizenactionina
liberal-democraticpolitymarkedbycompetingandirreconcilablecom-
prehensiveviews,whicharenotandcannotbeleftatthedoor?11
Ifthesearchforademocraticethosismotivatedlargelybythesedis-
tinctiveproblemsofthepresent,wecanseethatitalsorevivessomevery
old concerns within political theory. Although the history of political
thoughtdoesnotofferanysimpleconsensusonthematter,itrevealsa
persistentpreoccupationwiththequestionofhowethicsmightbecon-
nectedtopolitics,apreoccupationthatspanstimeandcompetingintel-
lectualtraditions.Severalimportantstrandsofthatlineage,includingan-
cient,civicrepublican,andliberal,constitutethebackdropagainstwhich
thelatestinquiryintoethosistakingplace.
Most notably, the recent reappearance of the term ethos inpolitical
Introduction
—
6
ringtoacommunity’sinstitutional arrangements andethicstoitsciti-
zens’characterandsensibilities,buttheyarenecessarilyboundupwith
oneanotherinarelationofreciprocalinfluenceandtogetherconstitutea
society’spoliticalculture.
Finally, although not always as readily recognized, liberal thought
throughtheageshasfocusedattentiononthosequalitiesofcharacteror
ethicalpreconditionsthoughttomakeasuccessfulliberalorderpossible
andinvestigatedhowthesemightbeencouraged.Ananemicaccountof
liberalism,accordingtowhichliberalsareentirelyunconcernedwiththe
goodlifeandseekonlyanimpartialumpireingovernment,stillcircu-
lates,despitethedifficultyoffindinganyliberalthinker,pastorpresent,
whoactuallyarticulatessuchaposition.Yetmanycontemporaryliberals
affirmthesignificanceofcitizenvirtuetopresent-dayliberalordersand
havebroughttolighttheextenttowhichcanonicalliberalpoliticaltheory
hasbeenconcernedwithitsownversionofcivicvirtuefromthestart.17
PeterBerkowitz,forexample,hasshownthattheachievementofalib-
eralwayoflifeforHobbes,Locke,Kant,andMill,amongothers,depends
uponcertainvirtueswhicharenotautomaticallygeneratedbyliberalism’s
centralinstitutionsandwhicharesometimesevendiscouragedbythem.18
Similarly,MarkButtonhasconvincinglyarguedthatthesocialcontract,
socentraltoliberalthoughtfromitsinceptiontotoday,ismorethanade-
viceforconceptualizinglegitimacy(asisusuallyassumed).Italsoserves
totheorizea“transformativeethos”thatcanfosterincitizensthe“civic
character”and“ethicalsensibility”thataliberalorderrequires.19What
Berkowitz,Button,andothershelpidentifyislessaunifiedaccountof
liberalvirtuesacrossthinkersthanasharedconvictionthattherearesuch
virtues,quitevariouslydefined,andthattheircultivationisadifficultbut
pressingquestionforliberals.Theabidinginterestinanethicsthatani-
matesliberalpoliticsiscomplicated,however,byliberalism’scorecom-
mitmenttoindividuallibertyandskepticismtowardgovernmentintru-
sion.Liberalthoughtischaracterizedbysimultaneousenthusiasmforand
aversiontovirtue.20Withoutdiscountingthisambivalence,itisimportant
toacknowledgethatenthusiasmforvirtue,sometimesoverlooked,isa
prominentfeatureofliberalpoliticaltheory.Theinquiryintoethosand
itsroleinpoliticallifeisintegral,then,notonlytoclassicalandcivicre-
publicanthoughtbutalsotoliberalphilosophy.
Whenthinkerstodayturntoethicsorethos(usuallyusedinterchange-
ably)toaddresscontemporarydemocracy,theytapintothesetraditions.
Introduction
—
8
inglyglobalizedcitizenry?23Andcandesirabledispositionsbenurturedin
waysthatprotectandextendpluralityratherthanseekmonisticunity?
Whileproponentsoftheethicalturnanswerthesequestionsaffirma-
tively,today’ssearchforademocraticethosisnotwithoutitscritics.I
wanttoclarifythenatureoftheseobjectionsandexplainwhymyproject
criticallyparticipatesin,ratherthanrejectsoutright,theethicalturn.
Amajorchargeleveledbyskepticsatthoseseekinganethicsfordemoc-
racyisthatsucheffortsarepoorlydisguisedexercisesinmoralabsolut-
ism.Thatis,whileethicsisusuallypresentedasalessrigidalternative
toconventionalformsofmorality,somecriticsoftheethicalturnallege
thattheattempttolocateanethicsfordemocracyexpressesthedesireto
grounddemocracyinanextrapoliticalfoundation.24Forexample,Ernesto
Laclauarguesthat“ethicization”revertstoadiscourseof“firstphiloso-
phy.”Toseekanethicsfordemocracyistoseekanultimateauthoritybe-
yondpoliticalpractice;itisanattempttoevadepolitics’“radicalcontin-
gency.”25ChantalMouffevoicesasimilarconcernwhensheclaimsthat
thetendencyamongcontemporarydemocratictheoriststoadoptanethi-
calvocabularyisdrivenbythefantasyofa“finalguarantee”thatautho-
rizespoliticalarrangements.Thehuntforethics,sheavers,isthehuntfor
a“moreprofoundormoresolid”groundthan“thepractices,thelanguage
gamesthatareconstitutiveof[a]particularformoflife.”26
Theworryisnotjustthatproponentsoftheethicalturnpositaground
where there is none, but that the preoccupation with the category of
ethics,howeversoothing,signalsaveryreal“contractionofpoliticalam-
bitions.”27WendyBrown,forexample,warnsagainstthetemptationto
embraceamoralizingimperativethatsubstitutesforengagementinthe
messy,frustratingworkofstrugglingforpower,withandagainstothers,
inthefieldofpolitics.28LikeMouffe,wholabelstheturntoethics“are-
treatfromthepolitical,”GeorgeShulmanarguesthatpartoftheallure
ofethicsisitsapparentpromiseofatruththatprecedesorisexternalto
politicalcontestation—atruththatwouldseemtorelievecitizensofthe
difficultworkoforganizingtogethertomakepublicdemandsandmobi-
lizingothersonbehalfofthedemandstheyadvocate.29Henotesfurther
thattheobsessionwithethicsisasymptomofdespairovertheprospects
forsuchcollectiveactiontoday.Perhapsthereiscomfortinthethought
thatone’staskconsistsinaffirmingtherightethicaloutlook,fromwhich
desirablepoliticalconsequenceswillhopefullyfollow.When“actionin
Introduction
—
10
institutions,whatdispositionsandsensibilitiesareatworkwhencitizens
undertakethedemanding,uncertain,butalsooftenpleasurableworkof
world-centereddemocraticaction?Certainly,asIwillshow,someforms
ofethics—whichIconceptualizeastherapeuticandcharitableincharac-
ter—canaptlybecharacterizedasunworldlyandthereforeasgenerally
unsupportive of democratic activity. But it is a mistake to declare that
ethicsassuchisalwaysandonlyalienatedfromtheworld,understoodas
themessy,power-laden,variedspaceofdemocraticassociation.Thisbook
argues,onthecontrary,foradistinctivelyworldlyethics,notonlyasapos-
sibilitybutasareality,onethatisalreadyexpressedandenactedtodayby
admirableformsofjointaction.
Thisisacriticalandconstructiveproject.Theargumentofferedhere
aimstorevealunacknowledgedcostsoftheturntoethics.Idemonstrate
thatFoucauldianandLevinasianapproaches,eachfocusedonadifferent
dyadicrelationofcare,areinclinedtoenervateratherthanenrichasso-
ciativeactionbydemocraticcitizens.Mycritiquedoesnotconcludewith
acalltoabandonthequestforademocraticethos,however.Instead,I
conceptualizeanddefendanalternativeethicalorientation,onefocused
onincitingcitizens’collectivecareforworldlythings.AndIarguethat
worldlyethics,implicitincertaincollectivecitizenefforts,isapromising
resourcefordemocraticactiontoday.
Thebook’scaseforworldlyethicscentersonanassociativeconcep-
tionofdemocraticpoliticsthatemphasizesjointactionbycitizensaimed
atshapingsharedconditions.34Thisviewofdemocracygrantsprimacyto
publicpracticesinwhichdifferentiatedcollectivitiesstruggle,bothwith
andagainstoneanother,toaffectfeaturesoftheworldinwhichtheylive.
Thetermassociativereferstothreeinterlockingfeaturesofsuchapolitics:
(1)itinvolvescollaborativeandcontentiousaction,bornoutofassocia-
tionamongmultiplecitizens;(2)suchactionisnotconfinedtotheoffi-
cialchannelsofgovernmentbutfrequentlyappearsatthelevelofcivil
society,withinso-calledsecondaryassociations;andfinally,mostsignifi-
cant:(3)democraticactorsarebothbroughttogetherandseparatedfrom
oneanotherbycommonobjects.Inotherwords,theyalwaysassociate
aroundsomething.
First,associativesignalsanonholisticunderstandingofdemocraticcol-
lectivity.Relationsofassociationareonesinwhichdistinctindividuals
coordinatetheiractionswithothersinordertopursuegoalsnotachiev-
ablebyasingleactor.35Democraticpoliticsthusunderstooddoesnotde-
Introduction
—
12
anysatisfactoryaccountofdemocraticpolitics.39DavidHeld’sinfluential
Models of Democracy,forexample,revealstheextenttowhichassociative
activitybycitizensisregardedasadistinctive,indispensablecharacteris-
ticofdemocracy,evenaccordingtocompetingphilosophieswhichother-
wisedivergeconsiderably.40Itisnotonlydirectdemocrats,butalsoDah-
lianpluralistdemocratsandmoreconventionalliberaldemocrats,among
others,whoassignanimportantroletocitizenassociationwhendefining
democracy.41
Moreover,everydaylanguagesuggeststhatpeopleregularlyidentify
associationalpracticesbywhichpluralcitizensaimtoaffecttheirenvi-
ronmentasspecificallydemocratic,eveninthecontextofregimesthat
would not themselves be so categorized. For example, media coverage
intheUnitedStatesinearly2011oftendescribedthecollectiveprotests
inEgyptleadinguptotherevolutionaspartofa“democraticuprising”
orastheexpressionof“democraticfreedom.”42Thesecharacterizations,
alsoprevalentininformalconversationsamongnonexperts,indicatethat
peopletendtounderstandpublicactioninconcertpreciselyasanenact-
mentofdemocracy,whereveritoccurs.Theidentificationoftheprotests
inTahrirSquareinthespringof2011asdemocratichadlesstodowith
the fact that some participants were calling fordemocratizing reforms
thanwiththesharedinsightthattheprotesterswerealreadypracticing
democracybyjoiningtogethertogeneratepowerandproduceeffectscol-
lectivelythattheycouldnotalone.
Ifassociativeactionisintegraltonearlyeveryphilosophicalandprac-
tical definition of democracy, then this book’s investigation of ethos is
perhapsofsomegeneralinterest.Thebook’scentralquestions—Doesthe
practiceofassociativedemocracyhaveanethos?Howshoulditbecharac-
terized?Canitbepurposelyfostered?How?—will,Ihope,resonatewith
democratsofvaryingstripeswhosharetheconvictionthatordinaryciti-
zens’jointaction,andnotmerelyindividuals’righttovote,isessentialto
democraticlife.
Thebook’sinitial,ground-clearingprojectcentersonworkthattakes
inspirationfromFoucaultandLevinas.Theoristswhoturntothesethink-
ersinordertodevelopanaccountofdemocraticethosaretypicallyinter-
estedinnourishingactivistformsofdemocracythatinvolvesignificant
associationalactivityamongcitizens.Yet,asIshow,theethicalorienta-
tionstheyconceptualizeareill-suitedtoenrichingtheassociativedynam-
icsoutlinedabove,inwhichcollaborativeandcontentiousformsofaction
Introduction
—
14
tionhavecaptivatedcontemporaryaudiencesinterestedinethics,where
ethics is understood as dispositional and affective, an important extra-
rationalaspectofpoliticallife.48Thefollowinganalysisfocusesprimarily
onexploringthedifferencesbetweentherapeutic,charitable,andworldly
ethics,whichtaketheirbearingsfromFoucault,Levinas,andArendt,re-
spectively.Thesecompetingapproachestoethicsarenotsimplyoronlyat
oddswithoneanother,however;asharedexistential-phenomenological
orientationinformstheworkofallthreeandseemstoresonatewiththose
seekingademocraticethostoday.
Thebook’sargumentproceedsasfollows.Chapter1focusesonhowFou-
cault’slateworkhasbeentakenupbytheoristsseekingacontemporary
democraticethos.Foucault’sinterestinancientaesthetic/asceticmodes
ofself-elaboration,whichhedescribesasanethicsof“careoftheself,”
hasintriguedthoseinterestedincultivatingnewformsofdemocraticsub-
jectivitythatmightspurdeeper,morerespectfulformsofcitizenengage-
ment.BuildingonFoucault’srecommendationthattheethicsofself-care
mightbereinventedforthepresentandhelptofosterselveswho“play
gamesofpowerwithaslittledominationaspossible,”WilliamConnolly,
forexample,hasadvocatedethicaltacticsperformedbytheselfonherself
asindispensableforcontemporarypluralistdemocracy.49
InthischapterIexaminebothFoucault’sandConnolly’swork,focus-
ingonConnolly’scontentionthatartsoftheself,or“micropolitics,”have
avitalroletoplayininspiringandshapingcollectivedemocraticaction,
thatis,“macropolitics.”Iarguethatalthoughthisideaisappealing,an
ethicscapableofanimatingassociativedemocraticactivitycannottake
theself’srelationshiptoitselfasastartingpoint.EventhoughFoucault
andConnollyconceptualizeaselfthatiscontinuallyrecraftedratherthan
discoveredinitsultimatetruth,theirworknonethelessadvancesathera-
peuticethics,whichtreatstheself’srelationshipwithitselfasprimary
andenvisionsdemocraticactivityasaconsequenceorextensionofthat
reflexiverelation.Thechapterilluminatesthistherapeuticethicalorien-
tationandtriestodispelthebeliefthatitisbycaringforoneselfthatone
comestocarefortheworld.Iarguethatunlesstheself’srelationshipto
itselfisdrivenfromthestartbysharedconcernforaworldlyproblem,
thereisnoreasontobelievethatitwillleadinanactivist,democraticdi-
rection.Indeed,focusedcarefortheselftooreadilysubstitutesfortend-
ingtotheworldthatissharedwithdiverseothers.
Introduction
—
16
purposefullycultivated.Thefirststeptowardelaboratingthisethicalori-
entation,whichIargueisespeciallyimportanttodemocraticlife,isto
articulatethecentralconceptofworld.Chapter3developsthisnotion,
first,bydefiningworldasthearrayofmaterialandimmaterialconditions
underwhichhumanbeingslive—bothwithoneanotherandwitharich
varietyofnonhumans,organicandtechnological.Thisportraitdrawson
Arendt’sunderstandingofworldasan“in-between,”thatis,boththesite
andobjectofpolitics,yet,astheabovestatementindicates,Ichallenge
herrestrictionofworldtowhatisman-made.Inaddition,Iclaimthat
coactionamongcitizensisbestunderstoodnotasbeingdirectedatthe
worldperse,asArendtwouldhaveit,butatparticularworldlythings,
whicharemoreplural,dynamic,anddisputedthanhertheoryrecognizes.
Inreferencetothing’soriginalmeaning,worldlything,acentralconcept
inthisbook,indicatesnotagenericobjectbuta“matteroffact”thathas
beenreconstitutedasapublic“matterofconcern.”51Thisthing,Ishow,
is crucial to every democratic undertaking; it is the contentious third
termaroundwhichpeoplegather,bothinsolidarityanddivision.Aviable
democraticethoshonorsthisdynamic,seekingtoinspiremutualcarefor
worldlyconditions.
Chapter3engageswiththeworkofArendt,JohnDewey,BrunoLatour,
andothersinordertorevealthestructureofcitizenassociationinwhich
worldlythingsbothconnectanddivideconstituencies,astructurethatis
eclipsedbydyadicmodelsofethics.Chapter4buildsonthisaccountof
thecrucialroleplayedbyworldlythingsindemocraticpoliticsinorderto
specifythenormativeendsthatcarefortheworldpursues.Thischapter
clarifiesthatnotallformsofcollectiveorganizinginrelationtoaworldly
thingormatterofconcerncountasinstancesofcarefortheworld.The
democraticethosIdefendisrefinedtomeancarefortheworldasworld.
HereIadvanceanexplicitlynormativeconceptionofworld—asbotha
sharedhumanhomeandmediatingpoliticalspace—thatallowsforcriti-
caldistinctionstobemadebetweencompetingprojectsundertakenby
democraticactors.Thechapterelaboratestheseconceptsbyexamining
contemporaryorganizationsandmovements,includingNoMoreDeaths/
NoMásMuertes,theBeaconsprogramsinNewYorkCityPublicSchools,
andtheRighttotheCityMovement,whichembodythedemocraticethos
Iadvance.
Abriefepiloguerevisitsthedistinctionsbetweencarefortheself,care
fortheOther, andcare fortheworldthatinform thebook’s argument
Introduction
—
18
Israel,theloveoftheJewishpeoplebytheJewishpeople.Shereminds
himofthereal“greatness”oftheJews,whichconcernedtheirtrustinand
loveforanentityoutsidethemselvesinrelationtowhichtheycametobe:
God,whoactedasacommonobjectofdevotionandthusconstituteda
sharedworldforthem,anin-between.ItisnottheJews’loveforthem-
selvesorevenforoneanotherthatArendtwantstorecallandhonor,but
theirregardforathirdterm,theirGod,aroundwhichtheyconstituteda
community.
ThisbookinvitesreaderstoseeinArendt’sexchangewithScholema
nascentdemocraticanalogy.Scholem’sinvocationofaself-orientedre-
lationofloveandfaith(ofJewstothemselves)evokesadyadicethical
relationofthesortIcallintoquestion.Arendt’sradicalshiftinperspec-
tive,whichbringsintoviewarelationinvolvingmultipleindividualsand
asharedobjectofloveandfaith,offersareligiousanalogtothedemo-
craticrelationswithwhichthisbookisconcerned.Thethirdterm,God,
isakintothosesecular,worldlyobjectsthat,asIargue,inspirethelabors
ofdemocraticactorsandmediaterelationsamongthem.Thebooktracks
howthesedemocraticmodesofrelation—inwhichindividualsarecon-
nected to and separated from one another by a common object which
theyattempttoaffect—areoccludedbypopularethicalapproaches.And
iturgesustoseethatasensibilityfocusedoncollectiveandcontentious
careforworldlythingsisanethosuniquelyfitfordemocracy.
––
—
introduction
1.SeeThe Turn to Ethics,ed.Garber,Hanssen,andWalkowitz.Leadingexamples
ofthisdevelopmentincludeAnderson,The Way We Argue Now;Bennett,The En-
chantment of Modern LifeandVibrant Matter;Butler,Giving an Account of Oneself
andPrecarious Life;Coles,Rethinking Generosity;Connolly,Why I Am Not a Secular-
ist,Pluralism,andA World of Becoming;Critchley,The Ethics of Deconstructionand
Infinitely Demanding;Orlie,Living Ethically, Acting Politically;White,The Ethos of a
Late Modern Citizen;andZiarek,An Ethics of Dissensus.
2.WilliamConnollyfrequentlyreferstoethicsasbeingindispensabletodemocracy.
See,forexample,Why I Am Not a Secularist,13,170,187.
3.Forexample,manymediarepresentationsoftheOccupyWallStreet(ows)move-
mentinlate2011emphasizeditsenactmentofanethos,alternatelyidentifiedas
nonviolent(nPr),leaderless(HuffingtonPost),do-it-yourself(JewishWeek),and
no-demands(Salon.com)incharacter.Supportersoftendepictedthisethosasa
valuableresourceforreinvigoratingAmericandemocracy.Formoretheoretical
reflectionsonows’sethos,seeWendyBrownonits“populistethos”in“Occupy
WallStreet:ReturnofaRepressedRes-Publica”andRichardGrusinonthemove-
ment’s fostering of a “revolutionary counter-mood” in “Premediation and the
VirtualOccupationofWallStreet.”ButseealsoGeorgeShulman,“Interpreting
Occupy,”whicharguesthatacademicshavemostlyinterpretedowsinwaysthat
validate“ourownpreferredframeworksofanalysis.”Shulman’squestion,“Must
anyefforttounderstandowsmakeitevidencetoconfirmwhatwealready(want
to)believe?”couldeasilyberaisedinrelationtotheethosmanyhaveattributed
tothemovement.
4.OnemightobjectthatwhatislackingintheU.S.polityisnottherequisitespirit
buttheinstitutionalarrangementsthatensuretheexerciseofgenuinelydemo-
craticpower.TheinfluenceofcorporationsonU.S.elections,expandedbyCitizens
United v. Federal Election Committee(2010),might,forexample,supporttheclaim
thatcitizensactrationallywhentheydeclinetoparticipateindemocraticpoli-
tics.Lackingeffectivesitesofdemocraticdecisionmaking,citizensmaysimply
optout.Yetitisinsufficienttoinsistthatstructuralreform,ratherthanethos,is
therealissue.ThisissonotonlybecauseoftheoldbutaptRousseauvianinsight
regardingthecircularrelationshipbetweenasociety’sspiritanditsinstitutions.
More pointedly still, the institutional problems that might explain citizen dis-
engagement—growingcorporatepower,anexpandedexecutivebranch,anen-
trenchedtwo-partysystem,andsoon—donotputtorestthequestionofethos.
Indeed,theymayraiseitanew:mighttheabsenceofeffectivecollectiveaction
inresponsetotheseconditionsleadonebacktotheproblemofaspiritthatis
missingbutthatcouldhelpmobilizecitizens,renderingthesemerefactssitesof
democraticcontestationandresistance?
5.AsNikolasKompridissays,Habermasemploys“averysharpform/contentdis-
tinctiontodistinguishauniversalisticconceptofjusticefromparticularconcep-
tionsofthegoodlife”(“FromReasontoSelf-Realisation?,”333).Themoralpoint
ofview,accordingtoHabermas,properlyguidesquestionsaboutwhatisright,
whilequestionsaboutwhatisgoodcanbeansweredonlywithinthecontextofa
specificformoflife.
6.SomeofthemostpowerfulobjectionstobothHabermas’sandRawls’saccounts
ofpublicreasoncontendthattheirapproachestodemocraticdeliberationunwit-
tinglyreinforceexistingpowerrelationsandspecificallydisadvantagemarginal-
izedgroups,whoseformsofexpressionmaynotconformtothenormativemodels
ofcommunicationtheyadvance.SeeYoung,“CommunicationandtheOther,”and
Deveaux,Cultural Pluralism and the Dilemmas of Justice.
7.Rawls,Political Liberalism,220.
8.Anderson’sThe Way We Argue Nowisanexception.Shestatesthatethoshasbe-
comea“valorized term”incontemporary politicaltheory butsaysithasbeen
wronglyjuxtaposedwithreasonandalignedwithaffect(11–12).Andersonchal-
lengesthisframing(andFoucauldianethicsinparticular,whichshecastsasin-
coherent)insupportofHabermasiandiscourseethics,whichsheclaimsunites
ethicsandrationality.
9.ThecontrastbetweenmoralityandethicscorrespondsroughlytotheHegelian
distinctionbetweenformal,universalMoralitätandthemoreparticular,custom-
arySittlichkeit.
10.Thisisnottosaythatthoseinvolvedintheturntoethicsadvocateananything
goesapproachtopoliticallife.Connolly,forexample,questionstheexclusions
generatedbyRawlsianpublicreason,whichrestrict“newdrivesofpluralization”
(Connolly,Ethos of Pluralization,xiv).Yethealsonotesthat“exclusions,restric-
tions, and boundaries” are necessary, particularly to restrain fundamentalism.
Similarly,ChantalMouffearguesthat“totalpluralism”isnotpossibleordesirable
andthat“somelimitsneedtobeputtothekindofconfrontationthatisgoingto
beseenaslegitimateinthepublicsphere.Butthepoliticalnatureoftheselimits
shouldbeacknowledgedinsteadofbeingpresentedasrequirementsofmorality
orrationality,”astheyareforHabermasandRawls(Mouffe,The Democratic Para-
dox,93).
11.Connolly maintains that secularist positions that eschew comprehensive con-
ceptionsinpoliticsmakeitdifficultforpartisanstoengageinissuesoftheday
becausemostparticipantsactuallydodrawontheirmetaphysicalandreligious
perspectives.Thusthedesiretoridpoliticallifeofsuchperspectivesmaybestra-
tegicallyineffective.SeeConnolly,Why I Am Not a Secularist,chapter1.Inthisre-
gard,thediscovery—anapparentsurprisetomanyDemocrats—thatamajority
Notes to Introduction
—
154
ofcitizenswhovotedforGeorgeW.Bushin2004citedmoralvaluesasthesingle
most important issue of the election, is instructive. See Katharine Q. Seelye,
“MoralValuesCitedasaDefiningIssueoftheElection,”New York Times,Novem-
ber4,2004.SeveralyearslaterBarackObama’softenmoving,morallyinfused
rhetoricleadinguptotheelectionof2008seemedtoexpresshiscriticismofthe
tendencytocedevaluestalktotheright:“Inreactiontoreligiousoverreach,we
equatetolerancewithsecularism,andforfeitthemorallanguagethatwouldhelp
infuseourpolicieswithalargermeaning”(Obama,The Audacity of Hope,48).
12.Oxford English Dictionary(2ded.,1989).Chamberlain,“From‘Haunts’to‘Charac-
ter,’”102.BoththeoedandChamberlainidentifyAristotle’sRhetoricasaprimary
text in establishing this meaning of ethos. Chamberlain explains that “in most
writersofthefifthcenturyBCandlater,ethoscanusuallybeunderstoodandtrans-
latedas‘character,’”withthecaveatthatsuchcharacterisunderstoodincollective
andnotstrictlyindividualistterms(101–2).
13.Chamberlain,“From‘Haunts’to‘Character,’”102.
14.ThomasCortsnotesthattherehasbeen“confusionoftwoGreekterms”which
aresimilarinEnglish:ἔθος,meaningsimply“custom”or“habit,”andἦθος,mean-
ing“custom,disposition,character.”ThelattertermistheoneusedbyAristotle,
anditispresentedasacomplementtonomosintheancientGreektradition.The
latterterm,Cortsnotes,alsocarriesapositiveconnotation,indicatinga“good
disposition,”whiletheformeris“morallyneutralandreferstobehavioraltraits.”
Cortsrecommendsthatscholarstransliterate ἔθοςasethosand ἦθοςasēthosin
ordertoreflectthisdistinction.Inaddition,“Theymightalsoemphasizetheposi-
tivemoralqualityofἦθος,ratherthanthebehavioralneutralityofitssisterterm”
(“TheDerivationofEthos,”201–2).Thisbook,however,followsthecontemporary
conventionamongdemocratictheorists(andtheoed)ofusingethostoreferto
“thecharacteristicspirit,prevalenttoneofsentiment,ofapeopleoracommu-
nity.”SeealsoChamberlain,“From‘Haunts’to‘Character,’”wherehenotesthat
theNicomachean Ethics“explainstheconnectionbetweenethosandēthos”insofar
ashumanvirtueis“habituable,”thatis,susceptibletotrainingandhabit(102–3).
15.Chamberlain, “From ‘Haunts’ to ‘Character,’” 102. He notes that “orators can
speaktotheiraudienceof‘your’or‘our’ēthē,”indicatingasharedmoralsensi-
bility.
16.Tocqueville,Democracy in America,volume1,part2,chapter9.
17.Work that highlights the significance of virtue in contemporary liberalism in-
cludesMacedo,Liberal Virtues,andGalston,Liberal Purposes.
18.Berkowitz,Virtue and the Making of Modern Liberalism.
19.Button,Contract, Culture, and Citizenship.
20.Berkowitz,Virtue and the Making of Modern Liberalism,x–xii.Buttondescribesthis
as“theparadoxofcivicvirtueforliberalism”:“Liberalsocietiespresupposeand
relyonarangeofimportantmoralqualitiesandvirtuesfortheirveryidentityand
stability,”yetitishardforliberalstoconceive“howthosequalitiescouldlegiti-
matelybetheobjectsofcultivation,”giventheircommitmenttoindividualfree-
domandan“overridingconcerntolimitcoercivegovernment”(Contract, Culture,
and Citizenship,16).
Notes to Introduction
—
155
21.Chamberlain,“From‘Haunts’to‘Character,’”103.Oratleasttheyare“closelycon-
nected”whenasocietyisstable.BothPlatoandAristotlearealerttothedifficul-
tiesthatarisewhenetheandnomoiarenolongermutuallyreinforcing.
22.ApartialexceptiontothischaracterizationisMachiavelli’sportraitofrepubli-
canism, which, as Maurizio Viroli argues, follows prior republican thought by
emphasizingtheruleoflaw,theprincipleofcivicequality,andtheimportance
ofcivicvirtuebutpartscompanywiththehumanistandCiceroniantraditionsby
challengingthevalueofconcord.Viroli,“MachiavelliandtheRepublicanIdeaof
Politics.”
23.ThisquestionsuggestsaprojectdifferentfromRobertBellah’swell-knownco-
authored book, which borrows Tocqueville’s phrase in support of a communi-
tarian,arguablynostalgicvisionofAmericanlife.Bellahetal.,The Habits of the
Heart.
24.RaymondGeusshasarguedstronglyagainst“ethics-first”formsofpoliticaltheory.
ButhecharacterizesethicsquitenarrowlyasaformofKantianmoralabsolutism
thatregardspoliticsasderivativeofanideal(aviewheidentifieswithRawls’s
work).Geuss’scriticismsareworthconsideration,buthedefinesethicsinavery
limitedandsometimesevencaricaturedwaythatdoesnotbegintocapturethedi-
verseconceptualizationsofthetermbypoliticaltheorists,manyofwhomcannot
reasonablybechargedwiththesimple-mindedidealismGeussportraysinorder
todramatizethemeritsofhisownrealism.SeeGeuss,Philosophy and Real Politics.
25.Laclau,“Deconstruction,Pragmatism,Hegemony,”58,60,54.
26.Mouffe,“WhichEthicsforDemocracy?,”91.Elsewhere,however,Mouffeisfar
from dismissive of ethics: “To secure allegiance and adhesion to [democratic]
principleswhatisneededisthecreationofademocraticethos...themobiliza-
tionofpassionsandsentiments,themultiplicationofpractices,institutionsand
languagegamesthatprovideconditionsofpossibilityfordemocraticsubjectsand
democraticformsofwilling”(“Deconstruction,Pragmatism,andthePoliticsof
Democracy,”6).
27.Apostolidis,“PoliticsandConnolly’sEthics.”Althoughhismainargumenthere
isthatthe“complementaritiesofethicalandpoliticalaction”arerevealedwhen
Connolly’sethicalworkisreadinconnectionwiththeexperiencesandnarratives
ofimmigrantworkers,thearticlenonethelessendsonacautionarynote,warning
thattheoristsshouldrenewtheir“enthusiasmforinterrogatingthestructuraldy-
namicsofpowerthathelpordertheterrainwhereethicalpracticesaredeployed.”
28.Brown,“MoralismasAnti-Politics.”SeealsoDean,“ThePoliticsofAvoidance,”
whichdepictstheturntoethicsasaformofnaïveidealismthatdetractsattention
fromthecriticalandoppositionalpoliticsinwhichdemocraticcitizensoughtto
beengaged.Inarelatedmove,JacquesRancière’s“TheEthicalTurnofAesthet-
icsandPolitics”caststheethicalturnasanevasionofjudgmentanddistinction
making,thoughthisclaimissuggestedmorethanfullyargued.
29.Shulman,“AcknowledgmentandDisavowalasanIdiomforTheorizingPolitics.”
30.“Actioninconcert”isArendt’sphrase,whichappearsthroughoutherwritingsand
isespeciallyprominentinThe Human Condition.
31.Ibid.Honig,“ThePoliticsofEthos,”alsoadvancesthishypothesis.Inamorehis-
Notes to Introduction
—
156
toricalreadingoftheturntoethicsintheFrenchcontext,JulianBourg’sFrom
Revolution to EthicsdocumentsaparadigmshiftfollowingMay1968,inwhicha
newemphasisonethics(onewhichpersiststothisday)appearedinresponseto
theapparentimpossibilityofpoliticalrevolution.Althoughhedoesnotlabelthis
developmentasignalofdespair,hedoespresenttheshifttotheethicalregisteras
aconsequenceofthefailureofinstitutionaloverthrowin1968.
32.On the question of absolutism, Myers, “From Pluralism to Liberalism,” dem-
onstratesthattheindeterminateethicaloutlookarticulatedbyBerlin—thatof
value pluralism—is misinterpreted and appropriated bycontemporary liberals
whoseektoturnitintoamoralfoundationsanctioningliberalism.Myers,“Re-
sistingFoucauldianEthics,”showsthattheturntoethicsalsohasthepotentialto
distractfrommorepressingquestionsofhowtogeneratecollectivepower.Some
ofFoucault’sinfluentialreadershavewronglyemphasizedhislaterworkonthe
ethicsof“carefortheself”asastrategyforresistingdisciplinarypowerandbio-
power.Thisapproach,Iargue,minimizesFoucault’sastuteanalysesofhowdisci-
plineandbiopowerfunctionby“individualizing”and“massifying,”respectively,
andhisrelatedbutunderappreciatedaccountofthe“counter-power”bornoutof
associativeactivitythatcanpotentiallycontendwiththeseforces.Thisneglected
butcentralFoucauldianinsightshouldalertustothelimitsofcareoftheselfas
ameansofreworkingexistingpowerrelationsandredirectourattentiontoasso-
ciativestrategiesinstead.
33.Honigobserves,“Still,itseemstome,althoughethosmaybeanimportantpart
ofpreparationandreceptivityforwould-bepoliticalactors(themselvesalready
politicizedasconstitutedsubjects),itisnomatchfortheworldlinessofpolitical
engagement”(“ThePoliticsofEthos,”428).Thisclaimechoesmyearlierargu-
mentin“TheTurntoEthicsandItsDemocraticCosts,”whichconceptualizesthe
questforethosprimarilyasanevasionof—andthreatto—democraticpolitics.
34.Thisunderstandingofpoliticsservesasacounterpointtowhathasbeentermed
the“democraticdeficit”incontemporarytheory,thatis,thetendencyinrecent
politicalthoughttoemphasizetheliberalsideofliberaldemocracybyfocusing
primarilyonquestionsofindividualrightsandsafeguardsagainstthestateatthe
expenseofpursuingquestionsthatconcernthedistributionofpoliticalpower
andtheexistenceofmeaningfulopportunitiesforcitizenparticipationinself-
government. I borrow the term “democratic deficit” from Mouffe, Democratic
Paradox(3–4),thoughitwasinwidecirculationduringthedebatesoverthede-
signoftheEuropeanUnion.
35.AlexisdeTocquevillefamouslycreditsassociationalactivitywithsavingthe“in-
dependentandweak”citizensofdemocracyfromhelplessness.The“artofasso-
ciation” in which men “combine for great ends” enables individual citizens to
produceeffectstheycouldnototherwise.Tocqueville,Democracy in America,vol-
ume2,part2,chapters5–7.
36.HannahArendtrefersto“co-acting”whenshestatesthatactionis“neverpossible
inisolation”(The Human Condition,189).
37.Althoughtheexistenceofcertainlegalprotectionssuchastherighttoassemble
canhelptosupporttheemergenceofcollectivemovements,examplesofassocia-
Notes to Introduction
—
157
tivedemocraticpoliticsamongdissidents,asintheSolidaritymovementofthe
1980sinPoland,indicatethatitwouldbeamistaketoruleouttheappearanceof
associativeactioneveninregimeswithverylimitedrightsprotections.Equally
mistakenistheideathattheexistenceofconstitutionalrightstospeechandas-
sembly,forexample,isproofthatAmericanpoliticalcultureishospitabletothe
creationandpreservationofassociationalrelations.AsMichaelRoginhasdem-
onstrated, aggressive governmental efforts throughout American history have
effectivelysuppressedassociativeactivitiesandcollectiveformsoflifethought
tothreatenstatepower.WhatRogincallsthe“countersubversivetradition”inthe
UnitedStatesinvolvesthestate’svalorizationof“privatefreedom”andaroutine
denialof“publicfreedom,”or“thefreedomofcommunitymemberstospeakand
acttogether”(“PoliticalRepressionintheUnitedStates,”65).
38.Arendt,The Human Condition,182.
39.“Artofassociation”isTocqueville’swell-knownphrase,whichappearsinDemoc-
racy in America,volume2,part2,chapter5.
40.Held, Models of Democracy. Of the eight variants of democracy Held analyzes,
sevengrantaprominentplacetocitizens’associativeactivity.Althoughtheinsti-
tutionallocationsandmeaningsassignedtoassociationsvary,rangingfromthe
citizencouncilsofclassicrepublicanismtothepressuregroupsofmidcentury
pluralism,onlythemodelofdemocraticelitismgrantslittletonoimportanceto
associationalactivity.
41.Thepurposeandmeaningascribedtoassociationalactivityvaryaccordingtothe
particularframeworkwithinwhichitisinterpreted.ArchonFung’s“Associations
andDemocracy”containsaveryusefulmappingofthedifferentargumentsad-
vancedinsupportofassociationalactivity.Fungshowsthatdemocraticassocia-
tioniscreditedwithmakingsixkindsofcontributions,notallofthemcompatible.
(Forexample,accordingtosome,associationisanintrinsicgood,butliberalstend
toseeitasanexpressionofpersonalfreedomwhileparticipatorydemocratsre-
garditasamodeofcollectiveself-determination.Stillothertheoriesseetheprac-
ticeofassociationinmoreinstrumentalterms,whetherasameansofdeveloping
certainskillsandcapacitiesorasamechanismforimprovingtherepresentation
ofinterests.)Thisdiversityshouldnotbesurprising,giventhatthecontributions
ascribedtoassociationalactivityaregeneratedbycompeting“backgroundideals,”
whichFunglabelsclassicalliberalism,representativedemocracy,andparticipa-
torydemocracy.
42.See,forexample,RobertF.Worth,“YemenontheBrinkofHell,”New York Times,
July20,2011,andSimonSebagMontefiore,“EveryRevolutionIsRevolutionary
inItsOwnWay,”New York Times,March23,2011.
43.In “A Brief Introduction to Phenomenology and Existentialism” Wrathall and
Dreyfus include Arendt, Levinas, and Foucault in their short list of thinkers
stronglyinfluencedbyphenomenologyandexistentialism.
44.Althoughphenomenologyandexistentialismoriginallyappearedastwodistinct
strandsoftwentieth-centuryEuropeanthought,theyhave“largelymergedintoa
commoncanonofworksandwaysofdoingphilosophy”(ibid.,5).Seethissame
Notes to Introduction
—
158
text for an account of the primary features of “merged” existential phenome-
nology.
45.Foucault’sandLevinas’sworksfeaturemuchmoreprominentlythanArendt’sin
therecentturntoethics,perhapsbecauseArendtdoesnotembraceanexplicitly
ethicalvocabulary.Sheisalsosometimesmisreadasathoroughlyamoralthinker,
though,asIwillshow,thebeginningsofapowerfulethicalsensibility—carefor
theworld—runthroughoutherwritings.
46.Kruks,Retrieving Experience,6.
47.ThisisWrathall’sandDreyfus’sdescriptionofHeidegger’sshiftawayfromHusserl
(“ABriefIntroductiontoPhenomenologyandExistentialism,”3).
48.Ibid.,5.
49.Foucault,“TheEthicsoftheConcernforSelfasaPracticeofFreedom,”298.
50.Myprojectexploreshowtheunderstandingofethicsmightproductivelyshiftby
adoptingwhatLindaZerillihascalleda“world-centeredframe.”Shetooidenti-
fiesthisframewithArendt,thoughherinterventionfocusesontheimportance
ofreconceivingfreedomasa“worldquestion”ratherthana“subjectquestion”for
feministtheoryandpolitics.SeeZerilli,Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom,intro-
duction.
51.Iborrowthedistinctionbetweena“matteroffact”anda“matterofconcern”from
Latour,“FromRealpolitiktoDingpolitik,”16.
52.ScholemandArendt,“EichmanninJerusalem.”
53.Ibid.,51.
54.Ibid.,54.
Notes to Chapter 1
—
159
EllaMyersisAssistantProfessorofPoliticalScienceand
GenderStudiesattheUniversityofUtah.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Myers,Ella,1976–
Worldlyethics:democraticpoliticsand
carefortheworld/EllaMyers.
p.cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
isBn978-0-8223-5385-0(cloth:alk.paper)
isBn978-0-8223-5399-7(pbk.:alk.paper)
1.Democracy—Moralandethicalaspects.2.International
relations—Moralandethicalaspects.3.Citizenship—
Moralandethicalaspects.4.Politicalparticipation—
Moralandethicalaspects.I.Title.
jC423.m962013
172—dc23 2012033712