{"id":18355,"date":"2017-04-17T12:00:03","date_gmt":"2017-04-17T16:00:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=18355"},"modified":"2017-04-17T12:00:03","modified_gmt":"2017-04-17T16:00:03","slug":"ostrom-habermas-and-gandhi-are-all-we-need","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=18355","title":{"rendered":"Ostrom, Habermas, and Gandhi are all we need"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Rancho Palos Verdes, CA) Back in 2014, I argued: [Elinor] “Ostrom plus [J\u00fcrgen] Habermas is nearly all we need<\/a>.” I define\u00a0a good citizen as anyone\u00a0who seriously asks the question “What should we do?<\/a>” Citizens face a dizzying variety of hard issues, but underlying them are general categories of problems. As of 2014, I thought these were the\u00a0two basic categories<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Problems of discourse make our thoughts and conversations go badly, so that we believe or desire the wrong things. Example include our susceptibility to propaganda and our strong tendency to \u201cmotivated reasoning,\u201d or picking facts and theories because they yield the results we want.<\/li>\n
  2. Problems of collective action cause us to get results that we do not desire, even when we agree about goals and values. An example is the temptation to \u201cfree ride\u201d on other people\u2019s contributions, or the tendency of small groups of specialists to dominate even democratic organizations\u00a0(\u201cThe Iron Law of Oligarchy\u201d).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Habermas and the postwar Frankfurt School provide a robust theoretical tradition, linked to practical experimentation, about how to address problems of discourse. Elinor Ostrom and the Bloomington School provide an equally robust theory\/practice tradition about how to address problems of collective action. That was my basis for saying that Ostrom and Habermas nearly sufficed for a civic theory.<\/p>\n

    But I now think there is a third general category:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Problems of identity and exclusion arise when some people simply won’t deliberate or collaborate with other people because they regard the latter as fundamentally different and\u00a0inferior. Relatedly, sometimes people feel that they themselves don’t deserve to deliberate or collaborate because they are inferior.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      \"\"<\/p>\n

      The theoretical resources of Habermas and Ostrom are not sufficient for that third category, and we can learn more from theorists and practitioners of nonviolent social movements. That is the tradition that tells us what to do about problems of identity and exclusion if we choose to take violence off the table.<\/p>\n

      Therefore, I now believe\u00a0that Ostrom, Habermas, and Gandhi<\/em> are all we need–assuming that each name\u00a0is synecdoche for a whole tradition of theory and practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      <\/td>\nOstrom<\/strong><\/td>\nHabermas<\/strong><\/td>\nGandhi<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Fundamental problem<\/strong><\/td>\nPeople fail to achieve what would be good for them collectively<\/td>\nPeople manipulate other people by influencing their opinions and goals.<\/td>\nPeople fail to view others (or themselves) as fully human<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Exemplary\u00a0case of the problem<\/strong><\/td>\nWe destroy an environmental asset by failing to work together<\/td>\nGovernment or corporate propaganda distorts our authentic values<\/td>\nOne national or ethnic group\u00a0exploits another<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Characteristic starting point<\/strong><\/td>\nPeople know what they want but can\u2019t get it<\/td>\nPeople don\u2019t know what they want or want the wrong things<\/td>\nSome people won\u2019t recognize other people<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Essential behavior of a citizen<\/strong><\/td>\nWorking together to make or preserve something.<\/td>\nTalking and listening about controversial values.<\/td>\nUsing nonviolent sacrifice to compel change<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Instead of homo economicus<\/em> (the individual who maximizes material self-interest) we need \u2026<\/strong><\/td>\nHomo faber<\/em> (the person as a maker)<\/td>\nHomo sapiens<\/em> (the person as a reasoner) or homo politicus<\/em> (the participant in public assemblies).<\/td>\nA Satyagrahi <\/em>(the person as a bearer of soul force)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Role of the state<\/strong><\/td>\nIt is a set of nested and overlapping associations, not fundamentally different from other associations (firms, nonprofits, etc.)<\/td>\nCitizens form public opinion, which should guide the state, which makes law. The state should be radically distinct from other sectors<\/td>\nA target of demands<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Modernity is \u2026<\/strong><\/td>\nA threat to local and traditional ways of cooperating, but we can<\/em>\u00a0use science to assist people in solving their own problems<\/td>\nA process of enlightenment that liberates people, but it goes wrong when states and markets \u201ccolonize\u201d the private domain<\/td>\n(for Gandhi) an imperialist imposition, undermining swaraj<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Main interdisciplinary combination<\/strong><\/td>\nGame theory plus observations of indigenous problem-solving<\/td>\nNormative philosophy (mainly achieved through critical readings of past philosophers) plus system-level sociology.<\/td>\nCritical theology plus military strategy<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      (Rancho Palos Verdes, CA) Back in 2014, I argued: [Elinor] “Ostrom plus [J\u00fcrgen] Habermas is nearly all we need.” I define\u00a0a good citizen as anyone\u00a0who seriously asks the question “What should we do?” Citizens face a dizzying variety of hard issues, but underlying them are general categories of problems. As of 2014, I thought these […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18355","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-civic-theory","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18355","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=18355"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18355\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18371,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18355\/revisions\/18371"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=18355"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=18355"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=18355"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}