Adam Smith's sympathetic method and "impartial spectator" can be an antidote to the Millsian epistemology of ignorance. Where the Rawlsian veil of ignorance abstracts away critical info, Smith's sympathetic method explicitly reaches out to pull more information in. 1/6
The impartiality of the "inhabitant of the breast" is constructed asymptotically by "entering into" the feelings & circumstances of the other, engaging in a kind of reflective equilibrium with one's own thoughts & iterating outward, reaching beyond one's own culture. 2/6
Amartya Sen calls this "open impartiality" to contrast with the "closed impartiality" of contractarian traditions that tend to smuggle in dominant group biases. Smith's open impartiality takes place in *realized* social contexts, rather than ideal-theoretic just institutions. 3/6
Christel Fricke argues that Smith's "wise and virtuous" person is characterized by their greater degree of suspicion of both their own biases and the possibility of unjust parochial norms. Smith has all the tools to perceive racialized and patriarchal normative structure. 4/6
Combine this with Smith's persistent distrust of power, his awareness of the "love of domination," and his acute sympathy for the weak and poor and you can mix a quite radical cocktail. Just saying Smith would have been an intersectional feminist if he were alive today! 5/6
There's even a hint of justifying reparative policy. His commitment to the uniformity of human nature (see philosopher & porter) would've led Smith to view the racial wealth gap w/ hostile suspicion. The sage would sacrifice their own unjust interests (eg white supremacy). 6/6
Care should be taken here though, as the second passage in tweet 6 immediately follows Smith's famous discussion of the "man of system," which cuts against radical policy. 7/6
To spell this part out a bit more, "realized social context" is important to contrast with formal laws and institutions. Smith shows an awareness of how social inequality can obtain through social habits.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Starting with something recent. Confronting Inequality, by Jonathan Ostry, Prakash Loungani, and Andrew Berg. There is, over the long term, probably an *inverse* correlation between inequality and economic growth. We can foster *durable* growth with egalitarian policies.
2. Rule of the Clan, by Mark Weiner. Individual freedom is made possible in significant part by the anonymity and rule of law of modern, bureaucratic states.
The article is short on specifics, but that's probably for the best. I tend to think of this project as one of mutual, suspicious recognition, where one ensemble of *mostly* acceptable policies encounters the other ensemble of mostly tolerable policies in legislative compromise.
Much of the progress in forming a liberal-socialist coalition on specific policy areas can come from socialists and liberals reaching the same reforms but formulating them in their own respective rhetoric. And possibly gaining greater appreciation for the resources of the other.
On the Panpsychist podcast one of the hosts asks about the ethics of sex work. Manne gives an answer about the difficulty of living as a woman under patriarchy with fraught options. 1/
This is a good answer as far as it goes, but the book is about male entitlement. The more interesting question about sex work is does it imply an objectionable entitlement to sex? This seems like a hard problem for Manne's framework, especially considering male sex workers. 2/
Similarly, Manne sends a footnoted "pace Srinivasan" to @amiasrinivasan's truly outstanding essay on the question "Does anyone have a right to sex?" I would love to read Manne's considerations on it. 3/ lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/…
This review can be summarized as "If you don't already believe some basic supporting set of feminist claims, then Entitled will not convince you." Indeed, Manne didn't set out to prove to the satisfaction of men's rights activists that feminism has value. Short thread.
2. That said, the authors seem to have quite an axe to grind. No one without ulterior, cynical motives could come away from reading Entitled thinking that Kate Manne is a sex-negative, "carceral feminist."
3. She *draws attention* to the tension of pointing out relative lack of punishment against the background of an otherwise overly carceral, retributive society.
Everyone needs to read this article by Barton Gellman. "Trump will concede defeat under no circumstances" should be treated as axiomatic. Short thread with key bits. 1
We should expect to see this and be prepared for it. Prepared how? I have no idea. 2
3. Wisconsin has a particularly lawless set of Republicans controlling the legislature. This makes me think we can't count on Wisconsin regardless of the polling there.
He's never joking. He's getting his supporters used to the idea. Trump has no intention of leaving power. We know he's already cheating to do so--that's what his impeachment was all about. And with a 6-3 Republican court, anything Trump does is Constitutional.
At this point I'm just assuming Trump will win, or "win". Democrats are powerless to do anything about it. Republicans will further corrode voting rights, and withhold federal funds from Democratic states, and DHS will occupy Democratic cities.
Even if Biden wins and Trump leaves, he'll be able to accomplish nothing with a 6-3 Republican Court and obstructionist Senate. If we win the Senate, we'll be so worried about what Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema and some racist in a diner think to counter built-in GOP advantages.