An Apologia
In my recent post, “Everything I Know About Politics,” I discovered — only after publication — one paragraph that, had I been able to get feedback from readers, I probably would have either deleted or seriously modified. Unfortunately, I am not currently enrolled in any writer’s groups where I can easily get such feedback.
So, instead, I will offer my Apologia here, and hopefully explain what the hell I was saying in that paragraph!
Here is the paragraph in question (emphasis added, hyperlinks removed):
What about factionalism and particularity? Many of us are proud of our cosmopolitan leanings – we like living with lots of different kinds of people – but some feel uncomfortable or inadequate when forced to deal with somebody who is different from them by culture, economic circumstances, language, even skin color. Cosmopolitan types prefer to live in urban agglomerations, particularist types prefer rural or small communities. Unfortunately for the United States (says me), we have historically had a large cohort of particularists living in less densely populated parts of the country. It may not be possible to change such basic predispositions, but thanks to mass media (those Hollywood elites!) we at least try. The Roman Empire tried this as well in its post-Constantinian period, which some say led to its decline and ultimate dissolution (Edward Gibbon?). Yet, our western tradition holds that the centrality of a universal trans-cultural religion, Christianity, has been a net force for good. Perhaps diversity of factions is good, and uniformity from particularity bad?
I was trying to equate cosmopolitanism with factionalism (what?) and universalism in moral philosophy (opposite of particularism) with the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Edward Gibbon cite) — WOW! I owe my readers an explanation – wholly unsupported arguments which must (I guess) trace their origins to my general opinion about the urban/rural divide in American politics and a sermon in my Presbyterian church from many years ago which imprinted itself incorrectly in my brain about “post-Constantinian” Christianity – the sermon was about the influence of the early Church on state governance (more appropriately called “post-Theodosius shift” than “Constantinian shift”).
I now will seek to clarify all these half-baked and subconscious constructions which I so casually tossed into that piece on political philosophy …
Point #1: what is factionalism?
Factionalism is the tendency of all political systems to break the whole into smaller parts, which may disagree on many things, and represent different interests. But the important thing about factions is that they remain a part of that whole entity – the political party, the state, the religion, etc. That means they share common “first principles” – in moral philosophy, they would be universalists rather than particularists. I believe universal moral principles are good, particularist moral philosophy is bad. This carries through to political ideology. Hence, factionalism is good!
Point #2: what did I mean by “particularity”?
Sorry, I hadn’t done my reading on particularism in moral philosophy! After consulting a few sources, I can conclude that I meant “particularism,” not “particularity.” Particularism is the branch of ethics that holds that moral principles are more situational than universal. Sometimes universalism is called “generalism.” Same difference. It gets confusing when I attempt to call all those provincial rural and small-town types “particularists.” That refers to a different kind of particularism – the anthropological definition: belief in the insularity and uniqueness of one’s own cultural group. It is quite obviously opposed to the cosmopolitan orientation, which accommodates factions, and that I claim as my own creed. My error was in conflating two different kinds of particularism (and mistakenly calling them particularity).
Point #3: How did the Roman Empire get into this?
This is quite a stretch. Apparently, I was thinking about that universality of moral principles thing – the Church always claims to be universal, it comes from God, after all! Gibbon, when he wrote his 18th century deist masterpiece on the Decline and Fall, is generally thought to “blame” Christianity for the death of a magnificent civilization (influenced by Voltaire and others who weren’t too hot on organized religion). Of course, Gibbon is an artifact of a bygone age now – nobody really thinks that organized Christianity had much of an impact on the barbarian conquests of the Western Empire. And even if it did, why am I bringing it into my paragraph? Answer: I’m not defending Gibbon; my position is quite the opposite – that universalism embodied in Christian theology (even in that 4th century version) is basically a good thing. I say so in my concluding sentence – except for one further confusion …
Point #4: What is “uniformity from particularity?”
This was clearly the most abstruse assertion of the entire paragraph. Yes, there is diversity in factionalism, a good thing – contributing to the success of a polity, not its dissolution – but how is particularism (even the anthropological variety) characterized by uniformity? Also, uniformity here should not be taken to mean “universalism” (in the moral sense). I think I meant uniformity to be lack of factions, lack of diversity. Tribal groupings that are particularist, in anthropology, tend to emphasize conformity to norms and this can become stultifying and rigid – inimical to free thought (or expression of those thoughts) and hence, to growth and progress. This is my basic accusation against what I mistakenly labeled “particularity.” I hope this discussion saves me – for anybody who reads it – from being tossed onto the trash heap of demented diatribes. I’m not an extremist in any sense. I believe in compromise over consensus in politics, and if American politics is going to improve over its current state, it will either be toward multi-party dynamics, or at least greater factionalism within our two parties.
— William Sundwick
Warp and Woof 