Edwina, list, You've clearly given this a lot of prior thought, Edwina. I want to reflect on wht you wrote and see what others think before commenting further. Btw, would looking again at your book, *Architectonics of Semiosis*, for example, Chapter 2, "Purity and Power," be of any value in this discussion (as I initially began reading it I recall that in an off-list message you commented that in some ways you were now seeing things quite differently than you did in 1998)?
Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Gary R- that's an interesting topic. > > 1) I'd like to first comment that *democracy*, as a political system for > arriving at authoritative government decisions, is the 'right' method but > ONLY in a very large population with a growth economy and a growth > population. That is, political systems have FUNCTIONS; the function is: who > has the societal right to make decisions among this population? > > In economies which are *no-growth*, such as all the pre-industrial > agricultural and horticultural economies which dominated the planet until > the industrial age, democracy is dysfunctional. That is, all political > systems must privilege the wealth-producing sectors of the population. If > your economy is agricultural/horticultural - which can only produce enough > wealth to support a *steady-state* or no-growth population, then, the > political system must put the authority to make decisions in the control of > the owners of wealth production; i.e., the landowners. This control over > the land must be hereditary [you can't have fights over ownership], and > limited [you can't split up the land into minuscule small farms]. > Democracy, which puts decision-making into the hands of the majority, > doesn't work in such an economy. > > When the economy moves to a *growth* mode [and enables a growth > population], the political system must empower those sectors of the > population which *make an economy grow*. This is the middle class - a > non-hereditary set of the population, made up of private individual/small > group businesses. This economic mode is highly flexible [new business can > start, succeed, fail]; extremely adaptable and enables rapid population > growth. As such an economic mode, political decision-making must fall into > the control of this middle class - and we have the emergence of elected > legislatures and the disappearance of hereditary authority. > > For a growth economy to work, it must support individual rights [to > invent, differ from the norm, to succeed AND fail] so that failure, for > example, will only affect those few individuals and not a whole > village/collective. Therefore, individualism must be stressed and > empowered; a growth economy must enable novelty, innovation, freedom of the > periphery....as well as success, which is measured by the adoption by the > collective of that product/service. FOR A WHILE. > > 2) But - it seems that the definition and function of democracy in Dewey > does not deal with the economy and the questions of the production of > wealth and size of population. Instead, it deals with social issues - > Talisse writes: > > "The core of Deweyan democracy can be stated as follows. Deweyan democracy > is *substantive *rather than proceduralist, *communicative *rather than > aggregative,and *deep *rather than statist. I shall take these contrasts > in order.Deweyan democracy is *substantive *insofar as it rejects any > attempt to separate politics and deeper normative concerns. More precisely, > Dewey held that the democratic political order is essentially a *moral *order, > and, further, he held that democratic participation is an essential > constituent ofthe good life and a necessary constituent for a “truly human > way of living”.... Dewey rejects the idea thatit consists simply in > processes of voting, campaigning, canvassing, lobbying, and petitioning in > service of one’s individual preferences; that is, Dewey held democratic > participation is essentially *communicative*, it consists in the > willingness of citizens to engage in activity by which they may “convince > and be convinced by reason” (MW 10:404) and come to realize“values prized > in common” (LW 13:71). > > The above seems to me, to be a social relations account - and doesn't deal > with the fact that democracy as a political system, empowers a particular > segment of the population - the middle class, in an economy based around > individual private sector small businesses. It has nothing to do with 'the > good life' or a 'truly human way of living'. Nomadic pastoralists, and > land-based feudal agriculture were also 'human ways of living. > > 3) From the Stanford Encyclopaedia, I found the following on Dewey: > > "As Dewey puts it, ‘men are not isolated non-social atoms, but are men > only when in intrinsic relations’ to one another, and the state in turn > only represents them ‘so far as they have become organically related to one > another, or are possessed of unity of purpose and interest’ (‘The Ethics of > Democracy’,*EW*1, 231-2). > > Dewey is anti-elitist, and argues that the capacity of the wise few to > discern the public interest tends to be distorted by their position. > Democratic participation is not only viewed as a bulwark against government > by elites, but also as an aspect of individual freedom– humanity cannot > rest content with a good ‘procured from without.’ Furthermore, democracy is > not ‘simply and solely a form of government’, but a social and personal > ideal; in other words, it is not only a property of political institutions > but of a wide range of social relationships. > > The above, seems to me, at this first glimpse, to totally ignore the > economic mode - and again, some economies whose wealth production rests in > stable, no-growth methods [land food production] MUST ensure the stability > of this economy by confining it to the few, i.e., those elites'...the wise > few if you want to call them that'. > > That is - the to put power in the majority/commonality rests with the > economic mode. Certainly, Peirce's *community of scholars* was a method > of slowly, gradually, arriving at 'the truth'. But this has nothing, > absolutely nothing, to do with governance and the question of who in a > collective has the ultimate authority to make political decisions. That is, > political decisions are not really, I suggest, the same as scientific or > 'truth-based' inquiries. There is no ultimate 'best way' for much is > dependent on resources, population size, environment.. > > And, I don't see a focus on the required capacity of a growth economy for > rapid flexible adaptation - which HAS to be focused around the individual. > That is, risk-taking shouldn't involve the WHOLE collective, but only a few > individuals. > > 4) As for Peirce's philosophy of democracy - again, Talisse writes: > > "the Peircean view relies upon no substantive > *moral *vision. The Peircean justifies democratic institutions and norms > strictly in terms of a set of substantive *epistemic *commitments. It > says that *no matter what one believes *about the good life, the nature > of the self, the meaning of human existence, or the value of community, one > has reason to support a robust democratic political order of the sort > described above simply in virtue of the fact that one holds beliefs. Since > the Peircean conception of democracy does not contain a doctrine about “the > one, ultimate, ethical ideal of humanity” (EW 1:248), it can duly > acknowledge the fact of reasonable pluralism. p 112 > > This seems to suggest that a societal system that enables exploratory > actions by individuals is a 'robust democracy'. And, since a growth > economic mode, that can support growth populations, requires risk-taking by > flexible individuals to deal with current pragmatic problems - then, this > seems to be a stronger political system. > > My key point is that the political system, economic mode and population > size are intimately related. > > Edwina > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Saturday, November 19, 2016 2:59 PM > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy > > List, > > I read Robert B. Talisse's *A Pragmatist Philosophy of Democracy* (2007) > a few year ago and was thinking of it again today, in part prompted by an > op-ed piece in *The New York Times* by Roger Cohen which quotes H. L. > Mencken (see below). At the time of my reading PPD, I was not at all > convinced that Talisee had demonstrated his principal thesis, namely, that > we ought replace the inadequate, in his opinion, Dewyan approach to > thinking about democracy with a Peircean based approach. This is how > David Hildebrand (U. of Colorado) outlined Talisse's argument in a review > in *The Notre Dame Philosophical Review. > **http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23707-a-pragmatist-philosophy-of-democracy/ > <http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23707-a-pragmatist-philosophy-of-democracy/>* > > > [Hildebrand] As I read PPD, I kept returning to two fundamental > propellants powering Talisse's argument for a Peircean-based democratic > theory. The first is constructive: his quest for a lean, non-normative > pragmatist inquiry to provide *just enough* of a philosophical basis for > a broadly effective conception of democracy. The second is destructive: the > argument that political theorists should reject Dewey's self-refuting > philosophy of democracy. Taken together, the insight is this: get over > Dewey and accept this particular Peirce and we get just what we need from > pragmatism for the purposes of democracy. > > > Hildebrand's review is a good introduction to the PPD. While I'm not much > of a Deweyan, and I wouldn't presume to argue for or against his ideas, yet > I don't think Talisse makes a strong case *for* a Peircean approach to > political theory on democracy,. > > I should add, however, that Talisse is, in my opinion, a very good thinker > and an excellent writer. Besides this book, over the years I've read a > number of his scholarly articles and heard him speak in NYC and elsewhere. > PPD is definitely worth reading, while those with a Deweyan democracy bent > will probably find themselves arguing with him nearly point for point (as > Hildebrand pretty much does). On the other hand, the concluding chapter on > Sidney Hook is valuable in its own right. As Talisse writes: > > Hook's life stands as an inspiring image of democratic success; for > success consists precisely in *the activity of political engagement by > means of public inquiry*. > > > I haven't got my e-CP available, so I can't locate references, but it > seems to me that Peirce's view of democracy as I recall it is, if not > nearly anti-democratic (I vaguely recall some passages in a letter to Lady > Welby), it may at least be closer to H. L. Mencken's: > > > As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, > the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great > and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s > desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. > > > I doubt that a discussion of PPD would be very valuable, but it might be > interesting to at least briefly reflect on Peirce's views of democracy. As > I recall,he hasn't much to say about democracy in what's published in the > CP and the other writings which have been made available to us. Perhaps > more will be uncovered in years to come as his complete correspondence is > published in W (I probably won't be alive for that as I understand that it > will probably be the last or near last volume in W, and at the snail's pace > the W is moving. . .) > > Meanwhile, can anyone on the list offer some Peirce quotations which might > help quickly clarify his views on democracy? I would, of course, hope that > if there is some discussion here that we keep to a strictly theoretical > discussion, especially in light of the strong feelings generated by the > recent American presidential election. > > Best, > > Gary R > > st Philosophy of Democracy > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
