Thread by @tbarson49

1 This short tweet exemplifies both what I vale and what drives me crazy sometimes about @shadihamid .

The value part is easy. My faith in democracy has been shaken, and I benefit hugely from his reminders that political (and even spiritual) life under autocracy is far worse.

2 What I don't like so much is Shadi's "essentialism" (for lack of a better word). I can't tell whether this is just a rhetorical feature (Shadi being emphatic) or an actual philosophical bug. But ...

3 [But] ...the word "essential" in Shadi's discourse frequently seems to mark the spot where analysis stops and pure assertion begins. In this case, it's negative (China's regime's bad behavior reveals its horrible "essence") but positive examples exist as well.

4 What makes the essentialism question interesting, potentially, and not just a pet peeve on my part, is that Shadi has also embraced an agonistic, vehicle-of-expression conception of politics that undermines a whole range of substantive/expressive distinctions.

5 Since Shadi has let the Mouffetardian political-discourse-is-we-condemning-they (with no expectation that the "we's" vocalist are attempting to convince anyone among the "they") genie out of the bottle,...

6 ...how are we to take his arguments? Is he an observer, who happens to have reached conclusions that in his view require condemnation. Or is he a participant for whom expressive condemnation is "of the essence"?

7 I'm not pretending this is a new question or that Shadi may not reject the distinction. Look at the self-consciously engagé stances (and requirements) of the young Marx or of Sartre. But look as well how both wrestled with essentialism

8 I guess what I'm hoping Shadi will do is either articulate the philosophy which allows him to brand things as fundamental or essential - or else drop this usage. For me, Shadi the thinker promises to be way more interesting than Shadi the polemicist. /end

"value," sorry