“Community” And Its Discontent

For the past decade or more an important debate between the competing traditions of republicanism/communitarianism and liberalism/individualism has been raging inside the fields of political philosophy and political theory, and elsewhere. Associated primarily with the work of Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel and his seminal book, Democracy’s Discontent, communitarians have argued that the old republican tradition, which stressed community over individualism, has unfortunately been replaced by a liberalism that emphasized individual rights. (As usual, the terms do not translate directly into the political sphere, where many conservatives are liberals and many liberals are communitarians.)

For a terrific discussion of a specific conflict that I think neatly illuminates these contrasting approaches to public life (but that does not make reference to the scholarly debate), see Erin O’Connor’s post on a censorship controversy at Georgetown.

Say What? (3)

  1. Eric Dowdall, Ph.D. November 16, 2002 at 12:03 pm | | Reply

    Curious about the continued praise you heap on Penn professor Erin O’Connor. Upon delving deeper into her writings, I can only conclude that she suffers from a rare form of ideological schizophrenia. Her postings on Critical Mass and Cant Watch bristle with self-righteous conservative outrage, yet her monograph (Raw Material: Producing Pathology in Victorian Culture, sample chapter available on Amazon.com) is a Marxist-feminist tour de force, attacking capitalism, industrialism, and Western epistemology with gay abandon. Here’s O’Connor when she’s not on her right-wing blogospheric soapbox: “Imagining cholera as a kind of military invader, an infectious imperialist who not only destroyed lives but also dismantled the terms on which the West understood itself, Victorian physicians and social critics used the epidemic disease as a means of questioning how the West was securing its own global economic power” (23). The left-wing project of “dismantling the terms on which the West understands itself” or “questioning how the West secured its own global economic power” seems to delight the O’Connor of Raw Material as much as it horrifies the O’Connor of Cant Watch and Critical Mass. Are there perhaps two Erin O’Connors? Or would the real Erin O’Connor please stand up?

  2. Anonymous November 16, 2002 at 4:24 pm | | Reply

    I guess that Doctor Dowdall’s point is that one is not permitted to change one’s philosophy without being criticized! So … if one comes to appreciate that his ideology of white supremacy is morally bankrupt, he cannot make a radical change and repudiate his philosophy without the good Doctor moralizing at him.

    We both know what’s eating you, Doctor. Professor O’Connor is within the academy. She threatens you because she speaks with special authority — the authority that comes from being an insider who has the courage, knowledge and intellect to cut through the leftist mantra to it’s impoverished core. Your problem, Doctor, is that Professor O’Connor is effective … she reveals you and your ilk for what you are, and you can’t stand it.

    Frankly, in seeing your ideologue ridden academy for what it is, and having the courage to change and speak out, she is joining some pretty special company: David Horowitz, Andrew Sullivan, Daphni Patai, Christina Hoff-Sommers to name just a few.

    Get used to it Doc. There’s a new gun in town, and her name is Professor Erin O’Connor.

  3. John Rosenberg November 16, 2002 at 4:40 pm | | Reply

    I find both of the above comments unacceptable. Anonymous ad hominem invective will not be accepted here, and I’ll be deleting both shortly. From now on, if you want to comment here you’ll need to sign your name, or at least a valid email address, and attempt to be a bit more civil. What’s “civil”? Whatever I think it is; it’s my blog.

    As for whatever substance the mysterious and unidentified Dr. Dowdall’s comment may have, I’m no expert on Victorian literature, but…. The offered quotes don’t seem substantial enough to support the inference drawn from them, nor do they allow the possibility that Prof. O’Connor may have, you know, changed her mind. Some people do. In any event, the praise I’ve been bestowing has not been on her collected works but on her blog comments, with which I continue to be most impressed.

Say What?