Conversation on compromise...

Book Description

Publication Date: March 23, 2000 | ISBN-10: 0198296886 | ISBN-13: 978-0198296881

The moral and political philosophy of pluralism has become increasingly influential. To pluralists, when values genuinely conflict we should aim to strike an appropriate balance or trade-off between them, though this means accepting that compromise will be inevitable. Politics, as a result, appears as a thoroughly tragic affair.

Drawing on a "hermeneutical" conception of interpretation, the author develops an original account of practical reasoning, one which assumes that, though making compromises in the face of conflicts is indeed often unavoidable, there are times when reconciliation, as distinct from compromise, is feasible. For this to be so, however, citizens must strive to converse--and not just negotiate--with each other, thus fulfilling the good that is at the heart of their shared political community. This is the central message of the patriotic alternative to pluralist politics that the author defends here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial Reviews

Review


"...among the mass of work on related issues now appearing, a genuinely original and worthwhile contribution." --Philosophy

"...a fascinating book about political philosophy." --Democratization

"An excellent study of contemporary democratic theory, well versed in the classics of political philosophy."--Choice

"...its idiosyncratic, wide-ranging and synthetic approach to central issues of political, moral and philosophical analysis undoubtedly breaks new ground...[Readers] would do well to take notice of the challenges this book poses to the current practice of political philosophy." --Political Studies

"Blattberg's contribution is to show how our search for peaceful ways of living together forces us to talk about the ways in which our apparent value differences will play themselves out within our common form of life." --Review of Metaphysics

"...constitutes a major contribution to political philosophy and practice deserving of serious attention." --Review Journal of Political Philosophy

"...provides a hopeful alternative to conventional reasoning about conflict. [Blattberg] elucidates many philosophical concepts in the course of his argument that are themselves very interesting to the theorist of politics...[He] offers a new way of approaching conflict that transcends the traditional zero-sum conception of competing traditions...A new political outlook based on an interesting blend of philosophical traditions." --Nations and Nationalism

"The book is rich in analysis, imaginative in sources and metaphors, and an education to read. Furthermore, the central message is an important one. We should not simply assume that the fact of pluralism means that we have nothing in common or that our differences must inevitably put us at odds with each other. Hermeneutical sciences can give us insight into bridging difference. Hermeneutics can illuminate the transformative potential of conversation. And conversation is a powerful category in social theory. All this I find not only uplifting, but also plausible and persuasive." --Canadian Journal of Political Science.

About the Author
Charles Blattberg is Assistant Professor of Political Philosophy, Department of Political Science, Tel Aviv University

Comment by John Scott:

"Practical reason can involve the comparing of incommensurables."

Theory-based political reasoning operates by translating thick maxims into thin universal rules, or rights, and then imposing them indiscriminately, disregarding the particulars of the case at hand.

This is the flaw of pluralist political thought.

Blattberg argues that we abandon this scientifically minded political theory, which amounts to "cold reason," and engage "warm reason." Throw rights out the window. We can engage (literally) in conversation, and talk ourselves into one big warm happy family with a common vision for the common good.

If that fails, of course, we can compromise. If compromise doesn't meet our objectives, then we can resort to force to impose our vision for a common good.

The whole book seems to ignore the reason why pluralism was borne in the first place; i.e., the bloodbaths that resulted from the illiberal pursuit of a "common good."

So why do I give it 4 stars? It's very intriguing. Like watching a train wreck unfold, but better because the book is loaded with insightful criticisms of Rawls, Walzer, Rorty and others.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0198296886/?tag=publreas-20