Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mitchell in Oakland's avatar

TO THE AUTHORS:

As I commented regarding the first installment (on identity) of this two-part series: "Community is a resultant vector, not a container. It's the outcome of tolerance, of a multitude of interactions among a panoply of individuals acting in good faith." That's also true of meaning.

Figures like Spinoza and Whitman understood this "resultant vector" concept. Spinoza found meaning. Whitman found meaning. (I'd even throw Bob Dylan into the mix.)

Secularism? How about (as a liberal alternative), "My house shall be a house of prayer for all people."

"We need to try and adapt what are fundamentally illiberal phenomena for our own purposes"? "What we need to do is keep nudging people"? NONSENSE! That comes off as the worst (most authoritarian deception) of Leo Strauss.

It seems as if you're trying to peddle a bill of goods -- emulating those (recognizing the yearning for gemeinschaft) touting fascism as the (ersatz) solution. Liberalism is not a bill of goods, to be aimed at niche markets. It belongs to ALL of us!

As my grandma used to say, "Politics [including identity politics, along with the politics of 'meaning'] is a dirty business."

Live and let live. That's liberalism, plain and simple. As a principle for conducting daily life (when that involves engaging with others), that's meaning enough.

Got a problem with that?

If you do, I'll let Whitman (or Dylan) supply the answer(s): "And we gazed upon the Chimes of Freedom flashing"!

PS: Why no mention of Isaiah Berlin, whose analysis (and whose nuanced perspective) goes far beyond (and could have been the STARTING point for) the discussion presented here?

Expand full comment
H. E. Baber's avatar

The problem is that there's no practical way of enforcing passive non-discrimination regulations. For a few jobs you can blind review--the gold standard. So sometime back symphony started auditioning applicants behind a screen and the composition of orchestras changed dramatically. I use pictures of the NY Philharmonic c. 1970--all male; and now--roughly 50-50 male/female.

For most jobs you cannot blind review. When e.g. we hire applicants have to demonstrate teaching, present a paper, and socialize with us to demonstrate 'collegiality'. You can't blind review for most jobs and without affirmative action, looking at the percentage of women and minorities in a position and scruitinizing hiring practices, there is no way for an applicant to prove that they weren't hired because of discrimination.

Consensual sex is another matter--it's a self-regarding practice that has no consequences for any but willing participants. Hiring is not a self-regarding practice. It has very significant consequences for applicants. I want all the affirmative action I can get. De facto most women (the 2/3 without college degrees) are restricted to a narrow range of agonizingly boring, low wage pink-collar service sector jobs. Occupational sex segregation hasn't shifted since the 1990s.

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts